Dos puntos de vista británicos sobre la Unión Europea
Aunque no esté de acuerdo con todos sus planteamientos, a mí me parece más interesante la lectura del segundo. Vean un ejemplo de su razonamiento (mis negritas):
"The idea of pulling out at the very moment when the accession of new Member States has made possible, for the first time, the adoption of a more market-friendly environment is simply bizarre—not least because it plays straight into the hands of the government and those who want to see the constitution adopted. The government seeks to portray the referendum as being about ‘in’ or ‘out’. It is not. It is about what type of EU we want. Do we want a flexible organisation in which states co-operate for their own mutual benefit, or do we want a centralised supra-national body which dictates terms and which we are powerless to resist?
By fighting on the government’s terms, and urging that the issue really is ‘in’ or ‘out’, Europhobes guarantee that the reform case will be lost. Just as the polls show a large majority against the constitution, so too they show the same majority in favour of continued membership and against pulling out. If the ‘No’ campaign were to be taken over by those in favour of leaving, and who then urged that the referendum be treated as an ‘in’ or ‘out’ question, the public would, as all poll evidence suggests, vote to stay in, andthus to support the constitution, when if the argument over the constitution is treated on its merits—not about ‘in’ or ‘out’ but about the merits or otherwise of the constitution, the result would be a triumph for reformers. The withdrawal issue is thus political stupidity of the highest order, given the opportunity for a resettlement of the EU’s foundations which would be presented by a ‘No’ vote."
Claro que sí, aunque a algunos nos parece muy bien que se vote "no" a la "constitución" europea, también es importante el discurso público que se construye en torno a ese "no". Por eso nos alegramos del "no" francés y del "no" holandés, pero no del todo.