The EU must reform, with or without the British

18 Jun 2016 - 14:02
Source: Rareclass/flickr

Why is it that so many Britons (and others) want to leave the EU? Because the EU has changed. The British are holding up a mirror to us. The tale of the economic benefits is no longer enough to substantiate ever greater integration. 

Have the British gone mad? It seems unthinkable that the United Kingdom wants to leave the great European market, with its half a billion discerning consumers. Their EU debate is as complex as the average episode of Monty Python, with actors that overflow with typical British eccentricity and with subjects that are linked by nothing more than their absurdity. Caricatures such as Boris Johnson are playing with fire: there is a real possibility of the UK falling apart (the Scots want to remain in Europe), the possibility of conflicts flaring up in Northern Ireland and the possible loss of access to world markets; still they continue to spew nonsense about banana curvature, the EU budget and so forth. World leaders, experts, business and journalists present the populace with fully-fledged scenarios of doom: Russia and China will be the geo-political winners, the divided EU will lag behind, the US will turn away from the EU, the United Kingdom will fall apart and the EU will sink into protectionist isolation. It seems that the British people are happy to gamble with world history and with their own continued existence as a country.

And yet we, the rest of the EU, will have to make an effort to understand the motivation behind the referendum. It would be easy to dismiss their referendum as just the latest example of British eccentricity that has nothing to do with us at all. In terms of EU policy, the UK often wasn't all that crazy. So let us think about it from their perspective of dissatisfaction with Europe in order to prevent exasperation for ourselves and for the EU. Remember, whether the vote is to remain or to leave, the UK will still be a major partner.

Understanding is the last thing the Britons can expect. If the vote is to leave, the UK will be punished for its actions. A retrograde step in the process of European integration is incompatible with the paradigms of world leaders. European Commission president Juncker has threatened that he will regard the UK as deserters. The other EU leaders are scared stiff of similar democratic Leave debates in other member states. President Obama explained to the British that they would be at the back of the queue when it came to negotiating trade deals. The US would rather make trade deals with a bloc of 500 million consumers within the EU than individually, with the 65 million Britons. The US wants to see a strong Europe, not one that is hopelessly divided.

Threatening talk is all very well as far as the referendum is concerned. But it is in the interests of both the Netherlands and Europe as a whole to discourage secession from the EU. Yet, following the vote either to leave or remain on 23 June, European fury must yield to pragmatism and understanding.

The first thing we have to do is to acknowledge that EU-related referendums are increasingly becoming part of the democratic landscape. The results are often a brake on European integration. In April, the Netherlands held a referendum on trade with Ukraine, in which the result was 'against', the Danes opted in a referendum in December to oppose closer integration of police services. European integration needs broad-based support and referendums, no matter how controversial they may be, are one element in determining the borders of public support. And that support is open to question in even the most enthusiastic European federalist countries, Italy and Belgium. 50% of Italians would currently vote to leave if a referendum were held there. In Belgium, the largest parliamentary party is the eurosceptic  Nieuw Vlaamse Alliantie. And the powers that be in Berlin are also worried about support for the EU among Germans, while Marine Le Pen, in France, is waiting behind the scenes in the hope of an EU referendum. Part of the indignation among the leaders of governments reflects their anxiety on the danger of cross-contamination, precisely because the EU gets a mixed reception in their own countries. But castigating the results of EU referendums is the mark of bad losers. The answer should be learning lessons instead of punishing.

The second step, understanding the British dissatisfaction, must move on from the stage of saying over and over again that the British are different. Nonetheless, understanding begins with recognition of typical British peculiarities in their EU debates. In the aftermath of the Second World War the continent was in ruins and the elite – composed of  resistance fighters and exiled politicians - in countries such as the Netherlands, France, Germany and Italy was convinced that the borders were both economically and politically vulnerable. Britain, one of the victors, does not really share our deep-seated sense of ‘the EU of peace’. It was continental Europe that had to get its house in order.

Another factor is that the UK is not as comfortable with the culture of consensus that typifies the EU. Their two-party system and the tooth-and-nail debating that goes with it, set the political tone. At European negotiating tables, the British are not interested in 'package deals'. They would rather negotiate on individual sectors. For them it is about issues that directly affect people, not about shaping the EU. For that reason, the British have often disappointed the Dutch. We hoped that the UK, one of the larger member states, could keep Franco-German ambitions in check. However, the UK would rather take the easy way out, steering clear of ambitious European projects such as the euro, which they do not see as being in their own interest.

The belief in parliamentary sovereignty is one more of those British peculiarities. We on the European mainland are more nonchalant about 'sovereignty' than the British. Their parliament dates back to the middle ages so, in their eyes, it should not be subservient to some European Parliament or European Court of Justice. The UK is also very attached to its free-market values, and that is at odds with how it views 'protectionist' Europe. The fact that the British are often not so broad-minded, in contrast to the countries of the EU, particularly on sensitive questions like labour migration, does nothing to diminish the image they have of themselves. They cherish their traditions of pretending to be broad-minded and of parliamentary self-determination.

Many Britons also have the sort of world view that Churchill had, with three separate spheres of influence: the British Empire, the special relationship with the United States and, lastly, Europe. Half of the UK's trade is with the EU and its stagnating markets. The other half of its trade goes to the more dynamic world market. Those in the 'Leave' camp would thus still rather look to the rest of the world than to the EU; after all, that is where the growth is. The fact that the European markets are a springboard to the rest of the world is still not compatible with their world view.

It would be unjust to leave the British EU debate on the thought that dissatisfaction with the EU is something typically British. Increasing disillusion in the EUis not just a trend in the UK, where 67 per cent voted to remain in the Common Market in 1975. Frustration with the EU is on the rise everywhere, and it is no surprise that the referendum should coincide with the eurocrisis and the migration crisis. The undertow can be explained by the mirage of trust in the economic benefits of integration. The heated debates in the UK underline the extent to which the European narrative has dwindled to its current state. The British are not convinced of the positive effects of integration. It is precisely this point that is the eye-opener in the UK referendum: it is the free-market loving British who do not believe in the European economic narrative.

The narrative of the EU as the engine of growth has lost traction in other EU countries, too. Either it is the economic benefits are disappointing, citizens fail to see them or, alternatively, the benefits fail to outweigh the disadvantages. The cornerstone of European integration is the single European market. It has four pillars: free movement of goods, services, people and capital. And since 2002 the euro has formed part of the European economy. The European Commission has presented rose-tinted forecasts on more than one occasion on the internal market and the euro. The CPB (Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis) in the Netherlands also made economic forecasts that were, as former managing director of the CPB, Koen Teulings conceded, too optimistic. The British debate exposes the extent to which the economic justification of integration is disputed. Belief in the economic benefits is the Achilles' heel of European integration.

It was for economic reasons that the UK became a member of what was then the Common Market, despite much soul searching. That attraction is now the subject of debate. Both camps are exaggerating the economic scenarios. Leave supporters overestimate the costs of European market regulation and calculate that Brexit would lead to GBP 33bn in savings. The pro-EU camp, by contrast, highlights economic benefits of GBP 59bn. Experts generally fear the economic consequences of Brexit, but the wider public is not convinced by their arguments.

Of the four freedoms guaranteed by the single market, labour migration is the most sensitive. Cameron promised that the total burden of labour migration would remain under 100,000, yet 333,000 migrants came to the UK in 2015. Large numbers of labour migrants come from Eastern Europe, but most come from other parts of the world. Notwithstanding studies on their economic contribution, members of the Leave camp primarily want to make decisions themselves on who is allowed to enter the country. And the influx from the EU is seen as proof that European markets do not create jobs themselves. Free movement of workers is a sensitive subject in many EU countries. In the Netherlands, Minister Asscher is also trying to tighten up the EU rules on this point so that Dutch workers get a little more protection.

Of course, the UK wants to retain its access to the European markets for capital, services and goods. However, the anti-EU camp wants to be able to decide itself on the regulation or deregulation of their markets. Of course, the European banks are in a bad way at the moment and the liberalisation of the European service sector is lagging way behind EU guarantees on this. Voters are unreceptive to both the optimistic narrative on what the EU still has to offer in these markets and all the threats about what the UK will lose if it votes to leave: they've heard it all before.

And many in the Leave camp do not believe that the EU will punish the UK in any way if it withdraws. Why would the EU, which aims to break down barriers to trade want to keep the UK at a distance? So those campaigning for Brexit assume that a Leave result would mean nothing more than a new round of negotiations. The Vote Leave campaign certainly has some optimistic members.

In British political circles, the euro is seen as something that the UK has nothing to do with. Nonetheless, even the euro has an important role to play in the British debate. In the first instance, the EU has a reputation for being permanently in crisis, from disappointing growth figures in member states, to untrustworthy banks, to disputes about refugees, and European institutions that acquire power without public support. Above all, the euro crisis has given European integration a bad name, even in the UK.

The euro crisis has exposed significant flaws. European leaders, such as the Commission presidents Barroso and Juncker, have sketched the steps required to stabilise the euro, including a European finance minister. The inevitable consequence of a European finance minister is that the European Parliament would have a greater role to play. The UK government regards further federalisation of the eurozone as the ‘remorseless logic’. In British eyes, the euro crisis has made it clear that the euro demands closer ties, because they are victim of the slow economic growth on the continent. This is the 'Ever closer union' that the UK believes is a priority for the eurozone, but which it does not want for itself.

Now that the ever closer union is tangible, resistance can be felt among Dutch politicians and elsewhere. As Foreign Minister, Frans Timmermans said that '...the time for 'Ever closer union' in every conceivable area is behind us'. His successor, Bert Koenders, wants strong individual member states to be the basis of the EU. The economic rationale behind the euro was always dubious. We are all, not just in the UK, now facing up to the reality of the political consequences of the euro.

And the British economy is also suffering from the euro crisis. The crisis on the continent reduced demand for British products. To make matters worse, German and Dutch products are actually too cheap within the eurozone, which explains the UK's sizeable trade balance deficit with the Netherlands. The figurehead of the Leave camp, Boris Johnson, thus calls the euro an instrument of unfair competition. The euro has certainly not promoted love between eurozone states.

In 2005, the Netherlands voted against the European constitution plus European flag, anthem and president. The UK is showing that the situation is now more serious: even the narrative of Europe as an economic success is wearing thin. Many will breathe a sigh of relief if the UK votes to remain in the EU, as the process of European integration would then be proved not to be irreversible. However, if the British vote to leave there will be inevitable debates on how to punish the UK as a preventative measure to ward off expressions of displeasure in other member states.

But punishment is bad in terms of the economy, both for the Netherlands and for the EU as a whole. It would also be a mistake to think that Marine le Pen, Geert Wilders or Viktor Orban need the British example to demand a referendum. Citizens do not want to hear yet again how marvellous the EU is; they want to learn what the EU is actually turning into: are we actually going to have 'Ever closer union'? Will the EU become a sort of state? Will there be a European Finance Minister, levying Europe-wide taxes? Many citizens don't those kinds of narrative for the EU. In many EU countries, debates focus on fields such as subsidiarity, acknowledgement of differences between countries and retention of a sense of identity, including the ways in which states configure their markets. The old character of the EU as a single market has lost its lustre.

It is time to move the goalposts and, where possible, to take several steps back. For instance, in the last elections to the European Parliament the main issue was the election of the 'president' of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker. This gave the Commission the legitimacy of government, with a greater role for the European Parliament. These sort of steps towards European unification can no longer be sold with slogans like 'Europe is good for you'. People want their own identity, even if that means that there is a financial risk attached. Perhaps citizens also want an end to the continuous harmonisation of legislation. Where South European member states ask for more policy harmonisation, in North Europe member states believe that there should be more competition between states.

The UK referendum is less typically British than the traditional European federalists hope. For many, the EU is more of a gamble than the prospect of leaving it.


Load comments

Wed, 01/27/2021 - 13:55


flora davis
Wed, 01/27/2021 - 14:16

web 2.0 for new google sites……………………………;…;…;…;

jordan john
Wed, 01/27/2021 - 14:23


John Smith
Wed, 01/27/2021 - 14:50


Home lifts UAE
Thu, 01/28/2021 - 05:05


Right Ways of Choosing a Home Elevator
While constructing a luxurious new residence it is vital to include an elevator in the design. Elevators add superior convenience to multi-level homes, and a home elevator will ensure increase in accessibility. By selecting the elevator carefully, ensures it service over the years. Some of the way of choosing a home elevator is as follows:
1. Consider the Home Layout
An elevator will take up space on every floor that it services. By keeping space in mind while choosing a new elevator, we can make sure that the elevator integrates seamlessly into the home design. If it is a smaller home, then a compact elevator that is designed for residential use has to be chosen.
Customizable ThyssenKrupp Home Elevators helps the customer to utilize the space inside the Home in a very efficient manner.
2. Evaluate Various Elevator Styles
Style is also a key consideration while choosing a new home elevator. New elevators come in a variety of styles, so an elevator needs to be chosen that matches the interior design scheme of the home. If the home has classic design cues, then it is important to pick out a classically styled elevator that features luxurious embellishments. Modern homes may look best when they are paired with streamlined elevators.
ThyssenKrupp Home Elevators offers many Designer themes and color patterns which helps the customer in designing the dream home.
3. Knowing about the Type of Elevators
Home lift companies in India allow customers to install an elevator that comes with the latest technologies for gaining more advantages. It is necessary to get more ideas about the types from a leading for ensuring high efficiency and performance. Another thing is that it will help a lot to save more money in the maintenance program by addressing essential requirements.

• A cog- belt elevator enables the homeowners to operate a life without the support of a rope, piston, and rope.
• The gearless elevators are a suitable one for eliminating the need for a pot and other things for reducing expenses significantly.
• Small and medium-sized apartments can benefit a lot with hydraulic elevator for minimizing unwanted problems.

ThyssenKrupp Home Elevators offers two type of drive systems:
1. Cog Belt Gearless Drive (H300 Model)
2. Hydraulic type Drive system. (H200 Model)

4. Maintenance Plans
The right home elevator will be easy to maintain over the years. Reliability is the key factor to be considered while choosing an elevator. Warranty and service factors need to checked as well.
The 14 patented features of ThyssenKrupp Home Elevators help to reduce the unnecessary maintenance issues that arises in other elevators. Also, the additional AMC’s provided along with an efficient service team increases the reliability factor.
5. Manufacturer Reputation
A well-built home elevator should last many years with scheduled maintenance. Choose a wellknown manufacturer with history in the business. A home elevator should not be chosen based on the price but rather the quality it provides.
ThyssenKrupp is a 200+ year old German goliath, with its wings spread across multiple sectors like automobile, steel, elevator industries and various engineering sectors.
ThyssenKrupp Home Elevators have been installed in every city in India and the services are available pan across India as well.
6. Dealer Expertise
Installing a residential elevator is for the pros only. Licensed, experienced elevator technicians will ensure that your elevator meets all national and local code which is critical for safe operation. Elite Elevators are the exclusive dealers for ThyssenKrupp’s Home Elevator Division in India. With over 25 year of Manufacturing Lift, Elite Elevator are the pioneers are in the industry and are certified as the Safest Home Elevator.
7. Certification
Most companies would claim that they are certified. It is sad to know that in India, there are no proper certifications for Home Elevators. It is recommended for the user to ask for sample certifications to verify their claims. ThyssenKrupp complies to TUV and is certified with SIL-3 and we provide users with a sample certification.

Elite Elevators are the best home lifts in UAE. Click here:

Home Lifts in Australia- Elite Elevators Australia
Thu, 01/28/2021 - 05:13


Due to some disability or illness, many of the elderly find stairs a significant obstacle in their homes. This issue is taken care of by Elite Elevators Company Pty Ltd. We are an Australian Home Elevators Speciali company offering a wide range of Domestic Lifts that you have never seen before.

Our luxurious and exclusive compact residential lifts have been built to fit beautifully into any home located in Sydney. Melbourne, Perth, Hobart, Brisbane, Tasmania, Wollongong, Adelaide, Geelong, and all across Australia.

If the staircase has become an issue, a domestic lift by Elite Elevators Corporation Pty Ltd can help you to make your life more comfortable. Besides offering a faster and more convenient way of getting upstairs Elite home elevators can also improve your lifestyle by adding class to your living.

Our home elevators are very quiet and smooth that you will not even notice that the home lift is moving next to you. Moreover, Elite Home Lifts are also energy efficient as they do not consume much electricity and can be installed quickly. These lifts have a self-supporting structure and a self-contained drive that adds elegance to a house from its unique and smart design.

Not only, our residential lifts are an excellent choice for carrying large and heavy objects from one floor to another. But getting a lift from Elite Elevators Corporation is more feasible and cost-effective than changing homes for your ease.

Elite Elevators residential range of lifts is the most affordable, stylish, and compact lifts available in Sydney. Which can improve your quality of life, can prove to be your best long term investment. So wait no more and get in contact with us to add value to your home.

Click here:

Nibav Lifts India | vacuum Lifts in India
Thu, 01/28/2021 - 05:17


In this text we will talk about a new type of lift which is the vacuum lift but before we start we will try to understand the problems, we are going to face other lift options.

Lack of styles and elegance - Whenever we talk about elevators and residences, an old stereotype that comes to mind is the typical old elevators with a heavy structure and a minimalist landscape.

Heavy Costs - In the 21st Century, there are many lifts that ensure good appearance, but one common problem is heavy costs, from the cost of civil construction to heavy electricity and the cost of maintenance and upkeep.

Bulky construction and damage - Elevators require civil construction such as digging a hole that creates changes in the existing landscape

Vacuum Lift - Vacuum lifters are types of lifting equipment that incorporate a vacuum as part of the lifting mechanism, they work on the concept of changing air pressure

How do Nibav Home elevators provide elegance without any damage?

No Civil Construction - These are supported by a standalone structure with no pit and engine room requirements

Elegant - The structure is made of galvanized steel panels and glass that provide an extra finish

360 Degree View - Due to its circular structure, it provides unobstructed 360 degree view, providing natural light and unobstructed view

Low Maintenance and Environmentally Friendly - As well as saving on civil construction costs, consumers also save money on electricity and maintenance costs.

Safety - Vacuum lifters do not require battery backup for rescue and also operate on single phase power

Patented Technology - It adopts patented technology and Dean initiative in India to offer these vacuum pneumatic lifts at 50% price reduction.

Learn More:

Add new comment

Your name: Anonymous

Restricted HTML

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a href hreflang> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote cite> <code> <ul type> <ol start type> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h2 id> <h3 id> <h4 id> <h5 id> <h6 id>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.