Can Cameron keep Britain in the EU?

A Brexit would hit Malta hard, the centre-right daily The Malta Independent warns:

“With the UK out of the EU, Malta will lose an ally on so many fronts. The most signal of these alliances are in the financial services sector where Malta and the UK have fought off, so far, taxation on financial transactions (FTT). With the UK out, it may be harder for Malta to resist the pressure by the bigger countries on the continent. … It goes without saying that a continued British presence in the EU could have served to balance out the predominance of Germany and maybe too that of France. Europe without Britain is not the real Europe.”

The fact that workers' rights are better protected within the EU than outside it should not be ignored in the Brexit debate, warns the centre-left daily The Guardian:

“The particular flaws in the design of a single currency must not be allowed to bury a more basic economic truth. Namely, that workers will fare better against companies that can skip lightly across borders when their arm is strengthened by rights that hold good across borders too. In the argument about how to make the economy bigger, everyone will believe what they want. But when it comes to making the economy work better for people, the logic of the pro-European case could be a winning card, if only it were played.”

Britain's exit would be a heavy loss for the European Union overall, but as regards English as an official language of negotiations a Brexit could be advantageous, writes political scientist Josep M. Colomer in the centre-left daily El País:

“An EU without Britain would be smaller, more German, more conservative and weaker internationally. The only thing the Europeans might stand to gain is the fact that without the British at the table the English language would become definitely neutral. All EU members would have the same handicap when they use it because for all of them it would be a second language. This would be like the bitter-sweet consolation of eating a delicious cake served by your ex-wife after she has left you.”

A Brexit would make the EU more socially minded, cultural historian Thomas von der Dunk writes in the centre-left daily De Volkskrant:

“Neoliberalism is largely responsible for the problems Europe faces. The EU is losing the support of its populace. After a quarter of a century of dogmatic neo-liberal policy, Europe stands for the very opposite of the welfare state. It stands for flexibilisation, privatisation, and the abandonment of basic social security. The British have continually blocked a more socially-oriented stance with which Europe could win back public support. ... The people of Europe have had more than enough of neoliberal principles: that is clear from the voter rebellions taking place from France (Le Pen) to Spain (Podemos). If neoliberalism receives a death blow, it could be a blessing with regard to a more socially oriented, and thus also a more stable, European Union.”

If Britain leaves the EU France could stop its border controls at the entrance to the Eurotunnel in Calais, French Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron warned in the run-up to yesterday's British-French summit in Amiens. This is indeed a realistic scenario, the conservative daily Financial Times observes:

“UK voters would be unwise to ignore Mr Macron’s warning, however. A pact that has penned up thousands of asylum seekers around Calais is hardly popular with the French public. In the event of Brexit, politicians in Paris would find it hard to defend an agreement whose main purpose is to protect the border of a non-EU state. With the far-right Front National performing strongly in the polls, the pressure on President François Hollande to punish the UK for Brexit would be considerable. As he said on Thursday, 'there will be consequences'.”

Writing in the centre-left daily Le Monde, the liberal MEP and former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt rejects accusations that the agreement with David Cameron has paved the way for a Europe 'à la carte' in which any country can secure precisely the deal it wants:

“We already have a Europe à la carte! ... In fact Europe is no longer à la carte, but tailor-made! In fact this accord will enable us to get out of the legal quagmire that makes Europe so incomprehensible to our fellow citizens. Britain - although no doubt without intending to - will provide us with the opportunity to carry out a general review of the treaties. For the first time since 2007 the heads of state and government are officially considering such a move. That said, the idea is not only to constitutionally enshrine the measures adopted to satisfy London, but also to thoroughly review the way the EU and the Eurozone work. That will be the end of Europe à la carte.”

Regardless of the outcome of the referendum the deal between Britain and Brussels is another nail in the coffin for the EU, the liberal daily Público concludes:

“It's a deal that once again demonstrates that there is no equality in the EU and that different rights apply for individual member states. The agreement proves that any principle enshrined in the treaties can be ignored or amended when it suits the interests of a rich and powerful member state. … But it is not just the content of this agreement (whether and how it will be implemented no one knows) that highlights how willing the EU is to go against a fundamental principle like equality among member states. It is also the way in which the negotiations were conducted.”

Speaking in an interview on Tuesday, Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka expressed concern that a Brexit could spark a chain reaction in Europe and also oblige his country to leave the EU. He's absolutely right, the daily Pravo believes:

“If you believe the polls, many Czechs still haven't cottoned on to the fact that being in the EU brings us numerous advantages. ... Emotions are particularly resistant to facts. After a Brexit more politicians here in the Czech Republic would start saying: Time to say goodbye, and good riddance. So leaving the EU could become a topic in the 2017 parliamentary elections. ... Common sense, however, tells another story. Things will be no better for us outside the EU, and for the same reasons that the dream of a neutral Czechoslovakia was dashed in August 1968. Sobotka said it loud and clear: The less EU, the more Russia.”

Not the EU but the British will lose out if they vote for a Brexit on June 23, the business paper Dienas bizness argues:

“The UK is a state with a long-established democratic tradition, and its economic contribution to the EU is by no means negligible. So of course a Brexit would weaken the EU to some extent. Nevertheless the Brits will be the biggest losers. Because although the British still dream of their past glory, today Britain is only really powerful in military terms. Economically the country is no more than average: China has long since overtaken the former colonial power. ... And soon Indonesia and Brazil will follow suit.”

The participants of the EU summit should be commended for their efforts to keep Britain in the EU, the centre-left daily Le Monde writes in praise:

“Were the 27 right to give David Cameron the special status he was after, allowing him to keep the promise he made to the British three and a half years ago and hold a referendum on EU membership? The answer is yes. The departure of the UK, the second-strongest economy in the EU - behind Germany but ahead of France - would be a fatal blow to the Union at a time when it is already in an advanced state of decay. If Europe loses one of its few members with a world-class diplomacy and an army that deserves the name, it would be drastically weakened at a time when it faces major challenges in a context of chaotic globalisation.”

The British will vote to stay in the EU for economic reasons, the London-based economist and entrepreneur Anatole Kaletsky writes in the weekly paper Finanz und Wirtschaft:

“The economic challenges of Brexit would be overwhelming. The Out campaign’s main economic argument - that Britain’s huge trade deficit is a secret weapon, because the EU would have more to lose than Britain from a breakdown in trade relations - is flatly wrong. Britain would need to negotiate access to the European single market for its service industries, whereas EU manufacturers would automatically enjoy virtually unlimited rights to sell whatever they wanted in Britain under global World Trade Organization rules. … Britain would therefore need an EU association agreement, similar to those negotiated with Switzerland or Norway, the only two significant European economies outside the EU. From the EU’s perspective, the terms of any British deal would have to be at least as stringent as those in the existing association agreements.”

The EU and David Cameron have missed a historic chance to radically improve the Union, the conservative paper Daily Mail laments:

“The tragedy is that the renegotiation offered a golden opportunity to address the myriad structural problems afflicting the EU, which have left its over-regulated firms at the mercy of international competitors. Yet the euro-elite has opted instead for business as usual, tinkering with the small print and fiddling while the founding Treaty of Rome burns. One thing is clear. Nothing agreed in Brussels will tempt a single voter to cross from the Out to the In camp (though it may swing some people the other way).”

Cameron has done irreversible damage to the EU no matter how the referendum pans out, the conservative daily Le Figaro criticises:

“If Britain remains in the EU on the terms it has now been granted, it will kill the Union. If it leaves, it will kill it too. In the event of a Brexit the political and economic setback will be brutal. But even if the agreement just reached does prevent a divorce, it will nevertheless usher in a gradual process of destruction. Because it is not associated with any form of collective recovery project, the Brussels compromise only puts the worm in the apple: no one has any reason to abide by the common rules anymore, seeing as they can be avoided with a bit of blackmail.”

From the outset Cameron was intent on maintaining his grip on power with the referendum but he has severely miscalculated, the conservative Basler Zeitung comments:

“Cameron was never an EU reformer and nor has he turned into one in the negotiations that have been going on since last summer. His goal was never a new EU but a few concessions that would enable him to win the referendum on the UK remaining in the EU. His priority is staying in power. With the referendum he kept his Conservative Party together and won the election last May that made him British prime minister until 2020. … The purely cosmetic changes to the relationship between the UK and the EU won't produce a clear result at the ballot at the end of June. If the British vote to stay in the EU but the result is close, a 'Neverendum' looms. Then the demands from within Cameron's party for another referendum will grow loud.”

David Cameron has everything under control even if members of the cabinet are opposing him and the chances of Britain staying in the EU don't seem great, the conservative daily Lidové noviny is confident:

“It's a kind of guided opposition. When the refugee crisis broke out in Germany the entire political class threw its weight behind Angela Merkel and her 'welcome culture'. Then they were all taken aback by how quickly the anti-system Alternative for Germany party and the protest group Pegida gained support. Cameron is keeping the debate about for and against the EU within his own party. When Justice Secretary Michael Gove spoke out for a Brexit Cameron simply said, 'I am disappointed that we are not going to be on the same side as we have this vital argument about our country’s future,' but added that each would respect the other's position. This debate culture alone is a good reason why the UK should stay in the EU.”

All the drama and suspense of the EU summit were just a show and the outcome was decided before it even got started, the centre-left daily Jutarnji list comments:

“In fact the participants spent more time discussing the refugee crisis than the Brexit. There was no drama or suspense at the last supper, as the tweet of the Lithuanian president at the start of the dinner proves. Angela Merkel held back the whole time as agreed, and even had time to pop out for a portion of chips. … The summit was a set-up so that Cameron could proclaim his triumph over Brussels back home even though no one ever really put up a fight for what he is now selling to his countrymen as the booty. It was all just a show, but now he must fight the real battle at home.”