What does «leave» mean? Nobody still knows, but it is possible to say what could be after the British referendum
by Emanuele Bonini
Finally the United Kingdom took a decision. Voters preferred to choose the «No, thanks» option forcing their country to leave di EU. So, it was Brexit at last. What about now nobody still know. Europe has to deal with an unprecedented situation, to be determined on the basis of the EU law and its possible interpretation. The only thing clear is that according to the treaties of the EU there is a two year time to establish how the Member State should leave. Negotiations will be crucial to shape the future, and now it is just a question of time and of agreements to be found. In time of unexplored scenarios it is not easy to say what it can be, although some considerations are possible.
- EU: This is not a defeat for Europe, unless the new EU at 27 Member State won't be able to use this opportunity to face euro-criticism and build up a real political union. The United Kingdom gave the opportunity to lead everybody to a reflection on Europe. British weren't ready for a real integration. Now it is time to see, frankly and in a decisive manner, who is really engaged in doing so. Those who are not, can join the United Kingdom. A strong European Commission now has to show the determination to stop any national whim, starting to be inflexible (severity was used only for fiscal policies, and that was a mistake) in front of any leader asking for less Europe. The Slovak rotating presidency of the EU comes in a moment which can be the right one only at the condition of a sound management of the political process. Slovakia is perhaps even more euro-skeptic than the UK, and a resolute Commission - freed by British blackmails - can start acting as guardian of the treaties asking to step up from anti-European approach. In is in - with all the rules it means - and out is out - with all it means. That has to be the approach. Europe failed because of its nature, that was essentially and only economic. A more federal Europe is the only possibility to relaunch the project, and the Brexit is the historic moment to do so.
- UK: The United Kingdom is only thinking to have got its greatness back. In reality a Brexit will make the Great Britain simply Britain. At international level the United States have no interest in maintaining their special relationship with a country no longer in the EU. London will be not able to participate to the decision making process, then its influence is to be evaluated. Given the situation at the beginning will be difficult to understand how the United Kingdom can be influential. Unless the European Union implode, the UK is probably doomed to remain in the margin of the international scene. The United Kingdom will be obliged to deal with internal issues rather than focus on foreign affairs. UK risks to experience of disintegration. In Northern Ireland was already asked a «leave» from the UK, in order to join Ireland: this is the worst epic historical fail from a British leader. If a united Ireland is going to happen, the English man David Cameron will be the one able to do what neither Micheal Collins neither Eamon De Valera were capable of. Spain started claiming a «shared government» in Gibraltar, and Scotland is ready to call a new referendum in order to get the independence. Without a United Kingdom like the one we know now, what about all the over-sea territories? Risk of dissolution is there, and it shows how arrogance can create boomerang effects.
- UK 2 (arrogance): Do you know «The tale of the fisherman and the fish»? Well, the sense of the whole story is those who pretend always much more, demanding for more and more and more and more, finally got anything and they finish with losing everything. The British referendum revealed a lack of literal knowledge of the British people, and has been a tangible demonstration of how arrogance can rebound on. The UK leadership - already benefiting of privileges got in decades of political work - thought to get a more special status within the EU, and they wasted half a century of conquests.
- Generational struggle: data showed that Brexit was chosen by the over 50 years old, while younger voters opted to remain. This is a signal of how in Europe there are fathers not listening to their children. This is true both for non politicians and especially for decision makers. People entitled and empowered to take decision on behalf of the population can't take in to account the general will. This doesn't mean all those million voters for Brexit are less important, but politicians should act thinking to the future. Who does represent the future of a nation between under 50 and over 50? Living thinking day by day is not a wise way of do politics.
Finally the United Kingdom took a decision. Voters preferred to choose the «No, thanks» option forcing their country to leave di EU. So, it was Brexit at last. What about now nobody still know. Europe has to deal with an unprecedented situation, to be determined on the basis of the EU law and its possible interpretation. The only thing clear is that according to the treaties of the EU there is a two year time to establish how the Member State should leave. Negotiations will be crucial to shape the future, and now it is just a question of time and of agreements to be found. In time of unexplored scenarios it is not easy to say what it can be, although some considerations are possible.
- EU: This is not a defeat for Europe, unless the new EU at 27 Member State won't be able to use this opportunity to face euro-criticism and build up a real political union. The United Kingdom gave the opportunity to lead everybody to a reflection on Europe. British weren't ready for a real integration. Now it is time to see, frankly and in a decisive manner, who is really engaged in doing so. Those who are not, can join the United Kingdom. A strong European Commission now has to show the determination to stop any national whim, starting to be inflexible (severity was used only for fiscal policies, and that was a mistake) in front of any leader asking for less Europe. The Slovak rotating presidency of the EU comes in a moment which can be the right one only at the condition of a sound management of the political process. Slovakia is perhaps even more euro-skeptic than the UK, and a resolute Commission - freed by British blackmails - can start acting as guardian of the treaties asking to step up from anti-European approach. In is in - with all the rules it means - and out is out - with all it means. That has to be the approach. Europe failed because of its nature, that was essentially and only economic. A more federal Europe is the only possibility to relaunch the project, and the Brexit is the historic moment to do so.
- UK: The United Kingdom is only thinking to have got its greatness back. In reality a Brexit will make the Great Britain simply Britain. At international level the United States have no interest in maintaining their special relationship with a country no longer in the EU. London will be not able to participate to the decision making process, then its influence is to be evaluated. Given the situation at the beginning will be difficult to understand how the United Kingdom can be influential. Unless the European Union implode, the UK is probably doomed to remain in the margin of the international scene. The United Kingdom will be obliged to deal with internal issues rather than focus on foreign affairs. UK risks to experience of disintegration. In Northern Ireland was already asked a «leave» from the UK, in order to join Ireland: this is the worst epic historical fail from a British leader. If a united Ireland is going to happen, the English man David Cameron will be the one able to do what neither Micheal Collins neither Eamon De Valera were capable of. Spain started claiming a «shared government» in Gibraltar, and Scotland is ready to call a new referendum in order to get the independence. Without a United Kingdom like the one we know now, what about all the over-sea territories? Risk of dissolution is there, and it shows how arrogance can create boomerang effects.
- UK 2 (arrogance): Do you know «The tale of the fisherman and the fish»? Well, the sense of the whole story is those who pretend always much more, demanding for more and more and more and more, finally got anything and they finish with losing everything. The British referendum revealed a lack of literal knowledge of the British people, and has been a tangible demonstration of how arrogance can rebound on. The UK leadership - already benefiting of privileges got in decades of political work - thought to get a more special status within the EU, and they wasted half a century of conquests.
- Generational struggle: data showed that Brexit was chosen by the over 50 years old, while younger voters opted to remain. This is a signal of how in Europe there are fathers not listening to their children. This is true both for non politicians and especially for decision makers. People entitled and empowered to take decision on behalf of the population can't take in to account the general will. This doesn't mean all those million voters for Brexit are less important, but politicians should act thinking to the future. Who does represent the future of a nation between under 50 and over 50? Living thinking day by day is not a wise way of do politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment