Why would anyone ever want to be a FULL member when they could simply pick and chose what serves them best?
Who is going to pay the costs?
2
I wonder if it would have been better to keep senators appointed by governors. Maybe one party would not keep a tight lock on the Senate.
Reform is always worth considering BUT the UK will come to regret its decision. The EU should not panic.
Your final paragraph shows how the EU and UK's interests have diverged. For the EU to succeed the Brexit project must fail.
My money is on the EU. The UK has appalling leadership and no good options in this struggle. I only hope Scotland can exit UK before too long and become the social democratic European nation it yearns to be.
12
@David Mungall
Eurosceptic Brits have been predicting the demise/collapse/disintegration of the European Project (note: the EU only came into being in 1992) since the UK joined in 1972. Yet, the EU gets larger and stronger every year, year on year.
I think the Scots will leave the United Kingdom as will a united Ireland, within the decade. That leaves a rump of England and Wales - which I'm sure the EU will easily outshine.
Despite it having existed since 1707, the (dis)United Kingdom looks time expired and over. I'm all in favour of unpicking it - Scotland is likely to offer citizenship to us English. I'd gladly join a liberal, enlightened, technologically forward Scotland [1]. I'd get my EU citizenship back too.
[1] Despite its diminutive size, Scotland's population have contributed far more Nobel prize winners than England.
4
The governing consensus in the United States is also collapsing. As is in Europe, contention regarding immigration policies between economically vibrant, politically and socially progressive urban areas versus economically stagnant, politically reactionary rural areas is undermining democratic action to address problems. Ironically, in both the US and Europe, the rural areas are heavily subsidized by our central governments. Many in the US would welcome a more flexible political arrangement in which conservative rural areas were no longer able to impose their conservative values and reactionary economic policies on urban areas that produce most of the nation's wealth and creativity. In the US, this may require states and cities taking steps to weaken the federal government. The federal government is no longer capable of addressing the nation's most urgent problems due to the disproportionate political power ceded to rural areas by our outmoded Constitution, which is now virtually impossible to change. People cling to the hope that a progressive President will bring needed change, but this seems unlikely due to the ability of our senate to block reforms. If Trump is re-elected by minority vote, faith in our federal government may well evaporate.
227
Indeed, it would be quite interesting if the coastal states could keep their money and not have to send remittances to the corn farmers and the South.
56
@MVonKorff
You said it right! It's time the uneducated rural areas stop dictating what happens to this country. Since they want less government, the creative productive areas should stop sending them their money. When confronted with this issue their answer is: "well somebody has to grow the food." Well, it's time they grow the food effectively without the aid of the federal government. Rural areas complain about those that get social security and food stamps. It's time they stop getting hand outs as well.
46
@Ann Jun
I think this sentiment should be tempered with the data around the number of young men and women from the red states who fight wars on behalf of America and get wounded or die -relative to the number of productive educated coastal people who would be willing to do the same thing?
25
I agree with the premise that the EU needs to make some changes.
I do not agree with the notion that the EU is the reason why
Eastern Europe is starting to look alot like 1935. It appears that everything is to blame for far right ascendancy other than the easy answers and false promises of the far right itself.
1
Being German but having lived in Britain for a long time, I think i can say with some confidence that i have some insight into the motives of the Brexiteers. They are mixed with quite a degree of anti-German ressentiments - aversion against this country the British fought in two world wars and that now is no. 1 in Europe in many ways and therefore plays a key role within the EU, and these British don't like that.
The reality is that in the run-up to the referendum in 2016, the EU could have--and perhaps now wishes it had--made some meaningful concessions to the UK. And that could have made all the difference in the outcome.
Would something like a reasonable cap on annual EU migration to the UK have shattered the EU's freedom of movement principle? No. After all, the EU had set up (but the UK, foolishly perhaps, failed to avail itself of) a migration limit program limiting migration from Romania and Bulgaria.
In fact, freedom of movement is not sacrosanct but the EU was complacent and overconfident and therefore saw no reason to compromise. As Bittner suggests, that complacency risks further losses.
13
@elti9 How about the tremendous failure of the UK to have any plans now in place, or any offices where they will have representatives to carry on trade and business? Who failed magnificently...I say it is the UK. And they daily talk about the great country, while the news if mostly of failure, of the NHS to treat patients with knee damage for instance. What is great I keep asking? And why must the EU beware?
5
@JHM My comment addresses the failure of the EU to take the possibility of the referendum in 2016 seriously enough to make any meaningful concessions.
Nothing in my comment suggests that the UK was wise to leave the EU or that it is doing a good job handling Brexit.
6
@elti9 No doubt every side made mistakes.And there is no doubt that the EU needs to reform or repair its project.But also there is little doubt that the UK spent all its time "opting out" of this and that and making the EU the scapegoat for its own governments' failures.Now it can assume sole responsibility for the terrible shape of its own society and country.
4
Britain always had one foot out the door.
While it is unquestionably true that the EU has been enormously beneficial for Britain overall, the Brits have always been tepid on the EU.
It will be interesting to see whether Scotland remains in the UK and it will be interesting to see how this reshapes Northern Ireland.
14
Support for the EU remains high among all member states, hence an increased vote for anti-immigration/xenophobic parties is hardly proof of lack of support for the EU. If anything, such a proposal for an EU with diffferent speeds is actually more likely to break up the union. Don't forget that Brexit was based entirely on lies and undeliverable promises, and that the UK could easily have resolved its issues without leaving the EU - now they'll just be magnified. Not exactly proof of anything specifically wrong with the EU (not that everything is hunky-dorey, but no country or bloc ever is).
10
@Teo There is no evidence that the EU support is high. Turnout at EU elections is far lower than National elections and the EU gave up doing surveys after support collapsed below 20%,
The UK is not anti-immigration. It has more immigration and is more international then anywhere else in Europe.
There is however a difference between having a racist migration system such as the EU which all depends on your passport, compared to a fair system like Australia where is based on the individual merit.
Brexit is about opening up the UK to the brightest and best from around the World. So talented people from Brazil should be looking forward to a trade deal direct with the UK and far closer cooperation.
3
You're saying a merit based system is free of racism. Ha ha, good one.
1
I have found that it is easier to understand the EU’s problems through the lens of history, which is something that Brussels seems to ignore.
By this, I mean to say that what drove Brexit, at an abstract level, is that out of all the EU states, Britain alone did not have its sovereignty destroyed by war. All member states, no matter whose side they were on, were destroyed in WWII.
The British never lost their sense of nation, never had a hostile foreign army rule its land (a friendly army however...). All the other members’ societies were shattered; and in the East it was worse.
The Eastern EU countries, caught between Hitler and Stalin were savaged. Next they were traumatized by decades of harsh Soviet occupation. They have no history of democratic tradition nor institutions. As a result, they tend to strongman, one party state rule.
How could the EU western democracies ever integrate with the East, or South of Europe? For this reason I could only endorse the author’s prescription for the future of the Bloc.
1
Brexit moves Great Britain towards re-strengthening its Empire.....known thru the late 20th Century as the Commonwealth of Nations. A trade network with common ties, language, government systems, laws, history...
The missing link is Ireland...which will out of necessity rejoin not only with Northern Ireland but also the United Kingdom.
...
The Continent will make some necessary changes as well.
Germany is already closely tied to Russia.....an interesting alliance of powerful enemies....Russia with natural resources, Germany with a strong economy....Poland, Ukraine and all of Eastern Europe will grudgingly fall in line....it will be important for the economy and security.
...
The Balkans will move towards Turkey, once the Ottoman Empire....Istanbul being the stable center......will the Levant (Israel?)also return to a stable alliance with Turkey? The US built and long neglected TAPline plays a role.
...
That leaves "Latin Europe" where France contends with Rome and Spain for control of Northern Africa......Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria.....best to leave Egypt out of the equation.
The EU has its problems, main one being how to deal with refugees — and the problem in general of getting the middle class on its feet and the misers out of government. Brexit hasn’t solved this problem for the U.K. but instead has exacerbated it by reinforcing the control of a self-centered
elite that simply wanted U.K. decision-making put entirely in THEIR hands.
1
The EU is steeped in the European faith in rules, regulations, and decrees from authority, which is central to European statesmanship. The European Union is a hidebound bureaucracy. I argue it is a cartel because the glue that binds the members in and attracts others, is the European market. It's a big market. Many want in. If you're a member you're in, no cover. If you're not, you pay. Market access is wielded like a club. The EU is the Hanseatic League reborn.
@KG
And the USA isn't protectionist? Get away! America is the most protectionist entity on the planet.
Protectionism works for the people being protected. In Europe's case that's half a billion people doing well out of being protected - economically and cukturally at present, defence wise in future.
Do you think Mr Trump and corporate America want to free the world of bureacracy? To get rid of authority? Nope, they want the EU's wealth and prosperity without Europe's rules.
2
I'm not persuaded.
The EU isn't about limitless benefit and privilege. Its about aligning interests that benefit ALL Europeans. It's about giving a hand-up to smaller, less well developed European nations - even if that means there's less for one's self because the effects of prosperity are shared, too. More prosperity, more trade. Better social infrastructure, better innovation and skills. Better, more cohesive communities, better harmony and stability. Better, co-ordinated defence and law enforcement, better security. It's long term - a work in progress.
Of course the EU gets things wrong. There are inevitable 'crises'. A project as big as this encourages waste and corruption. Participants often disagree. So much for outsiders to mock! But, where else in the world has anything on this scale not had these issues?
EU membership has privileges - not least, belonging to the biggest, richest, trading structure in human history. But it also has responsibilities that go beyond national boundaries. It's not a zero-sum game of winners and losers - which is why most Americans and many Brits simply don't 'get' the EU.
Leaving the EU to attempt to buddy up with Trump's USA IS a zero-sum game. So many Eurosceptic Brits have lost (or ever knew) what 'winners' and 'losers' look like. They're going to find out soon. Corporate America HATES the EU. Today's a great win.
"Brexit: the only time a nation has ever ordered sanctions on itself."
2
No, Bittner. Just because a bunch of people get high and become morons doesn't mean we sink to their level—even when the bunch is the population of little england.
Sometimes, people (like websites) make b'AdChoices. If they don't want the EU's benefits because they either hate the other countries' people or would rather not lose their Cayman accounts, they need to learn the hard way they're dead wrong.
1
Multiculturalism has failed. We need to let the Islamic nations in the Middle East and other developing countries in Asia and Africa learn to be self reliant.
1
Why does the NYT continue to publish articles about the impending doom of the EU? it seems like they're trying to start a self fulfilling prophecy
London falling.
1
If the EU were an animal, what animal would it be?
“The EU would be a lobster … because the EU, by the very way it works, encourages its participating members to order the lobster at the joint meal because they know that the bill is going to be settled by everybody else — normally by the Germans.”
Boris Johnson 2013
A funny joke contains a kernel of bitter truth
@LArs
It simply shows British entitlement. That 'union' must be a zero-sum game of winners and losers.
Have you never ordered something in a restaurant that other people didn't pay for? Would it be dumb to that under all circumstances?
Britain has had enough of the phony united Europe circus.
Countries and peoples ought to keep their idenetities and their borders.
It is vital for the security of all.
Keep the change! When essayists start addressing the real problem -- increasing birth and survival rates of homo sapiens in countries where people don't want to live-- probably in part because of Western capitalism or ISIS. When the billionaires who never have enough give back instead of trying to acquire evermore-- hey guys guess what you are mortal... (altho I suspect a few have been cloned -- it is possible) -- and people have decent lives- food, water, habitations, jobs, no war, less weather drama (if possible -- climate change will result in more dislocation) -- immigration will not be a problem and for heaven's sake, in the 60s at 3.8 billion on the planet we discussed zero population growth -- we will soon be a 8 billion... Stop making babies already. There is so much enmity within families so little sharing frankly... the social model of the commune does need to be put orth. (maybe Meghan and Harry can start a commune!) Already discussed in the second half of the 19th century or there is the village or tiny town.(often ner a city and on public transit in Europe.)
1
Thank you for your post. I have said for a while now that until the human race deals with overpopulation, everything else is moot. At the bottom that means making sure that every woman on the planet has rights to either free or affordable birth control. Unfortunately the people who are rabidly anti-abortion are all too often anti-birth control. Unless we stop regarding women as no more than breeding machines, all is lost.
2
“But would you want to join a club that will let you play tennis only if you also enroll for boxing, gambling, fishing — and a cooking course too?” Well, apparently some states can do that, while others can’t! So why would I care? You wanna be a member to a select club? You follow the club’s rules.
There is a direct connection between Bush II starting a war in Iraq (wholly unnecessary, based on trumped up evidence), and Brexit - albeit with a large number of milestones and contributory factors. The fear of N. African immigrants emerging on their shores - who were already in Italy, Greece, and Germany - sent the nice Brits over the edge (already worried about Romanian electricians in Kent and Polish plumbers in Reading).
Message to EU: thank you for agreeing to stop killing each other with extreme savagery after WWII, but that does not mean you should be starting wars, supporting despots, grabbing resources in Africa and Latin America, and sending them arms, chemical weapons, what not. Because, it comes back to bite you. It did. Instead of boasting about large scale arms suppliers, dealership in blood diamonds - start buying beef from Botswana, flowers from Kenya, and build schools in Congo. After your treacherous history of rape, war, and arms peddling - did you really think you would enjoy only the benefits?
@Kalidan
In cash terms, the EU is by far the largest donor to African countries as well as having very active programmes of Europe-Africa trade development. Which includes buying beef and flowers.
The second largest investor in Africa is the PRC.
US, not so much - despite being keen to lecture Europe.
1
Dollars to donuts that Scotland and possibly Northern Ireland petition for EU membership within 5 years.
In other words, shut it down? Because what's the point if there's no committment?
@Es
No committment? ONE member has left. There is a line of nations waiting to join. Since the Brexit vote, support for the EU in Europe has soared. 94% in Ireland, for example. Even Greece - which has suffered because it joined the Euro under false pretences - has a majority approval for continued membership.
Even the most reactionary, authoritarian, nationalist Europeans politicians have ceased to promote further withdrawals. They recognise a good deal..
The title of the article reminded me the headline:
"Fog in Channel; Continent Cut Off”
Anyhow. I guess everyone has to change. The thing is that Britain is forced while in EU is a matter of choice
1
Typical capitalist article. Can't help but to laugh; except that I fear for humanity.
So true, in every western liberal country, the insufferable condescension of the elites towards what normal people feel and believe, beliefs which wouldn't have been questioned by the elite's grandparents, has led to a schism which will not end well for the elites, bless their little heads as we see them go by speared on pikes.
1
What you are suggesting is turning the EU into a right-wing populist organization to satisfy bigots. Ridiculous. The EU stands for morals and values - don’t you understand that?
@Queen Anne
Americans generally wish the European Union ill. That's because they don't understand it or because, in some way, they feel threatened by its heft. Far better to deal with individual small countries that kowtow to the USA.
I expected no less. What I didn't expect was that even liberal, enlightened opinion in the columns of the NYT would sustain a continually negative, critical anti-EU rhetoric.
I am no expert in the viability of the Eurozone, but jettisoning the fascist nations like Hungary and Poland would be a good start. Let them cozy up to Russia, another third world nation and economy.
@Lawman69
The EU doesn't work like that. For an organisation that bends over backwards to be inclusive, diverse and democratic there exists NO WAY to expel a member country. Applicants that satisfy the criteria of financial stability, human rights, democracy and that agree to be bound by the EUs treaties and rules are accepted. Once you're in, your're in. [1]
There do exist ways in which errant member states can be 'corrected' by the others. Like withdrawal of EU voting and decision making rights.These have never been used - although Hungary and now Poland are moving towards testing these levers.
How would the EU decide if a member was to be expelled? A referendum for 500million citizens? A unanimous vote? How likely is that to be achieved? Perhaps by majority - what percentage? Should large countries get more votes than smaller ones?
[1] It's like NATO. Not even Donald Trump can expel Turkey. In fact, under the rules, Turkey cannot be expelled without Turkey's permission. This is probably one reason Mr Trump wants out.
@Lawman69
The EU doesn't work like that. For an organisation that bends over backwards to be inclusive, diverse and democratic there exists NO WAY to expel a member country. Applicants that satisfy the criteria of financial stability, human rights, democracy and that agree to be bound by the EUs treaties and rules are accepted. Once you're in, your're in. [1]
There do exist ways in which errant member states can be 'corrected' by the others. Like withdrawal of EU voting and decision making rights.These have never been used - although Hungary and now Poland are moving towards testing these levers.
How would the EU decide if a member was to be expelled? A referendum for 500million citizens? A unanimous vote? How likely is that to be achieved? Perhaps by majority - what percentage? Should large countries get more votes than smaller ones?
[1] It's like NATO. Not even Donald Trump can expel Turkey. In fact, under the rules, Turkey cannot be expelled without Turkey's permission. This is probably one reason Mr Trump wants out.
BTW, the 'Eurozone' is shorthand for countries that have adopted the Euro. It's not the same as 'the EU'. Poland still uses the Zloty and is thus NOT in the Eurozone.
The central unmentioned problem is Germany itself. They want to sit on their enormous wealth while forcing austerity on poor, southern countries, and in the process blame the economic plight of those countries on their deficient cultures. To cover its tracks and deflect attention away from the neoliberal legal structures that keep it rich and other countries poor, Germany continues to propagate the myth that it is wealthy because its smart, hard-working, and thrifty while countries like Greece and Italy are poor because they’re ignorant, lazy, and entitled.
If the EU is to succeed, Germany has to get real about the true sources of economic inequality between countries within the EU and be willing to sacrifice for the common good.
Austerity and neoliberal exploitation are not the way forward.
Those UK residents that voted to leave the EU will go down as the textbook definition of 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'. Think of it this way, in terms of just migration, UK residents gave up the opportunity to move and work visa-free in 26 other countries solely so that others could not come into theirs. Their opportunity set to be successful in life just shrunk dramatically because of small minded and short sighted thinking.
1
I'm a Dutch national living in Scotland. This article with its quoted vulgarities has it backwards. Last week there were reports of a disabled man who starved to death after his benefits were cut by the rotten DWP institution in the UK. Imagine being sat in a wheelchair and being told you are not disabled enough to get government support and slowly withering away until nothingness, your body to be found weeks later by balifs looking for rent. Without the EU to intervene, the cruel elites and bullies will continue to reign their terror on our weakest. With no morality and no sense of right, just a twisted interpretation of Darwin's survival of the fittest to placate their swiss cheesed moral compass.
The idea that the vast majority of the west are now leaning towards populism is also nonsense. This is a boomer generation vs generation x and millennials issue i.e., the majority of those under 45 voted to remain in the EU; as did the majority of Scotland, where I live. When the boomers and their flagship leaders (i.e. Trump) finally are out of power, the generation that will actually live through the failed policies of our parents (i.e., climate change), will reverse all of this nonsense. Not before much suffering is inflicted on the weakest.
1
I plead for a smaller EU.
Pull out the biggest thorns: Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic.
Let them be happy in their own way and on their own dime.
Who knows, maybe theirs is the better model? Give them a fair chance to prove it.
As for more Balkan countries joining - forget it, please!
1
Yes Europe has to change. First step is to avoid being constantly obstructed by xenophobic government. This is why, sadly perhaps, the Europen Union will be a better place without a Britain dominated by a national populist clique. So,…rejoice Europe! Let´s hope that the northern Irish colonial enclave will soon dissolve itself into the Irish Republic. Let´s hope too for an independent Scotland, or alternatively a Scottish-English Federation free from the pride and prejudice of rancid elites. The vibrant pro-European movement born during the last three years should ensure that Britain manages to reinvent itself as a progressive and modern country. Only then should it be allowed to rejoin the European peace and welfare project.
Great Britain was one of the first members of the European Union, not the first. Minor point but it was indeed the first member to obtain favorite status.
Anyway good by and good riddance and I do hope that The real Europe does come out of it with the necessary changes to strengthen the Union to defeat others from trying the whatever ____exits.
Saluti
It is hitting the people that deserve it.
All industrial nations are experiencing social dislocations, all these promises, that every generation is better off than their parents, it all got scrapped with a shrug. Scrapped by the same people who are building this elysium of power in bruessel.
For the little people this brave new world has failed, and not just in the EU, but also in the US.
I am not happy about the disintegration of the EU. But if this is the only way to remind those windbags, that this system is created to serve the all the people and not the visions of some well-off pundits, than "D-Exit" will be the way i chose.
1
I shudder for England because it has been taken in by a flimflam man just like the U.S. It is like a family going through a divorce where no one knows what will happen next and no one is really happy. In addition the Royals have let the people down by their miscreant behavior under the auspices of another American divorcee (just like ole David) and the Royal image is quite important. Also, remember they are the epitome of a large successful family who has hung together in spite of quite a lot. So, is it "cry for me Argentine" time or the proverbial "stiff upper lip?"
1
WHY does Europe "have to change"? Europe is acting sensibly, responsibly, and in a generally united way.
It's now-got-so-great-Britain that is making a suicidal mistake, influenced by false promises, outright lies, and disinformation created by the likes of Putin to drive a wedge between members of the European Union and divide them.
Britain has been at the front when breaking up other countries. It broke up India into India and Pakistan and then Pakistan broke into two.
Now Britain has broken up the European Union.
Scotland wants out, Northern Ireland is a natural component of the Irish island as one nation and I am sure the people of Wales would rather be not part of the United Kingdom.
Let us all help break up Britain into England, Scotland, wales and Northern Ireland first and then help Ireland and Northern Ireland unite.
“ Because the nagging core question for the bloc — what are the advantages of an often unwieldy union of 27 countries over a single nation-state? — has not vanished just because the British have answered it for themselves.”
No the British have not. No one has shown there will be an economic benefit from Brexit. There is not one serious prediction of such. The suggested“benefits” are intangibles such as “sovereignty.”
Why worry about Poland and Hungary and how come these countries define the future of the EU? They will probably be eaten alive by Russia if they Eurexit. That may also be the fate of the UK unless they secure a good deal with the US.
European Union can still function as a collection of Western European states making economic pacts with the former Eastern bloc countries and Turkey. Yes, the EU has problems but the people here are not stupid. They have established a genuinely humane and advanced level of civilization the rest of the world has yet to achieve.
I think you forget that the UK never wanted to be part of a team that it could not dominate. You further neglect the fact that todays middle east migration is due to the poor decisions that the UK made when it sliced up its "territories" like Syria and walked away, while at the same time refusing refugees from its that resulted in these bad decisions. The UK mess is a mess because of the UK, not because of the EU. I am particularly galled by the constant comment by non-central and eastern Europeans thinking they speak for all of us. You don't.
Europe is Germany and Germany is Europe.
Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, etc. have to change.
1
Why not an Eastern Eu block? Let the nationalists have their own federation. And lets see how long that will last. As far as Britain is concerned, they will slide down to ignominy. The US will lose interest after trump is gone.
The EU is largely a USA construct, the American attempt to forge Post WW2 Europe into our own image.
A Federal System, created thru "democracy",,,,the vote of the people,,,,with liberty and justice for all......
NATO a system of common defense.
IMF posing as a central bank.
....
But Europeans used these mechanisms to revive the old standards......Aristocracy.
...
Europe enjoys a high standard of living.....largely due to American finance and military presence......the proceeds of prosperity doled out by Bankers(who by and large behave like Aristocrats).....in fact many European Bankers ARE Aristocrats.
As long as europeans arent starving, they seem relatively content to allow the Aristocracy to reassert itself and to control the GroupThink of Europe.
The Divine Right of Bankers to Rule European Fiefdoms.
The EU does not need "à la carte" membership, which, by the way, Norway and Switzerland are already enjoying. That just sounds like what the Germans call "Aktionismus," the desire to do something for the sake of doing something. The EU also does not need "better PR," which implies that everything is good and the people are just too stupid to understand. Instead, it needs to fundamentally rebuild its institutions so that it begins to serve the material well-being of ordinary citizens. As long as the EU remains a talking club for elite politicians trying to find out how to best serve the corporate sector, even if at the expense of the common good, its popularity will decline. The current crisis is much more severe than individuals like Jochen Bitter are willing to admit.
Organizing a conference on the future of Europe now, as a perceived response to Brexit, is thoroughly ill-conceived. It is a show of weakness and it opens the table to arguments from all kinds of anti-EU movements on the continent. The crisis of Brexit is a crisis primarily in the UK, not in the EU. There is a strong majority on the continent who still support the EU. Propaganda, on the other hand, has the tendency to stick and any missteps now can work to erode that support. A conference aimed at airing dirty laundry immediately after a dramatic departure of a prominent member state is such a misstep. There is a lot of bitterness on the continent about Brexit. Let us not waste that energy in admitting fault where this is none. The fault is with the UK and sections of its population who arrogantly rejected European integration in their belief of innate superiority.
The time will come to think about the future of Europe and the EU. As with any large and complex organization, there are always things to improve. That time, however, is not now.
Europhiles are always at the disadvantage of always recalling Nietzsche on monsters.
But ignoring the monstrousness of monsters is hard, and not responding in kind even harder.
The correct time to have this discussion was before Britain left and the correct place was the negotiations between Mr Barnier and his British counterparts. Britain voting to leave should have been a wake-up call to the true believers that their dream was failing and needed replacement with a looser, but larger, and I believe, ultimately more durable, union. Instead, it was treated as a tool with which to blackmail existing members of the union to toe the party line. A tragedy.
Angela Merkel is to blame. She had the power in the most powerful member of the European Union and failed abysmally to understand the divisive nature of substantial immigration, especially from failed mideast and african states, as well as the rich countries' obligations to ameliorate the damage that German bankers did to Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Odd that only England has so far rebelled.
I find amusing that an American should propose reforms in Europe. How about constitutional reforms in your own country?
How long as it been for the ERA?
The comments to the piece exude the same closed-mindedness, inflexibility, willful blindness, delusion, and arrogance that will largely pull apart the EU in the next few decades.
How could one be disappointed with Europe in the Eastern countries while they all are what they are today mostly because (due to) Europe’s money!?
For example, Poland - the country with the highest European funds absorption! What does Poland want from Europe? Disappointed of what exactly is Poland? Of the fact that Europe didn’t do more? More, as in what?
Only the weakest have fear of liberalism (European liberalism, not leftism). Only the weakest fear they might disappear because their “identity” vanishes.
I agree. EU change is necessary, but Britain is about to get intimate with that sinking feeling of powerlessness that comes with being an outsider, and a citizen of pariah country. Empire is entirely gone, and I guess that's a good thing. Prosperity will not follow, except for the filthy rich people you decided to believe when you voted. Same goes for the U.S. Swan song for democracy...
In 1977 my brother and I built a fort under a weeping willow tree behind our house. Over my objections, my brother allowed the overbearing neighborhood tattletale Angelica access to our clubhouse.
The next day, I returned to our fort to find every corner of it to overrun with rules and labels. There was a "reading corner," a "writing corner," and even a "listening corner." I proceeded to thrash the place in a fit of anger.
And, thus was my first experience with European Union-style liberalism. Where freedom and equality is guaranteed by many, many rules preventing exactly that. Where thousands of mindless bureaucrats attempt to over-regulate every aspect of life, in search of that great utopia.
Let's be honest, Brexit is really about racism, in reaction to the waves of Muslim Africans who have been flooding European shores. But it has revealed what has been known for a long time: the European Union is a bureaucratic paradise. And what's the point of being a member of an organization that provides absolutely no benefit?
How ironic, brexit and now likely t's acquittal on the same day, January 31, 2020. On January 30, 1933 an other highly deceptive leader came to power which resulted in near destruction of the then-time world. This was eventually largely prevented by a combined effort of the US, UK saving Europe and eventually resulting in what would become the EC . And now........with many I am at a loss for words, January 31, 2020.
PUTIN HAS SUCCEEDED In sowing mayhem--Helter Skelter--in one of the world's democracies of longest standing, has outdone himself. He not only ordered the poisoning of former Russian citizens by using weapons grade nerve agents, but he poisoned, more successfully, the entire government, along with the royals who were enabling final defeat of the British Empire. I cannot see how the Brexiteers will get through this ordeal without bringing down the economy of Britain, the financial center of gravity in the EU. Banks will all flee to relocate in safer environs. There will be shock waves through the world economy, bringing down stock markets globally. For the Brits have killed the goose that laid the golden egg. Brexit represents the triumph of Putin's evil, propelled by the white supremacists in the UK. The Sun will finally set on the last remnants of the British Empire. And Britain ever, ever, ever shall be shamed. The long shadow of the economic chaos that will follow today's Brexit will cause massive economic disruption worldwide. For the Brits will pay the piper's bill sooner than later. For they're marching to the beat of the piper's tune. A pall of silence, an economic ice age, will descend upon Britain. Other nations will fall like so many dominoes. I dearly hope that I'm wrong. For it gives me no solace to see destruction to the horizon and sound the alarm that will go unheeded. So dear readers, the time has come to bury your gold and ride out the storm.
This piece seems to ignore the motivation for Brexit. According to Neil Farage, its architect, in a recent Newsweek Op Ed:
"In most areas of our national life, Britain follows trends that are set by the USA. This particularly applies to American business and culture. But in the case of...Brexit...we set the hare running that led to Donald Trump's extraordinary victory...He is seen to be on the side of ordinary American citizens and against the elites...I fully anticipate four more years of the Trump administration, and I will continue to be his biggest cheerleader on this side of the Atlantic...As [the World Economic Forum] champion diversity in everything but thought, this annual gathering belongs firmly in the past eras."
Let's sum Farage's words up: England should follow America's practices in business. Trump's extraordinary victory has produced a leader fighting against the "elite" and for the ordinary American. Diversity is bad.
Neither Farage nor Bittner seem to have a good understanding of what's really happening in the world. Bitter defends a desire of countries to only partially participate in the union they want to join -- kind of sounds like take the aid money and run.
As for culture? It's not clear what Farage means beyond immigrants are bad. 95% of American culture is based on the traditions of the immigrants - we killed the Natives before we could learn theirs.
Farage and Trump are the problem, not the solution. Bittner is spreading their trash.
Gee I don't know maybe the EU could stop being a bureaucratic dictatorship run by unelected wonks who have zero engagement with the people they inflict their policies on?
Maybe Britain will have to change more than Europe. If the Brexiteers think Trump will make up for what they lost in the EU they're dead wrong.
1
A “pick and choose approach” misses the entire point of the EU. While I can understand the some of the frustration of Brexiteers, the central arguments for leaving reveal their own small minded approach to world economic and political realities.
Yes, theEU is a bloated bureaucracy—it needs reform, but the idea that a have your cake and eat it too kind of membership is progressive reform is commentary that shows a severe lack of understanding about the EU project.
This feels very much like an editorial written by a smarter group of Farage-ists.
"The bloc has grown too big to accommodate ... all of it's member." Can be said about any bloc, any time. Without military suppression of the Confederacy, the U.S. would have become at least 2-nations; by now maybe 50 nations. Or more ( Long Island having seceded from NY State, etc). Or, more likely, by now N. America would all be part of a greater Germany (WWII - or even WWI - having been lost).
An à la carte Europe is a ridiculous proposition.
I don't know why Iceland, the Iroquois Confederacy and Anabaptist communes have worked so well for so long... or why big shot cultures don't wonder why they haven't.
England: from mistress of the seas to making sweaters in less than 100 years. England will regret this move for centuries to come. Can’t wait to see the new sweaters that come out!
1
Hmmm. A la carte membership in the union. Maybe we should try that here.
Seems to make an awful lot of sense, therefore it probably will never happen. Eurocrats and strong supporter of the Union aren't revolutionaries, they aren't flexible thinkers. What feels most comfortable and safe to them is to sustain the status quo, don't rock the boat. In reality, sometimes the boat needs to be rocked, changes need to take place to ensure that the boat doesn't end up like the Titanic, with a crew of leaders unwilling to see the dangers of their situation.
2
Be patient, Mr. Bittner.
Britain and Trump's America are advancing European integration.
All the things Europeans have been taken for granted are finally getting appreciation: a safe food chain, care for the environment, antitrust enforcement (no 100$ internet in the EU), universal healthcare, 20 minimum holidays, etc.
2
You don't need a bloc for Bittner's proposals. Just scrap it. The financial crisis was telling. Everyone wanted the benefit of the E.U.'s low borrowing rates but when the music stopped the usual suspects didn't want to pay and couldn't deflate its currency. It's unworkable all the way around.
1
This article feels like it's written three years ago.
Today there is a strong consensus in Europe around limiting the amount of non-EU immigration and the general opinion of Europe in most core EU countries is positive. If I received a penny every time the EU or eurozone have been declared dead, I'd be lying on a beach retired.
The Visegrád four have been more than a bit thankless. The EU acceptance of them and huge infrastructure investments in their countries is paying off large dividends, they have been growing like crazy. The Czech Republic and Slovakia have benefited enormously from car manufacturing moving to their country because of lower wages, the Czechs have 2.2% unemployment. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. And to be clear, they do not want to exit. I guess it's just part of their growing process, and like racism and misogyny it will fade out as they become fully advanced countries.
Macron is walking a fine line between pushing through the reforms his country desperately needs (pensions are next), facing strong opposition. This has little to do with the EU.
More to the point, an EU à la carte is a bad idea. It's a recipe for freeloading (e.g. opting out of military integration) and cherry picking. It risks reversing the growing EU identity in the core countries and opening cracks for EU enemies (Putin, Trump, ...) to exploit.
2
What I fail to see in any of these comments is an understanding that the whole idea of the European Union was to create a Europe that rejected the nationalism that lead to both world wars. The "Four Freedoms" were designed to undercut economic nationalism and intergrate the Europe economy and as Britain will find out fairly soon that has happened. Europe has had 75 years of peace so the EU has worked.
To the argument that the EU is "rigid", what I see having lived in the US is that the EU has created a lot of rules that have protected the consumers across the EU. There isn't the product manipulation that I experienced in the US. Is it perfect: no. But when I look at the fact that thousands of people are dying of bad food in the US each year because safety rules either aren't enforced or don't exist, all I can say is be careful what you wish for.
3
A reasonable argument. The only alternatives are disintegration; a flexible union would allow member states to slowly grow accustomed to integration at their own speed.
I like the general gestalt of the EU. I will not travel to England (or is it Great Brittan as a famous man once asked?) now that it is led by a mini Trump and has decided to try to return 1922 (watch out India!).
As for tossing the federal government here in the USA does that mean that people in the South will own slaves again? Will the South West take the vote away from women? Will the Northeast get kids back in the mines? Will the Midwest establish a theocracy? Will the West slaughter the few remaining indigenous people?
Sounds like fun and things will only get better when we move from independent regions to tribal domains.
3
I’m an expat Brit and I have to say this day gives my great sadness. The British people have been lied to for years by the right-wing press and the blame for all their woes was laid at the feet of Europe.
But Europe does need to change, and that change has to be greater political unity. The common currency ties countries together but in the most basic manner. Making the union mostly financial means that politicians can easily point to who is putting strain on the local economy.
I asked a French friend what happened to “ever closer union” and he said that political union was supposed to closely follow economic union, but the failure of the ratification of the EU constitution derailed it.
Until the EU can overcome the political hurdle it will continue to be a target of right-wing nationalistic ire.
Britain, though, had the best deal of any country in the EU and it walked away. Sad.
2
The original purpose of the European monetary union and the EU was to reduce currency instability as well as political instability. These remain progressive goals. Like any economic or political agreements, they need adjustments to changing facts, but not a complete revision.
Brexit on the other hand came about because of growing nationalism, xenophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism. It will lead to economic recession, unemployment, travel restrictions, and disarray and uncertainty for business. As a result, investment and growth will decline in England.
2
This column mixes together several distinct questions, that are better answered separately.
For example, the Euro is not co-extensive with the EU. The problem with the Euro as a currency is that it lacks by design the ability to be flexible in down times, and especially when the down hits some regions harder than others. An example is the downturn that caused Germans to pull out of vacation home purchases in Spain, and left Spain with a sudden banking and real estate problem that had to be paid in Euros, yet Germany resolutely refused to help fix the problem Germans had left in Spain; Spain did not have a debt problem until that happened.
Another is the issue of neo-liberal economics. In France they called it the American system, when Sarkozy tried to push it. Some won't, some can't. Some small nations just did it and let the weaker members of their population move abroad, as for example Latvia. Who is going to tell the Danes they are wrong about their economics, or the Eastern Europeans that they must fail because they have inferior economies?
Then there is bureaucracy vs democracy. It means different things in different countries. France has a centralized system that is simply unacceptable in some other countries. What seems normal to France seems undemocratic to others.
Then there are values. The religious wars were settled by separating these sovereignties. Just jamming them back together ignores what were real problems of values and basic assumptions.
I really hope the EU will consider the wisdom of Mr Bittner's proposals!
Very smart, logical, practical, compelling!
It's a tricky situation for all involved. I'm American, my wife is a diplomat from an EU member state and our little boy attends local school here in Brussels. The part I don't seem to understand is why or how they, the originators, forgot to define what it means to be European. We certainly couldn't tell you as we are just people living in Europe.
Maybe it's time to define what that means and then commensurately, club membership might not seem so daunting and complex.
"Britain Is Leaving. Europe Has to Change."
Sadly, it is Britain that has to change. And, I am sorry to say, it has no choice but to do so.
First, there will be no Britain. Scotland and Ireland will be joining EU soon. So, in no time your Britain will change to the lonely England.
The England will soon find itself at a historic fork: it has to either strongly reject demagogic characters such as Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson, or fully endorse them and turn into Il Duce's Italy. Regardless, it not going to be pretty.
3
The origin of discontent is not a lack of flexible membership. Flexible membership is an attempt at a fix and a poor one. The EU has systematically failed, for decades, to develop inner-European movements of people. Merkel then made the cardinal mistake of assuming her interpretation of quote open borders quote to be the dominant or valid one. If the EU goes down, Merkel dealt the fatal blow. Growths comes from inside, Merkel never learnt that lesson.
1
@Lala
I strongly disagree. It is a fact that changes in political boundaries - or even geopolitical ones - have been primarily driven by economics, in particular access to cheap labor and resources. That is not a new concept and is readily verifiable by quickly looking at reasons for countries going to wars in the past. The US civil war was in large part driven by the same factors and even today's South Korea's push to unify Koran Peninsula or India's takeover of Kashmir are driven by the same factors.
Frau Merkel's vision of open borders - thus, free movement of labor and material throughout EU - is designed to make labor and resources within Europe accessible to all EU countries; hence obviating the need for any country to resort to wars. Only those who are nostalgic about past wars would call that vision "a cardinal mistake".
1
@Lala Germany has a huge problem with aging population and population decline. The EU doesn't work in the same way the US does, otherwise more Greeks would move to Germany. I guess it's a cultural thing: the Poles, by contrast, they just pack up and move to where the jobs are.
Eastern Europe's right-wing leaders can blow all the hot air they want at the EU, if they were to seriously propose leaving, the citizens of these countries would be in open revolt. The EU has given eastern europeans freedom of movement, pays for their infrastructure and has improved their quality of life. Young people can study in western Europe, thanks to Erasmus. Also, eastern european workers in more affluent, aging countries are a vital part of the labor force. The British complain about the eastern europeans, but they're going to be in for a rude surprise once they drive these workers out of the country post-Brexit.
2
The solution for the Eastern portion of the EU (as well as some states in the Med) is probably a form of leaving the political EU and have some form of association whereby they would be able to conduct privileged trade (more or lass along the lines likely to be offered to the UK) and export a certain amount of labour. Should those countries assimilate politically, they might be invityed to rejoin the club under strict conditions. Most likely those conditions would be unacceptable to the authoritarians. But Western Europe is under no obligation to be charitable toi the likes of Orban el at and the real politik benefits are yet to be demonstrated. In addition, those former Comecon countries are not great contributors to the EU economy in the form of markets or sources of supply. Finally, labour mobility of the kind enjoyed by their citizens is probably not good for the development of their own economies.
Agree wholeheartily with your assessment, the EU must change, and fast, so it can survive in a more pliable form, so to keep European peace for at least another 70 years. Those Eastward nations like Hungary, unfortunately are abusing EU's rigidity for their it's Orban cadre of kleptocrats. Change is vital for EU's survival, and the sooner the better.
1
That same idea, that the EU should be more flexible , and open to junior memberships, and more restrictive of borders and travel would make the individual countries more vulnerable to the fascism and xenophobia which scared the British into a bad decision. Look at our own country and what we have done to ourselves . Look at the leader we have elected. Osama Bin Laden did a number on us and the world. We are afraid of our shadows and enough money has never been printed to affect the security we desire. The only cure is openness but there is no stomach for it.
1
The biggest mistake the EU made was to expand into Eastern Europe. Those countries were not ready for the western value system plus the economies were not equal. There should have been a longer runway to get membership and the countries that wanted to join the union should have had to go through a rigid membership criteria approval process that included economic and social factors.
2
Britain is leaving the European Union to morrow and she will go fast to head offshore without the burden of European bureaucracy and too much discussions. Supported by the tenacity and their expertise, British citizens will completely change the country with a new mode of governance, by matching citizen s projects and scientists knowledge, for instance moving towards a more sustainable agriculture and forestry....etc to continue !
1
Europe’s first move should be to protect the status of British Europeans resident in EU countries. We desperately need an equivalent to the US green card. The powers that be must do this if there is to be any meaning to the word European.
2
Yes, there will inevitably be a Europe of two speeds.
But not à la carte, as that would just make the EU unmanageable.
And let's not overstate the Visegrad threat. Yes they complain, but they're happy to take EU funds and are not going anywhere.
The most natural place to start EU+ would be the founding six minus Italy: France, Germany and Benelux.
The first challenge will be for the EU to build a powerful military as opposed to a loose collection of mini ones with too many troops and not enough sophisticated weapons. Specialization per country makes sense. Belgium and the Netherlands already started with a joint air space defense.
3
The article mentions the EU's core questions; money and immigration. Those are the core questions of the entire developed world. How do we keep up our lifestyle for our citizens in the face of limited resources and ecological threats, and to what extent can we mitigate the problems in the rest of the world by allowing some immigrants in, without them dragging us into the same conditions that they left?
A bit more than half of the Brits decided that they didn't like the EU's answer to those questions so they opted to leave.
This brings up a third existential problem: on most important issues, the people are split just about 50/50, and their solutions are diametrically opposed. That makes it difficult or impossible to craft a compromise.
I lived in Brussels through most of the 1980s and even then in that EU capital I was struck by the fact that not one of the Europeans I came to know had any positive things to say about the union. The writer makes good points, and from what I've seen in the years since, the first thing that nations should be allowed to opt out of is the common currency.
2
With so many self-righteous and aggressively narcissist Colonial European powers at its helm, EU was never a realistic union to act efficiently as the interests and past glories of these nations often confront each other. That's one of the main reason it's almost impossible for these nations to take meaningful decision on almost any issue of urgency. It's almost always half hearted and to satisfy so many contradictory ego and interests. The situation worsened as former communist countries joined it, mainly to get free money but with almost no intention to accept western democracy and open society.
If UK proved more successful in near future, say 10-15 yrs from now, increasingly more people in many EU member countries would start demanding leaving EU. That pressure is expected to be more in more prosperous and relatively well governed Western European and Scandinavian nations.
1
The EU has some problems reminiscent of the US -- regions with vastly different economies and whose populations have vastly different ideas about politics. In the US the various legal rights of cities, counties, states, and the federal government try to counter excessive moves one way or the other by any such entity. Sometimes it works well, sometimes not. But so far for the last 150 years we have not gone to war with each other. Recently, under the Bush oil men and now under Trump the differences are ripping us apart. Not just rich vs poor, but business vs the environment, and the rising assertiveness of racism.
Sometimes it sounds like it would be nice just to jettison the Southeast of the US, along with some of the empty lands of Wyoming etc. But that would hurt too many folks there. The same goes for Poland, Hungary etc. for the EU.
Giving these folk more leeway might lead to more of the bad, rather than a relaxation of tensions.
The US might be going down a continuing hole of disintegration and negativity. But a defeat of Trump, some good Democratic policies, and a chastised Republican Party might enable our political system to right itself. Same for the EU -- trying to get through the latest revanchism might lead to a better future. But not getting through it to a better future can mean trouble.
It is still worth it for all of us to work for this better future while the chance is still before us. Vote! and stay engaged.
15
@Just Thinkin’ How bout a democratic party that just implodes. Let the country be run by the republicans
we dont need a nanny state,let the men run things.
From a perspective of an American who lives in Europe, I think Mr Bittner's argument is exactly right. The EU is an extremely rigid top-down organization that tolerates no dissent on the party line of its True Believers. In my view, the EU needs to revert to being essentially a free trade zone (within the EU) and a trading bloc (for negotiations with countries outside the EU). Just that & nothing more. And, oh yes, and let those countries that want to leave the euro currency zone do so without threats of economic blackmail. But I would up Mr. Bittner one on his hand of the so-called "four freedoms." These should be reduced to three: goods, services, and capital. The last of these four "freedoms," open-ended migration within the EU, was one of the main causes of the pro-Brexit vote (the British working class getting sick of having their wages undercut by Eastern European migrants). Freedom of movement needs to be dumped and replaced with some sort of managed migrations system put in its place. A much less grand, but much more sensible and flexible scheme.
57
The freedom of movement for people is essential for a smooth running of both goods and services industries, and is great for the tourist industry. Furthermore, the member countries have the right to (and do) expel anyone who after three months in a country cannot prove that they have permanent job or independent means to support themselves. Non-EU migrants don't automatically get a passport (far from it, it takes up to 5 years), and are subjected to rigorous checks.
11
@Teo Free movement of tourists is different from free movement of workers. I can travel as a tourist to more than a hundred countries without a visa, but cannot work in many of them without a special permit.
15
@Lotzapappa The four freedoms are essential and bound together. Breaking them up is not at all what Mr. Bittner is suggesting. Even Switzerland, a EEC but not EU member, has to reluctantly accept the free movement of people, not for a lack of trying to get out of it.
Rather his point is that the end goal, euro and Schengen everywhere and possibly further integration, is perhaps overreach. New members are now required to adopt both, for example.
1
An a-la-carte approach to governance doesn't work. People and governments have to eat their vegetables too. You hear this all the time at the local level as well (e.g. I don't have children, so why should I have to be pay school taxes, etc.) Governing bodies don't survive for long in this type of arrangement.
If the European Union is confident in their approach, why change now instead of sitting back and see how Britain does? If Britain suffers the consequence that everyone has been predicting then the European Union will be proven as a more viable alternative. If Britain doesn't suffer and then others leave, it won't be that enormous danger to the economies that is being touted and only those in Brussels might be out of a job.
34
@Casual Observer The a-la-carte option is crucial for the optics of the EU as something countries want to join not something compulsory like a soviet republic and a dictatorship once a country is in.
Being an EU citizen, I sometimes wonder if the best years of the EU might now be behind us. The core values, the commitment to a more robust safety net (compared to the US), and desire for balanced inclusivity of all the various European nationalities, they definitely seem to be taking a beating lately, especially from right-wing populist parties which prey on xenophobia.
However, if the EU's long-term survival means that we abandon core values, or simply adhere to them "a la carte", then this is not a union in the true sense of the word, but rather a regression to nation-state level realpolitik.
I am sure that this is true for many other Europeans, that despite the sheer difficulty of uniting so many different nationalities under the EU umbrella, I am strongly attached to my EU identity. Even the act of receiving change in Euros at a kiosk in Greece makes me a bit sentimental when I see my coins have come from every corner of the EU.
To see this identity break-up because we have decided to succumb to the easy way of xenophobia and short-term interest, as I believe the UK has, will be a historically poor choice.
135
@Odysseas As a European living in the US, I think the best days of the EU are ahead of them.
To put it in a cynical Wilbur Ross kind of way, the problems of America will be Europe's gain.
Trump is creating a debt-fueled economy, which ended badly in Turkey. He's also creating a toxic anti-immigrant environment despite the US relying heavily on immigrants in both low- and high-skilled jobs. The poor output of the heavily restricted US education system just can't afford that.
An emboldened, re-elected Trump is the worst thing that could happen to the US. As democracy wanes, I wouldn't be surprised to see multinationals starting to downstaff in America and moving HQ to the more stable Europe, where it's guaranteed their personnel from around the world can reliably enter to visit or work and feels welcome.
4
The fact is that we already gave Great Britain a lot of concessions and they still left. But instead of giving countries an a la carte menu, we need to launch better public relations to show what the EU does for you.
185
@Pablo Well said. A part of that PR should be a reminder to EU citizens that the US too is union of 50 sovereign states that have agreed to pool their sovereignty over a small number of specific areas, including, of course, military and foreign policy and interstate commerce. There are more laws on the books in every state than there are at the Federal level. Education and social services are administered at the State level. You won't be charged for murder at the Fed level, only in the state in which it occurred. Imagine if a handful of states pulled out and established their own currencies, military and foreign policy - chaos. We hear from time to time about Supreme Court decisions that impact contentious social issues. But the overwhelming majority of decisions are never heard of and deal mostly with commerce matters. And every state has a Supreme Court and a legislative body. While there are weaknesses and flaws in the US system of pooled sovereignty, there are also huge benefits that all share in.
8
@GlobalCosmopolitan
Don't use the US as the model for how the EU should work. We are in the midst of a cold Civil War, with many many Americans thinking we would be better to separate our states from others that are too unlike our own. We have had it with this experiment, and realize that after our first Civil War we should have let the southern states go. A huge mistake and far too late to fix it.
9
@MJ I tend to agree with you. But before you end the union and the experiment, try first to reconfigure the states, about 21 with 15 million each, with single states around large metro areas, and others with large geographical and mostly rural areas. Nearly all states were formed without a criteria and any idea of where populations would cluster. CA was formed with less than 100 thousand people, and now it has 43 million. It the US created new states of roughly equal population size, and more control over domestic matters, it would go a long way to lessen the bitter partisanship.
6
“The British always had one foot in the E.U. and one foot out — now with Brexit they want the opposite,”
Jean-Louis Bourlanges
Even with the formal Brexit the UK may (and be forced to) in fact enter all sorts-of agreements that will look like a soft membership. Perhaps not even very different from the current one.
3
Simple number - there are 4x polish workers in Britain than next door Germany.
There are rules for Germany, and then rules for everybody else. The Refugee Crisis is of German making yet the whole EU needs to share the pain.
Heck- the Greek Crisis was was about to default on German Bank Loans (which they should have done at the start). Some of those loans were to finance overpriced Siemens equipment (through bribery) and for submarines that don't work. Germany took the loans off the Banks books and now Greece can't default on Germany.
4
Professor Robert Tombs of Cambridge states in The English and Their Identity that the English in the 10th were the first people in Europe to have a NATIONAL Identity (English they called themselves not Anglo-Saxons). Since then they have resented domination by anyone from the Continent as they pursued their peculiar and idiosyncratic way. Even their half-baked 16th century Reformation evolved into a "Are we Catholic or Protestant? yes and no."
True to themselves they by a small margin decided they didn't want somebody over the Channel telling them how to make marmalade; and in their hearts they wanted a trade union, not political, esp. by bureaucrats. They wanted to run their own show. By the way England until the 19th century was the most highly centralized State in Europe with the central smallest bureaucracy and much power and authority outsourced to the nobility and gentry in the counties.
America, whose predominant cultural trait is English-derived and evolved preserves this mentality in its own peculiar but in some in outdated 17th and 18th century modes, but not when it comes to a fierce desire to preserve local and personal rights.
3
I suspect the bureaucracy will act in its own best interest and resist change. The nimble flexibility suggested here would require the comfortable Brussels folks to reimagine their jobs. Unlikely.
5
Brussels bureaucracy is hardly bloated. Not only has the EU (500mn inhabitants) got a budget smaller than that of Denmark (5mn inhabitants), it also gets by with approx. 40,000 civil servants = less than 1/10 of the civil servants required by the UK for its 65mn people. I don't know about you, but I would say that the gravy train doesn't stop at Brussels Central Station.
7
@Teo You're right it's not overly big, but how about things like the monthly relocation of the EU Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg for four days of sessions (and back)? That farce costs some €114 million a year and serves no practical purpose except as a symbolic reminder that the Germans and the French have buried the hatchet, pour le moment. I'm a happy EU citizen for a variety of reasons, but the Brexiters, along with others in the EU, were and are right about the uncontrolled nature of the EU's machinery of administration. Doing good for the most part, but without political oversight. Of course we can say that the same goes for bureaucracies everywhere, but this can get really out hand while far-reaching if the federalist tendencies of the EU gain ground. For me, EU OK, preferably pared down with à la carte alternatives as Bittner here suggests, but a United States of Europe, with a civil service inspired by the good old French statist tradition, no thanks.
1
Before I had read the words "Team European Union," I had only suspected the E.U. was finished. Now I'm sure of it.
4
I feel ambivalent and frightened about what is coming next. Emerging from WWII, the EU ranks among the most successful political experiments in history: it brought Germany into the West, then promoted a friendly confederation. But all that is now taken for granted.
As Europe grew, from the 1970s, its supra-national institutions were less well fitted to the super-ambitious political tasks that it undertook. It sounded good to integrate and develop fledgling capitalist democracies, but led to disastrous economic projects like the Euro and then impotent social engineering for post-communist nations that had authoritarian legacies. As as a confederation that lacked enforcement powers, it fell to the strongest members (like Germany) to impose solutions like "austerity".
Now, as Europe faces new economic and political crises, the EU has become a populist whipping boy. Its institutions are run by inflexible, neo-liberal bureaucrats with far less power than demagogues claim. Clearly, the EU must change, perhaps Europe's developed economies have outgrown the original political program, but fragmentation carries consequences impossible to foresee.
1
@rjkrawf The growing pains of the euro are now largely behind them. Spain and Portugal are booming, and their labor market is much more aligned to the northern countries now. Greece, after committing to the euro and what it takes to stay in it, has been in recovery now but has a longer way to go.
@Liz I see the Euro as a disastrous resurrection of the Gold standard. Yes, Greece's economy was weaker, but it was unable to adjust its currency rate so the result was severe deflation and default. Austerity, as imposed by Germany, compounded Greece's difficulties. The debacle has shaken Europe to its core. All the talk about discipline and learning to play the game correctly as simple nonsense.
The EU reminds me of what the USA was like under the Articles of Confederation. No other country took us seriously because there was no national policy. individual states acted in a way that benefitted that state.
Schmidt is absolute correct. The EU is way too big and the parliament filled with hundreds of failed politicians from all over Europe.
Eastern European countries revering to dictatorships take billions of Euros in subsidies and thumb their noses at the EU policies of basic human rights and the EU does absolutely nothing to punish them.
But the basic flaw is the lack of a Federal Reserve Bank. That was glaringly evident in 2008 when German influence alone imposed austerity on countries that needed a stimulus and they could not devalue their currency to increase exports because they had no national currency so were in the worst of situations. That misery is one of the causes of nationalism and populism today in Europe.
I have no hope there is any will for change in the EU.
7
@Edward B. Blau I couldn't agree more. As a confederation, the EU is impotent.
How about playing to their strengths. Europe transformed the world already with the Renaissance and the Enlightment. Europe is the perfect cauldron for showing the world what the future can be. Start with a World's Fair to imagine the future. Create musical, artistic, and literary festivals that show the wonders of their various cultures. Bring the scientists together to openly discuss how to solve climate change and address other scientifc problems -as they did with the HIggsBosen mystery. Set the example Engage the world.
5
As a citizen of one of the six founding countries (like Germany) of what has evolved into the current EU, I wholeheartedly disagree with the author’s suggestion of an a-la-carte arrangement. You are either a member and share all of the core values of the EU or you are not.
In the 1990’s, just after the collapse of the communist regimes, I was heavily involved in setting up financial services companies in countries like Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The governments of these countries were begging to become members of the EU as soon as possible, and they were speedily admitted. They benefited hugely from EU membership, economically and with regards to the formation of democratic institutions.
I am deeply disappointed with what has happened since in Poland and Hungary: i.e. the establishment of right-wing almost fascist, nationalist, would-be dictatorships. These governments still want to benefit from al the economic advantages of EU-membership, but are not willing to live by the core principles of a democratic state, based on the rule of law. They should not be offered some flexible a-la-carte arrangements; they should be thrown out!
26
@Ton van Lierop maybe you should not have been in such a rush to admit them and considered the possibility that they would swing to the right once they recovered from Communism and their societies reorganized rather than stay centrist? The EU has only itself to blame. Frankly it is not difficult to view the collapse of the greek economy and others as the result of Germany seeking expanded markets financed by ECB money. If you lend money to people with no record of fiscal discipline and no proper tax regime so they can buy expensive German knick knacks what do you expect?
8
@John Wallis Your austerity logic is flawed. The Euro is the modern version of the gold standard: without flexible currency, countries cannot adjust except through deflation. Austerity makes that much worse - markets are not "self correcting".
4
@rjkrawf this has zero to do with "austerity" I have no idea what gives you that idea. The fact is Germany produces far more than the rest of the EU in terms of durable and consumer goods and has to find markets for that material or slip back into the stagnation they faced have faced since the early 2000s. What has happened here is the equivalent of a department store issuing credit to customers with less than good credit so they can sell more product, it's really that simple except that in this case Germany's department store loans were guaranteed by the ECB. Austerity is the imposed result of the Germans encouraging the other members of the EU to borrow money without bothering to consider whether they would actually pay it back. Austerity was inflicted on the Greeks by a Germany that refused to admit that it was actually responsible for the financial mess. If you give money to people who have no record of financial probity whose fault is it when they don't pay it back?
3
What people forget is that Britain lost an empire, for which many Brits still have a yearning. When joining the EU they were expecting to rule it, as they had ruled the waves previously, but this did not happen. They felt that they were a special nation and could therefore expect special treatment, which did not happen, and it is this they can't forgive the EU.
6
As a Brit who voted for Brexit, I can assure you that essentially no one in the UK cares about the Empire anymore. The idea that Brexit is driven by yearnings for Empire is lazy thinking. Most people I know who voted for Brexit were motivated by the idea that the EU was becoming too large and too dysfunctional to respond rapidly enough to the changes of the 21st century. Far from being motivated by the thought of reclaiming old imperial values, most of us are aware that the future is being made on the shores of the Pacific, not on the banks of the Rhine, let alone on the banks of the Thames. We are a small island and a small part of the global economy, we need to be flexible not tied down by EU bureaucracy.
27
@John Stroughair LOL, I agree. Marion has watched too much Masterpiece theatre.
8
@Marion I disagree with your premise wholeheartedly. Brits would much rather of never had all of those colonies that they later had to extend so many entitlements to. Those former colonies citizens that arrived on Englands doorstep along with the migration (and globalization issues)allowed for E.U. members especially from the poorer Eastern bloc did much to push the NHS and other programs to the brink, led to the disappearance of once middle class London for British citizens and ultimate Brexit. The E.U. benefited Germany largely, the rest not so much. Switzerland and Norway were the smart ones electing not to join, twenty years from now their won’t be an E.U. and unless we make changes rapidly in America there I’ll be no middle class whatsoever.
4
From the outset the main objective of the EU was a way to devalue the Deutschmark for German export needs. That has happened and all the rest of the errors in EU planning have come, like chickens, home to roost. It is unlikely that the EU will "reduce Britain to misery" since Brexit will allow Britain to do what it has always done best, muddle through.
10
EU needs to do nothing, thanks to Brexit which brought an increased togetherness to the remaining states. The outright support of Brexit by the USA is redirecting resentment from "Brussel" to a more selfish attitude necessary to compete with the USA and China. This will include expansion, including Ukraine (a Texas size country) and eventually Russia.
Russia improved under Peter the Great by opening to the west. She will have no choice, as the increased influence of China in the eastern part and American sanctions in general are major threats. Short of war, Brexit is the most dramatic contribution to an EU need for self interest. Russia's also.
3
The concept of the European project as embodied in the European Union was flawed from the start. The need for reform both of the EU and single currency became particularly evident at the start of the crisis that originated in Greece. Yet, the big kids, ie Germany and France wanted none it. When the pressures for Brexit were growing, David Cameron spent months touring Europe in search of reform in order to make a case to win the referendum on staying in the EU, The EU refused to budge. That lack of flexibility and sticking to Brussels EU orthodoxy is what won the cause for Brexit. The same pressures are building up in most parts of the EU, even in Germany. I recommend Ed Ball's excellent program on Populism in Europe and you can see why the pressures within the EU for real immediate reform are necessary. The EU has set itself against the nation state, against regional and local people and is seen as arrogant, rigid and decidedly out of touch. The EU is and increasingly seen as a club that only acts in its own best interest, not that of the member states or people. With that as the EU's mindset, how can it reform itself? Unless lessons are learned quickly, Brexit is only the start of a EU crisis, not the end!
22
The idea that the failure of Remain in the 2016 referendum was largely the fault of EU intransigence is deeply ingrained in England, but remains untrue. You need only look to the Scottish Independence referendum to see how a referendum on a really vital topic should be organized. For example, allow more younger people to vote (in Scotland 16 year-olds were eligible) - it is their future that is being decided. Also, many referenda or votes to change foundational documents require more than a simple majority to approve a change in the status quo. Requiring a larger threshold majority for change also means less divisiveness after the referendum.
I’m not saying the EU is entirely without fault, but the main culprit here was Cameron and those who designed the referendum.
6
As the Brits showed, one of the best advantages of EU citizenship is mobility. For retirement, why stay in the cold north ? Get a winter home in a southern nation, and if you are a EU citizen, your healthcare benefits from your native country will be valid there too.
The people that want to break away from the EU are those that have little or no identity beyond their nationality. The flag wavers, rooting for their own team.
The British author, Peter Mayle, author of « A Year in Provence », that is the upper classes, and they are the folks that like being EU citizens.
6
@David Martin
You left out the other side of that, and that is while the upper classes could retire in Provence and Majorca, the mobility rules did something in reverse. It allowed people from especially the Eastern block (Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, etc) to move to England and work, and undercut the wages of natives. The EU was originally a collection of relatively high wage states, the problem was the new states were often economically disadvantaged, where they had trained workers but didn't have the industries to hire them (it is much like India and its relationship to the west). Businesses loved it, they could undercut local wages (the EU had no laws about wage floors to stop this), and in the end there was no reciprocity, since the eastern block countries offered little benefit to people in the original block. Not to mention that the eastern block countries loved the subsidies from the EU, but then turned around and wanted to ignore EU rulings on Human Rights (especially anything to do with LGBT people, the eastern bloc is the one area where the Catholic Church still rules with an iron hand).
4
It is easy to misinterpret Brexit.
.
The Oil industry is the only major sector of the British economy that was in favour of Brexit.
.
The oil industry and Russia shared the common goals of not want J-C Juncker, and not wanting policies to fight Climate Change. The British referendum on the EU gave them their opening to fund the Leave campaign, and, in the case of Russia, to upend the democratic process in the UK.
.
But that does not change the fundamental weaknesses of the EU.
.
First and foremost, the administrative machinery of the EU is both arrogant and astonishingly undemocratic. The Swiss solved that problem by pushing decision-making down to the lowest elected body that can deal with the issue. If an issue can't be handled appropriately, then it is pushed to the next highest level, and so on.
.
Second, the EU is unable to take hard decisions concerning critical interests in foreign policy. Foreign actors find it far too easy to split members of the block from each other, and to cause them to fight amongst themselves.
.
Third, sometimes it takes military force to defend the EU's foreign policy interests. For example, right now the EU is losing a war on its doorstep in Libya that democracy really needs to win. Given the size of the EU economy compared to its rivals, it should be an easy task. But negotiations aren't going to do it. It is going to take boots on the ground, in large numbers. The EU has neither the will nor the military means to do it.
11
@Richard Blaine
Well why would we expect the Brexit drama to be anymore insightful than the GOP drama. No plans, just enrichment of the elites.
No witnesses in both cases, just hot air from people who do not want the best for their respective countries. Both leaders have difficulty telling the truth but trust me is the slogan of the day.
We have a chance to stop the insanity but the elites wont be bothered doing anything but make money and talking
With the setting up of state thought control in EU vs. Disinformation, the EU has taken the final step toward a liberal McCarthyism.
This affront to democracy investigates media articles, especially but not exclusively from Russia and saves one the trouble of deciding whether it's "pro-Kremlin propaganda". Once the determination is made, if one comes up with a forbidden idea, one is labeled a source of "pro-Kremlin propaganda".
I am myself a propagator of such criminal thoughts.
I had two reactions when I learned of this EU institution:
(a) get rid of it if you want anybody worthwhile to hang around or join;
(b) well, Europe's decided to commit suicide again.
3
We should be careful about accepting the premise that change in the EU is necessary because of Brexit.
All relationships evolve and, yes, we should continually evaluate how we might improve them.
But we should remember that to date no one has been able to articulate a single benefit of Brexit. The assertions upon which the Leave campaigns were built were simply untrue, as Britons have learned since.
One might equally make an argument that the lesson of Brexit is that the institutions built by liberalism aren’t as strong as we think they are and that the threat of right-wing populism requires a more robust response. Or that the value proposition of the EU needs to be more clearly articulated so that its benefits don’t only become apparent when they’re taken away.
The EU member states should - to borrow a phrase from the US Constitution - always strive “to form a more perfect union” but Brexit hasn’t yet demonstrated that there’s anything structurally wrong with the way it is today.
9
@Andrew Are you saying that the British people's December general election that put Boris J in power did so without good reason? That a majority of UK citizens don't know what's good for them? And your statement that "assertions upon which Leave campaigns were built were simply untrue" is itself false. Because you say it doesn't make it so. It could not be clearer, both in the UK and the US that many people are tired of arrogant, condescending, self-important people making decisions for them. Amen.
The real issue is that European leaders did a bad job of touting the benefits of a united block; chiefly the longest war free period of history in the continent and a commercial force which competes as equal with other global powers such as the US and China. You’re correct, the inclusion and forced integration of eastern European countries was a mistake and if anything I think the EU core should include countries with strong cultural and historical ties i.e. the initial founding countries; Germany, France, Italy, Benelux and maybe Spain and Portugal.
3
@FCH Maybe because they couldn't in all honesty take credit for the peace. From 1945 until 1989 only NATO and the Warsaw Pact could determine whether there was war and peace. NATO remains the primary military organization on the continent.
6
Are you perhaps forgetting those minor conflicts, World War I and World War II. In terms of peace, the point of the EU is to prevent war between European nations, not to defend Europe from external threats.
4
The basic problem with EU is that it was originally created as an economic organization (European Coal and Steel Community: ECSC) and it never stepped away from that approach to embrace a more cultural point of view. I have been calling for years for the creation of a Federation of European Provinces, where States such as France or Germany would cease to exist to be replaced by their old provinces (or Landers), united in a Federation somewhat similar to the US (but without some quaint clauses such as the electoral college). Oh well nobody ever listens to me. Too bad!
3
Flexibility would mean that instead of punishing the UK for Brexit, options are explored for it to become more like Norway or Switzerland. It would also mean offering gradual integration with the Western Balkans. Both good ideas, which in fact the EU is already pursuing in both cases. But I do not see how doing either addresses the threat from neo-nationalists, who have issues not just with the four freedoms but also with the fundamentals of liberal democracy itself, like an independent judiciary. Instead, I think more attention must be paid to the malicious influence of Mr Putin, his disinformation campaigns and his largess. Is Russian support of neo-nationalist political campaigns acceptable, for example, and if not, who is doing something about it?
7
Yes, when there is failure or disruption, mature functional people look inward to what may have gone wrong and how things can be done differently.
They do not double down on their own righteous and endlessly blame others.
If the EU leadership had been less concerned with aggregating their own power and privilege and more concerned with how the single market, specifically, and globalization, generally, were effecting the worker classes, this could have been avoided.
5
EU leaders love rules, regulations, taxes, fussy obfuscation, red tape, and so forth. They admire the central planner just a bit less than the Soviets. Unless these proclivities change, the EU is doomed
9
That don’t aspire to be a member, as long as you see Europe as a new Soviet Union (which analogy is poor).
Almost all experts agree that Brexit will be a big hit for the economy, just read the consequences in Bloomberg website, how much it costs now, even before leaving.
Tomorrow's leave is political only, real one will be in a year when there will be economic separation too.
So no chacce at all that it will be a win.
Roughly 50% of UK's export is to the EU, there are no big partners who can substitute that amount in a few years time. The biggest possible -USA and China might be a good choice, but ... both are far away, and the main volume of trade is between close neighbours.
1
@Ron Yes, all true (and all rehashed ad nauseum) but you seem to have entirely missed the point of this piece, which is the loss to the EU that Brexit represents and the danger of further damage to the EU without radical reform.
7
@elti9
If diagnose is bad (and it is) then supposed urgent therapy is unnecessart.
And diagnose in this article is bad.
I don't want to post a lenghty explanation but only one fact: net approval for the EU increased after Brexit.
So any claims that the EU is endangered are exagerated. I would even say that it is the opoosite: the EU is in its best form now. Aldwithout another lenghty explanations: follow the UK's political contribution through last 10 years to the EU.
You will see a strange pattern.
Thats why the EU is in better position now.
1
Of course the EU needs to keep changing and adapting. However, I would say that today is an especially inopportune time to start implementing the "lessons" of Brexit. That grand experiment is just now beginning in earnest. The EU (and of course also the UK) will over the next few years find out a great deal about the questions that Bittner has posed.
I'll personally put my bets on the side of the experts who mostly predict that a long period of slow growth and diminishing economic, diplomatic, and military clout awaits the UK. The many Brits who scoff at "project Fear" will, I suspect, be sorely disappointed. Most likely that will make them angry.
Still, the EU right now needs to do what it can to live with its newly-independent neighbor. This will require more unity within the EU, not more "flexibility". We should all understand the situation much more clearly after a year or two.
5
One problem with the analysis of the Viewpoint. It overlooks Britain's special relationship with the United States of America. It has been that which has drawn America ever closer to Western Europe during the 20th Century. Britain has now left the European Union, at a time when the political desire (ever increasing) in the US is to limit participation in NATO. It is one thing to discuss member economic issues, but quite another to assume full responsibility for regional security.
4
We are where we are and have to move forward rather than start over. There are several ways to split the cake, however. None of them allows an easy way to cast off states which are already in the EU.
The 'core' EU is divided by Euro membership. The non-EU states like Norway, Switzerland, Ukraine, Moldova and perhaps in the future UK, Georgia and Belarus have various loose ties to the core. The Schengen area extends beyond the core. Membership in Schengen must logically imply at least a well coordinated immigration policy in the future.
Briefly, I can not see an a la carte (or have you cake and eat it) solution. That would be a food fest.
What is maybe possible is a core eurozone with some teeth, safe eurobonds and possibility to be an alternative to dollar. A second circle with most economic advantages, maybe including defense cooperation - participation in weapons programs and Galileo (space) corresponding to non-euro EU members. A third circle with well-defined and similar economic and other advantages.
This is a very brief sketch. Germany however, would need to wake up for any future model to be possible. It is an even bigger freeloader than the UK has been due to its obstruction when it comes to economy (black zero), foreign policy (Nordstream 2, defense) and trade (over-reliance on trade surplus). No change here and the silly club analogies will lead to breakdown.
4
Eastern countries have been quite happy to take EU subsidies and have repeatedly shown that they do not adhere to EU standards in terms of democracy and governance. They want less Europe, fine: maybe Europe wants less of them. Notwithstanding the incessant obstruction by the Brits, EU has never been more functional than in its 12 states configuration
7
@smart fox Eastern countries paid their subsidies with a massive brain drain (millions of doctors and IT professionals and engineers) and by opening their markets to big EU multinationals who simply seized everything that was to seize, killing local industries.
So true! And I’m from Romania! I totally agree. Being nationalists with European money foow... how low!
England started trying and failing in the mid-1600's to force the American Colonies into a unified entity that was consistent with the crown, the law, and the judicial systems of the other parts of the future UK. Independent America eventually evolved through bloodshed into a highly conflicted system of cooperative federalism, while the UK is still attempting to organize its constituents into something resembling a single country.
The EU attempted to inject a form of American's failed original Dual Federalism on the UK, while maintaining the imposture of modern US Cooperative Federalism, injecting multiple new layers of conflicting law, and murky notions of civil rights throughout the entire society.
1
The EU is NOT about economics. When I was young (in teh sixties) There was a cold war, that could at any moment explode and make Europe a atomic graveyard. The soutern part of Europe was fasicst: Greece, Spain and Portugal military dictatorships. In that environment Germany and France sougt a way to be closer together and started with the EGKS to integrate the coal and steel industries. With the benelux (already a close cooperation between Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) and Italy they formed a supranational body, with the intension to ever closer cooperation. They were so succesful that after a while Spain, Portugal and Greece joined them in the EEG (the european community), after they succeeded to remove their dictators. Gemany, Netherlands and Austria were already in close cooperation and had coupled their currencies. Speculation against the French frank, forced the EU to accelarate the EMS to a real currency the euro.
Whatever people may think te EU was and is a big success. Not one of the original 6 and later 12 countries is willing to give up this relationship: not the governments and not the vast majoraty of the people.
After 1989 most of eastern europe was glad to join the eu. There were a number of reasons for them, security, access to the western economies, the economic help, and aid in reforming there governments.
12
@Simon van Dijk
The eastern block was happy to join the EU because in doing so they would get billions and billions in subsidies and help to try and build up their economies, they do to this day (it is much like the US where the "blue", more well off states, substitute the 'red' states in terms of taxes paid and benefits back). People in the eastern bloc with any kind of skills could move to the western EU countries and work, and were willing to do so while undercutting local wages. On the other hand, the EU had rules on things like human rights, and the Eastern Block countries were not happy about that at all, most of them were not and are not liberal democracies and they had no interest in becoming it. Among other things, in those countries the Catholic Church is still a major political force, and the EU regulations concerning equal rights for women, the rights of LGBT people, the right to things like birth control and abortion, were resented there. Letting in the Eastern bloc countries is what doomed Brexit, the biggest reason people in England voted for Brexit was the reality or perception that all you saw were eastern block workers coming and depressing wages and taking jobs that British natives couldn't get, and they rightfully point out that the eastern bloc didn't bring much in return to them; being free to move to Poland doesn't matter much when Polands economy makes Mississippi look rich.
1
The Europea Union has two types of states. Countries that used to be empires (Holland, Spain, France, Germany and until recently UK) and 22 countries who had been forced to live for centuries as part of other empires and have gained independence and unity only in the last 100-150 years.
The first countries are still driving the bargain, and they are more open to idea of immigration because it suits their imperial traditions. The rest of the countries, more or less abhor the idea of not being sovereign over their own immigration policy because it places them at the mercy of a new empire, whereas the EU was supposed to be an alliance for economic and cultural reason, not a new soviet union, this time of the west.
14
A question to ask is exactly what is it that Europe needs from Britain? (or maybe I should say England as it now looks like Scotland and perhaps Northern Ireland will be leaving). What does England product that Europe can't get from some place else? England might be heading for a rather unpleasant future.
8
The EU, 50 years after it founding, is at the stage the US was in 1826 : When you asked someone who they were, they would answer Virginian , not American. That extended to foreign policy : The State of Massachusetts sat out the War of 1812 because it conflicted with her commercial interests
For nearely a century, Americans were first members of their States and only secondarily Americans. When Lincoln asked Robert E Lee to take the command of the Federal Forces Lee famously declined , stating that his committeemen to Virginia exceeded his commitment to the Union
So give the EU time to develop.
The EU has already set a noble precedent, letting a member State wishing to secede, part peacefully
9
@talesofgenji You are right in stating this as a problem and I agree with you that this is a problem that needs time for change more than anything else. But I do not think that it is as bad, as you diagnosed it. Many of us Europeans trust the EU just as much or more than our individual countries and especially among the younger ones there are already many who identify first as European. I do not think it will take a whole century but still several decades until this mindset will make up the mayority of Europeans.
5
@T. Volz
There are days I wake up thinking I'd rather be European than American (especially under this corrupt administration). Alas, too old to make any changes. If I was decades younger, I'd emigrate in a heartbeat.
The UK was never fully a member of the EU. That's why Brexit can be thought of more as an experiment that simply didn't work out.
The seeds for this separation were sown when the UK insisted on retaining the pound as its currency and rejecting the Euro when the EU was established. In effect, this meant that the UK was half-in, half-out of the EU which seemed to suit the UK at first because it could influence the EU while retaining much of its control over its economy. But that was transitory, like stepping into small boat, you can't be half-in, half-out forever.
The UK realized that when the EU would be struggling with the Euro and setting economic policy accordingly in which the UK had no say in. This made it apparent that whatever influence the UK thought it had was quickly eroding.
And then there was the question of the EU's open borders which the UK, an island people, where by nature increasingly resistant to.
Brexit was the final manifestation of a realization that whatever the future of the EU is to be, the UK influence over it was increasingly marginal, so it left what had basically been an experiment.
6
@GerardM Sweden and Denmark also opted out of the Euro.
Europe is not a nation of immigrants, like the United States, especially not of non-European immigrants. It is a collection of nation-states that have fought for 1000 years with great loss of blood and treasure to become sovereign in their ethnic, religious, and cultural lines.
The last time Europe received major migration, it broke the Roman Empire and was followed by a 1000 years of dark middle ages and tribal wars (476 a.c. -1453 a.c).
The multinationals and the financial elite of Europe are pushing for immigration to increase growth and demand, and have been steadily pushing it down the throats of Europeans cloaking it under the guise of great liberal ideals. So I doubt Macron's conference would be more than a show. He is the cattle calling the pot black, the figurehead of the exact interests that are destroying Euorpe. No nation would have joined the EU, had they knew that the EU would force them to open their borders.
15
@NY Expat
"No nation would have joined the EU, had they knew that the EU would force them to open their borders."
One of the four freedoms constituting the EU is freedom to settle whenever anyone wants, so the open border question is known from the very start and it is mandatory.
4
@NY Expat
Any worthy argument has to have the facts
as its starting point. Get your history right. There has been migration among European nations for many hundreds of years prior to the founding of the EU. That there has been little migration from outside the continent seems irrelevant. European history is an object lesson in the rough and tumble of human migration and the ultimate futility of efforts to control it entirely.
I agree the EU was set up to allow immigration between countries, but when set up there were a lot fewer countries. Since then too many economic boat anchors (some Eastern Bloc, Greece, etc.) have been added and 2 years ago they were bamboozled into accepting refugees from non-EU nations.
These countries are quickly losing their identity to foreigners who have no interest in assimilating, much like is happening in the US.
Had the founding members known the future they never would have agreed to participate.
1
The European Union made one crucial mistake: It refused to allow individual nations to maintain autonomy in matters of immigration. If they don't 'bend' on this one issue alone, then yes, they will 'break'.
But this would not necessarily be a bad thing. Like with Brexit, all parties will invariably agree on most other matters, particularly trade and the economy. You know, the way the Europe did it before there ever was an E.U., when individual nation-states still had control over their borders.
'Remainers' everywhere will inevitably preach doom and gloom as secession ratchets up. Perhaps most of them are too young to remember that Europe got along just fine before an E.U.---it was only a mere 30 years ago. Seems quaint looking back on that time of borders and passports and each country's own unique currency (something I was truly sorry to see go, and something I never thought proud nations would ever LET go).
A variation of the past may be Europe's future. Alas, hasn't it always?
5
@David Bartlett Europe did not get along just fine without an European Union, there has never been an prolonged period of peace before it existed. And the rest of the world is not the same it has been back when there was no EU.
I agree that the EU is not perfect, but assuming that countries would be better off without it, seems farfetched.
16
@David Bartlett
Quaint currencies. How quaint!
A most impractical suggestion, mr. Bittner.
A receipt for total chaos.
There are nowadays 2 fundamental devides through the hart of the EU: the (un)willingness to uphold the rule of law and the impotence to meet the requirements to take part in the European currency project, the Euro.
Both are fatal flaws: it's not a question íf , but when the present EU , a confederation, falls apart.
Preferably , the countries which do converge will noiselessly participate in a legal successor, a new Federation .
The countries which do not meet the standard should be offered mr. Bittner's à la carte option .
@Albert Koeman
"A most impractical suggestion, mr. Bittner. A receipt for total chaos."
I fully agree. 27 countries having 27 completely different membership conditions for each one of all aspects of membership from trade to immigration and from agriculture to economic subsidiaries are not to handle in practise, in any way by any means. The already existing "á la carte" differences in EU - see this sheet under "Overview of non-uniformity inside the EU"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-speed_Europe
is already a nightmare for political managers.
The only viable solution could be a system of 2 or 3 classes of typical standard memberships according to the former "core Europe" model of Karl Lamers although this was already highly emotionally rejected by Eastern European countries as "discriminatory", "denigration as second-class Europeans" and on and on (set in all the terms from the " Dictionary of the woke")
But this doesn´t help. As core Europeans they still have to meet all standards if they want to have all benefits- a rule UK never accepted and that was not clearly asserted in the past but could never work as it is proven now.
If countries don´t want to comply all rules a "Standard membership light" should be offered without typical duties seen as too onerous too stressful or anything else so they are allowed to do what they want without any criticism but then no complaints about being discriminated as "Second class Europeans" are to accept. You can´t have both.
The fundamental problem with the EU has been that it was not designed to cope with right wing populism, just as the USA's constitutional make-up was not designed to deal with the authoritarian populism of Donald Trump. Progressive forces everywhere have a problem with with nationalism and xenophobia, the same factors which explain the first and second world wars, and which the EU (and the UN - and before that the League of Nations) was created to prevent.
In an age when autocrats are burgeoning we need to insist on the rule of law, and not just the rule of the powerful.
30
@G Rayns Right-wing populism, like left-wing populism, is just a symptom of deeper causes, like the flu. If you address the root cause and treat it satisfactorily for the passion you cure the cause. EU's problem is that it does not want to cure the cause to the satisfaction of it member states and restore them full authority on immigration and refugee policy.a
This excellent column provides a good place to start rethinking the EU come February 1. Up until this point, much discussion here at the NYT and elsewhere has focused on the impacts of Brexit on the UK. This column, and a companion published the other day, focus on Europe. This is a loss for the EU as that column noted.
The question is how should Europe respond to this serious? problem. The author proposes a starting point "(A) cure has to address the root of the problem: the outmoded binary choice of either all-in or all-out membership."
Workable? Given the overall inequities among members at this point, it will be tough. There is no going back at this point. The EU probably needs to take a good hard look at this, especially given that the UK expressed many of the frustrations have members.
3
@Sendero Caribe All the evidence is of a Brexit boom for the UK. Our unemployment is at a 35 year low. House prices high. Shares high. We have the highest economic growth in Europe.
As you say, the problem is the EU. It is close to collapse. Just like the banking disaster, too few see it coming.
The EU will be £9 billion per year short in its budget. The Euro is a disaster for southern Europe.
The EU desperately needs a deal with the UK or it will collapse.
2
@Stephen
Perhaps--In my opinion the recent strikes in France over pensions represents a far greater threat to the EU than Brexit.
For the French, it is one thing to tell the Greeks to work longer because they are a poor nation and it is another thing altogether to tell the French they have to work longer. It is an interesting problem of how to support the retirement system (it is complex but there are only so many Euros to go around)
5
The fundamental problem with the EU was that it grew too big, too fast. A smaller, tighter union of the wealthy Western and Northern countries could easily last indefinitely. Once the race to tack on every sick and failing state on the continent began it was inevitable that the Union would begin to disintegrate.
Brussels has an implicit choice: Romania and Poland or Britain. Cheap labour or a wealthy, stable partner. Brussels chose the former.
I’m devastated that we’ve lost the chance for a reasonable economic and political alignment. I’m terrified of what it means for my adopted homeland....but let’s not act like Brussels doesn’t have some culpability here.
17
@KW
The reasonable economic and political alignment will come later.
The UK is a large economy and trade will with Europe is not going to end between the two. I think there will be a realignment over the next several months to this end.
The EU is left with the problem of what happens if some members prefer a Brexit solution of their own? A solution that focuses more and trade and less on everything else. Not a simple answer, but this column takes a stab at it.
1
@KW We have not lost anything. We have gained the opportunity to made friends and do deals with people's from around the World.
We love Europe, the people, the culture and we don't want to see it destroyed by the EU political system.
Diversity is Europe's success. Our future is bright.
"And why not be a member of the single market without having to subscribe to Europe’s asylum policy? "
Mr. Bittner asks a key question. And the answer is that, even allowing this question to be fielded reveals the problems with the soi-disant "liberalist" (never use the US term "liberal" to describe European conservatives), who cannot admit that "market lasseiz-faire" (read: one Euro, one vote) is in conflict with ... Democracy (one head, one vote).
After all, the main issues in Europe and elsewhere (either Hong Kong or.... Chile) stem from this deep misunderstanding of the power of democracy and its inherent redistribution of wealth, and above all, power.
3
I think that the author does not fully grasp the issue of a membership "à la carte". If a country chooses to be part of the single market but not to asylum policy, there will be ultimately a conflict because single market means free movement of people. As for the military option, there is already an alternative to states that wish for security but not integration. It is NATO. Actually, it is the UK that blocked every attempt for military integration because they saw it as a step to far that would run contrary to the interests of NATO. Most importantly, the issues that Europe faces can often only be solved if all member states apply the solutions which often imply more integration. A Europe "à la carte" might very well become a Europe that is financing authoritarian regimes to the detriment of the democracies. The thing is that politicians such as Orban will always say that Europe is the source of all issues in their home countries so that they have an excuse for everything and that they can consolidate their power at home. A Europe "à la carte" is juste giving "carte blanche" to authoritarian-leaning leaders and I do not believe it is the remedy to Europe's ailments.
10
@Raphaël Brussels is a bully.
A corrupt, technocratic elite hell bent on the destruction of the great national democracies of Europe.
After the referendum the EU could have listened and proposed a new arrangement. Instead they made childish and xynophobic comments about British people.
Britain once more is a beacon of hope for all those across Europe who believe in democracy.
It's my experience watching them interact that Europeans essentially despise each other by religion, nationality and race, and the evidence bears it with their history of hundreds of years of bloody wars up until the modern era, including more than one genocide. The peace since 1945 was not a result of European integration, but instead the lid was kept on Europe by American and Soviet occupation for the last 75 years. As soon as they left, a religious and ethnic war erupted in the 1990s. Now Russia is getting back in, and the US has no appetite to oppose it. The future of Europe is with Russia, its largest country.
3
@Yasser Taima No Europeans including British don't despise each other.
We have a great love for the European people, just not slavery under an unelected corrupt technocratic elite.
Only a small part of Russia is actually in Europe, and as for Europeans hating each other, I have observed much of this occuring across the US, which explains, in some part, US gun craziness. I live on France and the UK, and I am treated as a friend in both places. I don't think your expertise on Europe is very developed.
25 years ago I was a member of the Youth European Movement and married an Italian. Europe then was different.
Sadly the EU has been taken over by technocrats intent on the destabilisation of the national democracies and the centralisation of power as remote as possible from the people.
Europe's great strength - diversity is being destroyed with ever more regulations leading to economic stagnation.
A cold war protective anti-trade block may have looked good between 1950 and 1980 but now it is fundamentally wrong.
Our children's future depends on regaining our freedom, liberty and democratic controls. Britain is a light of hope to all those in Europe who dream of freedom.
2
@Stephen Any country in the EU that wants to leave, can leave. Most European countries have never had it so good as they have done within the EU. Not even Le Pen or Orban dares to go into an election promising to pull out. Britain was an economic basket case when it was allowed to enter the EC. I think it likely your children will choose to reenter. But regardless, good luck!
8
@Roger Evans The people of Europe are trapped. If the EU was so popular then it could have referendums. The reason it does not support them is that every country would vote to leave if it could. They a bullied by the EU. The EU is not even remotely democratic. 100% of countries that have been allowed a referendum have noted to leave. That's a fact.
4
@Stephen Re. the history of referendums on staying in, joining, and/or supporting the founding documents of what is now called the EU, you are absolutely correct. Most people don't know how many times, and in how many countries, the idea of the EU has been rejected by popular votes. This is why the EU True Believers are terrified of referendums.
1
Brexit, in the end, will scale down to pure economics. For example, America would LIKE a comprehensive trade deal with the UK but it MUST have a comprehensive deal with Europe.
The reasoning is simple, the only metric Trump cares about is trade deficits, and EU has trade deficits with the US. Trump (sadly I see few headwinds to his re-election) only cares about those deficits. Meanwhile the US has a trade surplus with the UK (maybe good for us but not so much for the UK).
Truth is I cannot see how the UK, on its own, can grow its economy fast and large enough to dent the EU trading relation with the rest of the world, especially when it is still sustaining fiscal weaknesses from all the austerity of the post great recession years. Unlike America, the UK lacks the powerful reserve currency to sustain the kind of deficits America takes for granted.
4
Brexit is not fundamentally just economics. From the US you must recognise the importance of freedom, liberty and democracy. They are not just words.
Do Americans not celebrate your independence from at the time a powerful empire?
The EU is the least productive trade zone in the World.
Growth is outside Europe. The UK must remove the chains of euro-stagnation.
5
@Stephen
The problem is you are going to seek an agreement with an American administration that is at best ambivalent about those concepts of freedoms and so are most of the people in America.
As for trade the biggest non-USMC and Asian trading partners with the use are (note data is as of November 2019)
EU (mainly Germany/France/Italy/Netherlands/Ireland) - $475B versus United Kingdom - $121B
You may believe the EU is unproductive but the data does not support your assertion.
1
The author is correct. Its past time for the EU to consider improving itself and at least focusing on key issues and members. With UK encouragement the EU, with the best of intentions, mistakenly enlarged too much too quickly.Its past time to consolidate, rationalise and focus. Thanks for the article.
3
@s.chubin That's a strange interpretation. Bittner's suggestions (pick and choose, multi-layer membership) are the opposite of consolidating, rationalisng and focusing. The EU is always concentrating on improving itself and focusing on key issues and members. With Britain gone, they will be able to do these things better without having to deal with "opt-outs" and constant carping from their 3rd largest member.
4
@Roger Evans An interesting comparison would be our United States to the Euro states now being formed. Only thy have left out some major partners, China, Russia,
USA and Britain are already in trade talks together. So there's some more trade in it for the USA.
5
@CK For the US: sure. But what the Britons do not seem to get is that the whole world watched their Brexit-chaos unfold. The whole world knows about their capabilities and needs. Even if they get the trade agreements they are hoping for, it seems quite farfetched that the conditions will be ones that they enjoy.
The European dream has produced an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity but has suffered a perfect storm during the 2010s with 1) the financial crisis of sovereign debt that has limited countries’ flexibility through the euro rules 2) Russian political manipulation of the eastern countries 3) British isolationism 4) US Obama relative disinterest for European heritage and culture that has made Europe less key compared to China/Asia 5) demographics that make Europe older and the issue of migration more paradoxical as it is needed but still rejected by nationalists 6) lack since the 80s of a major political pro European leading figure that can push up the project such as Helmut kohl or Mitterrand.
What can be done now ? Maybe first search for a leader that can embrace the challenges as an opportunity and build a bold identity that can drive back European enthusiasts that are still very much there but simply not activated. The urgency is to boost and fund more initiatives in green transformation, IT education, health research, digital direct democracy, less red tape, north south smart cooperation to reboot the colonial heritage (check Tanger med example), European defense force with european draft , fight GAFA digital tax evasion, tax imports from non-green factories, promote European successes and youth.
Europe and the france-German axis in particular may need new blood but the fundamentals are not all rotten. Do not throw the baby with the bath water.
19
@Jaf It is NATO which has resulted in peace in Europe. The EU does not have any peacekeepers/army.
To any extent, there is no evidence that there would not still be peace even if the EU did not exist. Many Germans find the idea that if it was not for the EU they would rush to invade France again deeply offensive. Peace is nothing to do with the EU.
2
The author says there cannot be 'things that cannot be open to pick-and-choose, like participation in the single market itself and the obligation to abide by its so-called “four freedoms” — of goods, services, capital and people.'.
But, it is the fourth freedom, the free movement of people, that was the principle idea that the pro-Brexit forces capitalized on. Immigration from mostly Eastern Europe was seen as having lost control of UK borders. Cameron tried to negotiate caveats to freedom of movement, and Brussels refused since it was rightly seen as non-negotiable.
The UK never took advantage of existing rules in EU directives to enforce limits on immigration, instead choosing to scapegoat Brussels at every opportunity. Allowing members to pick and choose will only lead to more extreme demands from reactionary forces, who can never be appeased.
21
Odd timing to write this article. The most recent Eurobarometer survey (2019) show the best results in institutional trust since 2014. Trust in EU institutions ranks notably higher than trust in the respective national institutions. This includes countries with strong populist movements in Central-Eastern Europe.
Thus far, it sure seems that the Odyssee of the U.K. has in fact strengthened and not weakened the European spirit. You can ask what will happen if the U.K. manages to perform better than before – but what if it, which seems more likely, does not? It would become even more of a cautionary tale.
Moreover, populists in Central-Eastern Europe are not serious in breaking with the EU as of now. The economic incentives are far too great. Not to mention the value the EU has as a scapegoat. Populists use an anti-elite, us vs. them, rhetoric to rally voters. Take the countries out of the EU and it becomes much harder to blame someone else but the national government for domestic problems.
Lastly, the U.K. is an exceptional case as regards its history with the bloc and the world. Immigration control was one reason for leaving – but it was about the immigration of EU citizens, not about the refugee wave. Free movement of persons is a fundamental pillar of the Community, its acceptance non-negotiable.
An ‘à la carte’ Union is a terrible idea and impracticable. It is inherently unfair, antithetical to its vision, a logistical nightmare and weakens problem-solving capacities.
15
@Niklas There is no evidence that the UK will do worse economically outside the EU than inside.
Already the UK has the highest projected growth in Europe. Even within Europe the average growth in the non-Eurozone (UK/Swis/Norway etc) is twice that of the average for the Eurozone.
The more integrated they are the less efficient.
The last thing the UK needs is to remain in the least successful protective anti-trade block in the World.
The World is changing and Britain cannot remain frozen in the EU cold war block. We need deals with the World markets.
1
Yes, the EU itself bears considerable responsibility for the loss of Great Britain and its continued likely erosion. Uncontrolled immigration issue was the biggest issue, but so was the creation of a governing body with little accountability. The EU bribes to the smaller countries got too expensive and the demands for ever more money were relentless. This will end up in a series of "mini-wars" between countries over tariffs, border control, etc. as each country tries to find and press an advantage.
4
ANd the enormous danger is for the UK...let the trade negotiations begin with all the countries and groups of countries they will have to reinvent the wheel with. The danger is greater for the UK, where internal car manufacturing is at an historic low, where steel will soon not be produced, where the infrastructure is so antiquated it mostly consists of 2 lane roads often because where there is an existing bridge, possibly from the 18th Century, this cannot be eliminated and the road widened, where wealthy landowners keep roads from being built (more modern) through their land to the constraint of all the public. I could go on and on...but if you think England will bring the EU to its knees, think again.
9
@JHM Do you actually live in the UK or Albania?
2 lane roads? We do have over 100 motorways.
Have you tried the Severn Bridge or 2nd Severn Bridge?
Britain already has 50 trade deals signed and many more will be agreed this year.
The reality is Switzerland has more deals than the EU.
Lets stop the depressing negativity. Its just not real.
1
@JHM i’m English and live in the uk and I certainly don’t recognise the country you describe.
1
Cherry picking solutions from a smorgasbord of options will not go well. That what’s Poland, Hungary and Co. are trying to do now. After having cashed in on huge EU subsidies, they toss the humanity part of the deal out the window. The EU is a socioeconomic union and by definition must retain certain core values common to all members, otherwise greed and opportunism win the upper hand and the united dynamic of the bloc losses all effectiveness and credibility.
48
The first brick has fallen off the wall. The brick that was one of the strongest in the block has fallen. Unless the E.U. examines itself and take remedial measure, the wall is sure to fall brick by brick. Considering the number of countries that form E.U., I am sure, arriving at a consensus is not an easy thing. However, as suggested in the article, the member countries could be given the choice of fields, in which they wish to join the Union, viz., Trade, Military etc. Such an arrangement, I am sure, would ensure a very strong Union in future.
1
Britain will regret her leaving of EU. The disadvantages of leaving will be much worse than staying. The obvious will be evident within three years. In short term it will not that be obvious.
The obvious problem will be the economic impact from banking, tourism, and transportation sectors. These are the most important parts of the UK economy. Leaving EU will slow down these sectors a lot. Unless UK can find other avenue such as with China & India to improve trades and make up the shortfalls.
On the other hand, EU will gain more confidence with itself and without Britain. EU countries will be more cooperative with each other. Better policies and smooth trades will improve EU economy. Britain was always a tough partner to deal with. Without her, EU will be better off.
EU does not need to do anything. Just wait for Britain to beg for coming back in three years.
8
@Usok Virtually every EU leader disagrees with you and acknowledges that in fact Brexit leaves the EU poorer and weaker.
The EU is losing over 12% of its population, 15% of its GDP, a consistent net contributor to its budget, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and its strongest military (though France might contest that).
It's a major blow, probably the worst in the EU's history and it's one from which it cannot recover any time soon since there are no other comparable countries that could join in the medium term (Turkey's accession being an increasingly distant possibility).
That said, yes almost certainly Brexit leaves Britain worse off than the EU, but this piece is looking at Brexit from the EU perspective and the idea that the EU better off for it is fanciful.
7
@elti9 Both sides are weakened and lose. There is little point in niggling about who loses "more."
1
@Usok The UK is the most international nation in Europe. Our entire children's future depended on getting out of the cold war protective anti-trade EU Custom Union and been able to agree trade deals with the World market.
Never in history has location mattered less. Air travel, mass shipping and the internet means you don't need stagnant trade blocks.
Banking in the UK is international. A customer trading in the UK can be anywhere in the World.
Freedom to trade. Reduced corruption. Greater democratic controls.
After all the UK is the 5 largest economy in the World, we are quite able to make our own way without been bullied by anyone.
5
It is impossible to have different regulations if we have a single market
4
Mr. Bittner is right. Europeans will always be much more commtted to their nations than Americans are to their states, and the sheer variety of cultures in Europe is its joy as well as its curse. More flexibility and deference to the local rather than more moves towards the creation of a US of E would be wonderful and certainly make it easier for Britain to some day rejoin.
There's a sting in the end of the article: the line that the EU will be in trouble if Britain appears to exit unscathed. It's that dynamic that makes the EU want to punish Britain. But telling proud and unruly members: "The EU is good for you because we will punish you if you leave" is not a long-run political winner.
17
@Alexander Menzies
The belief that the UK would get a great trade deal outside the EU with unfettered access to the single market was right up there with Empire 2.0.
It seems negotiation will focus on regulations - if the UK agrees to match them, they can stay in the Single Market, if they do not, well, good luck with that...
Divergence on standards means the UK government wants to shut the door on ever being in a position to rejoin should the public want to pursue that option...
It is the only logical position for the EU to adopt - it is not a question of punishment. The UK government will simply lock itself out of the Single Market, which has to be a real irony, given it was its main designer!
6
@Kieran You're quite right. Britain shouldn't and won't leave without losing various good things, but it doesn't follow that the EU has to make things worse than strictly necessary. But there will be an understandable temptation to do just that for political reasons.
3
The EU is not punishing the UK. That's an utterly ridiculous notion. The UK does not want adhere to the EU's standards and regulations, which is fine (it's their call), but why then should the EU allow the UK to ride piggyback? That's just common sense. However, much more importantly, if the UK are given a sweetheart deal, especially with the British PM openly declaring that it intends to deviate, all other trading partners of the EU around the world would come running demanding the same prederential treatment (they've already said so).
5
Europe has to start protecting Europeans. This seems elementary, but the elite liberals in the European Commission cannot seem to understand it.
Britain left because of mass immigration. British citizens found that their country wasn't theirs any more -- the country their fathers and grandfathers fought and died to defend. The other Europeans find themselves in the same predicament. Mass immigration killed the idea of Europe.
19
@James Ribe There's some truth to this. But my reading is that Britons in 2016 were less worried by the large-scale, but organized migration of Eastern Europeans than by Germany's unilateral decision in 2015 to, in effect, eliminate the EU's external borders and seemingly make it possible for anyone who walked to Europe to stay. That and the camps in France full of migrants hoping to get to the UK left a vivid impression that the EU had entirely lost control of migration and that Britain would be seriously affected if it did not take control itself. Without Merkel's generous, but politically dangerous decision, I doubt the Brexiteers would have won the vote.
8
Mass immigration. From outside the EU. You are aware that non-EU immigration to the UK always was on roughly the same level as EU immigration, and that it has increased since the referendum?
5
@James Ribe Nonsense.The Poles and others from the EU were/are not the problem. They served as a cover for resentment about other more conspicuously foreign elements in the society.But no one wanted to mention the real source of resentment. Not immigration from the EU but immigration from sources that made people feel "their country was not theirs any more." Now the real problem will begin.....
10
A thoughtful article, but still a simplification. But without simplifying it would probably end up being a book.
I do not think that an a-la-carte approach would be really beneficial as it would both promote cherry picking and strengthen the nation states again, One might ask now why the latter should be a problem. Well, I guess that depends both on generations and how one thinks future will unfold:
1) The younger Europeans -including me- have grown up with Europe. Many of us identify just as much (or even more) with Europe as we do with our countries or regions within them. We do not view the EU as mere instrument for all the reasons it was founded (Although these reasons are also ones to protect it.) to promote the well being of its members, but we do view it as an value in itself.
2) There are no people knowing exactly how future will look like, but if I had to guess I would predict the following:
1. More globalization.
2. China and India becoming stronger over the course of the
century.
3. Environmental issues causing many problems in the
world and fueling many other problems.
It can already be seen now (and in recent past years) that nation states -especially ones of the sizes of the European ones- are not capable of solving many problems efficiently and on time. And others not at all. A future that is anything like I expect it to be will be one where those countries are even more incapable. The EU needs be strengthened and not weakened.
30
These are simply the consequences of countries that believe in imperialism and domination of others. Britain will be Greece in two decades.
6
@Pilot This view doesn't make sense. The US dominated the free world in teh 20th century; is it headed for a Greece-like collapse? Many in the UK have felt "Eurocrats" were governing them without their consent; is that not a form of domination?
2
Except that it was precisely the UK that had been acting as a Trojan horse to destroy the EU from within (and so far, has failed ). The UK was the main promoter of the expansion to the East at any cost - including Turkey, - with the clear strategic intention of diluting any possible chance of political harmonization and some form of (con)federation. It may be too late to reverse now the damage. The way forward has to be the creation of a new union of the willing closer to a real political union.
27
@O Paco well put. Thanks.
If you allow a la carte you may as well go back to individual countries. The problem with the EU is the natural dominance by Germany and France. And this is likely to strengthen with the UK leaving. It's also likely Brussels will extend its grip and become more autocratic over many EU states.
The southern states still have a Euro problem, while the eastern states have a progressive liberal problem.
Still Europe as a whole is probably better off with the EU than without it.
11
@Paul You got a point there. The "natural dominance" of Germany is surely not quite unproblematic. But it is also not as simple or as bad as some might portray it:
1) Some who point fingers are merely using it (Germany, France and Brussels) as a scapegoat for their own problems.
2) If the smaller EU countries want more power they also have to act more proactively instead of waiting for some problems to encroach and then complain if the bigger countries feel urged to take initiative.
3
I think this is a slight misrepresentation - the a la carte already exists to an extent. Case in point, the UK was never part of the single currency or Schengen agreement, and it's not really on the table to force other opt outs from those agreements (e.g., Sweden and Ireland, respectively) to join.
16
But "participation in the single market itself and the obligation to abide by its so-called “four freedoms” — of goods, services, capital and people" is bad for most Europeans, except for the billionaires and the bankers. In the long run the people will reject it. It would be best to drop the whole thing now and start from scratch.
6
@Paul Easton “four freedoms” — of goods, services, capital and people" is bad for most Europeans.
Absolutely not! This is the bedrock of the European Union and its advantages by far outweigh its disadvantages. It has never been easier to travel across Europe, work and live where you want and I also don't miss the customs checks. And I don't miss the Peseta and French Franc either....
Someone said in a comment that the EU is not doing a good PR job. I fully agree - the achievements of the EU should be sold more aggressively.
7
@Paul Easton
Actually many actions on the part of the Eu central bank are creating real hardship for people in what was E Europe-- Hungary by encouraging nasty men to threaten the neighbors and buy up their land (under duress) and get big bucks form the EU for doing so. Coercive capitalism is economic slavery -- so far as immigration -- it is often forced by economic or political circumstances. Still people need to stop over-reproduction... and how to encourage that?? when economies "need" to expand constantly thus demanding more consumers. YIKES.
Spot on Jochen. The EU must change or die. Brexit is the writing on the wall. My own view is that the EU must pivot from being a top-down club of governments to something more grass roots - something that individual citizens can feel a part of, connected to, and above all, proud of. At the moment, for most people, the EU might be beneficial in some vague ways, but it is distant, and can easily be painted as overbearing.
5
The author forgets that the UK essentially got exactly what he’s describing - a special deal on currency, Schengen, even a special “rebate” on its membership dues. What is that if not a la carte membership, to the extent that the bloc can accommodate it?
And yet it’s the UK that’s leaving, not one of the newer countries that didn’t get all those breaks.
If the EU opens the door to more special arrangements, that door will just open wider and wider until there’s nothing workable left. It’s not the EU’s job to fix Britain’s issues, which are essentially domestic. It’s certainly not the EU’s job to further empower would-be autocrats in Hungary and Poland.
60
@Elle
The UK is leaving because it can. The newer members cannot, in reality, do so. I don't think leaving is a good idea for the UK but, as Mr Bittner suggests, it will not have nearly as big an impact as many suggest. Be prepared for nothing much for a few years until the real effects (almost certainly unforeseen) work their way through. I am a fan of the EU but it must acknowledge some responsibility and adapt accordingly.
5
There's no need for a conference, I can tell you now what the conclusions will be: The federalists will argue that the answer is in "ever tighter union" and say what the EU needs is a president, a common foreign and budgetary policy and a common military. The minimalists will say the problem with the EU is that it already does too much and push back against the federalists. The end result will be a muddled statement which will claim to "look forward together" and everything will continue the way it has been. Years ago Margaret Thatcher warned what would happen if the EU pushed a common currency - she predicted the collapse of the European centrist consensus and the rise of populist parties ending in a British withdrawal from the EU, exactly what we see in Europe today. It's sad the EU never listened.
5
The EU is complex, bureaucratic and incredibly slow at making decisions because it runs on compromise. Essentially, like the author says, all the member nations have to agree to do anything. This is why one cannot count on Europe for quick actions when needed (refugees, Israël, Syria, whatever). The nations that want less Europe are essentially right-wing, aspiring autocratic nations.
On the other hand, the EU is inflexible on the 4 freedoms. This is why the UK wanted out. They are happy with freedom of trade but not freedom of movement, forgetting for a moment how many of their own citizen have emigrated to France, Spain or Italy. The UK does not want Polish plumbers to settle in the UK, forgetting for a moment how many doctors and nurses they didn't have to pay the education for thanks to the rest of the EU.
One of the key tenets of EU membership is the commitment to democracy. Viktor Orban, the leader of Hungary, hates Europe because it does not let him do what he wants. If it were up to him he would close borders and run the country like Albania. Perfect for him, terrible for the average Hungarian. The EU is not in the business of abiding by the whims of local autocrats.
The EU tried being flexible before. The UK did not sign on to the single currency or to the Schengen treaty, and they got a special agricultural deal. They still got out.
This evidently does not work. I believe in a strong EU, not a weak, a-la-carte arrangement. Take it, contribute, or leave it.
105
@Hugues Exactly. The solution to the EU's problems isn't more flexibility, it's actually stronger integration of the member states. Until most people there think of themselves as purely "Europeans"--as in a national identity--and not as French of German first, the EU will continue to have these problems, and may well fail altogether. I know people there bristle at the idea of becoming more like America, but they need to in one very significant way.
No one in America genuinely thinks of themselves as a "Kansan" or "Oregonian" first and an American second (well, some Texans or New Yorkers, perhaps). And no one here has ever been genuinely offended because a plumber or doctor moved to their state from another. It really wouldn't even occur to Americans to think that way beyond the relatively good natured grumbling about Californians ruining the real estate markets in neighboring states. We are all Americans and, though we have real differences, our national identity comes first, always.
Europe will never truly be "Europe" until this happens. And it may never happen.
1
@Hugues Exactly! Well said.
Indeed there is an enormous danger in doing nothing, and the European Community does need an overall, but the idea that the UK is going to thrive outside the bloc is an optimistic one. The Brits are putting a lot of stock in a trade agreement with the US, but that is highly unlikely to come in a US election year and when it does, which of the two countries is likely to have the stronger hand do you think? Is a country of 70 million with no manufacturing base to speak of really going to sit down to negotiate as an equal with the US, China, Russia and the European bloc? Is the US going to open the door to Britain's one real success story, financial services, in detriment to its own? I have my doubts. It is notable that talk of 'Frexit', 'Grexit' etc. has diminished considerably across the continent as the political horror show of Brexit has unfolded in Westminster and that's before the real negotiations for a trade deal have started; a trade deal that the Brits want to complete in a record 12 months. Making predictions is incredibly difficult and there is always a coronavirus around the corner waiting to catch us unawares, but the idea that Brexit will not come without great economic instability is overly optimistic to say the least.
7
@P Kelly
I don't want to be put into the position of defending Brexit but I do need to point out that the UK is the world's eighth largest manufacturing nation (UN, 'Made Here Now' 2015, latest report). I also note that the trade deal with the US is not seen as a lifeboat by any means. It will be good for a few headlines but the coming FTA with the EU is seen as more important.
4
The countries that join the EU know what they are getting themselves into. It's untenable that they beg for member status and then complain about what that means after the fact. It's like a heroin addict who goes in to rehab and acts shocked that they are also being required to stop taking crystal meth. The EU would be better off if Poland and Hungary etc. had not been accepted. It should be only the core Western European Countries have common values and goals. Those countries weren't and aren't ready to be or understand the benefit of free societies. Overreach is the problem just like it is in the U.S. Alabama and New York should not be in the same country either.
64
@Jonny Walker It is the capacity to accommodate people with divergent cultures and views that has marked the EU as as success. In a shrinking world, with ever more people, barriers are not the solution. You should look to see the actual differences between Alabama and New York as a strength, not a weakness. Diversity is actively pursued by corporations within their human resources for the very reason that it delivers far higher levels of innovation and performance. Turning your back on it impoverishes everyone and facilitates populism.
6
@Jonny Walker Not true. None of the EU member states that begged to be admitted knew in advance that the EU would force them to open up to immigration, which is explicitly prohibited by the Consitution of many member states. As a matter of fact, only the (few) former European empires are for immigration, the other (many) countries are not.
5
@Kieran "In a shrinking world, with ever more people, barriers are not the solution."
Have you heard, good fences make good neighbors?
3
Your “à la carte” proposal - there is already substantial “à la carte” . Ireland, about 1% the EU population cannot be dictated to on matters of defense, neutrality, taxation. The autocracies of Poland, Hungary - stop the regress to absolutism or you exit the EU. The EU cannot tolerate, must not tolerate member states navigating towards semi-fascist status. The UK leaves, a few lessons to be learned by the EU, far less than the author assumes, a far more grave lesson to be learned if the EU demonstrates absolute, resolute opposition to the emergent totalitarian regimes of Hungary, Poland. Expel them, maybe they will find better alliances with Putin's Moscow.
There is of course in this immense undertaking, unique in human history, much to criticize but the immensity of what is accomplished so far is apparent to a vast majority of the young people of Europe which is why I foresee our British neighbors back with us again in this most immense project for peace and progress in the history of mankind.
33
@Branagh Poland will certainly not align with Moscow. They have been purchasing large quantities of American arms and aircraft for the purposes of defense, in case Russia starts to over reach. Poland is much more likely to align with Trump than Moscow.
1
If you join a fitness club here in Germany you have to do exactly that:you are obligated to pay for all courses yoga, boxing, meditation and swimming if it’s offered. Maybe that’s different in the US but here in your country that is how things work. You pay for health insurance even if you never need or want one, you pay for insurance in case you lose your job even if you will probably never lose it and you are also obligated to have a fire insurance for your house even if you don’t want to rebuild it in case of a fire.That is Germany and since we are the biggest bill payer in the European Union that’s the principle of the European Union too.And with regard to Britain everyone here knows that they will be the ones to break down after this not the European Union since they are simply too small to survive alone.Being all alone now, they do not have any leverage against countries like China or the US anymore and their economy is already in crisis mode. I am sorry but leaving the European Union is not going to be the success story Britain wants it to be.
68
You may not need health insurance now, but you, too, will grow old one day. A life blessed without accidents and family health problems will still have to reckon with time.
17
@Melanie Draude
"That is Germany and since we are the biggest bill payer in the European Union that’s the principle of the European Union too."
Yep and that seems why the UK is leaving.
There is no need for "leverage" over China & the US and I don't see where the EU itself has that leverage. Most countries have no real problems dealing with China & the US.
And the UK economy isn't in crisis mode.
16
@Melanie Draude This is a common misconception I've heard from many Germans. Britain is not a small economy. It's a large, powerful and dynamic economy, which is well respected throughout the world, especially for it services sector. And, it will remain so after it leaves the EU. I never wanted the UK to leave the EU and I voted against it. But, we are a democracy and that is how the nation voted.
Being a member of the EU will also not solve the UK's significant structural economic problems. By the way, it won't help Germany either. After a decade of near-uninterrupted growth, Germany has shifted from being the powerhouse of the eurozone economy to lagging behind. It shown prolonged weakness in its manufacturing sector shows increasing signs of seeping into services and consumer spending. Productivity remains low and the labour force is expected to shrink as it's population ages.
As I said , being part of the EU won't solve these problems for Germany. But we will miss you.
15
You get what you opt for. There would be no United States of America without a strong glue, it'd just be a bunch of states that never worried about joining or dying, and certainly never grew much beyond their original 13, but rather would gave competed openly.
If Europe sees no benefit in the EU, in the good that comes, then maybe it should start where Brexit left off. Ending the ages old issue all together.
Breaking up is really easy, non-cooperation is incredibly beneficial for local power plays, and the years of so-so benefit in our economic world for the most people is easily activated against easy targets.
Let the want to be heroes scape goat their way into the hearts of the public. Let them say that spectacular competition and non-cooperation is ideal. The EU, like most unions, is only really valuable when it is wanted. Let it die if it is not wanted - I mean you should get what you want.
Europe has spent more time less united than united, maybe that is what works for the people of that continent.
ONLY the top 4 or 5 strongest economies should be the EU, week economies have been the result of the problems the EU faces today. With a smaller union decisions and programs are easier to move forward, 28 is just too many to get anything meaningful done
3
Is the German op-ed author proposing the E.U. give Putin some al-a-carte menu options, too? How about Erdogan? While I agree that the E.U. needs reform, unlike the Die Zeit editor, I think the most important reforms must start with reforming Germany itself. German arrogance and obsession with austerity has been setting E.U. policy for far too long. The second important reform would be (the opposite of al-a-carte) true harsh measures against Eastern European populists destroying the rule of law.
100
@David yep. If EU will only pretend that they are trying to prevent autocratic governments in Poland and Hungry, they will flourish blossom. Hit them hard financially. I know what works for my country. Every time national pride started to take over people minds, we were crushed by some disasters. We are small country and we would learn fast that alone we are just Putins prey. Let English backstabbers leave. They can’t be trusted and that’s nothing new. Really hope they will be good example of how populist sentiments can destroy small country. Looking forward for Scottish and Irish independence. The worst disaster Brexit is for England, the better EU will do. They don’t care about damage they done to EU, so why would we care about them. Hard negotiations, no compromises, WTO terms if they don’t like it.
2
With its emphasis on common law and separate monetary system, it's amazing Britain was able to stay in as long as it did.
10
A European Union where members cherry pick where they want to be in and where to be out will not work. The burden will fall even more on the "rich" countries. Europe needs reform - whether that ultimately leads to more Europe or less Europe is not the point. Only a strong Europe will be able to achieve what it was originally set out to be: a united front against the enemy in the East (although Mr. Trump believes that the EU was started to scr.. the United States - he got that wrong, like most things he says).
Europe needs reform, and Macron is doing the only right thing to do in France: reform the pension system, make France attractive for investors and entrepreneurs. And he seems to be on the right track, looking at growth rates in France vs Germany. Yes, it hurts to give up goodies, but any French in his right mind (and I count myself as one) would have to agree that the pension benefits and retirement age as they are today are simply not sustainable.
Europe has to be a "give and take". If it's a cherry picking menu, then it will be only "take" - and that won't work.
70
So refreshing to read an opinion outside the conventional thinking on Brexit!
Bravo to those who dare contemplate a positive outcome for Britain and a period of introspection for the EU.
Fog on the Channel; Continent cut off!
1
Britain leaving the EU will probably have a much lesser impact or import than feared, for the simple reason that it was never fully in. Retention of the pound sterling and rejection of Schengen meant that the UK’s economy ran quite separately — interest rates, inflation, fiscal policy — and traveling in and out of the UK was never streamlined as, say, between Spain and the Netherlands. Further proof? Biggest hang up to Britain leaving the EU was the matter of border crossings between two Irelands, something the rest of Europe could not care less about.
12
Macron and Merkel's "condescension" is not limited to our fellow Europeans in the East and South, but for their own citizens as well.
Macron is following absurd orders from Brussels and Big Finance to dismantle the French social system, a hard fought for advance in humanity, and will put the country on a permanent track to austerity and the impoverishment of the working class.
Merkel's open borders have driven down wages for working class Germans and led to a cultural conflict that has given new life to an old devil, the German Far Right, with its red and black symbolism. Moreover, Germany's mercantilism has put its ordoliberal budget balancing act above the well-being of the fellow members of the incomplete and doomed Euro project.
The EU can't survive if it continues to enforce neoliberalism on its Member States. Mark my words, Italy will be leaving soon, and if Macron doesn't back down, so will France.
2
@CL
Yes, the EU needs to go back to its social market economies, neoliberalism does not work. It does not work well for the people in the US either.
5
@CL The EU can't survive if it continues to enforce neoliberalism on its Member States. ". But the only European parties that have ever supported pulling out of the EU - the Free Democrats in Germany and Le Pen's National Rally, are the most neo liberal major parties around. When they proposed exiting the EU, they got decimated in the next election. The people of Europe have never had it so good. Even the Greeks and Spaniards recognize that. All indications are that the EU will survive and thrive. The problems Bittner points out are challenges, but his idea of letting each country decide what it will sign up to, is a non-starter.
36
@Roger Evans Le Pen is not at all a neoliberal - she's come out expressly against such policies. That is not an endorsement, simply a correction on your mistaken comment.
As for Germany, in the end she may be the last member of the EU.
I don't see her or any current parties taking France out of the EU. I believe the evolution towards that rupture will come from an outside player, yet to come onto the political scene. Look at the quick rise of the authoritarian government of Macron - it's not an anomaly.
1