Comments 20

Brexit en de Amerikaans-Britse betrekkingen

Feb 15, 2016 Richard N. Haass

NEW YORK – Het besluit om wel of geen deel te blijven uitmaken van de Europese Unie moet uiteraard door het Brits volk en zijn gekozen vertegenwoordigers worden genomen. Maar niet alleen Britse en Europese belangen zullen door de uitkomst van dit referendum worden geraakt, dus het is zowel legitiem als gepast als ook andere partijen hun stem laten horen.

Laat mij als buitenstaander, met een belang bij wat er gebeurt, dus mijn recht uitoefenen om een duidelijke mening te ventileren: vanuit mijn gezichtspunt (en dat van veel andere Amerikanen) zou een besluit van Groot-Brittannië om de Europese Unie te verlaten onwenselijk zijn – zeer onwenselijk zelfs.

Ik ben mij bewust van de ironie die sommigen hier beslist in zullen ontwaren, gezien het feit dat de onafhankelijkheid van de Verenigde Staten zelf het gevolg was van het vaarwel zeggen door de Amerikaanse koloniën van Groot-Brittannië. Maar dat was toen, en dit is nu, en het vertrek van Groot-Brittannië uit Europa zou door de belangrijkste bondgenoot van dat land met evenveel spijt als zorgen worden begroet.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To continue reading, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Nov 14, 2018 Ricardo Hausmann
Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Nov 12, 2018 Jeffrey D. Sachs
Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Nov 13, 2018 Jan-Werner Mueller
Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

Nov 12, 2018 Peter Singer
A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

Nov 12, 2018 Brahma Chellaney

Richard N. Haass

Writing for PS since 2000
92 Commentaries

Richard N. Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, previously served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department (2001-2003), and was President George W. Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland and Coordinator for the Future of Afghanistan. He is the author of A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 25 in all 25 Comments on this article

Ott Toomet Feb 22, 2016

The issues that are often mentioned when advocating for Brexit are in many cases not EU specific. Dysfunctional political system, shortage of democracy and lack of transparency are common with all international agreements. If UK will carve out a new place for itself in the global politics and economy, it has to deal with exactly the same issues. It is virtually impossible to make binding international agreements without enforcing policies that are against interests of someone. You cannot get it all if you want to play with others.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 21, 2016

To which I would add Oz would be better off worrying about their hard commodities crash
- Steve Hurst Feb 21, 2016
  
  Opps, wrong A, an American not an Australian. With all these ex colonialists caring so much about us all I get mixed up and all emotional
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Chris Parry-Davies Feb 21, 2016

In response:-
1. Democratic deficit and political alienation
2. Structural and cultural incompatibility
3. Immigration, immigration and immigration

Beyond which I'm afraid every single argument put (except teh one about the Scots) is simply flawed; not in terms of the value judgement but the underlying realities of what has happened so far and likely to happen in the future. Here, it's fine for non-Brits to weigh in but it's probably a good idea to have a more accurate feel for the realities.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Livingston Feb 21, 2016

Mr Haass makes some valid points. But I wonder if he can see the irony of his remarks. An exit from the EU by the UK would indeed cause some problems for the US, but the biggest potential problem is rather closer to Mr Haass's home. The US regards itself as the leader of the democratic world and wants the rest of us to continue to take it seriously. And yet, before our increasingly bewildered eyes, we have the unfolding freak show which is the Republican Party nomination process. It looks like the GOP is seriously contemplating nominating Trump, which would place him but one short step away from The White House. Does Mr Haass understand the sheer disdain (not to say, alarm) that the rest of the world would feel for a country led by a President Trump? Such a country would have no right to claim leadership of the free world. Such a scenario would put Brexit firmly into the "minor issue" category!

Just exercising our reciprocal right to comment on the US, Mr Haass.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Perry de Havilland Feb 20, 2016

The interesting thing about this article is that it is not about Britain at all but just what is in US interests: ie it is just about the US side of that "special relationship".

It may be in US interests for the UK to remain in the EU, but there is no indication what the author thinks people in the UK should see as being in *their* interests. After all, it is not the US taxpayer who is a net contributor to the EU budget. Nor is it US businesses who are being regulated into uncompetitiveness by the EU.

So other that being convenient for US interests, why exactly should the UK wish to remain in the EU rather than rejoining a revitalised EFTA? Moreover, if Brexit leads to the UK breaking up due to Scotland leaving (which I doubt but frankly am also indifferent to), well what remains of the UK will still be a nuclear power with all the bits of the economy that actually matter still in England. I can live with that even if it is slightly inconvenient with our cousins in Foggy Bottom.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Feb 18, 2016

"Special relationship"? An interesting euphemism.
If it wasn't for the smooth talking Blair, Bush's best used car salesman, we wouldn't have the multi-decade disaster of the 2003 Iraq war which has ruined things so thoroughly for everyone. No thanks!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Feb 17, 2016

Richard N. Haass expresses his thoughts from an American point of view, about what the impact would be on Britain leaving the European Union. What worries him most is Britain's future, should a Brexit be reality. Apart from a secession of Scotland, which would constitute a breakup of the United Kingdom, Haass, who had been George W. Bush's special envoy to Northern Ireland in 2001-03, points out to a possible domino effect leading to a breakup of Northern Ireland, as there are already tensions between "pro-UK Unionists and Republicans." The latter might take advantage of the occasion to break away and join the Republic of Ireland.
But is this fearmongering? Although Haass says the decision lies with the Britons, a no-vote will be seen as "highly undesirable" by their "closest ally" on the other side of the Atlantic. The Americans would greet the Brexit "with equal parts regret and concern," because they have a "special relationship" with the UK, and they also value the role it plays in Europe. Even if a no-vote wouldn't change the bilateral partnership between the two natural allies, Washington would lose a conduit to the EU. So far it can count on Britian "to argue for and support positions in Brussels consistent with, or at least not far from, those of the US."
Haass says the “special relationship” between the UK and the US has suffered in recent years, when Westminster refused "until December to support military action in Syria." He complains about Britain being "a less dependable and less capable ally." But he has failed to understand Britons' reluctance to fight another war in the Middle East, after Tony Blair joined George W. Bush to invade Iraq in 2003, based on an erroneous assumption that Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons. Britain's decision to leave the EU may reflect "the reality and perception" of some Britons that they want their country to "marginalize its role on the continent," but they certainly have no desire to lose the special appeal among the Americans.
What Haass fears most is Germany's dominance in the Union without the UK, which he sees as not "healthy in the long run." Germany would less likely let the EU take centre stage "on the world scene," resulting in a "weaker Europe at a time when the US needs a stronger one." Perhaps he fears that history could repeat itself, with Germany turning the clock back to the 1930s.
Despite setbacks, he praises the "unprecedented stability and prosperity" that the European Union had secured for over 70 years, and he still envisions the purpose it continues to serve. A Brexit would only fuel nationalist and populist sentiments across the continent and destroy the bulwark of peace and unity that many Europeans have enjoyed. Indeed, Britain's in-out referendum on its EU membership hangs now like a Sword of Damocles over the heads of EU leaders, with the Union's future being at stake.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Johny Wright Feb 17, 2016

The UK must leave the EU – and for the very reason that the US wants the UK to stay in the EU – that is because the EU constantly promotes policies that are against the interests of the US – the UK with its cultural affinity to the US in terms of trade and military and diplomatic actions is seen as vital to the US in terms of moderating and holding back the damaging actions of the other EU countries. This being the case why should we continue to be a part of an organisation that is so damaging to US national interests? We should not - it is in the UK national interest to ensure that policies favourable to the US – which in general are in accordance with our own - are promoted and we can do this better from outside the EU by forming our own national policies free from EU interference, supportive of the US position when in accordance with the UK national interest.
The number one priority of any Government is protection of the state ie the people and their property. Whatever the views of another nation, who will be quite correctly looking out for their own national interest - as Mr Haass is doing in this article - it is clear that the UK’s national interest is best served by leaving the EU. To stay in the EU is to lose our national sovereignty and loss of independence in all areas of national importance such as control of our economy, domestic policy, justice policy, control of our foreign policy and of our armed forces and intelligence services. Without control of these we do not have national sovereignty. Go and talk to the people of the eurozone and see if they feel in control of their own country or if they are being dictated to by the unelected EU eurocrats in Brussels and Berlin.
As the EU is already controlled by Germany - with its junior partner France still pretending to have equal power with Germany – the UK has negligible influence within the EU as it is – why should we sacrifice our national independence in order to serve the interests of other nations? That would not be in the UK national interest – which must be our guiding principle at all times. The destruction of the UK armed forces which would be the end result of our continued membership of the EU – through the creation of an EU army which is under way - would not be in the national interest of the US. As our foreign and security policies become increasingly dictated by the EU - which views the US as a strategic competitor rather than the cousin (partner nation) that the US is viewed by the UK - it is in the US national interest that the UK remains a sovereign nation outside the EU – ensuring the UK’s position as a key US ally.
We constantly hear that the EU has brought peace to Europe for decades - it is more probable that the division of Germany and the Cold War stalemate with Russia ensured peace in Europe for decades. Mr Haass has a valid point about the rise of Germany’s power and I foresee that causing many problems in the future as German domination consolidates and their power is then projected – there is also a rise in anti-Americanism in Germany which will require close watching. Germany has already concluded a strategic partnership arrangement with China which the US and UK should both be concerned about – no doubt it is this partnership which has influenced our Chancellor George Osborne’s turn to China – far from the UK influencing the EU for good all the evidence shows it has always been the other way around in every respect.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing every time and expecting different results every time – our Government has been trying to reform the EU by reducing the regulatory burden for business and cut EU spending for decades – with what result - every year there are more EU regulations and the EU budget increases – the Treaty of Lisbon 2009 binds the EU to ‘ever closer union’ which means more and more areas will move under the Exclusive Competence of the Union leading to more EU laws and a completely federalised political Union and hence a complete loss of national sovereignty - this reform from within approach has been tried incessantly for decades and is thoroughly discredited – it does not work – we need to leave the EU and become a member of the EFTA like Switzerland. The EU would still remain an ally and we would continue to work with our partners across the EU in many areas.
Far from reducing the UK’s role in the world leaving the EU would actually make the UK more globally involved as it would be a driver to trade more freely across the globe – looking to the growing economies, populations and markets across the Commonwealth and further afield for economic opportunities rather than the crumbling and declining EU markets and populations. Freed from EU spending the UK should be able to increase it’s funding for the armed forces – which is sorely needed in today’s ever increasingly dangerous world and which the US would be glad of.
I speak here as an Irishman, born, bred, living and working in Northern Ireland and proud to be British. In terms of the impact a vote to leave the EU would have on the Northern Ireland peace process – it will not change the dissident republican terrorist campaign as it is an irrelevance to them and even to mainstream republicans whether the UK is in or out of the EU as their aim is to get the UK out of Ireland and create an independent united Ireland – the status of the UK is simply an irrelevance to them as it is viewed as a foreign country they want as little to do with as possible. The mainstream republican movement has declared for democracy and the ballot box, leaving the Armalite behind. A democratic vote to leave the EU would simply be another test of the republicans commitment to democracy and one they would have to live with - the same as the unionist population has to live with ex-terrorists in government as a result of a democratic mandate. I have to take this opportunity to thank Mr Haass for his efforts on our behalf and he is well aware of the difficulties of trying to integrate two not all that different communities in Northern Ireland – my question then is how does he think integrating many totally different countries, cultures and languages is going to end well? Of course there will always be tensions across the EU – which will only be exacerbated as ever more power moves to Brussels/Berlin and the true nature of the anti-democratic EU is revealed.

Mr Haass is quite correct that the US needs a stable ally, willing and able to project power and influence globally and that is precisely what the UK could do once it is freed from EU constraints and able to act in concert with our closest allies - the 5 eyes nations - to ensure peace, order and prosperity for our nations now and in the future.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Gallagher Feb 16, 2016

Since records began in 1996, the UK has not managed to prevent a single proposal placed in front of the EU council from becoming European law. This amounts to 72 measures that the UK opposed that have since become British law. Since 1973 the UK’s voting power in the Council of Ministers has decreased from 17% to 8%, in the European Parliament it has decreased from 20% to 9.5% and in the European Commission it has decreased from 15% to 4%. The UK has about 12% of the EU's population, it provides only 5% of the EU's staff and the situation is set to get worse. More than four in 10 British officials will be enjoying their retirement by 2020 and, based on the number of applicants in recent years, most of them will not be replaced (junior roles have only a 1.2% UK entrance rate) - this matters because legislation unlike in a democracy is drafted by unelected civil servants in the Berlaymont building, the EU Parliament is merely a rubber stamp with amending rights. Over the last European Parliamentary term (2009-14),a majority of British MEPs(across UK party lines) opposed 576 motions out of a total 1,936 that were put before the European Parliament. Of those 576 motions, 485 were nonetheless approved by the rest of the Parliament despite the opposition of a majority of British MEPs. This is a failure rate of 84%. This rises to 89% in Economic & Monetary affairs & 98% loss in Budget votes. We are the 2nd worst represented in the EU parliament after France with 839,194 inhabitants per MEP (Lux 76,667 per MEP, Ireland 350,750, Italy 816,000). "British Influence", we've seen British Influence in the laughable failure to compromise from the EU - a Red Card we can't use, a hand brake on migration we can't pull, and an opt out of "Ever Closer Union" that will be overturned the 1st time the EU Kangaroo Court (ECHR) decides to challenge it .

I have no idea why Foggy bottom continues in the delusional belief that Britain has any say in this venal Technocracy. But to be fair Mr Haass you are right in saying “given that the United States’ own independence came about when the American colonies exited Great Britain" it’s “Ironic – not a phrase I would use. The rank hypocrisy of a nation that used force of arms to gain self-determination in 1776 doesn't get to put it's 4 pennies worth in when the nation it fought against wants its own self-determination peacefully through the ballot box - regardless of the time difference in the decision. When America forms a political union with Central & South America and the decisions are taken from Washington courts and given to Nicaragua on spending and Bolivia on supreme court decisions (with America funding it all) then you may comment. I also resent the "not doing their fair share", firstly as a reservist in the British Army I am well aware of the value add to the 5 Eyes that Britain brings - and so should you; secondly the EU with its delusions of Martial might weakens NATO by duplicating command decisions - it does not strengthen them; finally Britain stuck to its 2% of GDP defence spending promises - if you want to look at the parasitic relationship then you should cast your eyes to the defence spending of others in the EU.

I believe the majority of the British people will reject being a "New Jersey" in the United States of Europe. "The last thing he or she will need is to have America’s closest partner distracted and drained by a difficult divorce". Well that's when you will have to make a choice - to continue to uphold your supposed ideals as stated by your Declaration of Independence, Monroe Doctrine et all (and help your country's largest inward investor at the same time). Or you can continue in your delusional belief that Britain gives you leverage in the EU and her independence should be sacrificed in order that the US state department can save money on Rosetta Stone language CD's.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Max Isert Feb 15, 2016

A more dominant Germany due to BREXIT would actually unite continental Europe in my estimation, and make that EU more coherent and powerful, but that ''old/new'' Europe would also turn away from the UK and the US, and towards Russia, China, Iran, etc., which would not be an ideal outcome either.
Time will tell.
Merkel's decision to let the immigrants/refugees flood into Europe was one of the worst decisions ever made in my opinion, and has made a BREXIT exponentially more likely. Merkel and her globalist/free trade/open borders supporters/enablers, unfortunately many of whom are Project Syndicate contributors, are the culprits and to blame for this disastrous situation we currently find ourselves in.
They displayed absolute hubris and incompetence.
A true disgrace, which makes me very angry and even more so sad. A united Europe by the way of the EU was a fantastic idea, and these people in their arrogance and ignorance single-highhandedly ruined it within the short span of a few months. I tried to warn and warn these ''Elites'' here on Project Syndicate through my comments in the months and years prior, but they would not listen...
- jagjeet sinha Feb 16, 2016
  
  @MaxIsert
  
  EUROPE WOULD ALSO TURN AWAY FROM THE UK/US ... TOWARDS RUSSIA.
  
  DeGaulle/Chirac dreams of PETROEURO ... leading to PUTINEURO.
  Russia always happiest inside Common European Home.
  Russia inside The EU ... perhaps the trigger that transforms Europe.
  Not sure if this outcome is what Europe bargained for.
  
  NATO Economics of 70 years produced a precious peace.
  A peace Europe has never known.
  
  Time will tell - indeed.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Feb 15, 2016

One cannot find fault with the immaculate fundamentals in the author's advocacy of Britain's role with Europe and The World.
Perhaps one way to explain the predicament within Europe is Excommunication.
So long as it was the European Economic Community, no geographic clusters could threaten another geography.
In the classic battle royale between TWA v PAN AM, no geographic clusters could threaten another geography.
But with EEC long morphed into THE EU, Greece was caught in the classic Excommunication predicament.
Many within Europe in fact want to use The Excommunication template repeatedly.
The American analogy would be when Texas California Florida ganged up to corner PAN AM.
There seems to exist a cluster within Europe that is in a position to threaten Excommunication.
Greece just recently was subjected to such siege-n-surrender. Germany has experienced several in its history.
We do not know the British public opinion - in 1973 they joined The EEC, now morphed into The EU.
Yet in the wider world context, the author rightly vents his unambiguous position.
The EU is very different from the EEC - which was effectively a NATO Economic Community.
The EU believes it's path is right - Britain believes that the EEC path was right.
The outcome of the referendum may deliver the decision.
History can only be written, never changed.
History also always written by the winners.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ROHIT CHANDAVARKER Feb 15, 2016

The analysis presents the US dilemma in the event of Brexit. What is left unsaid is as important as what is said. It is to be presumed that Brexit would diminish US influence over Europe with its closet & staunchest ally absent from the EU. The US has thus far been able to manoeuvre itself in EU through UK & Haass estimates that a stronger Germany, minus UK, would not be in US' interests. The NATO plans of buttressing the East with additional defences to counter a perceived Russian advance would also be jeopardised were Brexit to happen. In fact there is an implication that Brexit would pave the way for splitting up of UK, a fear that may be unfounded but certain to cause concern within UK's voters. The economic slowdown coupled with additional burden of immigrants & rise in far right voices has made the EU bonds strained between member countries & Brexit might accelerate a deeply divided EU.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jerry hough Feb 15, 2016

Since Haass will almost surely be a top policy maker under a Republican President, he has little freedom of speech. But let us hope that he understands that it is the utterly mad policy of the US in Libya and Syria--and earlier in Iraq--that is destroying EU with the refugees--and is ripping apart the American system.

The Saddams, Kaddafis, and Assads are the Elizabeth I of the Middle East, and the Middle East needs the equivalent of the naval coups of 1660 and 1688 to further its development. The Middle East 1832 is well in the future. The base of our policy should be secular stalizing rulers of the type we want to overthrow as we do the bidding of Saudi Arabia and Israel. Putin is another secular ally who is our natural ally in saving EU.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Margaret Bowker Feb 15, 2016

An informative point of view from Richard Haass. I couldn't find the new EU/UK relationship deal mentioned in the article, but read Bob Corker's comments on the subject. In fact, the writer's whole argument seemed to be that the UK shouldn't leave whatever. Everyone's best interests should be considered and the UK's need for an improved relationship with the EU doesn't have to come into it. I understand Richard Haass's concerns, his worries for the EU, for the US, Scotland and even globally; I don't necessarily agree with them, but obviously this will be part of the argument when the deal is debated. And it all depends on the deal. If it is considered not good enough by not only the Out camp, but by the 20% of the total vote, who are wavering 50/50 percenters waiting to dissect it, then the article is saying forget your principles and vote to stay. I'm going to have to take that one under advisement.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Anne Roorda Feb 15, 2016

I think Britain has missed a huge opportunity over the last few decades to become a leader within the EU and shape the organization in its own image.
Instead of becoming a leader of the EU and forming a powerful coalition of like-minded countries (Holland, Scandinavia, perhaps Spain, Portugal, Ireland, eastern Europe), it has stood passively on the sidelines and handed the leadership of Europe over to Germany and France.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cam Jennings Feb 15, 2016

Richard thank you for your article and as you stated the decision will be up to the British people. America is feeling vulnerable and maybe this is an underlying reason that why you believe that Britain needs to remain part of the EU. The multipolar world today is rapidly becoming one where we see the rest versus the West. Maybe if America had not wasted great opportunities since 1991 in building effective partnerships with the rest, there would not be the need to make this recommendation, that Britain remain in the EU.
When the dysfunction is removed from the EU as well as the UN then maybe we will see some twenty first century stability in the world. The world is not happy with the dysfunctional American system but we still unfortunately have to rely on it for various obvious reasons.
The prospects of a new American President having the ability to reform a most dysfunctional system, let us not be in denial here, there are badly needed reforms required to repair the systemic flaws.
I agree that Britain would be better within the EU, only if it is in Britain's best interest and not that of America as you state.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
hari naidu Feb 15, 2016

In framework of global realpolitik, the decline & fall of British Empire started with end of East India Co (Calcutta). Brexit will be the final act of historical reckoning....
UK didn't sign-up to Maastricht Treaty (Euro/EMU). It simply wanted a free trade area to export its products/services. That's the truth - unadulterated truth! Opt Outs!
Brexit will ultimately underwrite what Whitehall mandarins have always argued for; namely, removal of supranationality issue of EU Treaties (since Rome, 1958).
What US thinks or wishes is irrelevant. British citizens are sovereign to decide on Brexit. And, methinks, they will vote for exit!
- Cam Jennings Feb 15, 2016
  
  I agree with what you have said, it is up to Britain to decide.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 15, 2016

To answer the points made one at a time -

American foreign policy has a mixed record at best and more than a few 'misadventures'.

The majority of the British public by polls were against Iraqistan - a predominately USA inspired act - but a beligerent PM who thought he could talk to someone above pushed the matter thru parliament on faux arguments.

If the USA feels it has a damaged special US-UK relationship it should look to its own misbegotten policy decisions, but bizarrely the mistakes always seem to be made elsewhere when you read USA scripts

Why on earth should Britian feel it is its responsibility to balance German policy. It is the German responsibility to act within the EU for the good of the EU and German. Note EU and Germany not just Germany. The mere fact that Germany is considered needing a balancing oppostion says Germany is not at present fit to lead the EU which is what it repeatedly attempts to do by de facto unilateral decisions. If there is resentment from other continentals to Germany that is something for them to sort out. I am not surprised there is a problem the Euro is a gigantic pickpocketing machine.

Furthermore it is quite clear many continentals have to undertake the reforms that Britian had to decades ago but remain - to say the least - reluctant to. Those stresses will continue until those reforms are made

The issue of 'support' for action in Syria is a red herring at best because one can hardly decribe the USA as keen to get involved. The simple fact is bombing will not sort that mess. Boots on the ground are needed and they will not be Western due to a lack of appetite for bodybags. That leaves the mixed bag of local militias on the ground who have already been described by USA military officials as unlikely to make a cohesives force. Thus I am afraid the game ia with Putin and active neighbours. Sen. Kerry is not with the game

If Americans are uncertain enough about their actions that Brexit influences them to become isolationist that has to be based on a trend. It can only be there already. Please book into a therapist and learn to stop blaming others for your inate dispositions

I would suggest that the issue there is not what Britian does or dosent do but the fact that a large number of continentals are not doing any heavy lifting as clearly identified in their military budgets. US focus therefore needs to be on those shortchanging implicit commitment via Nato

Zika and migrants are equally red herrings. If a region with a population of 500 million collapses because of 1million migrants turning up it is not fit for purpose. Zika is not present endemically in Europe. The problem Britian faces is neverending flow of mainly Eastern EU workers seeking work in the UK causing welfare provison problems and housing shortages

A 'simple reality' must be kept in mind. Britian is not asking for anything unreasonable. The whole reason democracy florishes is because it is adaptive. It is the EU which is frozen in its thinking and unadaptive to events

As for America. To hell with America. America left the Britian to go bust after WW2 and sent Keynes packing when he went to ask on behalf of the UK guvnt for a loan to save Britian. The only reason one came thru subsequently was via the Marshall Plan which was implemented out of shear US panic at the idea of Communism taking over Europe. That US-UK loan has only just been paid off

Special relationship?
- Cam Jennings Feb 15, 2016
  
  A lucid reply that I applaud.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jonathan Story Feb 15, 2016

Mr Haas is presenting an erudite version of the State Department's view to the effect that the UK's parliament and law courts should be overridden by an EU federal or super state. This was the view of the Heath government, though never openly acknowledged. Nonetheless, it is written into Section 2.1. of the 1972 Act of Accession, which states:
“All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly; and the expression ” enforceable Community right” and similar expressions shall be read as referring to one to which this subsection applies.”
By this wording, the UK official position endorses a supranational EU. There is marginal support in the country for this position; Germany via the Constitutional Court regularly challenges the claims of the European Court of Justice to primacy. Indeed, the ECJ has no treaty based powers to endorse its claim to be the EU's Supreme Court.
What is more, the two major supranational projects of the EU, the Euro and Schengen providing for free movement, have turned out to be disasters.
Why? Because Europe is a mosaic of interdependent peoples and states, which have an interest in shaping flexible regimes that reflect the realities of Europe. Europe is not amenable to rule out of Brussels, let alone Berlin. The problems of Europe are due to the resulting mismatch.
What should the UK do? Cameron has the opportunity to win the referendum to stay in on a resounding majority, but on British terms which the British alone define. All he has to do is to pocket whatever ludicrous concessions that he may eke out of the EU, return to London and have Section 2.1. rewritten to the effect that the Crown in parliament is sovereign in the UK. That would reinstall the 1689 Bill of Rights at the heart of the UK's constitutional arrangements, thereby put us on the same wave length as the US, keep the UK in the EU, make the UK a vigorous champion of a Europe of the states; and preserve the concept and partial relaity of the single market.
By promotin g pie-in-the-sky supranationalism, the State Daparetment, the UK government, the dreamers in Brussels, and the ideologues around Europe, have vigorously paved the way for the real ideologues to close in on power, most notably in France.
Mr Haas would be more convincing if he wrote a mea culpa on behalf of the State Department for its mindless support of a mythical Europe.
See my blog:

https://storybookreview.wordpress.com/2014/11/28/the-uks-supranationalism-is-at-the-root-of-its-eu-difficulties/
- Peter Lappo Feb 21, 2016
  
  Well said.
  And for an American to tell the UK to accept an undemocratic arrangement is, given America's history, very ironic.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Cam Jennings Feb 15, 2016
  
  Well stated reply.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/WMj44S6/nl;

Brexit en de Amerikaans-Britse betrekkingen

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

How Not to Fight Income Inequality

Trump’s Diminishing Power and Rising Rage

Why Freedom of Assembly Still Matters

Are You Buying Oil from Saudi Arabia?

A Concert of Indo-Pacific Democracies

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Give Italy’s Government a Chance

Europe’s New Political Battle Lines

The Dred Scott of Climate Change?

The Bank of Japan’s Stealth Tapering

Vaccinating Against Superbugs

Trump’s Protectionist Quagmire

Disaster Capitalism Comes to Puerto Rico

Rethinking Animal Agriculture

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register