Cameron's EU Deal and its implications

[XXL]

http://adeyinkamakinde.blogspot.it/2016/02/brexit-camerons-eu-deal-and-its.html

I found this article and it seems to raise some interesting points about BREXIT, NATO, RUSSIA, LIBYA etc

Thought I'd share

BREXIT: Cameron’s E.U. Deal and its Implications

A vote in regard to whether Britain should withdraw from the European Union is an epic event; one which if in the affirmative would profoundly shape its destiny for a generation.

My first impression is that David Cameron has not obtained the 'unique' status which he promised to extract from Brussels to mollify those who favour continued membership under a looser arrangement.

1. If the preamble in the original founding document which aims for an "ever closer union" is not explicitly re-worded so far as Britain is concerned, for instance in regard to future treaties, then Cameron would obviously not have secured a singular status for Britain.

The Schuman-Monnet ideal of "closer union" is after all often seen as the theoretical blueprint for an eventually federated European family of nations.

2. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from which the United Kingdom initially opted out recently became incorporated into British law. The provisions effectively replicate most of the major provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR regime has provided similarly emotion-laced public discourse on the loss of Parliamentary Sovereignty to a supra-national legal body. If Cameron has not reinstated an opt out, it would mean that even if Britain renounced the ECHR, it would be bound to follow the tenets of human rights law created by EU institutions.

It is important to note that EU law is 'stronger' than ECHR law. Under the ECHR treaty, member nations promise to incorporate human rights law into their national laws. They are required merely to take into account the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. However, British courts are bound to apply the laws emanated from the European Union.

3. The operation of the 'Common Agricultural Policy' which absorbs a great deal of the EU budget and which has favoured France could also be added to the list. If reform of this is not a factor in Cameron's deal, then it falls short.

My view is that Britain should either be completely in or completely out. More importantly, that is how the other countries led by Germany and France see it. As Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was often reminded, the organisation cannot function in the form of a "two-track" system; this notwithstanding the mechanism of opt-out clauses in treaties.

France and Germany have been at the heart of the formation of a union of European nations because of the historical rivalry between both nations. The blood spilled during the Franco-Prussian War, the Great War and the Second World War testify to this.

The underlying almost forgotten rationale for the creation of the EU is thus the preservation of a previously elusive peace on the European continent. But membership of this brand of supra-national entity was always going to come with a price.

The bargain is simply this: in return for the benefits of economic, social, cultural, technological and political co-operation, that is peace and mutual prosperity, each member state must consent to forfeiting part of its national law making powers. The EU thus forms a supra-national legal entity whereby the member states have established a separate and independent legal authority that is superior to their domestic institutions.

The idea of forfeiting "part" of your national sovereignty is perhaps a severe understatement to those exercised by what is considered to be the EU's inexorable drift towards being a 'super state.' It is clearly the case that the administrative and legal capacity of the original European Community has with successive treaties related to budgetary matters, economic integration and enlargement has increased manifold.

National leaders and their citizens are ambivalent about what might appear to be a choice of retaining national sovereignty and identity on the one hand or being transformed into a seemingly uniform state.

The 'Little Englander' complex or a less crude depiction of reluctant Englishmen feeling culturally and geographically apart from their continental neighbours is not the only discernible anti-European sentiment held among EU member states. For instance, German Euro-scepticism has increased given the perceived burdens it places on the German economy.

But the fundamental belief that Germany and France are at the core of the EU cannot be shaken off. France had under President de Gaulle repeatedly blocked Britain's entry into what was then the 'Common Market'. De Gaulle's rationale while based on what he claimed was Britain's "economic incompatibility" did not impress many Briton's who sensed his intransigence was based on a personal antipathy towards the Anglo-Saxon nations.

The British elite has been traditionally divided on the matter of Europe. And despite the focus on the issue being a source of disunity among the members of the Conservative Party, those on the political Left have never been unanimous in their views. Where the Right focused on national sovereignty, the anti-Common Market Left felt that there was a threat posed to working class jobs.

An impending referendum will be interesting on so many fronts. It will be one of the few times in British political history that the constitutional convention of collective cabinet responsibility will be abrogated. Government ministers will not be coerced into following a party line and will be free to campaign for either side. When a referendum was held in 1975 to decide whether Britain should remain a member after joining in 1973, the Right-wing Enoch Powell and the Left-wing Tony Benn campaigned on the 'No' side.

The British opinion polls show a fine split between the 'no' and 'yes' sides with the 'undecided' element holding the balance.

The perception of whether Cameron has secured a meaningful deal may be crucial not only to the result of the vote, but also to his political survival.

A vote to leave the EU by the British public may even have wider ramifications. Domestically, this would likely result in the permanent dismemberment of the United Kingdom. The leadership of the Scottish National Party has repeatedly asserted that it would trigger a second referendum on Scottish independence.

Britain’s exit could also spur other EU member states to leave. Whether mired in debt, burdened by administrative obligations or otherwise nostalgic for their 'sovereign' past, the precedent of a British withdrawal could trigger a psychological desire for other EU states to reacquire total control of the reins of their national destinies.

It may also have implications for the survival of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The president of the United States, Barack Obama has gone on the record several times to register his disapproval of the idea of a British departure from the EU. Obama’s position arguably reflects the view of the American political establishment which prefers to formulate policy with the EU entity rather than with individual European states. This includes Britain. It is a policy which pointedly disregards any sentiment toward their shared English-speaking heritage and the frequently touted ‘Special Relationship.’

While they are separate institutions, EU policy is often synchronized with the political and military objectives of NATO, an organisation which is led by the United States. An obvious example of this relates to United States policy towards the Russian Federation and the flashpoint that is Ukraine.

Guided by the post-Cold War policies formulated respectively by Paul Wolfowitz and Zbigniew Brzezinski, both the Wolfowitz and Brzezinski Doctrines promote the idea of maintaining American global hegemony. The latter, which is geared towards promoting the neutralisation of Russia as a military and economic competitor, is a fundamental precondition in achieving such a state of affairs.

The fomenting of the coup of February 2014 which deposed the elected government of Viktor Yanukovyc was orchestrated by the American government which clearly prodded a reluctant EU into backing it. The role of Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, was central in getting the approval of the EU in the overthrow of the Yanukovyc government. A recorded conversation she had with the American ambassador to Kiev captured her expressing her contempt for European caution through the infamous “Fuck the E.U.” remark.

The hand of the United States in essentially forcing EU nations such as Germany and France to support its policy of sanctions –despite the fact that such measures have proved to be harmful to the interests of these countries- makes it all too apparent why the United States prefers to deal with a collective body of states.

For those who are critical of the aggression and militarism apparent in American foreign policy, the United States control of NATO and by extension the EU has provided the necessary cover under which American administrations have pursued a succession of geo-political objectives that have been lacking in legal and moral justification. The refugee crisis that is presently confronting EU member states owes a great deal to NATO action in reducing Libya into a lawless state from which uncontrolled amounts of refugees can embark on perilous journeys. The Syrian Civil War, a conflict underwritten by America and NATO, has massively contributed to the waves of refugees making their way to the EU via its Mediterranean borders.

Thus the issue for Britons worried about the loss of national sovereignty to Brussels ought also to focus on the United Kingdom as a country dictated to by the United States which has used the EU as a vehicle to promote its national interests at the expense of the interests of EU member states.

Of course, they will also need to contemplate on how withdrawal can best serve Britain's national economic and political interests. Outside of the EU, it would lose a huge amount of bargaining power when dealing with other economic blocs around the globe.

A lot will be at stake on Thursday, June 23rd when the British public make their verdict.

© Adeyinka Makinde (2016)

Adeyinka Makinde is based in London where he teaches Public Law.

[Starman]

It will be terrible for the world if brexit happens

EU is the model for all the continents

This separates the world and sends a bad signa to the future

Would be nice to have our UK members opinion and wether they think the referendum may pass or not

[Guest Rachelle of London]

Everyone I know is planning to vote out. I haven't met one person that wants to stay in the EU. Not one. Very interesting times.

[karbatal]

It's never right when some country or region wants to go out and then stays in. It weakens the whole. If the UK wants to go out, there shouldn't be those offerings from Brussels, but simply say goodbye and stay friends, just like a relationship.

The demandings from the UK are nauseating: xenophobia and greed GALORE!

So... nice to meet you, let's stay friends, say hello to Washington, stay healhy. BYE.

[Guest]

let them please

[elijah]

There shouldn't have been any deal with the Brits. If they want out, they should be out. The EU law should be equally applicable throughout the whole EU. I think they have enough exceptions as it is. Personally I don't want them to go out but EU should not treat them any different to any other big country like Spain, Italy, Germany or France. Also I think they ll suffer economically if they are out.

[GOD]

I think Cameron is a piece of work.

[jaron]

I am very curious what will happen if UK gets out !!!

What will happen with Scotland ?

Will EU change its policy ?

Whats next ? Other Countries go out ? Return of national currency ? Boarder controls will return ?

No good times for EU, even jursidically they did some mistakes over the last 2 - 3 years.

[karbatal]

London nowadays is the center of megabig fluxes of money from all those vulture funds and greedy capitalism. Money is POURING there and investments are made as a way to laundary the money. Besides, all the 'big plans' about capitalism don't touch UK, they are more against Southern Europe as a way to get cheap workers and compete with China and the BRICs.

To sum it up: it will be great for the UK without the EU. And the EU will be more free without the UK, which to be fair is always torpeding the union.

[XXL]

The problem with the UK and most of its political and financial elites (not the people), irregardless of their political persuasion, is that they want a double set of rules. On the one hand they fear omologation to Brussels diktats that all other member states have to go through on fundamental issues, such as immigration quotas, banking regulatory systems etc

On the other they want to continue reaping the benefits of being part of a massive economical block made of 500 million people and they also know that once out of it the gimmicks of the City of London will be terminated

Gimmicks which the entire UK economy depends on ever since Thatcher and Blair's deindustrialisation agenda was mercilessly implemented. Look at the Sterling Pound taking a massive fall against the Euro after Christmas in a matter of weeks as the possibility of an exit draws nearer. Shall we talk about the billions of questionable money from China, Russia and Qatar being dumped all over London and causing the artificial skyrocketing of an ever increasingly indecent property/rent market?

June 23 is round the corner

The prospect of an exit is no good news, not for British people and for other EU member states alike. The UK economy could result in getting destroyed either way, because if it goes out it cannot survive on its own and if it stays in it will have to renounce all the exemptions it currently enjoys and that make The City so "prosperous"

But regardless of what happens the whole thing is just the ingredient to engineer another financial "perfect storm" globally. Which is the ultimate goal to begin with. I think Nightshade and Raiders of the Lost Ark have talked about the next financial meltdown brilliantly in other threads fairly recently.

We have lost are true freedoms a long time ago. All over the world

[XXL]

London nowadays is the center of megabig fluxes of money from all those vulture funds and greedy capitalism. Money is POURING there and investments are made as a way to laundary the money. Besides, all the 'big plans' about capitalism don't touch UK, they are more against Southern Europe as a way to get cheap workers and compete with China and the BRICs.

To sum it up: it will be great for the UK without the EU. And the EU will be more free without the UK, which to be fair is always torpeding the union.

Not necessarily

The EU project is currently built around France and Germany. And it has been recently extended to countries that up until very recently were mired in wars and social, religious and ethnic disruption (always engineered and fomented from the outside, mind you). Countries that are not equipped to sustain the requirements and impositions of Brussels

The whole EU project was a faulty mess to begin with, regardless of UK considerations. Moreover if the UK leaves it will prompt other EU member states to want to leave. There are certain countries where so called euro skepticism is flourishing at the hands of dangerous populists

If the whole EU project with its laughing stock of a currency, with 28 different tributary systems fails, going back to what we had before will trigger something that will make 1929 look like a walk in the park. The problem is not the UK, the EU this or that but essentially a political elite that has long ago ceased to cater to the needs of the population and only sees the reasons of the banking elite and the private interests it serves. The whole 2008 Lehman debacle and the so called financial meltdown it started, the Euro currency crisis that started in 2009 are engineered scam events to begin with.

So it's basically one of those situations of "whatever happens we are fucked anyway". Sad but it's how things are unfolding and we'll stay fucked unless people open their eyes to the level of manipulation and deception being constantly put in place

[karbatal]

^yes, you are right. But you can't go to a further level with some discontent member always claiming for "less union, more independency".

To be fair, what is done is done. And Eurozone needs more and more integration: Central Financial, Central Economy. And the UK wants to have a vote even in euro issues, not to mention that the mere talk of a central Financial Government would make half British bankers faint and convulse (see what I said above about the river of money pouring on The City right now).

I am not sure what is the future of the EU, but once all this has happened, the only way I see is the complete integration. Maybe Brexit should be an opportunity to other members to go out, so those remaining have the same aim and we all row in the same direction.

[elijah]

^True

[Guest Rachelle of London]

Not necessarily

The EU project is currently built around France and Germany. And it has been recently extended to countries that up until very recently were mired in wars and social, religious and ethnic disruption (always engineered and fomented from the outside, mind you). Countries that are not equipped to sustain the requirements and impositions of Brussels

The whole EU project was a faulty mess to begin with, regardless of UK considerations. Moreover if the UK leaves it will prompt other EU member states to want to leave. There are certain countries where so called euro skepticism is flourishing at the hands of dangerous populists

If the whole EU project with its laughing stock of a currency, with 28 different tributary systems fails, going back to what we had before will trigger something that will make 1929 look like a walk in the park. The problem is not the UK, the EU this or that but essentially a political elite that has long ago ceased to cater to the needs of the population and only sees the reasons of the banking elite and the private interests it serves. The whole 2008 Lehman debacle and the so called financial meltdown it started, the Euro currency crisis that started in 2009 are engineered scam events to begin with.

So it's basicaly one of those situations of "whatever happens we are fucked anyway". Sad but it's how things are unfolding and we'll stay fucked unless people open their eyes to the level of manipulation and deception being constantly put in place

If UK does go I hand on heart believe other countries will go too. It'll be a domino effect. Watch.

[MeakMaker]

All I'm saying in the matter is we have been through thousands of years cultivating a culture of division. Once the Berlin Wall fell it was like things were starting to change for the better. The idea to live in one big continent where all these countries would come together as one regardless of their financial output, customs, languages, etc.. was such a big event. Now people focus on the immigrants issue a lot and other economic things and people in general are very discontent with the EU for a reason or another. It's sad no one wants to give unity a chance.. I've never seen the EU as a money or political thing..I've always believed it was created to bring people together.. Bring down the barriers.. Truly, no frontiers. It's saddened me to be aware of this mentality of separation and division. Together we can solve all problems. United we stand. The problem with immigration or economy will still be there in or out of the EU anyways. I seriously don't think the UK will be better off alone in Europe. Just the fact someone like Farage is leading the OUT campaign says it all really...

[karbatal]

Sadly it's all marketing.

EU nowadays is a way to get rich even richer. If they really wanted to create a paceful zone with opportunities you wouldn't allow a country to stop people from other countries to move freely. Since the fall of Comunism certain countries are following their own route and it's only bringin problems.

Besides, it's absurd that gays can marry in one country but not in another. Absurd that old people in a country are starving and in another country are so incredibly well off. Absurd and absurd and absurd. Money has no frontiers, but human rights and justice has big barriers.

It's time to unite and create. If not, i'd rather make lots of Exits from lots of countries. I don't like this EU that we have right now at all. I want a real one.

[Genevieve Vavance]

EU? I thought that whore died.

[MeakMaker]

Sadly it's all marketing.

EU nowadays is a way to get rich even richer. If they really wanted to create a paceful zone with opportunities you wouldn't allow a country to stop people from other countries to move freely. Since the fall of Comunism certain countries are following their own route and it's only bringin problems.

Besides, it's absurd that gays can marry in one country but not in another. Absurd that old people in a country are starving and in another country are so incredibly well off. Absurd and absurd and absurd. Money has no frontiers, but human rights and justice has big barriers.

It's time to unite and create. If not, i'd rather make lots of Exits from lots of countries. I don't like this EU that we have right now at all. I want a real one.

Very well said friend.

[Gaudet]

What is going to happen to Camoron's "bunch of migrants" if the UK leaves EU?

Specifically referring to EU citizens living, working, paying their taxes in the UK, no matter how long they have lived there.

Same question about the UK citizens who migrated to live and work across EU state members - what is going to happen to them if the UK leaves the EU? Will they need work visa to stay and work in the EU state member they are in?

United we stand, divided we fall.

Have been saying this a lot lately: what a shitty world we live in and it's getting shittier by the seconds, not minutes....

[karbatal]

The deal with the EU will affect those who get there AFTER it's done. So i guess if Brexit happened, the same would happen: new people would have more difficultes to be there.

To be fair, i can understand that countries block the entry of new people. Things are simply bad for all of us. That's why I think all the efforts in the EU should go to help those countries who are sending immigrants. If the EU pours money and helps (in the right way, with all the force and controlling the corrupt governments) countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, etc, so many things would be solved.

I don't know Poland or Romania, but i love Bulgaria and it has so many possibilites! But it needs help. And big time.

Besides, with a strong East Europe refugees wouldn't be a problem for Northen Europe. Things would be easier with Putin. Etc, etc, etc.

I wonder how it helps those Power that Be that part of Europe remains poor.