Dimitris Rapidis

Is Cameronism defined?

In this week’s Economist edition Bagehot questioned the real meaning of Cameronism. Indeed, the article was referring to what finally this term means, and the UK’s PM trembling steps towards shaping his chairmanship message and put into track realistic politics. In other words, Cameronism seems more invested with idealism rather than action.

It is true that Cameron’s radical spirit is questioned and he behaves more like energetic interpreter than policy devotee. In this respect, if someone follows his speeches and his declared actions he is behaving like if there is just few hours after being elected. Nonetheless, I am wondering whether his reformative pace is slow or he is managing something “big” -let’s say to prepare UK’s exit from the European Union.

I am not well-aware of Britain’s domestic politics and I am not therefore referring to any of his actions or missings in that field. But in his planning over bilateral relationship with the European Union I can barely discern something worth to be mentioned. We could rather say that he is frustrated with what is happening in Eurozone, as UK’s financial, banking, and investment interests are majorly hit by the crisis, yet he hesitates to stir up developments. Even if it is inadequate to compare his foreign policy with Blair’s “golden ages”, he has actually devitalized Britain’s crucial role in many fronts (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, North Africa, Middle East), therefore significantly decreased UK’s geopolitical leverage.

With respect to the European Union, coalition partnership is getting weaker and progress is flawed. Assuming the burden of participating in the debate over the future of the financial crisis is much more hard than preparing the ground for a possible exit from the European Union. Cameron might ponder upon this topic in order to minimize losses from the deepening of the crunch for the British investment banks and institutions in Europe, but the major issue still remains: is Britain behaving as an EU member-state or not? If yes, why it is not initiating structural reforms to increase its leverage inside the Union? If not, why it is still remaining part of the EU like if it is found in simulation mode?

I definitely believe that these questions have to be answered even though the cost of bearing is high enough. Otherwise in a couple of years Cameronism might not exist and nobody would ever know what was really meaning.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0
Author :
Print