Referendum and populisms

Not even Margaret Thatcher had dared so much: to call – as promised by her successor David Cameron – a referendum to decide whether or not to remain in the European Community. In the eighties, the Iron Lady had expressed on several occasions her concerns on political integration, and obtained a substantial "discount" on the EU budget, but at the same time she recognized the historical successes of the "common home", starting with peace, to the creation of a vast area of ​​democracy and human rights marked by economic growth and by a consistent social development model. At a time of deep economic crisis and of objective difficulties along the path of the European Union, the current head of government in London chooses a different option: to forget the historical significance of integration, to set aside its underlying principles while neglecting the results obtained, in order to focus attention on national interests. In the speech on the state of the relations between the UK and the EU, the Conservative leader said on January 23: "The choice is simple, to stay or leave" the European Union. "I want a relationship that will unite us to the EU", but "the decision must be taken by the British citizens" in a referendum to be held after 2015. The Prime Minister warned: "The decision must be carefully taken, since there will be no coming back. It’s a one-way journey". Cameron highlighted three main areas that deserve thorough reflection. These are: "The problem of the Eurozone", namely the stability of the single currency and economic governance, the crisis in European competitiveness and "the growing gap separating the EU and its citizens", causing a democracy gap in return. "If we fail to tackle these challenges", Cameron said, "the risk is that Europe could collapse". Credit must be given to the young Prime Minister: that of having unearthed some of the nodes that deserve a clarification in Brussels and Strasburg.But Prime Minister Cameron fails to acknowledge one essential element: the main obstacles to the progress of the EU and to effective economic and social measures meant to promote the well-being of European citizens are not proposed by the European Parliament or Commission (the "common institutions" par excellence), but by the European Council, which is the body that brings together representatives of the 27 governments of member countries. Capital cities are hampering the European Union, and over the past years of crisis it was altogether evident: may it suffice to consider the attempt to chair legs in decisions of utmost importance, such as economic and monetary union, a single banking supervisory mechanism, the Fiscal compact (intended to control government budgets), the European Stability Mechanism, the Growth and Stability Pact, the Multiannual Financial Framework… and the list could continue. The latest example dates to Jan. 22: enhanced cooperation for the financial transaction tax was accepted by 11 EU states, it obtained the green light from 23 countries, but, as it happens, the United Kingdom is one of the four that have taken distances, to keep the City of London away from a tax aimed at reducing speculative activity and at accumulating funds to reinvest in growth and employment.Cameron’s decidedly Eurosceptic stand – understandable within a logic of internal political balance – is likely, especially at this stage, to further worsen widespread anti-European feelings triggering populist drifts, reported not long ago by an enlightening document of the Commission of the bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE). In addition to some inconsistencies quite easy to detect in the speech of Cameron, already emphasized by authoritative voices in Europe, it is evident that the concept of Europe "à la carte", that fuels certain national interests (even the most eurosceptic governments have renounced substantial funding) without, however, being bound to assume the responsibility that a political construction of this kind, unique in the world, requires of its participants. The Founding Fathers have not left an inheritance based on interests, but a joint commitment under the banner of solidarity, subsidiarity and of "unity in diversity". This last consideration deserves further reflection, after the statements pronounced from across the Channel.