Of late,
the Cameron regime in the UK has been playing what looks a dangerous
game, but on closer inspection is positively bloodcurdling.
In his
speech on 23 January, the prime minister declared his intent, should
the Conservative Party be re-elected, to re-negotiate the terms of Britain's membership of the EU – and to put that very membership on the line in an 'in or out'
referendum. This comes amidst a certain modern tradition, of
condemning the EU for eating too far into British sovereigty –
particularly on workers' rights, social policy, the environment and
crime – with two cabinet ministers, including Chancellor Osborne,
the architect of Britain's austerity programme, having spoken with staggering casualness about marching Britian for the exit unless the EU 'changes'.
The threat, now politically manifest, seems simple. Reduce the power
of the EU; return that power either to all member states, or if not,
then to Britain exclusively; otherwise, Britain may leave.
Why is this not merely a problem, but bloodcurdling?
Not merely because it does not represent political sense, economic
sense or plain common sense for the UK, its people, and its
relationships with its European neighbours.
Not
merely because it has alarmed the opposition, the Americans, and even veterans in Mr. Cameron's own party.
Not even
merely because the Conservative Party's appalling human rights record
puts Britain in foremost need of the EU's judicial intervention, to
check the Cameron regime's excesses against its people.
One might
wonder what the fuss is about. The EU has fallen into miserable
times: the apparatus of cruelty that is British austerity reflects a
wider trend that takes its toll on populations across the European
continent. Old divisions resurface, between and within these
countries; new ones emerge; the sharing of pains between them becomes
a disguise for the stronger imposing their interests or ideologies to
the detriment of the weaker;
genuine human solidarity across their borders is often found
illusory; and then in what may be the foremost indicator that
not all is well, it receives the Nobel Peace Prize.
There are questions indeed, about both the sustainability of the EU
and what any country gets from being part of it.
They are the wrong questions. The right questions look more like
this.
That is to say, those are not so much problems with the EU, as
problems with Europe, and some of
the people in it. When I use adjectives like 'bloodcurdling'
and 'harrowing' in here, these are not exaggerations. To anyone in
their seventies or over, conditions in Europe now should carry echoes
of a chilling familiarity.
