POLITICAL CLARITY IN THE BRITISH ISLES

The parliamentary elections in Great Britain have become one of the key events in world politics. The impressive success of the Conservative Party led by incumbent Prime Minister David Cameron testifies to the fact that London's political course in the next few years will basically remain unchanged.

Although the polls during the election campaign predicted almost equal results for the Tories and the Labour Party, the voting resulted in a complete victory for the Conservative Party. The political force headed by David Cameron won 331 out of the 650 seats in parliament. The Labour Party got 232 seats. One important outcome of the elections was that the Scottish Nationalists strengthened their foothold, gaining 56 of the 59 seats in Scotland. Their leaders even think it likely that a new referendum on independence may be held in the future.

The Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives' former comrades-in-arms in the 2010-2015 coalition, are restricted to just eight seats in the House of Commons [lower house of parliament], The Democratic Unionist Party, which is in favour of retaining the northern province of Ireland [Ulster] as part of the United Kingdom won the same number of seats. The Euro-sceptic Independence Party only won two seats.

Thus, with a parliamentary majority, the Tories and their leader Cameron have got the opportunity to form the Cabinet of Ministers. The present prime minister has already let it be understood that he intends to make cardinal changes in the line-up of the cabinet. It has at any rate become known that Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, Home Secretary Theresa May and Defence Secretary Michael Fallon will retain their posts.

Whereas the Conservatives' domestic politics are not evoking any kind of particular talk within the country (it is at least obvious that the majority of the electorate supports the right-of-centre policy being pursued by Cameron with its neo-liberal deviation), then, after the elections, London's foreign political strategy is an object of considerable interest on the part of circles throughout the world. All the more so, since Great Britain remains one of the major powers, whose influence on the future of the global order cannot be doubted. This fact is not even refuted by the circumstance that the United Kingdom continues to play the part of the USA's main ally, both superpowers trying to attain indisputable hegemony in the world.

On the whole, in following the lead of American policy, London does nonetheless make it understood that, as a leading political alliance on a global scale, it is reckoning on key roles in the distribution of footholds in the Euro-Atlantic alliance. But this is even indicated by the fact that back on the eve of the elections the leading British parties promised the electorate that London's foreign policy would not be a unilateral one, but increasingly decisive steps would only be undertaken together with allies.

The numerous references to the role in the European Union and NATO made by the Tories, Labour Party members and Liberal Democrats in the election manifestos can be explained not only by the striving of leading British politicians to win the votes of the electorate who were not always happy about London's active collaboration with Washington during the military operations in different countries in the Middle East.

There is an obvious pointer here to the fact that the United Kingdom, without making claims of "unilateralism" in demonstrating its loyalty to allied agreements, primarily within the framework of NATO, will nevertheless pursue its own interests in the dialogue with the above-mentioned allies, primarily France and Germany, claiming the role of first violin in implementing European policy.

David Cameron makes it clear to Paris and Berlin in every possible way that they should not count on London resigning itself to their ambitions regarding leadership on the continent. 

Such tactics by the Tory government undoubtedly correspond to and will continue to correspond to the interests Washington which takes a jealous attitude towards the frequent manifestations of "a particular stand" on the part of the Franco-German tandem in implementing the European Union's foreign political strategy.

Although for election campaign purposes, influenced by nationalistic forces (the Tories borrowed some of the anti-European assertions of the United Kingdom Independence Party, which is notorious for its hard-line rhetoric against the EU), Cameron is still pledging to hold an "in-out" referendum with regard to Great Britain's membership of the European Union in 2017. Back in November last year, when launching the election campaign, the prime minister made the land-mark statement that Great Britain should not remain a member of the EU "no matter what".

He stressed that he is a politician who has a plan for reform, that he wants to defend the single market, but does not want to be forced to join the single currency zone. He said he was a politician who wanted Britain to be part of a Europe based on a common market and cooperation, but which would not become an ever closer union.

The Tory government will undoubtedly use the Euro-sceptic rhetoric to prevent Franco-German superiority. But, at the same time, it is hard to believe that Cameron will decide point blank to pose the issue of Britain leaving the EU. The interests of the Anglo-Saxon and European elite are too closely bound up together to permit a split in the Euro-Atlantic system (at least in the foreseeable future).

Proceeding from the fact that the United Kingdom's possible withdrawal from the European Union will be a disaster for the country, the Tories' main opponents, including the Labour Party members, will apply every effort not to allow this to happen. Moreover, in determining London's European policy, the factor, which in general favours a further combining the political efforts of the European and Atlantic communities will be of increasingly importance, not only from the point of view of British politicians, but European ones too.

This is to do with Russia which has thrown down a challenge to the global positions of the West, and is in particular hindering the further advancement of US and European interests in the republics of the former Soviet republics.

No changes with regard to Russia and that epoch-making, geopolitical action which is unfolding in conflict-torn Ukraine can be envisaged in the British Isles' post-electoral policy. Just as London has called for "Russian aggression" against Ukraine to stop, it is to go on trying to boost the political and economic pressure on Moscow in order to compel it "to withdraw from the Donbass".

This was clearly mentioned in the Tories election manifesto, referring to "aggressive Russia" as an extremely important foreign political threat along with "Islamic extremism" and the economic uncertainty in the Eurozone".

Other influential forces in British politics are also adhering to similar standpoints, thereby indicating that they are unanimous in supporting London's "policy towards" Russia. The Labour Party which lost the elections copied the Conservative programme document almost word for word. On their list of threats to the nation "aggressive Russia" occupies second place after "Islamic State".

But the Liberal Democrats who have acted as junior partners to the Tories in the coalition, believe that "Russian intervention in Ukraine" is "evidence of the complicated time the world and security on a global scale are facing" 

No significant changes are envisaged in Britain's policy regarding other issues of this "complicated time" either. Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan remain priorities in the policy of London, as it acts as the second strike force of the West after Washington, which is purposefully implementing the aggressive "Greater Middle East" strategy. The Tories' victory in scheduled elections is a guarantee that London will not in least tone down its activity in this extremely significant direction in global confrontation.