In the referendum, while the Netherlands rejects a possible Ukrainian candidacy to join the European Union (EU) in Austria, the moderate progressive candidate has barely won a presidential election against the Eurosceptic Right.

Brussels has often been slapped at the polls, in countries such as Denmark, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Ireland or Greece, among others. When it did not receive them, for example, in the referendum on entry into the EU in Lithuania, few have put heels to an authoritarian housing format: the only ideology and propaganda in the media, the laws changed in order to be able to vote in two days, and finally, seeing that on the second day of voting there was no access to minimum participation, the country’s largest businessman opened soap in the media to wash his beer in his supermarkets. If that were to happen in another country that is not in the service of the West, the European Commission and the media would devote 24 hours to stigmatising that state.

If, however, there is no yes in the referendum, there is another way, it is done again until it comes out that yes or directly we change the European Constitution in the Lisbon Treaty, imposing the darkest and most neoliberal aspects of the Constitution and rejecting the federalist and democratising benefits. Add to this that we are not going to let the latter vote because it is not a Constitution. Imagine if, after the referendum that Hugo Chávez lost to reform the Constitution, he had made a second referendum attempt.

The EU had to sweat more after the defeat of Syriza in Greece, but well, except for military violence, it stepped on after using all the other forms of violence that exist. On this occasion, on 23 June, the United Kingdom holds its referendum on secession and in that case any outcome will damage the real EU. If the United Kingdom were to remain in the club of the United States, it would be in very particular conditions, but it is likely that some countries in the East will register a similar demand for status. If it comes out, things wouldn't change too much material, you just have to look at Norway or Switzerland. In short, in recent years the EU has not been able to develop its own project and offer added value to its partners. The United Kingdom has always been an internal saboteur, which has on many occasions been used by the United States to obstruct the process of European federation. That is why Obama is very angry at the possibility of the United Kingdom being able to leave the European Union.

However, the EU’s lack of direction came with enlargement to the countries of the East. These were not supporters of the European federalists, but they did see integration as a toll to enter the Western bloc. At the moment, however, there are countries that do not see clear what it is to be in the EU, if not to lose sovereignty. For example, in all the enlargements that have taken place since 2004, countries have had to become the first members of NATO and then join the EU (except Cyprus and Malta). That being the case, if the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, the main effect would be that of the symbolism. Some Eastern European countries would see it possible to be outside the EU and to be part of the West through NATO. This would mean a reduction in the EU and, above all, a reduction in the impact of EE.UU. Perhaps in this scenario a more strengthened, compacted and autonomous EU could be formed, hence perhaps the fear of the US elites for Brexit.