LONDRES – Ao contrário de alguns membros do Partido Conservador da Grã-Bretanha, o primeiro-ministro David Cameron não deu previamente a impressão de estar obcecado com a Europa. Não demonstrou qualquer entusiasmo pela União Europeia, mas parecia claramente menos exercitado pelas suas supostas iniquidades do que muitos conservadores.
Esta posição de Cameron é agora difícil de manter. O seu longo e engendrado discurso sobre a Europa, embora contenha elementos que podem ser partilhados por muitos, também lança as sementes para um debate prolongado e acrimonioso – e não só na Grã-Bretanha. Os conservadores da Câmara dos Comuns (e do resto do partido) querem ter novas garantias de que o seu líder partilha o seu antagonismo por todo o processo da integração europeia. Eles não esqueceram ou perdoaram a sua “traição” ao recusar a realização de um referendo sobre o Tratado de Lisboa, assinado pelo seu antecessor, Gordon Brown. Com o seu discurso, essas novas garantias podem ter sido dadas agora.
Cameron, naturalmente, enfrentou uma difícil tarefa do seu partido, que lhe exigiu uma declaração da sua política europeia. Cameron teve então de encontrar as palavras certas para dizer. Ele precisava de apaziguar os conservadores e as críticas internas – evitando o caos económico e político que seria provocado pelo anúncio de um referendo iminente que pode levar à saída do Reino Unido da UE. O tempo que ele levou para decidir o que iria dizer confirma a dificuldade de ajustar esse círculo.
Na verdade, tal como o discurso de Cameron deixou claro, a sua solução para o dilema – comprar a paz dos seus críticos a curto prazo à custa de tornar os seus problemas (e os da Grã-Bretanha) potencialmente mais difíceis a longo prazo – não traz nada de novo. Já ficou claro que Cameron queria empurrar qualquer possibilidade de um referendo para um futuro mais distante possível. A ideia de que iria procurar renegociar os termos de adesão da Grã-Bretanha também é familiar dos seus anteriores discursos e entrevistas.
Agora essa posição ficou expressa sem rodeios e com firmeza. A busca por uma mudança profunda na estrutura e no funcionamento da UE, incluindo o repatriamento de poderes para a Grã-Bretanha, é um novo e importante marco num momento difícil para a Europa.
Cameron disse em várias ocasiões que deseja evitar um referendo que gire em torno da simples escolha da continuidade da adesão à UE com base nas condições actuais de adesão. Alguns já pretendem distinguir na sua política europeia os feitos de um herdeiro de Harold Wilson, outro famoso “renegociador” das condições de adesão da Grã-Bretanha na Comunidade Europeia de então, que conseguiu um referendo sobre a Europa.
A relação da Grã-Bretanha com a integração europeia tem sido difícil, independentemente do partido que tem estado no poder (Wilson, afinal de contas, foi um primeiro-ministro trabalhista). Isto era inevitável desde o início, devido ao profundo e insanável desacordo entre a Grã-Bretanha, e praticamente todos os outros Estados-membros, sobre a questão fundamental de partilha de soberania.
Essencialmente, o que os britânicos têm imaginado é uma Confederação pouco firme de Estados-nação que cooperam no comércio, numa Europa que corresponde às necessidades do Reino Unido. Mas a Grã-Bretanha aderiu à Comunidade Europeia e não só à zona de comércio livre que Cameron parece querer agora.
Contudo, a ressaca do cepticismo ao euro na política britânica nunca diminuiu e esteve evidente no discurso de Cameron. Até mesmo a supremacia do direito europeu em áreas definidas foi aceite com relutância pela Grã-Bretanha e muito tempo depois de outros terem aceitado. Na verdade, no seu discurso, Cameron não conseguiu resistir a disparar uma bala passageira ao Tribunal Europeu de Justiça.
A Grã-Bretanha tem dado contributos muito importantes para a Europa, especialmente no que diz respeito ao mercado único. Mas, não é exagero dizer que sempre que a Grã-Bretanha percebia haver uma oportunidade para fazer guerra de desgaste contra o projecto supranacional europeu, fazia-o, contrapondo-se a qualquer aumento substancial nas competências ou nos recursos da UE. Tendo isso em conta, esta posição reflecte a atitude geral britânica em relação à UE, que não surpreende. Mas ela desagrada, no entanto, a outros Estados-membros, em particular aqueles que, como a Alemanha, que reconhecem o grande benefício de ter um país com uma posição forte e partidária do comércio livre e um profundo compromisso com o Estado de direito, desempenham um papel importante na União Europeia.
O período prolongado de renegociação, proposto agora por Cameron, implica custos elevados para ambos os lados. Para começar, cria uma fonte de incerteza profunda e prolongada numa altura em que a crise da zona euro já pôs em causa a saúde a longo prazo da União Europeia ou até mesmo a sua sobrevivência.
Além disso, a estratégia de Cameron parece susceptível de não conduzir a um resultado que satisfaça toda a gente. Se pretende ser uma negociação que se realiza no contexto das negociações mais gerais do tratado, pode não acontecer num futuro previsível. O presidente do Conselho Europeu, Herman Van Rompuy, entre outros, parece duvidar da necessidade de um novo tratado, que exigiria o apoio unânime dos Estados-membros - alguns dos quais se opõem nitidamente - para entrar em vigor. Na verdade, Cameron reconheceu-o explicitamente no seu discurso, ou seja, para que o novo tratado incorpore um “novo acordo” para a Grã-Bretanha tem de ser negociado com todos os Estados-membros, como um exercício distinto.
Parte desta negociação iria aparentemente implicar o repatriamento de poderes, exigindo o consentimento de todos os membros da UE e tornando as condições, sob as quais a renegociação de Cameron deve ter lugar, legalmente e politicamente incertas. Muitos políticos veriam o repatriamento de competências de um Estado-membro como um precedente totalmente destrutivo e opor-se-iam resolutamente.
O resultado líquido é de que parece altamente provável que qualquer tentativa de realização de um “novo acordo”, incluindo o repatriamento de competências, tornará muito mais difícil à Grã-Bretanha permanecer na União Europeia do que seria se um simples referendo “ficar/sair” fosse realizado agora. Assim, longe de tranquilizar qualquer um (incluindo os conservadores euro-cépticos), a atitude de Cameron anuncia uma nova era de turbulência e de incerteza para a Grã-Bretanha e para os seus parceiros europeus.
Tradução: Deolinda Esteves


Comments (0)
You need to login in order to leave a comment. If you do not yet have an account, please register.
The two commenting options explained
Watch a 1 minute video
to discover how you can comment on the entire article or a specific paragraph. The two images below also explain the two ways of commenting.
1) Entire article comment
Once logged in, simply click inside the comment box where it says "Enter text here." Enter and post your comment.
2) Paragraph comment
Please log in first. Then click to the left of the desired paragraph. Your cursor will automatically move to the comments box. Enter and post your comment.
Brian Cronin
Sutherland is Ireland's cheerleader in chief for all things EU and sees nothing wrong in the ECBs foisting of billions of Euro of Anglo-Irish Bank debt on the backs of Irish taxpayers. Of course his position in Goldman Sachs in incidental in all of this. His opinions reflect the simple minded view of the Irish political establishment that what is good for the EU is good for Ireland - a variation on the old fenian rallying cry of "England's difficulty is Ireland's opportunity"(clearly never the case, by the way). Having listened to Cameron's speech, it seems to me that the citizens of many EU countries, except maybe Luxembourg and Belgium, would agree with it's sentiments. The EU has done things arse-ways, a currency union before a political union will not work. However, as there was (and still is not) no appetite for any political union, democracy was by-passed .
Margaret Bowker
At first on reading Peter Sutherland's article, it seemed against any form of renegotiation or referendum, but on coming to the final paragraph, it was clear the uncertainty of an up to four year wait was the main issue. An immediate referendum, whilst solving this problem, could easily cause a bigger one by giving no alternative to an in/out, as we stand, question and risk the 20% undecided vote of a generally euroscptic nation, joining those believing no was the only answer, which the tone of Peter Sutherland's article indicated was undesirable.
However, a couple of other points were much clearer. The argument that David Cameron might be seen as a modern day Harold Wilson, with regard to renegotiation, didn't seem to carry weight. The Sixties and Seventies were more about personal rights as I remember, in gender and other issues. In the forty to fifty years since that period, the world has changed significantly, particularly in the media and self-expression. Such - this is harmless, just trust us - persuasion would never happen in the present time.
It seemed also that too little was made of the Single Market aspect of the UK's value. This is extremely important, especially at present with the Free Trade talks betweeen the US and the EU likely to start next month. The UK has a lot to offer and pragmatism will have its place in the EU/UK negotiations.
Just a brief response, but it was a very thought-provoking, enjoyable article. Last thought - investment is the watchword for the immediate future. Boris is about to say so at Davos apparently, my thoughts were in a commentary in the WSJ yesterday. (Cameron pledges EU vote) There's a lot of potential investment out there. Lack of confidence is misplaced. Let's hope the corporations go for growth.
António Correia
Yes, "The demand for far-reaching change in the structure and functioning of the EU (...) is a major new demarche at a difficult time for Europe". In these days, an increasingly wider consensus on the major flaws of the EU construction, over the last two decades, has emerged and can no longer be ignored: just remember the sinking of Titanic - a huge, record-breaking construction - one century ago...
The Maastricht Treaty was announced as a "great leap FORWARD". Since then, only "FORWARD moves" have been allowed in the Maastricht-born "European Union" - mainly the creation of the "single currency" and the birth of a Eurozone with more and more states involved, according to their will and their capability of meeting the doubtful set of "Maastricht criteria" when joining the "single" currency area. Any move which may be seen as a "backward move" has been strictly forbidden, even if nobody can take for granted that this disunited "European Union" is moving forward to something that looks like the promised land. In fact, it is increasingly clear that this road is a "road to nowhere", besides being increasingly painful for more and more member states to go ahead, under the approach which has been adopted to "keep the markets calm" and "save the Euro" - while avoiding the appropriate fiscal transfers and resorting to lending under AUSTERITY constraints. In these days, the European Union is repeatedly following the recommendation: "Keep moving FORWARD, either slowly or rapidly, either jointly or at several speeds!".
Yes, as Paul Krugman recently said, "The Euro is a shaky construction". Besides ignoring the macroeconomic imbalances within the EU, in the "Maastricht criteria" for Eurozone membership as well as in the subsequent "stability" pacts, the Euro has been designed and confirmed – by Delors et al and followers – as a "single currency" instead of a (much more realistic) "common currency". Now, it is very clear that this was a very bad choice, namely because other components of Delors's dream are missing - such as a European budget amounting, at least, to some "3% [!] of the European GDP".
Two decades after the Maastricht Treaty, a COMPLETELY NOVEL EU TREATY is mandatory - not a mere set of "positive" , incremental amendments -, so as to avoid a sad situation, in the near future, where the foreseen "European common home" becomes replaced by a true "European house of correction". We need to build a true European Union through a cooperative European disunion, where the Euro survives as a "common", parallel currency - INCLUDING FOR THE UNITED KINGDOM and the other nine "non-Euro states" - but no longer as the "single currency" for a fraction of the EU (currently 17 out of 27 member states)
[ http://building-a-true-european-union.blogspot.com ]:
” – The Euro should be a COMMON currency within the future EU – including the EU27 members outside the current ‘Euro Area’ – but not necessarily the SINGLE currency.
- In this context, the coexistence of TWO parallel currencies should be allowed in each EU member state (under certain conditions, established in a novel European Treaty), within the framework of an appropriate “Cooperative European Disunion” .
- Besides the “Common Euro”, the complementary currency in each member state could be either a “national currency” (…) or a completely new currency, shared by that member state and some other “compatible” EU member states, taking into account both the relevant macroeconomic issues and appropriate geographic, historic and cultural issues.”
Shane Beck
I don't see the point of a 2015 referendum, since the EU won't renegotiate or repatriate sovereignty (it can't or the EU will effectively unravel) and Britain's long standing distrust of the EU will still be there. Might as we hold it in 2012. Or better yet the EU could bite the bullet and kick Britain out of the EU. After all Britain needs the EU far more than the EU needs Britain.....
Gregory Marthews
What is frequently forgotten by especially worldwide observers of the UK is that the system we have is an archaic system dreamt up by the controlling Elite in 1688 to entrench Parliamentary power. The EU consists of varying degrees of the Republic with entrenched checks and balances to empower the citizens. The UK has no such checks, and so limps along as a poor example of democracy in action. Those in power are canny enough to give enough freedom to ensure that the status quo is not disrupted, while the second chamber is maintained in as weak a form as possible, and the division between the have's and havenot's continues to rise while those who have, entrench their historical advantage through their better schools and greater resources.
With this in mind the EU project is the one great opportunity for the people of the UK to gain some rights which cannot be taken away from them. However we are currently in a time of great change. The EU is struggling with the global downturn and the need for a banking union to underpin the Euro, so the Conservative Party has seen its opportunity, maybe a quick vote now, when they are at their weakest, allied with a knee jerk isolationism from the media will swing the vote to an outright rejection?
Look at it from the point of view of those in charge: They had years of Empire which they now look back on in fond regard, only to find that in the modern globalised world they are being outflanked by issues which are stubbornly global and which require the UK to cooperate to a greater and greater degree. Gone are the days when you needed only to send a battleship to hammer a port until it opened up to trade.
So the question remains, do we wish to move away from such elitism and towards a more meritocratic world? Or do we hide behind isolationism and hope that eventually the world economy will recover enough for us to claim that our system works fine without such usual checks as a written constitution etc?
The Conservatives are hoping that they can get a vote in now and secure a new relationship which means they do not need to bow to such global pressures. One should ask what laws they/we would like to avoid, and why? Do they wish to undercut the rest of the EU by offering the UK workers at a cut price by any chance? Without any recourse to pesky human rights? Why do we want the right to set shoe sizes to a different scale (for example). How would this help? There is a reason why so much of our legislature is from the EU: there is no point in having a different rule for us. The idea that there should be one rule for one set of people and one rule for another in an anachronism.
There may be a need for review though. The EU is stubbornly refusing to move towards a more democratic system, while assuming that everyone is on board. And do we need this debate now? Surely any investment in the UK will now go elsewhere in the EU. Why invest in the UK if their access to the EU market is in question?
So will this myopic political opportunism by the Conservatives work? Can they persuade the people to vote for a change back to the 'good old days' of Empire? Only time will tell.