Ever since the 1990s, governments of Great Britain have negotiated a whole number of European 'opt-outs' (see here for the list). Rather than solidifying support for the Union this has created a dynamic in which the UK never became fully integrated in the give-and-take of compromise of European politics and British citizens were denied a whole number of privileges and benefits the rest of Europe takes for granted or has learned to appreciate (now that they are under threat again).
Whatever else that is to be said about the Brexit vote, the strategy of Europe-a-la-carte has been a flop inside England (and Wales); it also has been strategic failure for Europe which faces many challenges: a tattered common currency, a restless and violent Russia (which supplies lots of gas), anemic growth in its periphery, rising xenophobia among its aged and less educated population, member-states that violate liberal norms, and an Islamic youth culture that rejects Liberal values. As the response to the recent refugee showed, too many of the relatively recent EU member states are flirting with an a-le-carte-Europe; too many of them (Poland, Hungary) are flirting with an illiberal trajectory inside the Union.
To put matters simply: the EU does not have the luxury to focus on keeping a divided England, which has suffered from awful governance and an irresponsible media-landscape, inside the Union. I know I annoy and dismay my cosmopolitan and Liberal, British friends when I argue that a quick and clean divorce is the best to be hoped for until the English have worked through their national conversation on their collective future. (Some bits of the divorce will be contentious: London has been encouraged to become Europe's banker, and an England-outside-the-Union will be allowed no control over Europe's banking future.) Some of them are even working tirelessly to find legal and political means to prevent Brexit. But, as we know from the fate of French non and Dutch nee to the Lisbon treaty, to overturn a referendum of this magnitude will poison political life for a long time and only strengthens anti-democratic forces.
England has been a beacon of liberty and a calm, steady common sense for most of the twentieth century; the character of the Brexit campaign has exhibited a moral rot that runs through much of the political class, the media, and a large swath of the population. Rather than rising to the seriousness of the moment, we have seen English public life become not just undignified, but unhinged culminating in the murder of Jo Cox. It's not that continentals are inherently more civilized, but we have to prevent this from spreading.
For, the Union to become an Empire of peace (recall here and here) it needs to reform its institutions so we can end the political practice of the EU in which 'bad news' will be blamed on (faceless bureaucrats in) Brussels, and 'good news' can be credited to local politicians. We need a governance structure that allows political accountability for our collective monetary policy -- central bank independence has been the worst large scale social science experiment since the early twentieth century flirtation with eugenics -- , we need to have elected politicians in control of the Union bureaucracy not appointed commissioners, and we need to create a shared political life at the heart of the EU governance structure that permits the rise of strong, central leadership which simultaneously will have to be kept in check by a a German-style, Federal Constitutional Court.
The whole previous paragraph goes against the purported common sense of English political life, the views of its elites and media, and the purported national sentiments of the population. The English should not be allowed to slow down and veto the manifest needs of political reform of the Union. It is, thus, in the interest of the Union to let the English go (assuming the Scots and, perhaps, the Northern Irish will re-enter down the road). This will be especially painful for the Dutch, Danes, and Swedes who have relied on the British to defend their trade interests inside the Union and be a counter-balance to the French-German engine. We in Holland have many ties to England, including shared corporate governance of huge companies (Royal Dutch Shell, Unilever, Reed-Elsevier), strong academic connections, and intertwined histories [going back to (ahh) the Roman conquest of Britain (when Batavians fought alongside the Romans)] not the least of which Glorious Revolution of 1688 and Waterloo. For the Dutch, Brexit is the defeat of forty years of foreign policy.
Even so, from this side of the North Sea, there is also an upside to letting the English go. We divide the xenophobic, illiberal, and racist wings of today's Euro-skeptics* from each other and remove the country with the most mainstream Euro-abominatio. While Brexit will not destroy Europe's neo-fascist, populist parties it will be a huge strategic set-back for them (especially as the deceptions of the leave campaign become fully understood). And it will give us time to revive Europe's fortunes locally and across the Continent. The Union needs a shared mission, a collective civil religion, the revival of its economy, the protection of its founding Liberal values, and far-reaching institutional and political reforms--none of these will be possible with England inside the Union. Once we have saved the EU, we can wait for England's return with open arms.
*I have Euro-skeptical tendencies, but at this point of time the strengthening of the Union is to be preferred over its steady dissolution by all friends of liberty.
Comments