(13f) Love letter by Mr Timmermans to Britain
Mr Frans Timmermans, executive vice-president of the European Commission, wrote a letter which he calls a love letter as a response to the UK that may be leaving the EU soon, the so-called Brexit. In his letter he tells the British that they are more than welcome to return may they decide to do so. Of course, after Brexit is completed, the British can return if they wish. But, I think, first Brexit has to be completed and the sooner the better so relations can return to normal and the UK may consider to rejoin. Or not.
Organisation of referendum
First, in the fifth paragraph of the letter Mr Timmermans mentions although not by name that David Cameron made a wrong decision when he organised the EU referendum. I don't agree; even the LibDems who were in the coalition with the Tories didn't block the referendum as they could have done by leaving the government. I accept many politicians may have thought that organising the referendum would have silenced the leavers while the remainers would massively vote to remain inside the EU. Unfortunately, it turned out that the Brexiters were a (small) majority and the result was confirmed during the latest general elections where PM Boris Johnson, a leaver who promised out is gone, won and with a larger majority than most observers expected.Still, in a democracy it should become normal that referendums are
held on important issues, certainly when a society is as much divided as the UK has
been for decades. Afterwards, the outcome needs to be respected, executed and later can be changed - that's how democracy should work I think.
Brexit and Trade discussions
An important message
to the UK: you are welcome if you wish to return to the EU. When a majority of
UK's people wishes. In the meanwhile, the UK can solve its internal troubles
such as the union between England, Scotland, N-Ireland and Wales.
Unfortunately
but the trade talks may spoil much as this in effect means Brexit continues while most
people thought Brexit talks were difficult because also the future trade
relations were discussed so after an agreement Brexit would be done and we could
focus on the restoration of normal relations. And thus, let the fight continues
as a fight it likely will be whereby each side will try to defend its own position. Indeed, this is different from trade discussions with other countries that were not part of the EU and thus want a deal instead of regaining liberty. I hope it will not worsen relations even further on both sides. Indeed, EU's new Commission President von der Leyen finds it a pity talks have to be completed within one
year while, because the UK was part of the EU and because of the Brexit discussions the public would expect both sides know each others position. Why did we have three years of Brexit talks when now it seems with little progress? Do politicians really no longer understand signals coming from societies?
During the latest UK election people voted overwhelmingly for the Tories who
promised to get Brexit done, even when this meant people had to vote for a party they never
thought they would vote for. And still this Brexit saga wil continue.
Federal Europe
"The British doubts over the European project had offered a healthy check on the more federalist ambitions of figures through the decades,...".
I don't
read this in Mr Timmermans' letter. The problem in Europe is that throughout
its history usually the capital rules. Indeed, some politicians use the term
"federal" when they mean "unitary", i.e. a central capital
knows best and thus more powers for Brussels. I think such a Europe is doomed to fail.
Federalism is, I think,
the only way to continue the EU, i.e. local powers to regions while
collaboration at a higher level in such a way that the EU helps lesser regions
to develop as happened during the past decades. That doesn't mean
countries can exploit the EU by cheating so they receive money they don't
deserve; than the EU can punish as the EU does. And thus, for me a federal Europe means the capital Brussels stimulates collaboration between countries so lesser developed countries can improve as done during the past decades. Of course, reforms are possible and even necessary such as, I think, the introduction of EU taxes whereby individual member states contribute less while the wealthy have to pay EU taxes throughout the EU and can't move away from their country to escape responsibility as many did in Greece during its austerity years, and as a result life became even worse for ordinary people who had to contribute even more to repay the Troika.
But,
although the UK always complained the EU made rules the UK didn't like, even when the
EU granted exceptions for the UK; if only London could force its (economic)
vision (of neoliberalism) on the other EU countries, it is very likely it wouldn't accept
complaints from and grant exception to other countries. Thus, I think that
abandoning the federal idea but in its real meaning (i.e. local powers and
federal collaboration) and we will see the disintegration as each country and
region wants to preserve its own identity within a larger union just as the UK wishes;
that's federalism. But, as Europeans are used that the capital decides and the rest
must follow they interpret federalism wrongly. The USA are the example were states have their own powers although
foreigners mainly hear and see the federal government. Thus, for me, federal means over the borders
such as highways connecting different states, federal parks, army, FBI, CIA while states under their own governor means within borders such as local police to solve local crimes; of course, collaboration between states is possible and help from the federal government when needed.
Conclusion
And thus, in politics emotions are worthless because the electorate decide and politicians should make the best out of it. That doesn't mean people should be without emotions because they go into politics to change society for the better and this according what they believe is the best solution. But, in case of Brexit, the referendum decided and thus Brexit should be accepted so political parties could have gone into the last general election with a proposal how they want future relations with the EU while later Brexit may be undone during another referendum.
Not accepting democracy harms democracy: voters become disillusioned because their vote is ignored and thus may vote even more extreme. Or politicians try to reverse a decision and people get fed up with it. Of course, when politicians say they will not accept democracy or threaten to prosecute a certain section of society than those politicians should be opposed, certainly when their actions confirm their election program. But, this was not the case with the Tories who told the voters they would "have Brexit done" and thus won; other parties who suggested to reverse the referendum lost, at least when seen nationwide.
Comments