UK - a necessary voice in the EU

The relations between UK and the EU have always been difficult, and to day there is a very emotional discussion of British membership. PM Cameron have promised an in-out referendum in 2017 if he is re-elected next year and the UK Independent Party received the most votes in the European elections in May.

PM Cameron claims the EU need to change the course and have presented a reform agenda. His ambition is to get enough reforms to satisfy the British sceptics before the referendum and thus ensuring a  continued membership. The opponents either say his referendum is dangerous for UK, because a British exit  will create serious problems for the economy, or argues that it is impossible to get reforms that make a real difference - the whole reform process is only political theater.

The arguments concerning the economy seems to be exaggerated. Neither Norway or Switzerland have ever been a member of the EU, but are nevertheless countries with good economies. Instead of membership both have entered into agreements with EU, Switzerland have made separate agreements and Norway participates in the EEA together with Iceland and Lichtenstein. The question about real reforms are possible to achieve is more difficult to contradict. There are no examples of reversed EU-integration in the showroom. But is that because reforms are impossible ?

EU is about politics and power. To get reforms you need power. And power have many elements: you need politicians to present reform arguments and argue against an ever closer union conformists, you need so many reform votes and -voices as possible in the EU institutions  and you need an engaged public to follow and influence the political processes. UK exit would be a great loss for EU and for Europe. It would mean a faster and smoother, but not better integration process.

The UK is no loner with its reform requirements. Also others want changes, as the Harpsund-meeting showed. But it is difficult to imagine that anyone can replace UK.