It is time for Britain to leave the European Union — with or without a deal. The prospect, as least rhetorically, horrifies the rest of the 27 E.U. member states. Hardly a day goes by without leaders or ministers pleading with the British government to spell out if it wants to leave (or indeed stay).
It got worse on Tuesday. The British Parliament opposed a “no-deal Brexit.” Prime Minister Theresa May now wants to go back to Brussels to renegotiate the original deal that she signed onto over the status of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The truth is that E.U. diplomats and leaders are now thoroughly fed up with the staggering incompetence of the British government, the opposition and the Brexit and Remainer camps. They all know that Brexit has been a distraction at a time when Europe is trying to deal with its changing geopolitical position toward the United States and China. They want the whole Brexit saga to end.
Britain has always had an ambiguous relationship with the E.U. since it joined in 1973. It is time to end this ambiguity. Continuing British membership in the E.U., prompted by another referendum or whatever messy compromise, would be poisonous.
The divides between Brexiteers and Remainers are so deep that any British E.U. delegation would be paralyzed. The United Kingdom’s hapless diplomats, whose foreign ministry back in London has been drained of talent because of inept leadership, would be constantly looking over their shoulders. They would fear making any statement about further reform of the European institutions. They would block any attempts to give Europe’s defense, security and foreign policy real teeth.
Also, a continuing British presence in the E.U. could not claim an unqualified mandate from the British people. British policy toward the E.U. would be schizophrenic, even destructive. This is not what the E.U. needs, especially given the rise of populist movements — one of many uncertainties currently facing Europe.
The other uncertainty is NATO. More member states are slowly coming around to the idea that the U.S. commitment to NATO is waning. They know the Europeans will have to spend more on their own defense, to take the security of their continent seriously and to reassure the United States that they are not piggy-backing on their big ally.
Yet it was Britain that blocked the E.U. from establishing a common military headquarters when Barack Obama was proclaiming his “pivot” to Asia. It was Britain, egged on by the anti-E.U. British tabloids, that accused the European Commission (the E.U.’s executive branch) of wanting a more integrated defense policy, even a European army — something that is highly unlikely to come about within the foreseeable future.
The E.U. as a collective has no common strategic outlook and hates the idea of hard power, while most individual member states oppose ceding sovereignty to Brussels over defense. British objections to a common European defense and security policy exacerbated and exploited these differences.
A Europe without Britain, however, would find it much easier to set up coalitions of the willing on specific issues while bypassing the E.U., something that France wants because E.U. defense is going nowhere.
This suits Britain. It could join such coalitions. As for Germany, it has used Britain’s opposition to more defense integration as an alibi for inaction. Brexit could therefore help the E.U. to clarify what it wants to become.
The Irish rightly dread a no-deal Brexit. It could lead to the introduction of border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Such controls disappeared thanks to the Good Friday Agreement that ended decades of sectarian violence in the province. The astonishing ignorance shown by Brexit supporters about the impact of a no-deal Brexit on the sustainability of the peace accord exposes the arrogance and shortsightedness of the governing elites, whether they belong to the ruling Tories or the opposition Labour Party.
There’s going to more than resentment in Ireland if Britain leaves. A peace process is at stake. It’s time for the Commission and the member states to bring Brexit to its logical conclusion. Get an exemption for Northern Ireland.
There is a precedent of sorts. The Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, which is sandwiched between E.U. members Poland and Lithuania, obtained a special exemption from the Commission in 2012. It allowed Kaliningraders to enter Poland visa-free as long as they remain within 30 kilometers (19 miles) of the border. It was a hugely successful decision.
That deal is now dead. The Polish government failed to appreciate the benefits of the exemption and canceled it — to great dissatisfaction on both sides of the border, since so many had benefited from it. Yet that innovation offers a possible model for a future post-Brexit Irish-Northern Ireland border.
The bottom line is that the E.U., freed from British ambivalence, would force European leaders to decide their own destiny. No more excuses.
This article was originally published by the Washington Post.
Comments(8)
Would be great if Britain just left. Deal or no deal/. They are now acting like a psychotic ex lover. Just leave and shut up, people don't give a damn about Britain's delusions of long gone empires. They are currently a world laughing stock and taking the hits, no Russians or American's to do the heavy lifting this time around. Just go. NOW
We cant get away fast enough, unfortunately the EUs fifth columnists are keeping us tied to you. Why dont you call them off so we can be free?
I assure you that most people in the UK are also heartily sick of the incompetence and dishonesty of both government and opposition. However, a discussion of the impact of Brexit in Ireland would hardly be complete without considering the obvious strong likelihood of the United Kingdom disintegrating as a political entity, with Scotland pressing for independence (and EU membership in its own right) and Northern Ireland leaving to become part of the Republic of Ireland (and also therefore inside the EU). Such is the blithering ineptitude of our representatives that this question has yet to be seriously discussed.
The original article in WAPO shows the picture of an older gentleman arguing with a young lady over Brexit, aligned with the age structure of the vote. The author identifies the many reasons the UK should just go, an accurate and extensive analysis. In global terms it is a disaster for the West, the spectacle of a Europe descending into vituperation, streamed live for the world to see. The East is asking “Has the West lost it” (Mahbubani) while preparing to seize back the Axis Mundi economically and militarily. Even the fact that the EU couldn’t help settling once and for all Ireland displays her limits. The consequences of Brexit will be serious for both the UK and Europe. Economically speaking, with 2008 still lingering around, it will bring major instability, even if it will eventually settle. One aspect is clear: the post Brexit global Britain might find that not many better deals are around; Scotland and other might secede and join the EU (if the EU will survive Bannon). Geopolitically, it is a different story. One phrase catches the eye: “They would block any attempts to give Europe’s defense, security and foreign policy real teeth.” Bush, Obama, Trump have all tried to get the wealthy NATO EU member to bear their fair share of the burden, to no avail. In this article, NATO is again associated obsessively with defense and deterrence in the European theater and especially against Russia. NATO, created with the Soviet Union in mind, is supposed to be one for all and all for one. The Soviet Union is no more, but other global challenges have arisen. NATO was incapable to settle the Afghan war, which even with a negotiated peace might end in defeat, with minimal participation from the European members. Obama should have clearly stated that it is a NATO pivot towards Asia and map out the exact contributions for each NATO state. South China Sea and Taiwan are NATO hot points, not just US. The cancellation of the INF treaty should be a major factor in the NATO EU members (including the UK) taking the lead in their own defense. Financially Stoltenberg mentioned a paltry increase of around 200 euros per capita, which is a slow start; advanced warning capabilities as well as civil defense are the immediate musts. What is of concern is Mogherini saying that Europe wanted to avoid “going back to being a battlefield” for superpower confrontation. Mogherini should know better, the EU largest, wealthiest entity on Western history is a superpower and should behave accordingly.
NATO in Asia. Doing the will of a global Amerika[sic]. This US obsession with global military supremacy is doing no one any favours. As for Bannon surely this is a jest. The future is perhaps envisaged in a Eurasian continuity which of course leaves Amerika[sic] isolated, floundering, realizing its exceptionalism is truly a menace given its endless posturing.
GLOBAL LEADERSHIP. The European Union is a work in progress and all 27 member nations are essential; without the UK, there will be a setback in this process. ' Security aside, it is economic power that will decide who is who in the future, and the EU is profiling itself as an economic powerhouse. The US-China-Russia adversarial axis mean different things for the EU. And then, there is Brexit. Although the ethnic and cultural ties are stronger with the US, the symbiosis have broken threads. While Trump is pulling the US away from the EU, China export driven economy is building infrastructure to embrace Europe and the world. Putin on the other hand, has close ties with Eurosceptics and populist parties across Europe to create a pro-Russian political front across Europe. Brexit is based on lies, manipulations, fake news etc, and is now a time bomb about to explode in the face of all Europeans. Outside of Europe, people wishes the EU would focus on global leadership. The EU is besieged in all fronts, and global leadership is the farthest thing in their agenda. Perhaps Europe doesn’t have what takes to be a global leader.
Why should they? After the 20th century's madness it might be time to become more realistic
Very bold and timely advice!
Comment Policy
Comments that include profanity, personal attacks, or other inappropriate material will be removed. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, steps will be taken to block users who violate any of the posting standards, terms of use, privacy policies, or any other policies governing this site. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.