I am not
sure of what exactly Britain wishes to see become the final fate of the
European Union. It’s because too many words about its membership of the
continental body come from Prime Minister David Cameron,
and too often.
What’s clear for now is that the British have placed a speed breaker on
the path of the EU’s rapid movement towards becoming a continental
government. Well, all that Britain has done is to threaten to pull out
if its demands are not met. This threat is familiar except that it’s
been packaged to sound funkier, easier to mouth. Brexit. That’s the
shortened form of saying Britain will exit the EU, if ignored. The
matter is serious though, and Cameron has been put to task, made to
clarify his positions with regard to his role in the saga. He’s caught
in the web of what he and his party started; that’s the best way to put
it. Some have even suggested that Cameron’s regular clarifications have
made a farce of his threat. Alright, farce or otherwise, “Brexit” has
called attention to the increasing effort to take powers from nations
and give them to regional and continental organisations; how far can
this go?
The EU has
increasingly increased its power in relation to the power of member
nations since it began as Coal and Steel Union in 1951. Apart from
several others, there was an Agreement in 1985, stipulating the
abolishment of all visa and customs procedures for people within the
EU’s common borders. The Single European Act, the basis of the Community
determining common policies in many fields, was signed in 1987.
The
Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992. That was one sweeping treaty
envisaging an economic and monetary unity based on a single currency and
a common central bank system. It looked forward to political unity
based on a common foreign and defence policy; it ensured that the then
European Community was transformed into the European Union. A fallout of
that was the free movement of goods, capital, services and people. By
2012, the common currency, Euro, was already being used by 12 member
countries. The Lisbon Strategy of 2000 sought to get the EU become the
world’s most competitive and dynamic economy. In 2005 however, France
and the Netherlands rejected the effort to have the European
Constitution that represents the most important step towards the
formation of political unity and encourage institutional reforms. In the
event, the Lisbon Treaty with its narrower scope of reforms was signed
in 2007. Now, some of these powers that the EU has are what the British
want to take back.
Britain
has always been a reluctant member of the EU. It wasn’t at the party
when it began in 1951. Britain was weakened but it had just emerged from
the Second World War as a victor. So, it didn’t need to fearfully join
the Coal and Steel Union when France and Germany joined. Fancy also the
ever present mentality that Britain, being an Isle, was insulted from
the continent, a fact that had ensured it escaped to some extent the
stinging Germans at the peak of the war. The British have always been
jealous of their independence more than any other on the continent; this
was natural for a nation that was in command of the sea for more than
three centuries, and one on whose empire the sun never set. France had
to fight its way out of defeat in the hands of the Germans in the early
1940s so it cherished the security a union offered; but Britain could
decently adjust its toga and say it was never overrun by the Germans.
It took a
Labour Government in 10 Downing Street to get Britain into the then
European Economic Community in 1972. Even at that, the government made
provisions to get out at the time it was getting in. That was how
protective of their sovereignty the British were. 1975 didn’t pass
before they called a referendum to reconsider that decision. Britain
voted to stay. But the same question had remained a matter of election
campaign from then till now, with the older generation generally wanting
out, and the younger generation wanting in. The latest controversy
about staying or exiting the EU is a continuation of that tradition.
Back in
2013, Cameron had said if his party won a parliamentary majority at the
2015 general election, the government would negotiate more favourable
arrangements for continuing British membership of the EU; the
negotiation would precede a referendum as to whether the UK should
remain in or leave the EU. On hearing that, the foremost defenders of
the EU, Germany and France, warned the British of dire consequences,
even as public polls in both countries preferred that the British exit.
It was a measure of how tired they were of Britain’s unstable attitude
towards the EU. But the United States too had expressed its concerns.
Naturally, it wanted its foremost western ally to remain as relevant in
Europe as possible, believing this was best done by remaining in the EU.
Of course,
the promise of 2013 had to be fulfilled after the Tories won the
general election in May 2015. With a majority of seats in the House of
Commons, Cameron restated his party’s commitment to holding a referendum
on Britain’s membership of the EU by the end of 2017. Nevertheless, he
had continued to clarify his clarifications ever since: It was only
after “negotiating a new settlement for Britain in the EU”, and only if
nothing came out of the negotiations would a referendum hold. That was
not all that would be required to hold the referendum though.
Government-sponsored legislation to authorise the referendum had to sail
through parliament, and one of such made it to the House of Commons
last May. Even that is not where it will all stop. There is a political
calculation in it. Getting the younger generation as young as 16 to vote
on the matter has been on the table. Lawmakers have to vote to decide
if young ones should take part. For that reason, the ruling party is
cautious. Young ones can swing the outcome of the referendum in the
direction the government doesn’t want. Senior citizens may want Britain
out, but the younger ones prefer staying in. If Cameron pushes for
exiting and the outcome of the referendum is stay in, it says much about
the acceptance of his party in power because Cameron has promised that
the outcome is binding.
There had
been an expectation by the government that lawmakers would not give
youngsters the power to decide, so the PM had waited to see how House of
Lords would vote on November 18, 2015. After those elders gave the
right to vote in the referendum to youngsters, Cameron had to clarify
his clarifications, yet again, on the referendum even further. What he
was doing on that occasion was to avoid political burdens. He knew with
the situation of things it was safer for Britain to negotiate, rather
than have a referendum. This leaves the government in a strong position,
much better than being embarrassed in a referendum.
Now, what
do the British want from the EU? There are four areas where Cameron
wants the EU to bow: Four-year ban on the EU migrants claiming in-work
and other benefits; greater protections for non-eurozone countries to
ensure they cannot be outvoted by eurozone countries; giving Britain an
opt-out from the EU’s commitment to “ever-closer union”; and giving
parliaments more powers to club together to block the EU legislation.
SOURCE: PUNCH REPORTS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment