Transformation of Political Values in the EU: Pros and Cons. The Papers of the “Round-table” Debate of the Lecturers and Students of Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
A. Glenkross assumes that D. Cameron was confident of winning the referendum on the basis of a pragmatism and bean-counting evaluation. However, the public opinion “was out of step with the government cost — benefit argument” and “David Cameron’s gamble proved a great miscalculation”4. The author ranks the 2016 referendum amongst the major political blunders of British Prime Ministers which caused shock waves across Europe and North Atlantic. The decision to delegate responsibility to the people ended up costing him his position as Prime Minister.
The UK government went into the renegotiation harbouring a legitimate concern that the Eurozone may act as a block within the EU, using its majority in the EU Council to pass laws, primarily for its own interests. As a result, financial regulations could be imposed on the City making it less globally competitive, thereby hurting a key UK economic interest. Lastly, there were the demands брексит дата surrounding individual rights. This is because the right of EU citizens to move to the UK became inherently politicized as part of a broader debate over immigration — a subject absent from the 1975 EEC referendum. The author reported that the Great Britain denied access to in-work benefits to recently arrived jobseekers from elsewhere in the EU, despite it was discriminatory.
Pro-EU positions were deemed risky and mainstream parties on the left and the right shied away from articulating a clear and forceful defence of the EU integration. This became more symptomatic in the UK where Eurosceptic positions became the norm and pro-EU politicians were self-censoring, being marginalised or ridiculed, especially by the dominant right-wing press. Brexit is primarily an opportunity to reconfigure European sovereignty around shared citizen interests, not solely EU Corporate interests.
It was a negative campaign that did nothing to emphasise the benefits of EU membership as a political or as a peace project (and didn’t even try to present the economic benefits, but only warned about their potential loss). The EU has been coopted by European global economic interests which downplays the European citizen and hence fragments European solidarity. the Continent could “relapse into the old system of power rivalries, reciprocal alliances, and hegemonic head butting.” This will pose a threat to the European order – a “continental system based on economic, political, and legal integration”, which has been the key to peace and prosperity.
This also would be consistent with Coase Theorem, in which the initial allocation of property rights doesn’t affect outcomes, as long as bargaining is costless. The reason the system did not work is because public enforcement of property rights was replaced by a system of private protection and enforcement on segmented markets.
According to the author, most challenging of all is what to do about participation in the single market — the location https://www.maximarkets.org/brexit/ for half of UK trade and a magnet for foreign investment. Complete withdrawal from this market is self-destructive.
The success on elections in European Parliament of populist Party of Independence of the United Kingdom was connected in the book with the general negative perception of EU and the requirement to restrict immigration from other EU countries. The author accuses T. Blair’s government of the scale of potential labour migration and chose not to impose transitional controls after the 2004 enlargement21. He mentions that even the Europhile wing in the Conservative Party recognized that enormous gains that the free movement https://www.maximarkets.org/ of EU citizens offers, such as capital mobility and free labour movement, provides UK businesses with a vast pool of resources with which to innovate and grow, can be realized but only on the basis of accepting constrains on immigration policy. As it becomes known from the book, the Eurosceptics demanded unilateral concessions for the UK, such as parliamentary veto on European legislative procedure, as well as concessions on fundamental principles of EU, in particular, concerning free movement of EU citizens22.
In conclusion the author summarizes that David Cameron’s gamble proved a great miscalculation with bad consequences for the UK domestic as well as foreign policy in the near future. He claims that for the settlement of constitutional issues a referendum as an element of direct democracy is not suitable. In 2016, as part of Palgrave Pivot series — which allows for speedy dissemination of medium-size studies брексит (around the length of three to six standard journal articles) a book on an important and sensitive topic, both for British and for world politics, was published in the UK. Its author, the British researcher, the senior lecturer of the chair of politics and international relations of Aston University, A. Glenkross prepared substantial, but not deprived of flaws the research within short limits of time.
“The public expect to be able to hold their governments to account very directly and as a result supranational institutions as strong as those created by the European Union sit very uneasily in relation to our political history and way of life”18. As a consequence, Britain tried to withdraw EU from closer integration and at times have been seen as an awkward member state, explained T.
90 % of UK exports by value would become subject to EU tariffs. The UK would need to negotiate its own “schedule” of tariffs and subsidies — a process requiring the formal consent of the other WTO members. Brexit necessitates the crafting of a new брексит дата multilateral arrangement with European trade partners or else a series of bilateral deals. New trade treaties are a matter of urgency as leaving the EU means breaking with the 53 countries that have negotiated a free trade agreement with it.