The normal mood among the Brussels elite is that no one genuinely wants the UK to leave the EU. But the kind of demands Cameron is putting forward, like end to free movement of labour, a veto for the House of Commons over all EU laws, a provision for Britain to opt out of all social and employment laws, seem to be highly unrealistic
On November 1, 2015, the European Union (EU) celebrated its 22nd birth anniversary amid strong voices of disunity in the wake of the Greek debt crisis and the migrant problem engulfing the entire continent. The EU was established under the historic Maastricht Treaty. It has currently 28 members and more nations are vying to join it. The union has its own peculiarity with 24 official languages, 12 national currencies and a mix of closed and open borders among 28 countries. Today, the EU is at a crossroads and struggling for unity among its members, instead of showcasing leadership to further the vision of the union.
The dangerous disunity displayed by the EU obviously points to the question of its survival as a “global power” and its continued relevance in the global dynamics of power. Around 2003, there was a buzz that the EU would establish its own identity as a strong power centre as it was already an influential player in international trade politics (Cameron 2012). Way back in 1999, its members adopted a new European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) with a view to deploy rapid reaction forces abroad in case of emergency. By 2003, it came out with its first European Security Strategy with an intention to play a larger role in the management of international security. A series of authoritative works published by EU scholars like, Europe: The Quiet Superpower (Moravcsik 2002), The United States of Europe (Reid 2004), Why Europe Will Run the 21st Century (leonard 2005), The European Superpower (McCormick 2007), Europe’s Promise (2010), etc, have put forward the idea of a possible surge of the union. What is common to all these contesting conceptualisations is that the EU is emerging. The EU’s power is multi-dimensional and it has an umbrella of influence than a single State like China, India or the US.
But then what is contributing to the ebbing of the EUIJ
By the end of the 20th and the very beginning of the 21st centuries, many experts in global politics observed that the world would witness the rise of Asian Powers but still the US would be in a dominant position. When it comes to the EU, it is observed that mere presence or possession of power capabilities do not qualify these countries for exercising both influence and authority around the world. For an immediate or for any future exercise of power, resources must be mobilised or strategically deployed in vulnerable or key areas. The prognosis that the EU would emerge as a politically cohesive unit has already failed because of strong differences among the constituent national governments. Indeed the military and economic growth of the members of the union so far has not been satisfactory. The leadership at the EU headquarters, Brussels, has failed to consolidate its powers around Europe and promote the central institutions of the union, as the rival national power centres like london, Paris, Berlin, etc, have always remained stronger than the former. Hence one size fits all does not work for all the members even though there is a single union for voicing their opinion and channelising their energy, resources and strategies in international sphere. The Euro-optimists have surmised for a much larger, stronger and cohesive union by downplaying the traditional differences and race for more autonomy among its members, which could hardly be realised as of today. Given heterogeneous interests among the member-nations, the EU has been tightly constrained, if not indeed sometimes paralysed, in external policy making. Its experience suggests that the exercise of international power is strongly mediated by the structure of political institutions, especially the degree of their centralisation, cohesion and capacity to mobilise societal resources (Zakaria 1998).
One of the founders of the EU, Winston Churchill, echoed the proposition for the union in a speech at the University of Zurich, “We must build a kind of United States of Europe.” It is not that the recent EU leaders have not taken interest or have completely ignored the growing disillusionment about the receding space of the organisation in the power corridors of international politics. In fact in 2013, former EU Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso demonstrated his utmost concern for a united Europe and argued, “We need to show the same political courage and vision of Winston Churchill. He was a man of foresight with an acute sense of history, often ahead of prevailing opinion, never shying away from saying what some might choose to ignore.” But the Eurosceptics like the UKIP leader Nigel Farage sharply attacked Barroso and said that he had hijacked one phrase of Churchill and taken it out of context “to paint him as a fan of political union of Europe.” She even quoted what once Churchill said, “If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea.” Whatsoever it may be it was Churchill only who announced in June 1940, the “Declaration of Union” between Great Britain and France. But the Nazi invasion of France finally scuppered his plan of creating an Anglo-Franco Union in those days. So branding Churchill as a Eurosceptic would not be proper.
Today, the biggest challenge for the consolidation of the EU is coming from one of its biggest and most powerful member, the United Kingdom. The UK wants to pull out of an “ever closer union” as it is enshrined in the founding treaties of it. At the moment if the UK goes for a referendum, there are more chances of saying no to the EU. It is for sure that David Cameron would campaign for staying in the EU, but if he loses, it would be a disaster for his career. The Scottish nationalists have already voiced that if the UK were to withdraw from the EU, they would go ahead for the second referendum on Scottish independence which they might win. Hence Brexit from the EU finally may lead to the break-up of the UK. The same situation arose in Britain in June 1975, when the then labour PM, Harold Wilson, had a tough time whether to continue as a member of the European Economic Community (EEC). But the two-thirds Britons voted in favour of staying in the EEC. He had to pacify his disgruntled colleagues by promising renegotiations of Britain’s membership terms and conditions at the EEC. Though Cameron is applying the same strategy now to appease the voters, yet he is placed at a very complicated juncture wherein most of the Britons are getting very disillusioned with the EU institutions. Before the last election which Cameron won for the second time, most of the opinion polls favoured to stay in the union, but in the past few weeks, majority of them got support for opting out of the EU. This time most of the top rated newspapers of the UK, like the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Daily Telegraph, the Sun and the Times are strongly campaigning for moving out of the EU. Whereas in 1975, only the Morning Star advocated for withdrawal from the EEC, so it was much easier for the Wilson Government to manage and convince the public about the benefits of staying in the community. Also, Britain is at a much stronger economic position than that of 1975, than that of the Euro zone nations. Hence the British voters would be largely influenced by the instances of the failure of France and Italy to implement the economic reforms and the continued debacle of the Greek economy for an outbound move from the EU. lastly, migration is the latest stinker which is bothering the Britons and most of them are anxious about it. Even Cameron is advocating preventing “welfare tourism” by limiting benefits for migrants in his country. Against the backdrop of all these, it would be harder for Cameron to convince the voters once again for continuing with the union.
However, the normal mood among the Brussels elite is that no one genuinely wants Britain to leave. But the kind of demands Cameron is putting forward, like end to free movement of labour, a veto for the House of Commons over all EU laws, a provision for Britain to opt out of all social and employment laws, seem to be highly unrealistic.
What Harvard economist Dani Rodrik stated, “European integration was never something that the people demanded” would seem true the way its leaders are behaving and the organisation is pedalling in pain and panic. The solution today lies in uniting Europe more than it was in the past as issues have increasingly become complex and they need common, national and global remedies at the same time. But the saddest problem that is plaguing the union is what the current European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker underlined. “There is not enough Europe in this Union. And there is not enough union in this Union.”
(The writer is a Delhi-based political analyst)