Britain to the exit from the European Union?

On the eve of the end of his term as President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, who has marked his tenure to be very pro English, has reserved harsh criticism in London, by the will of Prime Minister Cameron to restrict the freedom of movement of EU citizens within the United Kingdom. The measure should relate to the limitation of the citizens of Eastern Europe, that is, belonging to the eleven countries that joined the EU in 2004, Barroso for this decision would be a historical mistake, which could declare the end of their stay in Britain within the 'EU. In fact this is the umpteenth sign of discomfort against the English in Brussels, the EU has so far endured in the name of affordability, but now beginning to be seen in a different perspective, thanks to the continuing state of crisis. The absence of comments from representatives of the major European countries are meant to endorse the words of Mr Barroso and show that staying in London in the EU is close to the end. In the past, the comments of Germany or France in favor of the presence of London union were discounted, despite the failure to join the single currency, but now, only silence. On the other hand the words of Cameron, who said he will renegotiate membership in Brussels mean that in the programs of the Prime Minister the opportunity to get out of the EU is much more than a hypothesis. What would be, in fact, the odds on the part of other members to accept different conditions for a single country than the rest of the Union? Even just from the regulatory point of view it would create a precedent that can break any balance; despite the importance of London, it would be cheaper to give up participation in the UK, but to accept the continuation of the relationship of bases created specifically for the UK. On closer inspection the claims, often indulged in London, in the recent history of the European Institution, have always gone in this direction, coming dangerously close to the exclusion limit, never cross it to their mutual advantage. However Cameron commits a blunder: want to sacrifice the positive aspects of being in Europe, with a requirement of the electoral own party, to prevent the erosion of his constituents at the hands of Eurosceptics. This tactic also serves to mask the economic crisis English pouring immediate attention on the issue of immigration. If the goal of Cameron is to gain time, what sacrifices are likely to represent in the future a much greater damage to the country. It remains true that in the majority of the English population discontent towards the establishment of the European begins to be more and more high, at this stage it is easier, and with some reason, to blame the EU state of the economy, but British citizens do not consider the benefits that they will lose moving away from Brussels, which will be very difficult to replace. It will be interesting to see how the whole of Europe will want to react to the possible exit English. Until now London has enjoyed concessions certainly overestimated in relation to what has given Europe: a balance has earned us who was Great Britain, which, among other things, has repeatedly betrayed the spirit in which it was born the union. Without London Europe could have a better chance of cohesion, especially in view of the political union; the output of the United Kingdom, also could set a precedent for those countries that exploit their membership in the European Union primarily for economic reasons and not eat the right community beliefs upon which the EU since its inception. London outside of Europe only need to worry about the English, for others should only be an advantage.