When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch
Geopolitics

David Cameron Blew It In Brussels - A German View On Britain's Break With Europe

Op-Ed: Britain’s Tories are elated over David Cameron’s recent E.U. Summit veto. On closer examination, however, the prime minister’s move may not be as “heroic” as they and the country’s conservative newspapers insist – especially if it causes a rupture

British Prime Minister David Cameron (DFID)
British Prime Minister David Cameron (DFID)
Christian Zaschke

LONDON David Cameron's veto at the E.U. summit has unleashed a storm here that could have nefarious consequences both for the United Kingdom's economy and his coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Euroskeptic Tories may be celebrating the prime minister as a hero, but his appearance in Brussels may not have been all that heroic. There are indications that Cameron quite simply gambled it all away.

The storm unleashed by Cameron's "no" to changing E.U. treaties is the most severe since the British coalition government took office in the spring of 2010. No one knows what the outcome will be, but one prognosis is shared by all: It could be very bad indeed.

The conflict between the Europe-friendly Liberal Democrats and the Europe-skeptics among the Tories touches the very substance of the coalition. And yet conciliation of the camps appears unlikely. Cameron's challenge now is to somehow get right-leaning members of his own party and the Liberal Democrats back to the table. Either that or face new elections.

Up until now, the conservatives knew Nick Clegg, the head of the Liberal Democrats, as a compliant junior partner. Whatever they wanted, he went along with. Most notably, he agreed with the Tories to raise college tuitions, even though his party promised during the election campaign to do away with them.

But now Clegg – who waited two days before launching his attacks – has found a means of recovering his reputation. He has not only criticized the prime minister openly about the E.U. veto but is demanding that Cameron do everything he can to move Great Britain back towards Europe again.

Closeness to Europe is one of the core Liberal Democrat policies. Clegg would have lost his last supporters in his own party if he had gone along with the veto the Tories are celebrating. Instead he's found an issue that not only can help him shed the "opportunist" label but that also poses a threat to David Cameron.

An immediate danger

The Euroskeptics in his party don't seem particularly worried at the moment. Actually they're in a state of euphoria, as are the country's conservative newspapers, which are drawing parallels between this and King Henry VIII's decision (five centuries ago) to separate the Church of England from the Catholic Church. Expect the celebrating to continue as the Tories have the British public on their side. According to a Times poll, 57% of Brits believe that Cameron did the right thing in Brussels.

Nevertheless, the question does pose itself as to whether Cameron's veto was really as heroic as the ultra-conservatives are portraying it. Increasing numbers of reports are saying that Cameron's appearance in Brussels was, from a diplomatic point of view, miserably prepared. The other leaders at the summit were at a complete loss to understand his tactics. It may very well be, in other words, that the most consequential decision of Cameron's political career was quite simply the result of an astonishing amount of foreign policy naïveté.

Nobody can seriously believe that Great Britain's waning influence in Europe won't have consequences for its economy. The conservative government is steering a severe austerity course and is looking at a recession. More than ever, Cameron needs to achieve greater independence from the financial markets and strengthen British industry – which depends to a high degree on the European single market that Cameron just gave the cold shoulder to.

What Cameron is doing is repeating an historic mistake. Great Britain kept its distance during the early years of the European Economic Community (Common Market), which was founded in 1957. The economy suffered as a result. U.K. leaders then changed their tune, applying for membership in 1961. From there, however, the country would have to wait 12 years for application process to finally conclude.

Whatever Cameron's veto may mean for Great Britain's relations with the European Union, the prime minister has backed himself into a precarious situation at home. The coalition may break apart. That the Europe-skeptics are uncompromising was shown in October when, in a spectacular vote against the moderate Cameron, 81 Tory MPs supported a call for referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. And now that the Liberal Democrats have positioned themselves so openly against the prime minister, they can't give in either if they don't want to lose all their credibility.

Nick Clegg himself is unlikely to take the conflict to extremes – he has shown himself to be flexible to the point of spinelessness. But his party could be tired of betraying its ideals. The worst case scenario would be if Liberal Democrat members of parliament broke away from the coalition. That would mean, from every point of view, that when David Cameron said ‘no" in Brussels he made the worst decision of any prime minister in recent British history.

Read the original article in German

Photo - DFID - UK Department for International Development

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Economy

Lex Tusk? How Poland’s Controversial "Russian Influence" Law Will Subvert Democracy

The new “lex Tusk” includes language about companies and their management. But is this likely to be a fair investigation into breaking sanctions on Russia, or a political witch-hunt in the business sphere?

Photo of President of the Republic of Poland Andrzej Duda

Polish President Andrzej Duda

Piotr Miaczynski, Leszek Kostrzewski

-Analysis-

WARSAW — Poland’s new Commission for investigating Russian influence, which President Andrzej Duda signed into law on Monday, will be able to summon representatives of any company for inquiry. It has sparked a major controversy in Polish politics, as political opponents of the government warn that the Commission has been given near absolute power to investigate and punish any citizen, business or organization.

And opposition politicians are expected to be high on the list of would-be suspects, starting with Donald Tusk, who is challenging the ruling PiS government to return to the presidency next fall. For that reason, it has been sardonically dubbed: Lex Tusk.

University of Warsaw law professor Michal Romanowski notes that the interests of any firm can be considered favorable to Russia. “These are instruments which the likes of Putin and Orban would not be ashamed of," Romanowski said.

The law on the Commission for examining Russian influences has "atomic" prerogatives sewn into it. Nine members of the Commission with the rank of secretary of state will be able to summon virtually anyone, with the powers of severe punishment.

Under the new law, these Commissioners will become arbiters of nearly absolute power, and will be able to use the resources of nearly any organ of the state, including the secret services, in order to demand access to every available document. They will be able to prosecute people for acts which were not prohibited at the time they were committed.

Their prerogatives are broader than that of the President or the Prime Minister, wider than those of any court. And there is virtually no oversight over their actions.

Nobody can feel safe. This includes companies, their management, lawyers, journalists, and trade unionists.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

You've reach your limit of free articles.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime.

SUBSCRIBERS BENEFITS

Ad-free experience NEW

Exclusive international news coverage

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Monthly Access

30-day free trial, then $2.90 per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

The latest