Brexit y la "constituency"

En Jeremy Warner tenemos un interesante argumento en contra de Brexit, es decir  a favor del Remain. Si no le entendió mal, el argumento es que a GB le ha ido bien hasta ahora con un pie fuera (del euro€ y el otro en la a instituciones en las puede influir. 

Otro autor, Phillip Johnston, no lo ve tan fácil, porque a RU le va ser cada vez más difícil tener peso específico en las instituciones decisorias. Cuando empezó a ser de la CEE tenía el 33% del voto, de reos poco tendrá el 13%. Cuanto más se amplíen los miembros de la UR y del euro, menos poder tendrán los paises de peso real. Más ahora que usan una vida neutra de los Cinco Presidentes para ir hacia la unión política completa, como hemos anunciado  en un par de ocasiones. 

Si realmente las fuerzas vivas de Europa se coordinan para avanzar hacia la unión política total, tarde o temprano GB deberá elegir en salirse o entrar en el euro para seguir en el proceso, del que será didcil que se pueda elegir quedarse fuera. 

Y más si, como informa Con Coughlin, la UE tiene planes para unificar los ejércitos nacionales bajo un mando único. Desde l vo tiene todo el sentido del mundo, lo que pasa es que no veo a RU aceptando ceder tanta soberanía. Mucho menos la monetaria, y no cedió. 

Johnston ha sido corresponsal toda su vida en temas de la UE, u demasiadas veces ha visto naufragar las buenas intenciones de un país en una Cumbre donde te maquen el cerebro hasta que firmas las líneas de puntos. Con n suerte te dejan añadir un párrafo de reservas que te guardas completamente inservible. 

We have always deluded ourselves about our capacity to rein in European ambitions. This was brilliantly lampooned in a Yes Minister episode from the mid-Eighties when Sir Humphrey Appleby, at his most supercilious, explains to Jim Hacker the basis of the British government’s Europe policy.

“Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. Divide and rule, you see. We tried to break the EEC up from the outside, but that wouldn’t work. Now that we’re inside we can make a complete pig’s breakfast of the whole thing.”

Except that we couldn’t, hard though we tried. At every stage of its development since the Maastricht Treaty established the European Union in 1991, Britain has been drawn deeper into a set of supranational governmental and judicial structures, against our better judgment. We have felt compelled to go along with it in order not to rock the boat.

We have made the best of a bad job by opting out of the measures we did not like, including monetary union and the Schengen agreement to dismantle internal borders. But this did not give us “the best of both worlds”, since both affected us to our detriment, and continue to do so. Moreover, the argument that we are in the club and should just obey the rules is fatuous, because the rules and the membership have changed so much since we joined.

And that is the point about next Thursday’s referendum. The options are not Leave or the status quo; they are Leave or be drawn further into the next stages of the EU project currently being decided in the capitals of Europe, whatever their voters might want, because they are not being consulted. We know this because the proposals are set out in the co-called Five Presidents Report, which foreshadows “progress on four fronts” – genuine economic union, a financial union, a fiscal union and a political union with “genuine democratic accountability, legitimacy and institutional strengthening.” 

These measures are intended to underpin the Eurozone, of which we are not a part; but the treaties required to bring them about will turn the EU increasingly into the single political entity we have always opposed. It needs to happen because without further deepening of the political and economic institutions the whole edifice is likely to collapse. So if we don’t want to be part of it we have to get out now.

For me, this referendum is not about immigration or money transfers but that age-old democratic question: who governs? Once, we thought we could share sovereignty without ceding control over our affairs or compromising our national interests, but the political nature of the project has made that impossible. Most problematic of all has been the gradual encroachment of Europe on our justice system, which in many ways is the essence of nationhood. 

Si la UE decide tirar hacia la Unión Completa, GB tendría cada vez más difícil su política de un pie fuera y otro dentro, reservarse el "op out" en ciertas cosas como Schegen o la Libra. En suma, mantener el status quo actual, con el que le ha ido tan bien, y que los defensores del Remain quieren salvar, no parece vaya a ser eterno. 

GB es el único país con conciencia viva de "constituency", adimento imprescinedible en la democracia.