For many years Britain has held the discussion whether it is necessary to prolong the membership in the European Union, a lot of pros and cons were expressed. European integration supporters emphasized that the world is getting globalized and leaving such association may set Britain aside the European context.
One way or another, Great Britain was in the cards to be a trendsetter in Europe in all the contexts. At the same time it managed to keep its distinctive character and participate in association subject to certain exceptions – in particular, to retain its own currency, which was important not only in terms of financial considerations but was determined by historical traditions. The pound sterling was far more conventional for British people than mythic euro and embodies the essence of a waterlocked state. The privileges which Great Britain has gained as a member of the EU include non–susceptibility to migrant flow as well. France and Belgium have concentrated the main influx of migrants and do not open the transport corridors to Great Britain.
Eurosceptics set forward their arguments in favour of the EU secession considering Great Britain being a net contributor giving the EU much more then obtaining in return. Moreover, Britain may manage its financial recourses at its own discretion; distribute them much more accurately for the social services, health care which is quite weighty argument for aged British nation. Therefore it is no wonder that in terms of age among those who voted for exit the retirement or pre–retirement aged British prevail. The thing which Eurosceptics consider no less important is that the EU does not defer in a proper manner to Britain’s opinion giving the priority to Germany.
At the same time the British and German perceptions of the foreign policy and economic problems in particular differs dramatically. Great Britain is geared up more decisively to the threats and challenges which modern European world brings to the European society – the problems of local conflicts, uncontrolled migration, influence of a range of totalitarian regimes on the internal EU policy. As compared to Germany it is distinguished by more explicit position in respect of the events of 2014 in Ukraine. Britain is determined both against the Russia’s attempts to sow discord within the EU as well as aspirations of some states, including Germany and France, to introduce the flexible policy of aggressor appeasement.
Regarding that Great Britain is the most “ancient” democracy in Europe, the debates pertaining to the historical choice were long enough and adhered to all democratic procedures. However, this process was subject to modern trends and supporters of the UK’s quitting of the EU often hit below the belt. Particularly, leader of the UK Independence Party Nigel Farage, chief spokesman of the supporters of EU leaving, has used forbidden tricks manipulating the figures in finances, arguing that Great Britain will benefit from leaving a potential redistribution of resources allocated for health care, which predetermined the position of the elderly British people. Having been caught at manipulation he claimed that it was his point of view which he was free to express as part of election campaign. The “impurity” of campaign was recognized during the European Parliament debate by Guy Verhofstadt from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe: “Absolute negative campaign. The posters of Mr Farage showing refugees like in Nazi propaganda because he copied it at that moment”.
If addressing to recent history exploring the issue about who Nigel Farage truly is, we may come to an interesting conclusion that two years ago it was difficult to find the British who knew anything about his party. Meanwhile, as an independent political power it appeared virtually from the scratch and hasn’t had serious influence on English agenda for the first time. Since Brexit became pending, the popularity of the UK Independence Party changed to growth. At the recent session of the European Parliament Farage remarked that 17 years ago his first statement about possible leaving the EU was took with a laugh. Well then, today no one laughs.
Well, who is Nigel Farage then? Where did this political figure come from? And who are his sponsors? Quite uncomplicated study of e-sources lead to the simple conclusion – Farage is related to the Russian Federation in fact being its agent of influence. The interviews given to Russian titles, appearance on the Russian TV channels, attempts to mitigate the EU positions towards Russia in the European Parliament expressly point at political and financial involvement of the politician. Surely, the only Farage’s influence is too little to affect the exit from the EU and no money of Russian special services could turn the scale where required, but decisive contribution in the form of 2,5% that brought the victory to Eurosceptics Nigel Farage managed to obtain for his “masters”. In fact, he played one of the key roles in the event which may appear to become tragic in life of Great Britain and the whole Europe.
The Roman lawyers appealed to be vigilant: “cui prodest – who’d benefit?” Is it Great Britain? Definitely not. The country will burn in fever in the coming years. Not getting into particular ones may say that it has strongly sent down the roots into the EU and the “divorce” process would be painful. Probably Europe may reap the profit? Likewise not. It loses the strong country which possesses the most powerful military forces in the EU. And that is a heavy punch for the security policy of the European Union. Besides, Britain plays the role of financial centre of Europe and its exit will make the problem of financial flow management too acute.
Thus, who really benefits from Brexit? The answer is obvious that Russia only. For a reason a number of observers in the morning of June, 24th, after the poll, when it became clear that the supporters of exit had won, noticed, “Despite it is morning, it’s most likely that champagne is being opened in the Russian embassy.” The USSR and then its successor Russia have always opposed themselves to the West. Putin’s Russia, declaring its distinctive mission, promoting the doctrine of the “Russian world” as opposed to the Western, have virtually never been the creator – it didn’t create the new technologies, social ideas, though consistently tried to weaken the so-called Western civilization, receiving unreserved delight from mistakes and problems of the opponents. Today Russia experiences “profound satisfaction” as well. This is the chance to split Europe and activate its own net of agents, possibility to facilitate dilution or even full lifting of sanctions, put EU activity in pie and pursue traditional policy “divide and rule”.
Today such policy makes a top issue for Russia. Having destroyed the system of international security and deployed military force when annexing the territory of sovereign country for the first time after the World War II, Russia strives to legalize its actions at any cost. Acting decisively and sometimes nothing but rudely the Russian government is in fact treading in the footsteps of the Nazi Germany leaders of the late 30s- early 40s. And basically that had to be expected. However whether today Europe will draw the lesson from its mistakes made 80 years ago is the key question. Whether Brexit becomes a beginning of the end of the European civilization – all of this we are to see in the nearest future.