London’s farewell
The British Premier envisions a radical divorce from the EU to implement the decision of British citizens and to protect – she claimed – their interests. There are many good reasons to uphold her claims.
It’s almost a paradox. The small Country of Malta, that gained its independence from the United Kingdom in 1964, will give the go-ahead to Brexit negotiations. In fact, except for unforeseen circumstances, Prime Minister Theresa May will give notice to leave Community Europe under article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, thereby requesting to proceed with the Brexit. Having taken the lead of the rotating Presidency of the EU Council of Ministers on Jan 2017, La Valletta is now tasked with negotiating the conditions of the separation together with the Juncker Commission. Moreover, on January 24 Britain’s High Court ruled that Parliament must give its approval before the process can begin, although it appears to be a formal vote. It is highly unlikely that the British Parliament will oppose a popular decision. Thus Joseph Muscat, Malta’s Premier (Labour Party member), born after his Country’s independence, will be called to the negotiating table – even though he’s not too happy about it. During the last session at the European Parliament, he said: “The UK will unfortunately cease to be a member of EU. We want a fair deal” for the British people, who in past June 23’s referendum voted in favour of Brexit. But, he went on, “we will continue upholding the Community project”, “the interests of the remaining 27 EU Countries, and those of all European citizens.”
Muscat spoke a few hours after Theresa May announced that she would pursue a “hard Brexit”, namely, a “clean” exit from the “common home”,
because – she added – we want a “stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking Britain.” Hence, stop to the single market, stop to a customs union, stop to “uncontrolled” arrivals of EU citizens in Shakespeare’s homeland; green light to a trade agreement with EU 27 because – generously enough – “we want to preserve our friendship with Europe.” The British premier looks forward to the revitalization of the Commonwealth, with London as a “global player”, engaged in dealing on equal footing with Washington, Moscow and Beijing. We shall see. For Muscat, Britain’s uncompromising exit from the EU (although in Scotland May’s speech was ill-received),
Helps bring clarity, and it’s a “necessary” step.
In fact, said the young Maltese Premier, “the single market envisages four freedoms – namely the freedom of movement of goods, people, services and capital – which “cannot be decoupled”, and which London “doesn’t want to accept.” Hence, No to a EU “à la carte”, where everyone take what they want: claiming their rights whilst failing to assume the related duties and responsibilities. Moreover, in her speech at London’s Lancaster House, the British Premier pointed out that there is a lesson in Brexit not just for Britain “but, if it wants to succeed, for the EU itself.” It’s true. When the UK turned its back to Europe it inflicted a deep wound. However, it was also a wake-up call for Europe’s populisms and nationalisms in these times of crisis, highlighting the need for a serious conscience examination – cultural, political, institutional and in terms of programming – due to bring positive fruits.
It should be remembered that the Brexit cannot be a clear-cut procedure; for various reasons.
First of all, to comply with the decision of British voters: despite the narrow majority (52% leave, 48% remain) they decided to exit the EU. Secondly, as a matter of respect for the other 440 million EU citizens, who, by remaining in the EU, undertake to comply with its regulations and Treaties (whilst enjoying the benefits it assures) Hence – third point – to coherently assume the profile of the European Union, whose legal framework – which its Member Countries comply with as the result of a free decision – enshrines an “in” and an “out”, not an “in-between”, with a foot in and a foot out (there already is an abundance of opt-out clauses and “concessions”, some of which granted to London. There is no need for more.) The fourth reason is equally important: the EU needs shared values and projects. It needs clarity, renewed thrust, concrete answers to citizens’ expectations, while any attempt to nationalistic closure and every drive towards fragmentation harms all those involved. That’s why such moves need to be discouraged and, if possible, avoided. Deciding to remain must be a free and conscious decision that implies contributing to the revitalization of Community integration, even when it means correcting the “flaws” of the EU. If not, it will be best to follow the uncertain path, marked by a number of unknown factors, undertaken by the UK.
