British commentators have noted that with Brexit, the UK’s engagement with Europe has come full circle. In 1990, then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was forced out of office by a group in her own Tory Party that favoured more European integration. Today, “Thatcherite” ideologues have extracted their revenge on a pro-Europe Prime Minister. Brexiters declared June 23 as Great Britain’s “Independence Day”. There is a delicious irony in an imperial coloniser of many centuries discovering independence. And, to enhance the irony, consider the strong “Remain” vote in Scotland and Northern Ireland in the context of Sir Humphrey Appleby telling Jim Hacker (in Yes Minister) it has always been British policy to partition a country while giving it independence! In the calm of the days after, economists and markets will probably conclude that the doomsday predictions of Brexit’s impact on the global economy are somewhat exaggerated. The other major issue is whether it will trigger the unravelling of the “European project”.
The “European project” was designed to bind war-torn (and war-prone) Europe together through cooperative political and economic institutions to perpetuate peace. In delivering peace, it was largely successful. Barring aberrations in the Balkans and skirmishes in Russia’s near abroad, Europe has not only enjoyed unbroken peace and rising prosperity; it also expanded its reach to the formerly Communist central and eastern parts of the continent. In the concomitant goal of “an ever-closer union” as a force for peace in the world, Europe has come up short. The question is whether Brexit will kill this goal or administer the shock that resuscitates it.
Strange as it may seem, post-Cold War UK was one of the prime movers for closer European integration. It signed the Maastricht Treaty, a blueprint for integration, including a monetary union. The UK promoted, along with France and Germany, the Lisbon Agenda of 2000, seeking to transform the EU into “the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world” by 2010. Equally remarkable was the UK’s enthusiasm for a robust EU security and defence policy, envisaging military integration, including a European force to promote European interests even beyond the continent. A joint communiqué (1998) of Tony Blair and then French President Jacques Chirac endorsed this objective. Taken together, these initiatives constituted a manifesto for European unity and autonomy.
This Euro-commitment dissipated by 2003, when Britain aligned itself with the United States (against major European partners) over the Iraq invasion. Besides committing troops, the UK sought to mobilise support, particularly in Central Europe. In effect, this helped split EU politically even before its expansion commenced in 2004. In April this year, US President Barack Obama strongly exhorted UK citizens to vote “Remain”. This was obviously because the UK’s activism in EU for freer trade, an eastward push by EU and Nato and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) aligned with US interests.
The key questions for post-Brexit EU are: Can it regain the confidence of its people and can it resurrect a coherent external political course? Without the first, the clamour for exit will spread to more countries. Without the second, the EU’s role in global affairs will diminish.
The challenges are to tackle economic disparities in a more sensitive manner; reconcile ideological differences with a long-term perspective; and secure EU-wide support for its external agenda. A few instances would illustrate the issues involved. The draconian austerity plan imposed on Greece last year in return for a bailout sent a chilling message to the weaker EU members that the more powerful countries would protect their financial interests under any circumstances. The EU was undeterred by a decisive Greek referendum verdict or the International Monetary Fund’s opinion that its plan was unworkable. The aggressive pursuit of EU’s (and Nato’s) post-Cold War eastward thrust hurt both EU and its intended beneficiaries. EU members differ on the pace and methodology of this thrust, as the Ukraine crisis festers and Russia-West tensions continue to escalate.
The recent flood of refugees into Europe has created new divisions within the EU, provoking xenophobia in some countries. The agreement with Turkey to regulate the inflow raised moral and political questions. But there is a much greater threat from the support to various terrorist groups, that is fuelling military conflicts in Syria, Libya and Yemen. It is in the EU’s self-interest to more actively oppose the cynical geopolitical games that could have an even more devastating impact on the continent. One significant EU success has been its important role in the negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme. The EU (led by Britain, France and Germany) developed a negotiating position distinct from, but compatible with, that of the United Styates and persuaded both sides to stay in the negotiations.
The stocktaking that European Council president Donald Tusk has initiated might confront the reality that the EU’s hasty expansion, over-ambitious economic targets and an overloaded political agenda may have derailed the European project somewhat. Europe has to unite over a core internal political and economic agenda, which also gives it autonomy of action. A “two-speed” Europe is often mentioned in this context. The argument is that a smaller, more manageable group could unite around “core values” to push transparent participative democracy within and an autonomy of action abroad. Less ambitious versions of the Lisbon Agenda and of a common security policy may be part of its toolkit.
Recent comments from some European politicians hint at thoughts in this direction, but it’s too early to predict action. Every crisis provokes soul-searching and lateral thinking, but the temptation to settle for short-term fixes than struggle for long-term gain is a failing to which politicians aren’t immune. The success of the European project is important for India. The EU is our largest trading partner and, though negotiations have dragged on for years, our bilateral trade and investment agreement promises significant mutual benefit. In the quest for a dynamic multi-polar world order, a Europe with an independent global role would be a valuable partner.
