Half surprise undeniable impact, the Brexit, wanted by 51.9% of voters, with a turnout of 72%, appears mainly as a deflagration: indeed, the referendum of 23 June will trigger a cascade of questions and contradictions as it may make the clean break expected by the victors uncertain, complex and even paradoxical. Especially since the earthquake that hit the UK also shook Europe and the world.
The least of these contradictions regarding the election itself. A wide petition already calling a second referendum, whereas the acceptable majority threshold should be set at 60% of the votes and the minimum turnout of 75%. So, legitimate or not, Brexit just decided? The British will they vote again and again Europeans expect their verdict?
The second contradiction goes to the divorce process. Although resigned, the defeated prime minister, as leaders of the victorious camp, seems to wait until fall and the appointment of a new head of government before invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which alone can open a round itself capable of extending over two years. Conversely, leaders of the European Union (EU), worried about a populist contagion on the continent eager to revive community dynamics, want to go fast: So, which side of the Channel lie “real “ Brexiters
Another question: what acquests share? The EU, free of concessions to David Cameron in February, especially the blackmail, threats and braking perpetually agitated by London, may, if it wishes, get back on track, open since 1957, integration without stops narrow. The UK, however, will have to repatriate thousands of elected officials and lobbyists based in Brussels, and even more difficult to convert into national law the vast arsenal legislative, regulatory and normative community that forms already close three quarters of its own legislation. Now this conversion depends on the future mode of relationship between the EU and the UK once again become “sovereign”. If London is in favor of complete independence, it will find its freedom of decision and its financial control but will have to forego the benefits of the large European market that was his main reason for maintaining the EU since it joined the EEC in 1973 and, perhaps face recession and social difficulties. The open sea found is it so many risks and sacrifices? If, however, Britain wants to maintain its economic assets, financial, commercial and preserve the rights of its citizens, it will opt for associate status – limited, on the Turkish model, or integrated by the Norwegian example or Swiss – which will require it to participate, in some way, to the implementation and financing of European mechanisms on which it will have no outlet. Will we then still speak of recovered parliamentary sovereignty and rule “made its citizens”?
This dilemma is all the more heartbreaking than the defending Brexit were not content to be denounce the EU’s democratic deficit. They also opposed the “real people” with national elites without really resolving the issue of power in the United Kingdom itself. Indeed, unless early elections – which might, moreover, that polarize extreme – is a predominantly pro-European conservative party who will have to manage the leave under the banner of a Prime Minister moderate – in the case of Theresa May – or unpredictable – if it is Boris Johnson. And what will the other elites? If the traditional establishment, including the City, have been disavowed, other holders of power, labor and union leadership, leaders from the artistic, intellectual and sports, all predominantly supporters of REMAIN also lost the ideological and sociological battle of June 23
and yet, less than an unthinkable revolution, it is those elites who will have to administer, economically, socially and politically, the decline “national” of a country where half the wealth depends on its continental roots. So, the “people” would he won a Pyrrhic victory?
This issue is coupled with another contradiction. The populist surge of risk Brexit Does it not to open the country, now the European private guards and always subject to party Tory ultraliberal, enhanced and brutal globalization even as his supporters refusing excesses of competitive capitalism, inequality, antisocial or even reactionary? In other words the referendum results do not they would mask the defeat of the “weak” and the victory of the “strong”? Similarly, while it displays its commitment to national unity and the intrinsically British values to the dangers of immigration and multiculturalism, the Brexit, given the regional election results, does he not risk cause two new consultations, one on the Scottish secession, the other on the Irish reunification, not to mention an unlikely demand for independence from London? If that were the case, the United Kingdom break apart, leaving only a rump kingdom, England and Wales, live with two new EU States: Wider Ireland and Scotland sovereign. But even if the kingdom remains united, identity questions are inevitable with, in turn, questions about the nature and strength of Britishness, the survival of the Commonwealth and the great power status in the UK. So could this be the end of the Rule Britannia
These challenges and issues were not unknown to voters before June 23, but they were probably not evaluated at fair measure. Now they will have to be faced. Pandora’s box, now open, can release a wave of crises threatening the UK and beyond, Europe and the rest of the planet. But if the four British nations and the two “camps hatred and fear” know gather together to set a new collective agreement and their place in a continent that is also theirs, the example set by this New Britain could help the EU not to give in to the weakening that weakens today and, instead, to regroup around what is its purpose since 1957, ” the ever closer union of its peoples “. At the same time, in a world of doubt, this is the future of the Western model that would benefit. If that were the case, the ultimate paradox, the Brexit could become a chance!
Author of “A History of the United Kingdom from 1900 to today” Perrin, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment