121 / 145
121
The agreement reached at the European
Council on 18 and 19 February 2016 satisfied
nobody. From a pro-European perspective, the
agreement symbolises the fragility of the basic
principles of the European Union and the will-
ingness of current leaders to apply them selec-
tively, depending on their national interests. In
this case, what has been referred to as “British
blackmail” precipitated a choice between the
lesser of two evils: the Council agreement rath-
er than Brexit.
The problem with the agreement is that it
transforms what has thus far been an exception
into a rule, because one Member State, despite
having always demanded special treatment in
the form of opt-outs from certain policies, has
turned its back on article 1 of the treaty, which
has defined the core philosophy of the European
project since its foundations, namely ever closer
union. Moreover, it does so formally, not only in
the conclusions of the Council but in a guaran-
tee to include this point the next time the trea-
ties are reformed. In addition to setting a dan-
gerous precedent, this also jeopardises the
future functioning of the EU and ensures its
fragmented operation, turning the thus far ex-
ceptional “à la carte Single Market” into the
norm. The idea of Europe has been badly dam-
aged by its leaders’ acceptance of the constitu-
tional consolidation of a two- or even multi-
speed Europe.
The agreement also challenges one of the
EU’s fundamental freedoms, namely the free
movement of people. It is frustrating to see an
agreement that seeks to restrict a fundamental
European freedom, setting a precedent which is
Brexit: the last chance
for Europe and the
United Kingdom?
Juan Moscoso del Prado Hernández
“Europe is not a physical continent, Europe is an idea”.
Salvador de Madariaga
“Brexit: the potential […] departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union”.
Oxford Dictionaries