For British eurosceptics, firmly intending to win the referendum on withdrawal of Britain from the EU, London has formulated a new thesis: the parting with the “United Europe” will make London vulnerable to the “Russian threat” and “energy blackmail” from Moscow. The resounding thesis only one problem – it is built on lies.
The energy Minister of the United Kingdom, amber Rudd joined in the campaign to preserve the UK in the European Union. According to Rudd, in the case of the EU, Britain will lose 500 million pounds annually due to the loss of a single energy market. However, according to The Guardian, it is only 20 pounds a year for each household, that is, less than two pounds a month.
“As a bloc of 500 million people we have the power to resist the hand of Putin”
Apparently, she Rudd understands that such overpayment is not something that can stop the Brits from voting for the restoration of sovereignty. Therefore, as is usual in modern Europe and the United States, decided to resort to the “Russian threat”.
“Count on energy from abroad is a risk. We have seen how countries like Putin’s Russia has used gas supplies as a foreign policy tool, threatening to cut off supplies or sharply raise prices, says it Minister. – We can’t allow our energy security to become a pawn in the political game in order to put Europe on its knees. Working together in the European Union, we are able to avoid this”.
“As a bloc of 500 million people we have the power to resist the hand of Putin. We can coordinate our response to the crisis. We can use the opportunities of the internal market to obtain gas from other sources. We can reduce the import prices, as happened recently in Eastern Europe. Simply put – when it comes to Russian gas, United we stand, disunited – we lose,” sums up the pathetic Minister.
“Absurd statements that amber Rudd is not confirmed by its own research” – commented on the words of the British Department of energy Matthew Elliott, who heads a public campaign “vote for secession”. According to him, Vice versa, from EU membership, Britain is losing at least £ 350 million a week.
“Russian threat” Elliot commented, although in this part of the speech lies no less, if not more. Russia never blackmailed nor the EU as a whole nor the individual countries of Europe the issues of energy supplies – whether gas, oil or nuclear fuel.
Every time when Western politicians talk about “using gas supplies as a foreign policy tool”, they mean a long and complicated Russian-Ukrainian gas relations. But the increase in prices, and especially the cessation of supply has always followed in response to Ukrainian non-payment.
In all this history surprise it is not so much trying to shift problems from a sick head on healthy, how much of the Stockholm syndrome of the European Union, which continues to insist on maintaining “Ukrainian route” gas deliveries. Or rather, hostage to Ukraine Brussels makes the States of Eastern Europe – the ones who supposedly “managed to reduce prices due to the EU membership (in fact, gas prices tied to the price of oil has declined because of the reduction in price of black gold).
Germany and other Western European countries to protect themselves from transit through “Nord stream”. And there is little doubt that, despite the vigorous protests of Poland and the Baltic States, Nord stream – 2″ will also be built.
But Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece and other countries that have once a chance to get rid of the threat of a transit country in the face of Ukraine, under pressure from the US and the EU was left without the “South stream”. And after the antics of Turkey and the destruction of the Russian plane in Syria, the black sea route for the transportation of gas in principle was called into question.
But even if we put aside the lies about Rudd, alleged that Russia uses gas as a means of political influence, the numbers still do not confirm the words of the British Minister.
The share of Russian gas in the energy basket of the UK – only 9%. The main supplier of natural gas is Norway with 57% (2014 data). In second place liquefied natural gas from Qatar for 25%. Thus, the possibility of these two (by the way, also non-EU) countries to influence the energy security of Britain is much more modest than Russia’s capabilities. But somehow, about the “Russian threat” says that Britain, not the country where the share of Russian gas is much higher and sometimes up to 100%, as in Bulgaria.
Of course, amid absurd statements about Russia’s fault in the problem of refugees, which has swept Europe (recall that the main flow occurred in the period before the operation videoconferencing in Syria), or the blasphemous allusions to the involvement of Moscow to the attacks in Brussels, the word amber Rudd may seem insignificant. Just think, tried to scare voters that without the EU tovarischi iz Gazprom will block the unfortunate British gas, will require every day to kneel down facing East and say spasibo matushka Rossiya. Indignant or surprised the Europeans imposed Russophobia (and in fact this is Russophobia in the original meaning of the term – fear of Russia) is probably meaningless. You can just fix each such case and hope for the prudence of European voters.
However, already now we can say that common sense and sense of proportion changed the once pragmatic European politicians. Trying to adjusted to the “Russian threat” to any political problem, they will inevitably achieve the opposite effect. And judging by the regular attempts to limit broadcast of Russian-language media (like RT), the European elites understand that the voters already tired of the ritual of the “Russian threat”. Especially in a situation when real problems creates is not Russia.Related posts: