When under too much pressure, the chains break at the point of the weakest link. Figuratively speaking, the same applies to the European Union. The whole world quite naturally expected that the process of disintegration of the EU would begin in the crisis-affected south of Europe (Greece, first of all). However, as Prime Minister David Cameron has now shown, the European chain is likely to break not at the weakest link, but at the most unreasonable link.
The United Kingdom - the homeland of pragmatism and realism, a state of firm principles and unparalleled adaptability that stoically renounced its empire after successfully defending the freedom of Europe from Nazi Germany - has now lost its way. More precisely, he was led astray by the Conservative Party's ideological fantasy that certain powers of the EU should be returned to British sovereignty.
Great Britain's national interests have not changed, nor does any fundamental change within the EU work against those interests. What has changed in British domestic politics: a prime minister too weak to control his roughly XNUMX anti-EU MPs in the lower house and a conservative establishment fearful of the rise of the British Independence Party, which could cost the Tories enough votes on the right to give Labor an electoral advantage.
Cameron claims he does not want Britain to leave the EU. However, his strategy of renegotiating membership of the bloc, followed by a British referendum on a new agreement – is the product of two illusions: the first is that he can secure a positive outcome, and the second is that the EU is able and willing to give him the concessions he wants.
In fact, there is good reason to believe that such a direction will take its own momentum, possibly leading to an unintended British exit from the EU. That would be a severe blow to the EU; for the British, who wander through history, it would be a real disaster.
Although Britain would certainly survive outside the EU, the quality of its existence is another matter. By leaving the EU, Britain would cause great damage to its economic interests, lose both the single market and London's role as a financial center. Exiting would also harm Britain's geopolitical interests, both in Europe (where, ironically, it advocates for EU enlargement) and its global image and special relationship with the US (which has clearly stated that it advocates for Britain in the EU).
Unfortunately, Cameron's performance in European politics does not inspire confidence in his ability to deliver a different outcome. When he ordered Conservative MPs to withdraw from the European People's Party, a grouping of centre-right political forces, in 2009, he stripped the Tories - who now sit with the obstructionists - of any influence in the European Parliament. By weakening Britain's position within the EU, he strengthened Eurosceptics in his own party.
However, although Cameron should know from his harrowing experience what is coming, he seems to have given up on rational thinking. Indeed, the belief that the EU would renegotiate the terms of British membership - further implying that Germany would not object - borders on magical thinking. Such a precedent would be applicable to other member states, which would mean the end of the EU.
With all due respect to Britain, breaking up the EU at the cost of keeping it a member is an absurd idea. Cameron should know that strategy cannot be allowed (although he fears that a few cosmetic contract changes will not help him at home).
Meanwhile, the Tories risk losing their compass on a key issue – reforming relations between EU members inside the eurozone and those outside it – if they try to use it as a stake in the renegotiation of various European treaties. Britain knows that much closer political integration is necessary for the survival of the euro and that London's role as a financial center - which is as important to Britain as the nuclear industry to France and the car industry to Germany - would be significantly undermined if the euro collapsed.
Although no one should expect Britain to join the Eurozone any time soon, political leadership within the EU requires the wisdom to take care of the central interests of one's own country and the interests of other member states without resorting to threats. For that, however, it is necessary that these interests are understood in an adequate way and the will to cooperate on the basis of mutual trust, which should be the norm within the European family.
Speeches, especially when delivered by leaders of great nations, can be useful, irrelevant or dangerous. Cameron's long-planned speech on Europe has been postponed several times. Perhaps he should have taken that as a sign to rethink his position.
He still can, before it's too late. The best starting point would be to re-read Winston Churchill's famous speech in Zurich in 1946. "We must build a United States of Europe," urged the greatest British statesman of the XNUMXth century. That remains our task – and that of Great Britain – to this day.
Bonus video:
