Brexit: What to expect

The outcome of the Brexit referendum may be one of the most important geopolitical events of the early twenty-first century. Some think that the EU would be dissolved by similar referendums elsewhere; others think that Britain would be dissolved when Scotland (and even Northern Ireland) decides to leave. In this essay, I discuss the long-term impact of Brexit on both the EU and Britain itself.

The rest of the world was quite surprised when Britain voted on 23 June 2016 with a 52/48% margin to leave the European Union of which it was a member since 1973. Financial markets reacted with alarm: the British sterling fell to a 31 year low against the dollar and stock markets lost 2 trillion dollars on 24 June – the biggest one-day loss on record (it lost 3 trillion dollars in total). Shortly afterwards various credit rating agencies downgraded Britain's sovereign credit score. David Cameron, the prime minister, resigned and said that he would leave it to his successor to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which would start the process of Britain leaving the EU.

There can be no doubt that Brexit would have a far-reaching impact on both Britain and the EU. If Britain leaves the EU, its economy may be severely affected by such a move. It is especially the power of the City of London – the leading financial centre in the world – that may be diminished. And if Scotland leaves, Great Britain may be reduced to Little England. Some commentators think that Brexit would also have a domino effect which may lead to the undoing of the EU. This is unlikely to happen. In fact, the EU would most probably be in a much stronger position after Britain has left! We might even see that the EU and the US start drifting apart over the next few decades. This may be the most important outcome of Brexit.

Geopolitical trembles

Why is Brexit such a great deal? It is because of the geopolitical significance of Britain's place in the EU. Over the past few decades, Britain served the Anglo-American establishment's interest in the EU (also nowadays called "Atlanticist"). Since the Anglo-American establishment fears that the EU would rise to become an independent player on the world-stage, they tried their best to control the process of EU integration. They fear that the EU would develop in accordance with the Gaullist vision for Europe, named after President Charles de Gaulle of France, who vetoed British membership when that country originally applied to join the club. In recent times that vision was represented by French president Jacques Chirac (1995-2007) who resisted the George W Bush administration's ideas for the Middle East (and who became a hated figure in the Anglo-American press).

In the context of geopolitics, Britain anchors the EU within the Anglo-American world. As such Britain played two very important roles since it joined the European project, namely to represent the Anglo-American interests in the EU and to keep the process of EU integration within acceptable parameters. Originally Britain held (with the other EU countries) veto powers over a wide spectrum of EU matters. These were phased out within the context of a compromise between the Anglo-American and Continental (Gaullist) factions in the EU according to which every significant step in "deepening" the project through further integration was be complimented with a corresponding "widening" of the European project (which provided the Anglo-Americans with a larger market). During the first decade of the twenty-first century we, for example, saw a significant enlargement (in 2004 ten new countries joined) as well as a significant increase in political integration (with the Lisbon Treaty of 2007).

The effectiveness of Britain's power to block EU integration has, however, waned over the last few years since she lost her veto right in many areas. As such Britain was outvoted in 2012 when she tried to stop the Fiscal Compact as well in 2014 when she tried to stop the leader of the winning party in the EU elections (Jean-Claude Juncker) from becoming president of the EU commission (which was effectively a devolution of power from the EU Council to the EU parliament). Britain was also unable to block the financial transactions tax in court that 10 EU countries want to install (which has not yet been finalized). The main reason for Britain's setbacks in all these areas is that many other EU countries regard Britain as obstructionist. And the EU treaties – especially the principle of "enhanced cooperation" – allows groups of countries to establish advanced integration or cooperation within EU structures without the other members being involved.

The EU has now come to the point where there is a strong impulse to proceed with further integration in the context of so-called "economic governance". This basically means that some Eurozone countries want to proceed with further economic integration – they even envision a Eurozone finance ministry with its own budget. Britain is afraid that the Eurozone countries would introduce rules and regulations which would be enforceable in the City of London. In an effort to differentiate Britain within the EU, David Cameron concluded a "special status" agreement with the 27 other EU countries in February 2016 on which the British people voted in the 23 June referendum.

Although the agreement between Britain and the EU (now discarded) included various aspects of which the provisions regarding migrants and welfare benefits were especially accentuated, its most important feature was that it presented a framework to regulate all financial transactions in a fair manner. Both Britain and the other EU countries are afraid that the other would gain some undue advantage over her/them. The agreement states in this regard that a "single rulebook is to be applied by all credit institutions and other financial institutions in order to ensure the level playing field within the internal market". But even in this context, the City of London would have had a large influence over the process of EU economic integration due to its more favourable regulatory environment.

If Brexit leads to Britain leaving the EU (which is not yet a foregone conclusion), then the Anglo-American establishment may eventually lose control over the process of EU integration. This would in the first instance involve economic integration – although the relevant EU countries (especially Germany and France) would probably wait until the period of "reflection" after the British referendum is over before commencing with a process of deepening "economic governance" of the Eurozone. The German chancellor Angela Merkel is especially concerned that too much talk of further integration at this stage would play into Euroskeptics' hands. After Brexit the EU would also be able to establish an EU army – something over with Britain still has a veto right. With Britain out of the EU, a core of EU countries would be able to pursue their vision of an "ever closer union" which could make the EU a very powerful economic and military player.

The Anglo-American and Continental factions in the EU have different visions as to what the EU should eventually look like. The Anglo-Americans want the EU to consist of various overlapping "clubs" whereas the Continentals want it to develop a multi-speed approach according to which a core of EU (Eurozone) countries would be allowed to proceed with further integration. The Eurozone and Schengen (a shared EU visa) areas may be regarded as such "clubs" in the framework of the EU. If the Continentals get their way, these would be further strengthened in such a manner that an EU "core" is formed through further economic and political integration - which would stand in contrast with those EU countries which stay in the slower lane. Brexit would in time provide a strong impulse to realize the second vision.

The Anglo-Americans would do all in their power to bind the EU within their geopolitical sphere even when Britain has left the EU. As such they would try to bring the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to fruition. Although this agreement seems to establish merely a common economic zone, the leaders of these countries also view it in geopolitical terms – as integrating the economic interests of the USA and the EU. We can also expect that the EU's military capabilities would be integrated into the context of NATO – already during the next NATO summit. The question is whether these arrangements would be sufficient to keep US and EU interests aligned.

The EU would disintegrate?

There are two kinds of EU countries which stand to lose a lot when Britain leaves the EU. The first are those countries who share Britain's "Anglo-Saxon" approach to financial and economic matters. These include the Netherlands and Denmark. These countries traditionally relied on Britain to lead the pact of free marketeers in the EU (especially regarding financial services). There have been suggestions that some of these and other countries may also hold referendums and leave with Britain.

Whether or not more countries join Britain in leaving the EU (if it comes to that) would be determined by the divorce-deal that Britain would be able to negotiate with the EU. At this stage the EU holds the best cards – they have the much sought after market of about 500 million people. The challenge for the EU is to give Britain a fair deal (to not destabilize Britain's friends in the EU) but at the same time to discourage other countries from following Britain's lead. The strict terms that the EU leaders have set for the divorce – no informal negotiations before Article 50 is triggered and no exemptions from the four basic principles of the free trade zone (free movement of workers, capital, goods and services) are intended to discourage others from doing the same. Although an eventual deal might see some leniency in some of these areas, the EU would not agree to a deal that would lead to its own destruction.

The other country that would find itself in a weaker position when Britain leaves the EU is Germany. Since Germany is an export country, and many of its cars (for example) are sold on the British market, she would work to not upset this arrangement. Germany also needs Britain to offset the French initiative in the EU (the French are openly hostile to the "Anglo-Saxon" model and would like to see more lenient fiscal policies in the EU). Although Germany and France have traditionally been regarded as the engine which drives the process of EU integration, Germany is not always at ease with the French ideas in this regard and Britain – as the second largest economy – often brought the balance. With Britain out of the EU, we may expect to see more of the trio Germany-France-Italy in action which means a much stronger role for the southern EU states and their particular approach (for example, in opposing the German idea of austerity).

There is, however, another even more important way in which Germany would be affected by Brexit. With Britain out of the EU, the power of Germany with regard to the other EU countries would become an issue of major concern. Various southern EU countries (especially the Greeks) already view the Germans as the strict and uncompromising masters of the EU who force their view on them.

The new situation that Germany would find itself in would be similar to the period directly after the reunification of Germany in 1990 when there were fears that the new Germany would be too strong for the EU – which led to the Maastricht Treaty that created the European Union in 1993 and to the creation of the euro. The argument then was that a strong Germany necessitates a strong EU. One can expect (in the case of Brexit) that the same argument would be heard again in the not too distant future – which would pressure Germany to accept the French proposals for "economic governance" which may involve shared liability in some areas. This would be an important step towards the EU eventually becoming some sort of United States of Europe.

What about Britain?

Although it is possible that Britain might come out of Brexit as a stronger country, the odds are greatly against this happening. There are just too many things that can go wrong over which the British government has very little control. Some of these concern the City of London and others the geographical integrity of Great Britain.

The economic welfare of Great Britain is closely connected to that of the City of London which has grown over the last decade into the leading financial centre of the world. The City has a GDP of about 17 % of that of Britain, which is larger than that of several EU countries! An important part of the City's wealth is in turn dependent on its access to the EU market – especially regarding financial services. As such it has what is called "financial passport" rights which made it the best place from where to sell financial services throughout the EU. Brexit may change this.

There are various conflicting opinions as to whether the City would be better or worse off outside the EU. A major concern is whether the City would be allowed to keep its financial passport rights after Brexit. If this access to the EU market is lost, it may have a significant impact on the City's long-term future as a major financial centre. Although the financial culture in the City is both specialized and global in a manner that cannot at this stage be equalled by other EU centres such as Frankfurt or Paris, future EU regulation may impact on the City in ways that are not conceivable at the moment. The French might not be willing to extend its offer of a "level playing field" to Britain during the divorce negotiations.

Another area of concern is whether Scotland would stay a part of Great Britain after Brexit. Both Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar voted in the Brexit referendum in favour of staying in the EU. The Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has proposed that parts of Britain – which would include Scotland and maybe Gibraltar and Northern Ireland – stay part of the EU even when the rest of Britain leaves. There is a president for this – whereas Denmark is part of the EU, Greenland, which is an autonomous part thereof, is not. For Scotland to stay part of the EU after the rest of Britain leaves, it would have to negotiate its own special status agreement with the EU to retain its current EU benefits and obligations while the rest of Britain negotiates its departure. Since the Scottish parliament may have to agree to a Brexit, the Scots may have some leverage in this regard.

The reason why Sturgeon takes this option instead of merely going for full independence from the rest Britain is that once Scotland is outside Britain (and the EU) it would be very difficult to get back into the EU. Spain would most probably veto an independent Scotland's joining the EU since it fears that Catalonia would do the same. If Scotland stays part of the EU after the rest of Britain has left, it can always become independent without endangering its place in the EU. We might, therefore, find that Scotland leaves Britain - and she might not be alone. There is also renewed talk of the reunification of Ireland. Such developments would significantly reduce Britain's stature in the world. One does not know what Britain (Little Britain or even Little England) would do with its nuclear submarine fleet stationed in Scotland.

In the final instance, it seems that Brexit might result in the City of London losing its financial EU passport rights and in Britain losing Scotland. In the end, this might leave Britain a much-diminished country – maybe somewhat like Venice who was once a major financial centre in Europe.

Conclusion

Although there are many commentators who think that the EU would become weak and disorientated after a Brexit, I am not one of them. In my view, the EU would become stronger. In time, it would become much stronger! The EU would not disintegrate. Instead, we might expect over the next few years that the EU would proceed with its program for stronger economic governance and stronger military cooperation. If the EU leaves Britain behind, it would proceed not only to form a political union; it would become one of the most powerful players on the world scene.

We might expect some surprises in the Brexit game. A large part of the Anglo-American establishment was caught by surprise by the Brexit vote. Since it has such far-reaching implications, they might even try to turn the wheel backwards and keep Britain in the EU. There is already a lawsuit filed which would require that the British parliament agrees to Brexit. Some EU countries like Germany would also prefer that Britain stays in the EU. The Continentals would, however, rejoice. They would try to block all such efforts. They have an opportunity to place the City forever behind in their efforts to build a great United States of Europe. Coming events in Britain and the outcome of the negotiations with the EU would show how successful they were in this regard.

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

 

Britain and the EU: what future?

"The European Union that emerges from the Eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body. It will be transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the Eurozone." – David Cameron

The speech by the British prime minister, David Cameron, on the future of Europe is of great importance for all who are interested in future developments in the European Union (EU). He presents not only the British position, but also gives important clues regarding the future direction that the union will take. In this essay, I discuss Britain's relationship with Europe, the possibility of Britain leaving the union, the new structure of the EU that will probably evolve over the next few years through treaty changes, and what the EU of the distant future would look like. And how Turkey and the Muslim democracies of the Arab world will eventually be included.

An important new phase has started in the long process of constructing the European Union (EU). A process that could totally alter the form of the union as we know it today. This new phase is already long in the making, but the speech of the British prime minister, David Cameron, on 23 January 2013 has officially opened this new discussion on the future of Europe – a discussion that will lead to treaty changes and a total restructuring of the EU. Cameron wants "a better deal for Britain", and "a better deal for Europe too". The question is: What will this new Europe look like? In this essay, I make some proposals in this regard.

Britain and Europe

When one read David Cameron's speech, it is clear that Britain's involvement with Europe was, is, and will probably always be, very ambivalent. On the one hand Britain shares a long history with Europe, but on the other hand, it views itself as an "island" off the coast of Europe. This basic observation, namely that island states and continental states view geopolitics very differently, lies at the heart of its ambivalent relationship with Europe. Island nations like Britain (and Venice or Tyre before it) has become influential through trade – and to this day Britain is primarily a trading nation. Continental states traditionally became influential when they gained control over the surrounding areas with its resources and access routes – which requires political unification.

In Europe, this conflict of interest – with Britain trying to stop continental states like (Napoleonic) France or (Nazi) Germany from becoming too influential and thereby endangering her own commercial interests; with the continental states trying to form alliances or consolidate power in opposition to Britain – has lead to many European wars. And Britain knew how to play these continental powers against each other to further her own interests (see my article Predicting a war against Iran? - an inquiry into war and peace cycles). But after the last great war, the main continental states decided to build a Europe of peace – a Europe that will be united politically and therefore never be able to fight each other again. And they (especially general De Gaulle) originally tried to keep Britain out of the union – because they knew that Britain would try to sabotage the whole project. But Britain saw both a threat and an opportunity in this – the threat of an opposing power rising next door and the opportunity of a great market for trade. The result was that Britain eventually joined the union - but only after the process of unification was irreversible.

Britain, a country with a proud history – and without the motivation of European powers like Germany and France to unite – always had a problem to surrender sovereignty. And the closer the union grew, the more Britain became uncomfortable with the goal of an "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" as is stated in most treaties since the Treaty of Rome in 1957 (which established the European Economic Community). With the Lisbon Treaty of 2007 (in force since 2009), which gave the union a legal identity, increased the power of the European Parliament, established a President of the European Council and a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Britain has reached the limit of its willingness to surrender sovereignty to Brussels. In fact, she wants to take some of those powers back. And maybe even leave.

Will Britain leave the union?

It is clear from Cameron's speech that he does not want Britain to leave the union. He said: "I believe that Britain should want to remain in the EU". Although there are many voices – especially from the United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP) – that want Britain to leave, this is unlikely to happen. Why? For the same reasons that Britain has joined the union in the first place. It is not in Britain's strategic interest to leave the union altogether. Such a move would leave Britain adrift on the large and dangerous sea of international politics – and result in it becoming a second Venice. Nice to visit – but without any political power.

The reasons for Britain to stay in the European Union are straightforward and Cameron has mentioned them in his speech. First of all, it gives the Anglo-American establishment some influence in the future process of development in the union. Britain, with its special relationship with the USA, is effectively the voice of those interests in the EU. One of the greatest fears in these circles is that the EU would develop into a political block which is independent – and even in opposition – to the USA. This is a real fear – some French voices (in the Gaullist tradition) have proposed working towards a multi-polar world in which the USA's power will be effectively restricted. Britain's involvement as a major player in Europe serves as an effective hedge against any future developments in this direction. Without Britain in the EU, it is even possible that the Anglo-American alliance can unravel because the USA might not see the use of it any more. Direct alliances with the EU would be better.

The second reason is that the City of London – the heart of Britain's commercial power – provides access to the European Market. Many businesses and countries outside the union use the City of London as a springboard into Europe. David Cameron mentioned that "Britain has been the destination of one in five of all inward investment into Europe" since 2004. If Britain does not have influence in the union – even if she still have access to the market in a way similar to Switzerland or Norway (who have "no say at all in the setting of rules; it just have to implement its directives") – the whole strategic position of the City would be undermined. Outsiders (Britain would be one of them) would rather use other channels in the EU to facilitate their interests. When the City loses its influence, Britain will lose her's too. So, although Cameron has promised an in-out referendum for 2017 if he is re-elected, the chance of Britain actually leaving the union is very slim. There are powerful interest groups that will do everything to stop that from happening. With a new arrangement on the table, voters will probably choose to stay put.

Building a new Europe

The real fear of the Anglo-Americans is that the measures that the Eurozone countries have taken to overcome the financial crisis will eventually result in a two-speed Europe (it actually already has), with a strong group of European countries (which will not include Britain) gaining political cohesion, leaving the others behind. That countries like Britain, who is outside the core, will have much less influence in the union; that they will not be able to stop the rest from taking decisions that could in principle be harmful to British interests. Cameron tried previously in 2011 to veto the Fiscal Compact, but the Eurozone countries and other countries who joined them, bypassed his veto by agreeing to an inter-governmental treaty, i.e. outside the EU (although compatible with EU law). Since the financial crisis all talk has centred around the Eurozone - this after more than 50 years during which it centred around the EU (and the European Economic Community).

With his speech, David Cameron is trying to influence the process of change in Europe while he is still in a strong position. The Eurozone countries have so far tried to integrate aspects of their economies without EU treaty changes – but eventually, they will need some changes. And this is the opportunity that Cameron wants to use to negotiate a better deal for Britain. What Cameron proposes, is that the "core of the European Union must be, as it is now, the Single Market". The Single Market – with Britain at its heart, must be the foundation of Europe. Upon this structure could all the various diverse structures of the union be built: "We need a structure that can accommodate the diversity of its members... some of whom are contemplating much closer economic and political integration". He mentioned the Schengen group of nations which excludes Britain but includes even some outside countries like Switzerland, Norway, Lichtenstein and Iceland. He also mentioned the military alliance between Britain and France, both countries who are "willing and able to take action in Libya or Mali". His proposal is not too different from that of Tony Blair, a previous British prime minister, who proposed a community of European "clubs".

What Cameron does not want, is a "two-speed" Europe. But it is too late to stop this from happening. The European Union has effectively developed into two groups of countries, namely those who are part of the union but do not participate in the Euro, and those who do. The Eurozone countries form a core group of countries which are integrating their economies more and more – working towards a full monetary, fiscal, banking and economic union. With the introduction of the Euro, the monetary union became a reality. And now, during the financial crisis, important steps were taken towards a fiscal union (with the Fiscal Compact), banking union (agreement was reached in December 2012) and economic union (this year will probably see some steps to equalize economic policy). The EU is beginning to look like the "core Europe" as proposed by Wolfgang Schäuble and Karl Lamers in 1994.

So, there are two proposals as to where the "core" should be. The Germans and French want to see a core group of countries which move towards full economic and, eventually, political union. The British want the Single Market to be the "core", as Cameron said in his speech: "At the core of the European Union must be, as it is now, the Single Market". So where will the core be? Cameron actually made another interesting remark, namely that the Single Market should be the "foundation" of the European Union: "Let's start with this proposition: we are a family of democratic nations, all members of one European Union, whose essential foundation is the Single Market rather than the single currency". He proposes that the Single Market be the foundation upon which all the European clubs are built – even the Eurozone. In a future compromise, it is possible that we will indeed see the Single Market (which the Germans also strongly endorse) being established as the foundation upon which the central core of Eurozone countries, and later the political union, is built.

Pieter Bruegel's tower?

The main problem that the Europeans have with Cameron's proposal, is that he wants Britain to stay in the union, but with some powers that have previously been transferred to Brussels, returned to London (they don't like the idea of "cherry picking"). This implies that he wants to create another grouping in the union (if other countries were to join Britain in this regard) which would be even less integrated with the union than those European Union countries who are not part of the Eurozone! This means that we will have countries like Britain who are part of the European Union, part of the Single Market, but at a lower level of integration than the present European Union countries which have not yet joined the Eurozone. 

If this level represents those countries who are only interested in joining the basic Single Market (and not the rest of the EU structure), then we can envision a future EU structure where this serves as the foundation upon which all the other levels of integration within the union are built - each upon the other. This means that the various layers will build upon each other like that of a ziggurat or step pyramid. Such a structure will correspond to some degree with the proposal that the union should become a "concentric circles Europe", with some countries at the periphery, others somewhere in the middle and a core group of countries at the center (as proposed by Michael Mertes and Norbert J. Prill, advisers to German Chancellor Helmut Kohl). This reminds one of a painting by Pieter Breugel of the tower of Babylon (painted in 1563) which have been used on an EU poster in the period when there were 12 countries in the union (1986-1993) (these were represented with twelve stars – of which only eleven were visible – in the sky above the tower). There is, interesting enough, a Brussels-based think tank named after the painter! The British idea of clubs would ensure that these layers are interconnected in various ways, like structures within this larger pyramid.

Such an EU structure could be built through negotiation between the core and the periphery – between the continental countries and Britain. Since Britain's inclusion in the union an unspoken rule has regulated her relation with the other EU partners, namely that for every step of "widening" (enlargement of the Single Market), there would be an equivalent step of "deepening" the union (with growing political cohesion). The best example of this is the enlargement of 2004 when 10 new countries (mainly from Eastern Europe) joined the union, which was followed with a considerable deepening of the union through the Lisbon Treaty in 2009 (after years of difficult negotiations).

But this process has reached its limits – Britain does not want to participate in any further deepening of the union. I propose that the rule will in future be applied in a different way: for every step to deepen the union (allowing a core group of countries to move towards economic and political union), an equivalent step of widening the union through enlargement, i.e. of adding more countries to the Single Market (as the "foundation" of the union), would follow. In this way, the deepening of the core will go hand in hand with a widening of the base. Once Britain takes a step backwards from its present arrangement with the union, many other countries (still outside the union) could in principle join her to become part of the European Union on that basic level.

Such a European structure will solve another problem – how to accommodate Muslim countries like Turkey in the union. Although Turkey's application for membership has been accepted, there are many countries (especially France) who do not want Turkey in the union. The reason is simple: if a large country like Turkey joins the union, the whole balance of power in the union would change. Suddenly France and Germany will not have the prominent position they always had (Turkey would have more votes in the union than any of them); Britain's position will be considerably strengthened because Turkey's interests will align for the most part with hers (Turkey will obviously not be part of the core). But a new arrangement that allows such countries to enter the union without upsetting the balance of power in Europe – maybe their voting power will be restricted to issues regarding the Single Market – would allow them to join. For Turkey it is important not to have an inferior position in the EU; in this scenario, Turkey will be on the same level as Britain.

Under such circumstances, it is possible to envision many of the other countries surrounding the European Union joining it over time. Not only countries like Turkey and Ukraine, but many of the countries of the Arab Spring could one day join the EU. In the same way that the Eastern European democracies joined the union, one can envision the Arab democracies joining. And in the same way that the union was dramatically deepened through the Lisbon Treaty, one can envision a dramatic deepening of the core – proceeding eventually to form a real political union. Although this basic structure could become visible in the next decade, the above-mentioned things will not happen so soon – for the next few years, it is mostly Balkan countries that will join the union. All of this will change Europe into an enormously important player on the world stage. With the financial crisis of 2007-2012 forgotten, the restructured economies of Europe growing strong, and the new Europe taking shape, the world will be a very different place from today.

Conclusion

David Cameron's speech is an introduction to the discussion on the future structure of the European Union. Although this is but a small step, it is the beginning of a new phase in Europe – a phase that could eventually see a totally new Europe being born. As he said, the problems in the Eurozone are driving fundamental change in Europe. And "at some stage in the next few years, the EU will need to agree on treaty change to make the changes needed for the long-term future of the Euro". Britain still has a lot of influence in the union – she even has a veto right in various areas. She is in the position to make proposals, especially regarding her future role in Europe. Although some EU countries are sceptical about her commitment to the union (in which they are right), she is in fact very committed to the Single Market. Britain does not want the changes in the Eurozone to restrict her access to that market.

The structure that Cameron proposes, one which includes various clubs built on the foundation of the Single Market, will not be realized. The rest of Europe is moving in the direction of a "core Europe"; for many of the continental states (Germany excluded), the market is not of special concern. But some compromise will eventually be reached between the "Europe of clubs" and the "concentric circles Europe". David Cameron is right in saying that "the European Union that emerges from the Eurozone crisis is going to be a very different body... transformed perhaps beyond recognition by the measures needed to save the Eurozone".

What I propose in this essay is that the structure of the future European Union will look a lot like the ziggurat in Pieter Bruegel's painting. There will be various levels of integration, all built on the "foundation" of the Single Market. These levels will include various countries which are willing to integrate only up to a certain level. In the centre will be a core group of countries which will proceed to form a true political union. Most countries in the geographical area of the old Roman Empire will be included in this structure – it could easily become some sort of new Roman Empire. But that is very far in the future. None of our generation will live to see it. But the slow process of forming an "ever closer union among the peoples of Europe" will continue for generations to come. 

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. wmcloud.blogspot.com)

Articles on the internal power struggles in the EU

Die Europese Unie - wat gaan aan?

Articles on the EU in eschatological perspective:

Die nuwe toring van Babel

The euro countries move towards a fiscal union - an eschatological perspective

Gaan Griekeland in the Eurosone bly? - 'n eskatologiese perspektief