UK: Goodbye, EU, Goodbye, Scotland?
British Prime Minister David Cameron has always been suspicious of the many powers that have “European structures”. The British people, according to Mr. Cameron, are dissatisfied with the fact that the EU makes the most important decisions without having received the mandate of voters. 23 January, his judgments about the possible withdrawal of the country from the EU Cameron delivered to the public. But it is not rash to believe that the United Kingdom will immediately withdraw from the European Union - immediately after Cameron giving a seditious speech.First, the Prime Minister expressed the hope that it would not work before the country's withdrawal from the European Union: after all, a united Europe would be able to reform its structures and restore the shaken trust of citizens again. Secondly, Cameron himself is not a supporter of such a way out: although he proposed holding a referendum on the country's further membership in the EU, he added that in the event of a referendum being announced, he will to campaign for the preservation of the United Kingdom as part of the renewed European Union.
Cameron said about the referendum in a keynote speech on relations between the UK and the EU in front of businessmen at the London headquarters of the American business agency News Bloomberg The prime minister said that the referendum will be held if the party of conservatives led by him wins the elections in 2015. In this case, voting will take place no earlier than 2017.
The referendum itself is obviously needed by the government in order to clarify the will of the British. Moreover, Cameron believes that if a plebiscite is not held, then the probability of a country leaving the European Union will only increase: after all, today the support for EU membership among the British has decreased. The blame is a series of problems that the Union faces. Here, there is the crisis of the euro area, and a decrease in competitiveness on the world market, and a crisis of confidence in the EU by ordinary citizens (meaning the maximum bureaucratization of the power European institutions).
And, if you delay with the reforms of the European Union, it will be inevitable collapse. What remains of Britain? That's right - to leave the Union. How to fix the case? And it is necessary to conclude a new treaty between all the countries of the European Union. One that would give not only one UK, but all other member states more authority than is currently available. If other countries do not want to heed this initiative, then London is ready to conclude a separate agreement with the EU, providing for its special status. Cameron, therefore, provided for everything. In logic, you can not refuse him.
British commentators have calculated one of the reasons why the prime minister raised the question of a plebiscite. It is believed that Cameron proposed to hold a referendum on UK membership in the EU under the pressure of Euro-skeptics, now prevailing in the ranks of the Conservative Party headed by him.
And the leader of the Labor Party, Ed Miliband считаетthat conservatives are trying to protect themselves from the stout "Independence Party". That is why they decided to “play in her field”: Euro-skeptics are offered an attractive prospect. Miliband warned that a review, and even more so a break in relations with the European Union, is fraught with sensitive damage to the British economy.
The expert of the European Institute of the London School of Economics and Political Science, Ian Begg, also noted that discussions about the future of Britain in the EU are largely due to political motives. As for the consequences, he сказалthat they are still difficult to predict. Insulation, in his opinion, is possible. At the same time, the variant of Norway, which is not part of the EU, but is a member of the European Economic Area, is also possible.
In addition to “euro skeptics”, there are also “europhiles” in Britain.
They indicate that Norway and Switzerland forced to apply approximately 70% of EU rules, but they are not involved in their development. Simon Tilford of the London Center for European Reform says:
“If Britain was not a member of the European Union, the set of rules would be much more protectionist. For decades, the British have been promoting their agenda in the EU: free trade and maximum economic liberalism. Without British participation, the EU would be less liberal today. ”
In addition, Norway and Switzerland donate money (0,5 and 1,0 billion dollars a year, respectively) to the European budget as a fee for access to the common market. Norwegian Prime Minister Espen Eide even publicly warned Cameron against copying the Norwegian way.
Of course, Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, spoke on the painful topic. This gentleman explicitly stated that he would not allow Britain to choose, at its discretion, those fragments of European legislation that she liked. He said that membership in the European Union is “not a menu ... in a restaurant.”
Britain’s withdrawal from the EU is not to the liking of London’s main partners either. For example, Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny said that the exit would be a disaster for the Irish economy: after all, it is closely integrated with the British. Günther Kriechbaum, who chairs the German Parliament’s Committee on European Affairs, expressed the fear that Cameron "risks paralyzing the EU for years." And the head of the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Guido Westerwelle сказал sternly: “The cream of skimming will not work”, adding that all EU countries must comply with all union laws. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Garcia-Margallo said in an interview with a Spanish radio station that Mr. Cameron is playing "a very dangerous game by giving Euroskepticism." Did not approve the venture of the British Prime Minister and overseas. Washington made it clear that he wanted the UK to remain in the EU.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke out more carefully. She considers Cameron a “friend”, but invites him to take a “breather”. As for the rules of the eurozone, they should be “mandatory” for it, but “freely available” in other EU countries, such as the United Kingdom.
Participated in discussions about a possible referendum on the withdrawal of Britain from the EU and billionaire George Soros. On Thursday night, having dinner in Davos, Soros said that Cameron, who was under political pressure from the back rows, had started a dangerous gambit, which could really lead to the UK leaving the EU. He added that the UK is now "the best position of all," because, by participating in the EU, it did not suffer from the crisis of the single European currency, unlike many others. Soros believes that it is precisely the tensions underlying the euro that can push the EU countries apart.
Inside Britain, not everyone is happy about Cameron’s initiatives either. Confederation of British Industry warned government that in the event of a country leaving the EU, export industries may face defensive duties. Under the reduction may fall to 40% automotive power. A significant part of European banks will leave the City in Frankfurt am Main. All this will lead to a reduction in the income of the British budget.
However, supporters of leaving the EU object to this: after all, Britain can retain participation in the common market. At the same time, it can conclude free trade agreements with the BRICS countries through WTO mechanisms. Euroskeptics say that after leaving the EU, food supplied from outside Europe will become cheaper. Nowadays, barrage duties, aimed at supporting farmers in France, Romania, and Spain, prevent them from being cheap. Proponents of the exit also point out that Britain will thus be freed from excessive business regulation. As a result, more than a million new jobs will appear. They will get just the British: after leaving the EU, the country will easily close the labor market for Europeans. True, it is not reported what will become British emigrants and immigrants. Today, 2,3 million citizens from EU countries live in Britain, and 800 thousands of Britons live in other EU countries.
Here, the word is taken by “eurofiles”, indicating that millions of jobs will be lost by the country - due to the fact that international companies from the United States, Japan, India, China stop investing in Britain and transfer enterprises to other European countries.
In short, how many experts and analysts do not listen, and the conclusion suggests itself: there is an ambiguity. No one can say with accuracy what will happen to Britain if it leaves the European Union. One thing is clear: the country will be in a fever. And already reeling: the pound sterling fell against the euro to its lowest level since August 2012. In January, it fell against the US dollar and the yen.
Sergei Utkin, the head of the political integration sector of the IMEMO RAN, believes that the conservatives have not yet calculated the pros and cons of separation from the EU: for now, they are only concerned with the “ideological structure”. is he says:
“They are sure that the British do not need a rotting European Union, because they have the Commonwealth of Nations, and London is the financial center of the world. However, outside the EU, Britain is unlikely to be a significant independent value in global politics and economics. ”
To more or less imagine the consequences of leaving Britain from the Union, you need understandwhat role this country plays in Europe. Britain is the third largest European economy, the most liberal, fairly flexible, with a developed service sector. The Anglo-Saxon economic model is closer to the American than to the Western European. London is the largest financial center of the Old World.
The behavior of Britain in the EU has always been different opposition. The country tried to block integration initiatives that infringe on its political sovereignty or financial independence. The introduction of a single tax on financial transactions into the EU was torpedoed by London, and he simply did not participate in the European Monetary Union. In the Schengen Agreement, he is also not included. When Britain withdraws from the EU, the eurozone may fall under the domination of Germany and France. You can even predict the creation of the next Reich - by peaceful means, of course, let's say, by democratic voting and financial support for lagging states - like Greece and Spain. The new "federation" will have its own president - say, Angela Merkel.
American analysts, by the way, noticethat it is not clear from Mr. Cameron’s speech what kind of “concessions” from the EU are waiting for Britain. Last year, his government launched what was called the Competence Balance Review. However, this document is under development. Cameron says that the Review will provide a reasonable and objective analysis of where the EU turns out to be a hindrance to Britain and where, on the contrary, it helps it. Therefore, it is difficult to judge how successful Britain’s struggle for “concessions” can be. Experts do not see serious reasons for the country's withdrawal from the Union and give little chance of a majority in the referendum. In addition, Cameron's party must first win the election, and only then talk about the referendum.
As for France - one of the strongest economies of the EU - the Minister of Foreign Affairs of this country, Laurent Fabius сказалthat if Britain decides to leave the union, Paris will not stand in its way. Further, in an artistic style, Fabius derisively added that if Britain wished to “leave Europe, we would roll out a red carpet for it”.
It makes no sense to take this comment seriously: Fabius tried to ridicule those rich French who are now emigrating to various countries of the world, including to England, fleeing the high taxes imposed by Olland.
Fabius also noted that since you joined a football club, you cannot offer to start playing rugby. Here, he seems to be cunning or, at a minimum, admits inaccuracy: Britain bargained a lot for itself when joining the Euroclub. The mere rejection of the euro currency is worth something: one can say that the participating country did not recognize the form of the club.
Continuing the "French" theme, it should be noted that in recent days the French conducted two surveys: IFOP, commissioned by the "Journal Du Dimanche", and BVA - for the rival newspaper "Le Parisien". If in the first survey It revealedthat 58 percent of respondents voted (42 percent against) voted for keeping Britain at the European “club”, then the BVA poll showed that 52% of respondents supported the British exit from the EU (“Brexit”).
It is unlikely that the reason for the discrepancy is a slightly different wording of the questions, which are generally quite similar. The IFOP survey was about whether respondents wanted their country to go out or stay in the EU; The BVA survey found out whether respondents consider Britain to be in the Union as more favorable, or prefer a way out.
Interestingly, the IFOP survey showed strong support for the preservation of Britain in the Union among young voters. 75 percent of them under the age of 35 years were in favor of staying in the EU.
But the poll in the London "Times" showedthat if the referendum were held today, 40% would vote for leaving the EU, and 37% would express a desire to remain in the Union. Another 23% found it difficult to answer.
Meanwhile, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, pointed out that a future deal with the EU could be the key to creating a new coalition of political forces in Britain. is he suggestedthat the Liberal Democrats could accept a referendum on leaving the EU as part of a future coalition deal with Tory. The Libdems, he said, might have thought that a referendum could be crucial to forming a coalition - in the event that neither the conservatives nor the laborists get a direct majority in the next general election in 2015.
At the same time, Clegg reiterated his disagreement with Cameron’s proposal that the future Tory government was ready to revise Britain’s membership in the EU and then hold a referendum on withdrawal. He simply did not understand the proposal of the Prime Minister:
“I just don’t understand ... revising the terms of UK membership ... at the moment ... this is completely indefinite,” Clegg said. “And I think this will scare off investors and slow down job growth, which should remain our absolute priority at a time when the economy is trying to recover from the crisis.”
Nevertheless, Clegg believes that ways can be found for holding a referendum on alternative grounds, subject to a coalition agreement. The “alternative” would probably mean a popular vote for the creation of a coalition of two parties. Clegg said that he will follow the will of the British people - and if the people wish such a coalition, everything will be done to create it.
In conclusion, it should be noted that, apart from the will of the English people, there is also the will of the Scottish people. It will be expressed earlier - in 2014, at a planned referendum on independence. If the Scots take into account the likely course of Cameron or the upcoming coalition of Tories and "libdems" to complicate relations with the EU or, moreover, to exit from there, then they, who are just supporters of integration, can consciously vote for the separation of Scotland from Britain - then separately enter the European "club". True, for this the Scots will have to go through all bureaucratic procedures, which may take years. On the other hand, in times of crisis, it is even good: perhaps in a few years the “club” will come to life. And perhaps, on the contrary, it will fall apart.
Observed and translated by Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information