The UK refuses aid to Greece, yet another example to reform the European Union

A further sign of the gradual split being recorded in the European Union among its members and which marks a sharp departure from the values ​​of the foundation, including the solidarity among nations was one of the most important, is made by the will of the British government You do not want to contribute to aid for the rescue of Greece. One of the tools designed, mainly from France, was to use the liquidity of the European stabilization mechanism to finance the debt again in Athens. London participates in this fund, but is contrary to the liquidity contained in it is used for rescues on countries outside the euro area, the currency in which the United Kingdom does not adhere. The excuse is that the British government participates in the Greek bailout by the International Monetary Fund and is not intended to be engaged on many fronts. The decision is instrumental to the failure to provide additional arguments to the Eurosceptics, especially with the referendum on the permanence of the UK within the European Union on the way. However the British position is not surprising: London has long since moved away from the problems of Brussels, remaining adherent to the Community institutions more than anything to enjoy the benefits that the common market provides, but without excessive problems in the continent. In this sense the English attitude is even worse than the German one, because only opportunistic and devoid of any sharing European values, even at the minimum level. These episodes should think about making a decisive review of the treaties of accession to Europe, which were far too inclusive, without raising the level of the necessary requirements. These signals, which are also members from Eastern Europe, should be interpreted in a more policy, leaving aside the membership accepted only with the intention of expanding the market area. What he needs an institution that aims to reach a political unit is convinced adhesion on specific issues without doubt whatsoever. If in the past the Community of Coal and Steel was important to have the United Kingdom, the European Union, built on completely different values ​​and operating in time profoundly changed, the presence of a state contrary to the common intention is clearly negative and it constitutes an obstacle to the development of new targets. Brussels should not receive from the UK the humiliation of a refusal, or the right to remain within it from the top, to perceive it as a favor to Europe. It should be allowed to re-discuss the whole London with the terms of accession, but from a point of strength, which can predict the expulsion of the UK from the European Union due to lack conviction to participation in it. This method should then be applied to all countries unconvinced adhere to the common rules. Certainly this could lead to a reduction of European members and a consequent reduction of the area of ​​the single market, but in parallel would be reinforced the sense of belonging necessary for development in the political sense and not just economic. To support this scenario, however, it should be also revised the criteria for participation of the states in order to ensure real equality between member states, without admitting some derogation can increase the bargaining power of a state. That each of the nationalities should not be due to interference with the address that can be common political aggregator and not disintegrating element Union. The only way to restore credibility to an institution by now appreciated only in the world of big business.