Les questions que pose la « Brexit » à l’Europe

Mar 21, 2016 Javier Solana

MADRID – Dans trois mois, les citoyens britanniques devront décider s’ils resteront ou non au sein de l’Union européenne. Mais ils ne sont pas les seuls à devoir évaluer leur avenir politique. Le prochain référendum pose aussi deux questions importantes pour le reste de l’Europe.

La première question consiste à savoir quel résultat du référendum les Européens préfèrent ou devraient préférer. Certains ont déjà jeté l’éponge sur le dossier du Royaume-Uni, faisant valoir qu’un partenaire envisageant de quitter l’Union n’est pas, de toute manière, le genre de partenaire dont il voudrait. Que l’on souscrive ou non à cette opinion, il vaut la peine d’étudier cet argument. En fait, ce serait faire preuve de naïveté de ne pas se poser la question suivante : « Retenir à tout prix un membre qui remet en question le principe même de l’intégration européenne est-il réellement dans l’intérêt supérieur de l’Union européenne ? »

En réalité, le débat public britannique sur la souveraineté ne cessera pas après le scrutin. Après tout, même si la majorité répond « oui » à l’Union européenne, un segment de la population qui selon les sondages est non négligeable demeurera convaincu que la Brexit aurait été préférable pour le Royaume-Uni.

To continue reading, register now.

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

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

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads, book reviews, and insider interviews; Big Picture topical collections; Say More contributor interviews; Opinion Has It podcast features; The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 11 Comments on this article

Tony Ph Mar 24, 2016

"If Brexit, what are the detriments to the UK's bottoms?
If Bremain, what are the benefits to the UK's bottoms?
If Brexit, what are the detriments to the EU's bottoms?
If Bremain, what are the benefits to the EU's bottoms?"
[in Chinese]http://tonyphuah.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/nation-stratum-closer
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Mar 23, 2016

Whilst this article pruports to be discussing the EU issue objectively it is far from that -

'Indeed, it would be naive not to ask whether retaining a member that is challenging the very principle of European integration would really be in the EU’s best interests.'

So the EU vision is frozen, yup thats a problem. The whole strength of democracy is it allows development in response to chnage

Furthermore how does this view square with the growing tide of dissent with EU vision in a number of EU majors

Here is the central problem with the EU - it wants a federal state but the whole of the population doesnt. As it becomes more and more clear what a federal state entails the population increasingly moves away from this outcome. Furthermore it wants a federal state but is not prepared to accept that a federal state requires ongoing wealth transfer in a structured way

'The problems we are facing did not arise because of European integration.'

Debatable but irrelevent. The point is the EU is incapable of effective response to crisis due to the inflexibility of flawed integration, eg Greece, Schengen, Migrants, Security, Eurozone etc etc. The migrant crisis handling from start to finish has been horrendous. The solution now appears to be paying a non EU party for forced intervention, as though security can be a bought in external service. As these issues have not been sorted they can only return. Greece is due to return very shortly

As far as military expenditure goes many in the EU are not pulling their weight, simple as that

The EU is full of tunnel visionaries who cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel but are convinced it is there. The blind wanting everybody else to be blind so they can lead them

'Brexit would deal a major economic blow to the UK and the EU alike. But that is not all. It would also weaken the security, foreign policy, and international standing of both parties.'

So why was this left to develope to thsi stage, any acknowledgement of the UK position has only come at the last minute when reality dawned. That has only entrenched the 'Leave' UK position. The whole thing whiffs of a body which cannot react only try to dictate
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Jones Mar 22, 2016

Power-bloc diplomacy has never worked well; it has often been disastrous. It is high time for us all to grasp the nettle and accept that national or power-bloc armies are a dangerous anachronism.
We must all be prepared for our states (or federations) to surrender their armed forces to global control -or face the consequences. As regards Brexit, as a UK citizen I am also a European and, beyond and above that, a global citizen. I have no desire whatever to feel secure because my ‘side’ is stronger than anyone else. In the nuclear age such feelings would be insane. Unless we can quickly learn to think as tenants of one very fragile planet and act concertedly, there is very little hope for us. The atrocity in Brussels today and the specter of Trump maybe in the White House tomorrow are the writing on the wall
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Mar 22, 2016

JS deserves the respectable hearing that his impeccable credentials warrant.
As NATO Secretary General, JS played a decisive role - especially during the fiasco in Yugoslavia.
World Affairs have been his forte and like Helmut Schmidt of Germany, JS has a crystal clear mind.
Whatever the bickerings within, a repeat of Yugoslavia is the last thing needed at this hour.
Along with Carl Bildt and Gordon Brown, this troika needs to lead the European effort.
That ensures peace n prosperity in Europe for the next 70 years.
1945 - 2015 brought a rare sanctuary in European history.
That must be preserved - despite every fault line that divides Europeans.
- David Morgan Mar 27, 2016
  
  jagjeet sinha thank you, someone appreciates what the united Europe in its current form the EU has achieved, many decades of peace in Europe. That was why the Iron and Steel Federation between France and Germany was set up to achieve rapprochement between warring countries. So forget the everyday problems as it is fundamentally successful.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Mar 22, 2016

Javier Solana believes that - irrespective of its outcome - Britain's in-out referendum on its EU membership will cast a long shadow on the future of the Union, posing "two important questions." Firstly, "which outcome Europeans would and should prefer." Indeed, some of us "have already written off the United Kingdom," saying a member state that lacks the sense of solitarity is not worth keeping. Solana makes the point about "whether retaining a member that is challenging the very principle of European integration would really be in the EU’s best interests."
Even if the "yes" vote prevails, there will always be those naysayers, who continue to clamour for more "sovereignty" and "remain convinced" that they would have been better off without the EU. Constant "disagreements" and endless negotiations with Brussels will dominate their agenda "for years to come." However disheartening the reality is, Solana warns us against favouring a Brexit, given the ramifications that both the UK and the EU will suffer. Moreover "it would also weaken the security, foreign policy, and international standing of both parties." He also points out how important it is that the UK - Europe's "biggest military power" - and the EU work closely together, as the current crises and security threats affect us all, and no party alone can't handle them on its own.
The financial crisis has already taken a toll on defence budgets across Europe, and EU leaders "continue to struggle to reach consensus on foreign-policy measures". A Brexit would "further reduce the willingness of EU members to cooperate, resulting in the deterioration of both their security and their remaining international influence."
Solana's second question - "Is EU membership worthwhile" - triggers soul-searching in the UK and the EU, seen as a seed of doubt sowed by nationalist and populist parties in people's minds. He says "centrifugal forces" focus on narrow interests "to the detriment of common action," prompting some governments to take "unilateral measures contrary to EU decisions."
He says national interests erode "the values and principles on which the EU was founded." Hence the 2017 presidential election in France and federal elections in Germany will be followed closely, because these two countries were the founding members of today's EU, and constitute the pillars of its leadership. Any "potential political boost to anti-European forces could have serious long-term consequences."
The author dismisses the blame that Eurosceptics put on the EU for its "myriad problems," saying they "did not arise because of European integration," and they will not go away, whether the EU "is united or not." Indeed, what matters is "how Europe responds to them. The rationale for integration is that collective action is far more effective than unilateral efforts." Before damage is done to undermine the EU, it "should be reaffirmed as an attractive political project" - making "decisive progress toward a more effective, more integrated, and more desirable union." Indeed, this can only be done with reforms.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Winter Mar 22, 2016

You are correct that "The problems we are facing did not arise because of European integration." However, thry did arise in major part because of the manner of integration. Having a common currency without a common central bank or a means for meaningful financial integration has proved problematic, at best. And, having what is at its core a technocratic governance structure with democratic accountability little more than a throw away line will likely preclude ever having strong public support across the EU with its increasingly divergent national interests as perceived by the very different national populations. Those who oppose Brexit -- and notwithstanding the foregoing I am one -- too often leave unaddressed the democratic weaknesses in the EU structure.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Mar 21, 2016

"with many favoring a view that holds out the nation-state as the solution to every problem" - WRONG.

More connected democracy and greater political transparency and resulting accountability are the solutions and these are forming the bedrock of the sensible pro-Brexit arguments in the UK.

The arrogant and evasive way in which the EU and UK pro-EU elites avoid addressing the democratic deficit at the heart of the EU and its objectives the more damage will be done to the future relationship between the pro and anti EU constituencies across the entire continent.

Eventually the countries with the greatest desire for and traditions for democracy will break away because the EU is institutionally not capable of reform.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Mar 21, 2016

The EU shot itself in the foot rather thoroughly when it hammered Greece into the ground in order to save the loan books of northern European banks at the expense of the taxpayers. Loans to Greece that never sent a dime they merely transferred the debts from the banks to the taxpayers. That kinda confirmed the EU was being run to benefit the "Elites" and their cronies. Thus the anti EU movement.
- Garrett Connelly Mar 27, 2016
  
  This is my understanding also.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/UVtGYHxfr

Les questions que pose la « Brexit » à l’Europe

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Les questions que pose la « Brexit » à l’Europe

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification