Politics

Brexit und Machtbalance

Apr 11, 2016 Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

CAMBRIDGE – Im Jahr 1973 trat Großbritannien der späteren Europäischen Union bei. Am 23. Juni dieses Jahres nun wird es ein Referendum abhalten, ob es die Union wieder verlassen soll. Sollte es?

Aktuelle Meinungsumfragen zeigen eine in zwei annähernd gleiche Teile gespaltene Wählerschaft. Premierminister David Cameron behauptet, dass die Zugeständnisse, die er Großbritanniens EU-Partnern abgerungen habe, die öffentlichen Sorgen über einen Verlust an Souveränität gegenüber Brüssel und einen Zustrom ausländischer Arbeitnehmer aus Osteuropa ausräumen sollten. Doch Camerons Konservative Partei und auch sein eigenes Kabinett sind tief gespalten, während Londons populistischer Bürgermeister Boris Johnson sich den Unterstützern eines britischen Austritts angeschlossen hat.

Die Frage nach Kosten und Nutzen der britischen EU-Mitgliedschaft spaltet auch die britische Presse. Viele Boulevardzeitungen des Landes unterstützen einen „Brexit“, während die Finanzpresse sich für eine Fortsetzung der Mitgliedschaft ausspricht. Der Economist etwa verweist darauf, dass rund 45 % der britischen Exporte in andere EU-Länder gehen und dass die Atmosphäre zur Aushandlung eines Handelsabkommens im Gefolge eines Brexit vermutlich frostig sein dürfte.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 14 Comments on this article

Robert O'Regan Apr 12, 2016

The financial press, Goldman Sachs et al, and their folks in Washington all vote against Brexit so Brexit is the way to go. Nye provides no reason against Brexit, other than stating that Europe is a larger economy, populationwise, than China, India....and other misleads.
C'mon, USA wants to extend control and no-Brexit will help.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Apr 12, 2016

I should think there would be high value in developing contingency plans against the assumption that Britain will leave the EU whether it does so or not. It's time for a comprehensive and constructive re-evaluation of the idea of "transatlantic partnership" anyway and on both sides of the ocean.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Potter Apr 12, 2016

I know that the opinion polls are showing that the electorate is "closely divided" but, and I appreciate that it has no statistical basis whatsoever, within my circle of friends I can only find two who are voting "Remain". Those voting for "Brexit" outnumber them by 8 to 1.
However, we all have several things in common. For example; we all voted in 1975 to remain in the EEC, we all require much more information from both sides and we don't like being threatened.
"Project Fear", at least amongst my friends, is not working. In fact it seems to be having the opposite effect. When politicians state that Europe will be so annoyed with us leaving that they will throw their teddy out of the pram and impose high tariffs on our exports we ask why is this a one sided argument? As we have a trade imbalance with Europe to the tune of £60 billion plus surely we could impose the same tariff rates on them. Why would BMW et al not want to sell their products to "treasure Island"?
It seems to me that "Project Fear" could easily turn into the "boy who cried wolf" or even "The Four Yorkshiremen". Eventually nothing they say will be believed.
Another argument is that Sterling will fall against all other currencies. Thus the cost of imports will rise driving inflation higher and thus interest rates would have to rise. It would be of interest to have the views of several "one-handed economists" on this scenario.
Obviously there are no facts about the future but the automatic gainsaying from both sides of this debate seems to shed more heat than light when all we crave is light.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Mason Apr 12, 2016

With its departure from the exchange rate mechanism ahead of the debut of the Euro, this moment for the UK became inevitable. But this problem is not simply sourced from British nationalism. Pan-europeanism ran amok. The Maastricht Agreement laid out rules for convergence there were ignored in the zeal to expand the Eurozone. Europe cannot continue to build on this combination of contradictions. The problem of brexit question calls into question the whole concept of regional Trading blocs. It is dated thinking. In an Information Age, the common market is language not Geographic borders. The richest asset in the world is English. The most productive innovative transnational community in the world is English-speaking people. Brexit would mean the end of an old idea about the order of globalization, but it could be the beginning of a new one, a special favored relationship of English-Speaking Trade. This would strengthen the Eurozone against Russian interference because the European project would gain badly-needed political coherence. The outstanding strategic question would be American leadership, whether or not the next American president thinks NATO is just another line item in the budget.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Apr 12, 2016

Joseph S. Nye takes a look at what a possible impact Brexit would have on Britain's "balance of power" economically and politically. While Britain's strongest ally, the US is wary of "an American hand on the scale" and lets the Britons decide over their future, the world holds its breath ahead of the referendum. All world leaders have spoken in favour of Britain remaining in the EU. Russia's president Vladimir Putin is said to be the only one who welcomes Brexit to weaken Britain and the EU.
Apart from regaining the "sovereignty" that many Britons claim to have lost to the EU, they believe they would be economically better off on their own, saving the billions of pounds they would have to continue to pay. They are hopeful that they would be able to negotiate a "post-Brexit trade deal" like the two non EU-members, Norway and Switzerland did. As many Britons are indecisive, they look to Switzerland's example to help them make up their minds. Vice versa the Swiss are watching the outcome of Britain's referendum with interest, saying they might gain an ally, should Britain leave the EU.
The Swiss voted in December 1992 not to join the European Economic Area (EEA), which then would have been a first step towards full EU membership. The EEA provides for the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital within the EU internal market between its 28 member states, as well as three of the four member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA): Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.
Switzerland sells over 50% of its exports to the EU, and had signed more than 120 bilateral agreements with Brussels to secure access to Europe's markets. It is only interested in the economic aspect of European integration, and it has worked well so far. As a non-EU member, it has been able to forge its own trade deal with China, something EU members can't do individually. But what it works with Switzerland might not work for Britain. The Swiss can't "cherry-pick" the bits they think would bring them more advantages. One of the agreements Switzerland has signed up is the free movement of people, with all the benefits that implies for workers and their families from the EU, and the Schengen open borders - all without ever being at the negotiating table and having a say. Switzerland contributes billions of dollars to EU projects on research, education, culture and security. The Swiss even paid 1.3bn Swiss francs (€1.18bn) to the EU enlargement fund, designed to support new members from Eastern Europe. It remains to be seen whether Britain would be better off to leave the EU. Britain is currently the world's fifth largest economy and might even beat Germany to finish fourth one day.
Britain is one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Brexit might leave Britain weaker. The US cherishes the cooperation with Britain and France, which together with the EU's Foreign Policy Chief, had forged the nuclear deal with Iran. The US also relies heavily on Britain and France to beef up NATO's military capability, as the two are the "two major sources of European expeditionary power." Much as at stake for all sides, and the world hopes that the Britons will make the right decision.
- Celt Darnell Apr 12, 2016
  
  You need to do better than that.
  
  All world leaders have spoken in favour of Britain remaining in the EU? Of course they have -- because the position of the British government is that the UK should stay in the EU. It would be a breach of diplomatic protocol for anyone of them to champion Brexit.
  
  The trouble with citing the allegedly poor deals the Swiss and Norwegians have with the EU is that both nations have steadfastly refused to join the EU in national referenda. As bad as they allegedly have it, they regard EU membership as worse.
  
  The reality is that the issue isn't trade and it's not cooperation -- the issue is political integration. There has never been anything approaching majority support in the UK for political integration with Europe.
  
  That is the issue and the problem.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Celt Darnell Apr 11, 2016

Re: [the EU] It also has 27 universities ranked in the top 100 worldwide.

And almost all of them are in the UK.

There is also no "status quo" on offer. If the UK wants to stay in the EU we must accept the end destination: a politically unified Europe. Unfortunately, polls have shown for over 30 years now that most of us don't want that.

As for Scotland, while Scotland may leave the UK if Britain leaves the EU, Scotland will leave the UK if Britain remains in the EU. Make no mistake, the endgame for the EU is a situation where all major decisions are taken in Brussels and not Westminster. In such as case, there will be no reason for Scotland to go through the Westminster middleman, better to represent itself at Brussels.

Scotland will have to choose to be a significant player in a small union or an insignificant one in a larger union.

As for the "liberal international order" the only thing it's done for me is flood my country with foreigners, dissolve long-established communities and traditions and diminish my personal freedom (political correctness is not indigenous to Britain). The sooner the liberal [sic] international order collapses, the better.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Philip Ralli Apr 11, 2016

The problem is that by not adopting the Euro, the UK has gained economically but lost influence politically in Brussels (the holding of the referendum in itself further weakens the UK's influence). The supposition is that Brexit would be another notch in the same direction.
I agree with Joe Nye that the political results of Brexit are probably bad for the West and possibly bad for the UK as well if Irish and Scottish discontents arise.
It would have been better for the world if Cameron had negotiated on the lines of "improve the single currency so as to make us sorry we did not join in". For it is not Brexit but the possible failure of the Single Currency that threatens the EU.
- Celt Darnell Apr 11, 2016
  
  Come on, Britain has been suggesting improvements to the EU for decades (we strongly advised against the euro to cite just one example). Every time our ideas are flatly rejected.
  
  We simply don't see eye to eye. There is no reason for us to remain.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Apr 11, 2016

Here are some basic facts missing from Nye’s “analysis” of Brexit. The UK runs a vast trade deficit with Europe (8.2 billion Pounds for the month of February 2016 alone). That means that Europe needs the UK market far more than the UK needs Europe. Of course, this gives the UK a very strong bargaining position in making the transition from the EU to the EFTA.

It can be argued that even countries in the EFTA are still subject to some European mandates. That is very partially true. As both Norway and Switzerland show, the burden is drastically less than full EU membership. Indeed, the successful Swiss referendum mandating (additional) controls on immigration shows that once outside of the EuroReich, a nation has considerably more freedom to maneuver.

The advocates of the EuroReich claim that no nation is truly independent. Of course, there is some truth to this. However, some nations have a lot more idenpendence than others. Like it or not, the EU imposes terrible hardships on its members and delivers rather little in return. To use a practical example, does Canada have more sovereignty than California? Of course, it does. Is Canada “suffering” from its lack of influence in the U.S. (and the world). Somehow, Canadians don’t seem upset by their independent status. They (the Canadians) appear to be handling Cexit reasonably well.

For better or worse, the EU has degenerated into an abomination. The Euro has become a WMD (Weapon of Economic Mass Destruction). Open Borders have turned Europe into the graveyard of nations with Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, banlieues, tournantes, Cologne, Molenbeek, Rosengård, etc. as the “bright and shining future”. Europe both denies each nation the right to control its borders while utterly failing to stop the ongoing invasion. Worse, the dominant power of the EuroReich (Germany) scoffs at Europe’s rules while inviting mass invasion and then demands “European solidarity” to deal with the disaster.

The time has come to kill the beast. “Europe” must be destroyed. The trade association of European nations should be preserved. The tyranny of the Reich must be defeated.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Apr 11, 2016

An opinion well articulated as always from Joe Nye - and he is in good company here along with Richard Haas, Carl Bildt, Javier Solana.
Should they also be privy to the voices within the Eurozone that seems violently opposed to the European Union, time seems to be ticking.
Instead of waiting for another meltdown, there are perhaps sufficient early warning indicators - flashing red if not amber.
Predicaments like these require statesmanship as well as sagacity - in steering away from certain shipwreck.
But if shipwreck is the solution - then 23 June perhaps the "Bastille" anniversary this year.
The first bullet of the 100 year cycle of disaster that Europe has historically faced since "Agincourt" 600 years ago.
More recent anniversaries better remembered for "Waterloo" - on its first centenary, Franz Ferdinand was the spark in Sarajevo.
Opinion coming out of Europe seems to suggest Brexit is tantamount to "Franz Ferdinand is back in 2016".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Apr 11, 2016

Does the writer realises that his article is full of cut and paste materials? No country in the EU, including Germany, is ready or willing to sacrifice an inch of its sovereignty. Germany had many chances to lead honestly the EU but power and greed seems to have corrupted (once again in the European history) the minds and souls of its leadership.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Apr 11, 2016

I do wish you would stop pretending there is a special relationship between the UK and the US - there is not. That was clearly shown by the way Keynes was rebuffed by the US after WW2 and the the UK was left to flounder in war debt. The Marshall Plan was a panic Reds under the Beds knee jerk that did provide mortgaged funds, only recently paid off, but the objective was not to save the UK but to stop the percieved continental European drift to communism. The job of the UK is not to bolster the US. Anybody thinking that - including Blair - needs their head examining
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Avraam Dectis Apr 11, 2016

Regarding the "values of Democracy and Human Rights":

Given that the USA allows stalker gangs to openly poison people - as I have been for the last 19 years with, apparently, the full knowledge of the government and police - I wish to suggest some skepticism may be in order on that statement.

That reality may be less evident in sheltered Cambridge, Mass.
-
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/uZocbBQde

Brexit und Machtbalance

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Brexit und Machtbalance

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification