Insiders:
UK’s misjudged reforms threaten to unravel EU
‘He
maneuvered himself into a very difficult situation.’
By VINCE CHADWICK
2/18/16, 5:30 AM CET
“I am very
suspicious of Brussels,” U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron said in
January.
The feeling is
mutual.
Seventy-seven
leading European and American policymakers in POLITICO’s Caucus
expressed deep misgivings about the prime minister’s attempt to win
new terms for U.K. membership of the EU, and faulted him for
mishandling the negotiations.
“He seems to think
that when he’s at home, no one in Europe hears what he says!”
said one Caucus participant.
More than a few
European members of the Caucus didn’t get Cameron’s political
rationale in promising a referendum on EU membership in the first
place, seeing it as a lose-lose for him. “If the U.K. remains in
the EU, he will have to face internal challenges” in a still
broadly Euroskeptic Tory Party, one said. “If the U.K. leaves the
EU, he will have to face the consequences of a potential economic
downturn.”
Participants in the
POLITICO Caucus — including the Italian, Czech and Turkish
ambassadors to the EU, NATO Deputy Secretary-General Alexander
Vershbow, former EU competition commissioner Joaquín Almunia,
European Council President Donald Tusk’s chief foreign policy
adviser, and other high-ranking officials from the EU institutions —
spoke freely on condition of anonymity
Twenty-one percent
of the Caucus rated Cameron’s performance to date as poor, and 41
percent called it average.
Missed Opportunity
Behind the verdict
on Cameron’s diplomacy was dismay at a “short-term decision taken
to solve short-term internal party upheaval” by “asking for
things that do not make the EU any better.”
Back in early 2015
Cameron’s manifesto promised to “reform the workings of the EU”
which he described as “too big, too bossy and too bureaucratic.”
“He could have
asked for some real improvements in terms of democratic
accountability, bringing Brussels politics out of the back-rooms,”
lamented one Caucus participant.
But when he outlined
his position in a letter to Tusk in November, Cameron focused his
demands on four relatively narrow “baskets” of reform: economic
governance, competitiveness, sovereignty and migration. An
undertaking to cut red tape for business proved relatively simple,
and sovereignty and governance concerns are already largely covered
by existing treaties but could be clarified, Brussels said. Most
diplomatic wrangling has centered on Cameron’s attempt to ban EU
migrants from receiving in-work benefits for four years. In the end,
leaders will discuss a proposed “safeguard mechanism” which would
allow the U.K. to limit in-work migrant benefits for the same period,
providing the European Commission and Council agree it is necessary.
More than two thirds
of Caucus members thought the hard-fought “safeguard mechanism”
would make little difference to the number of people who move to
Britain.
“The real ‘draw
factor’ is the British economy, not the benefit system,” said one
participant, echoing the view of migration experts. “People come to
the U.K. to work, not live in poverty.”
“He is not doing a
bad job with the concrete renegotiations,” was one more favorable
assessment. “But he had maneuvered himself into a very difficult
situation in the years before.”
Disintegration Now
The wider fear among
Caucus members was that a British departure would hit the bloc at an
existentially vulnerable moment. The migration crisis, continued
economic woes of the eurozone and the growing strength of extremist
parties all raise questions about the future of open borders, free
trade and the viability of the EU itself.
“Brexit will
encourage nationalistic attitudes in other member states,” one
warned. Another said it would “feed those forces inside and outside
the EU that promote disintegration.”
Worse for Cameron,
Scots are overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in the EU, leading
some to speculate that a Brexit would re-open the question of
Scottish independence that he thought he’d put to bed last year.
“Scotland will go
first, but Northern Ireland may soon be close behind,” said one
Caucus member, “because even Unionists know how good the EU has
been to them.”
Unionist parties in
Northern Ireland have so far remained silent on the implications of a
Brexit for the province. Northern Ireland’s economy is intimately
linked to the Republic of Ireland, an enthusiastic EU member that’s
in the eurozone.
A not-so-special
relationship
Caucus members
generally agreed that any sign that integration was “reversible”
would weaken both Europe and Britain, but they were in little doubt
that the latter would suffer more.
“Alone it will be
weaker,” one said. “It can either follow the EU line, or find
that things go the EU’s way in spite of the U.K.’s views.”
That could even be a
boon for Europe, some predicted, arguing: “We would soon see a
power shift from London to the Continent, thus strengthening the
EU-U.S. relationship.”
In any event, “the
U.S. prefer to have a single European interlocutor for the big
issues” one said, and another added: “The U.S. counts more on
Germany these days.”
Many pointed out
that Britain will remain in NATO, the Continent’s main military
alliance. However, one participant said “ ‘never closer union’
weakens Europe’s role in peacekeeping, which is particularly useful
for Russia. Dividing Europe is one of its primary goals.”
“Underneath the
U.K.’s foreign affairs standing is its clout in trade and financial
matters,” said a Caucus participant. “This weight would take a
considerable hit outside of the European context — particularly
bearing in mind that half of the U.K.’s trade is with Europe.”
“The so-called
‘special relationship’ with the U.S., if it ever existed, has
gone,” another said. “The U.S. say officially at the highest
level that they are only interested in the U.K. in so far as they are
part of the EU. The U.K. has the illusion of being a great power —
not anymore.”
Emmet Livingstone
contributed reporting.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário