Europe, the Groucho Marx version
British Prime Minister David Cameron, by asking to renegotiate the European
Union Treaty, before giving Britons a straight referendum choice on whether
to stay in the European Union or leave, is applying Groucho Marx’s famous
dictum: ? I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member. ?
As surrealistic as it sounds, this request is first of all a manoeuvre of
domestic policy: the British right wing is about to implode: the
Conservative Party is now comprised of two leanings, strongly hostile to
each other: one who is pro-European (to which Cameron belongs), and the
other nationalist (in the image of the American Tea Party). And it is an
attempt to maintain a facade of unity between these two factions, and to
reduce his unpopularity that Cameron has made this proposal. In doing so, he
hopes to provide an outlet for all those who, in Great Britain, regard the
European Union as a kind of bureaucratic dictatorship, with detailed and
pervasive regulation.
This proposal may appear clever: no one can be opposed to a referendum and
the Labor Party will be forced to endorse it, not wanting to appear as
lacking faith in voters. And Cameron, applying the doctrine that has proven
so successful to the British since the 18th century, (divide the other
Europeans), will be hoping to obtain from the other Europeans one or two
concessions, which will allow him to win the next parliamentary elections
and the referendum that will follow.
In reality, this proposal is very dangerous: other countries could step into
the breach and ask, they also, for special statutes. Already, political
parties in Sweden and Italy seem tempted; and others will follow; even in
France. It would be the end of the European Union, which cannot be a
collection of tailor made bilateral agreements, with no solidarity.
France and Germany therefore must respond as quickly as possible, by showing
a united front: renegotiate the Treaties, so the Union may progress, of
course: this is done every day, and this will be necessary anyway, for the
implementation of a monetary union. But to grant a special status to Great
Britain or any other country, no way. Anyone wanting to obtain a special
status will first have to leave the Union and then negotiate an association
status. This must be clearly stated, and must provide an absolute
dividing-line.
In order to impose this line, France must know and make it known that the
exit of Great Britain would be very sad (in view of the role of this country
in the history of Europe, and especially in the victory against totalitarian
powers, that gave birth to the European project), but that this exit would
be much less tragic than keeping Great Britain in the Union with a special
status, exempt from all controls, of a country becoming increasingly every
day the main place for money laundering in the world, and which stubbornly
undermines progress in the construction of the European Union, and even that
of the Eurozone, though it is not part of the Eurozone.
The use of this degree of firmness is the only way to send a message to the
British to let them know that they have more to lose by exiting the Union
than their partners: most of their commercial and financial exchanges are
with the continent and thanks to the Union. So, worthy heirs of the ? nation
of shopkeepers ?, according to the formula Bernard Shaw attributed one day to
Napoleon, the British will make their calculations, and they will stay.
There are dark days coming around the world. The U.S. is becoming politically and culturally stressed to some sort of breaking point. Europe reminds me of the United States under its first constitution, the Articles of Confederation. Each state put its own interests ahead of the the union, and in the process nearly destroyed the union. Individual states would take actions that negatively affected other states. It reached such a crisis that the states had either to strengthen the central government or dissolve the union entirely and become independent. This would most certainly have led to the sorts of wars that plagued Europe well into the 20th century, but lessons learned by one generation are often forgotten or entirely distorted in later generations. It is happening in the U.S., and it is happening in the E.U. If either or both fail or become dramatically weakened, I fear for the future of my grandchildren.
Spécialiste en reporting bancaire Cherche un nouveau defi Didier Feller
Owner Reliabnle LInks Consultants (RLC)
11 年I also do like what one French Minister recently said about Cameron move:"the British are like these people who want to join a football clubbut, once they are member, would like to play rugby".
Great britain might want to become another switzerland, high quality of life and special secret bank allowing huge money to roll in. why not ? but if you look in long term, Europe will become one day a strong player in the World game with china and EU, and then UK ( with or without scotland ) will be off from the game. too bad messieurs les Anglais.
Leadership in organisational transformation
11 年I certainly agree with the British analysis. The bigger danger in Europe, however, lies in the more and more and more fragile and opposing Franco-German relationship. They don't seem to speak the same language anymore (which is not surprising when having so few true European experts in their political and governement teams). Europe requires sacrifices (most of them often only sympbolic) by those two countries to succeed or it will fail. That's where we need serious discussions, not about David Cameron (politicians come and go and who knows what will have happened by 2017). So, the question is much more, what will France do for Europe, i.e. put his political might there, and what will Germany do, i.e. use its current economic strength for the good of Europe. Time to find the complementarities again between those two nations rather than a bipolar state. Au travail...