Comments 10

建立有约束力的英欧关系

Jul 19, 2017 Ana Palacio

马德里——自从上个月英国退欧谈判正式开始后，人们一直把注意力集中在最有争议的问题：英国究竟欠欧盟多少、英国是否仍属于欧洲法院（ECJ）的管辖范围、以及英国在欧盟的居民和欧盟在英国的居民将保留哪些权利。鉴于这样的关注重点，更不要说英国一向对欧盟态度冷淡甚至破坏英欧关系，欧盟领导人将英国视为欠缺真正合作诚意的有敌意的谈判对手或许并不令人感到意外。

事实上，英国和欧盟的关系非常密切，特别是在外交事务、安全战略和国防政策等三个重要且相互联系的领域。到目前为止，人们并未对在这些问题上找到前进方向给予足够的关注，但它却很有可能决定了能否创建解决最有争议问题的合作框架。

在正式通知欧盟理事会主席唐纳德·图斯克英国退欧意愿的信件中，英国首相特雷莎·梅指出经济及安全合作是她希望与欧盟达成一致的“深层次特殊伙伴关系”的关键要素。但梅应当认识到尽管经济和安全合作同等重要，但它们却并不是像“硬币两面”那样的问题。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 14 in all 14 Comments on this article

Henk Crop Jul 29, 2017

Good article. It is also good to realise that not only the British people are unhappy with the functioning of the EU, many people in other member states are too.
Especially since the Lisbon Agreement of 2009 and the German and French policy decision of the "ever closer union".
Therefore the EU has begun to study on how the development of the EU is to proceed.
Results of such a study should be included in Brexit negotiations.
See also; PS The flip side of Euro Atlantic Cooperation, J.Solana, july 21. and Democratic Resiliance for a populist Age, H.K. Anheimer, july 27.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
GERMAN VARELA SAAVEDRA Jul 20, 2017

Excelente comentario.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Jul 20, 2017

ENGLISH OR RUSSIAN - JUST IN CASE
My favourite Foreign Minister begins by saying "Security and Economics are NOT two sides of the same coin".
She then presents The Eurocentric mindset - like Poland - WHY EUROPEAN UNION wants Britain.
In simple English - Allow us to screw your Economics + Allow us to freely migrate to your Anglosphere, Our Defense needs you.
In short - We need your money for incomes, We need your Land to live, We need your soldiers to protect.
When Mexico and Poland say the same - it sounds NAIVE and STUPID.
When Spain says the same - ironically they become Words of Wisdom from Europe's Four Pillars.

Accusations such as - UK is a hostile negotiating partner, lacking any real commitment to cooperation.
And - EU's lack of faith in the UK 's will to cooperate, May should recognise that Security and Economics are NOT two sides of the same coin.
Fortunately, in the last para in conclusion, she reverses again - "Security is too important to be used as bargaining chips".
Am surprised that The Foreign Minister does not build upon her faith in Latin Monetary Union & Latin Security Union.
Without America, without Britain, without Canada.
With Mexico, with Poland, with Italy, with Portugal.
Germany is NOT SO NAIVE - and Merkel speaks fluent Russian.
France is NOT SO NAIVE - and Macron speaks fluent English.
Just in case.
JS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Jul 20, 2017

Hi Ana,

With the greatest respect Ana, you've explained all the reasons why the UK should stay in the EU from the EU point-of-view...

I would have titled your essay; 'EU to UK: Stay, because we need you'

Which is quite different from 'EU to UK: Stay, and we'll make it worthwhile'

But of course, it's too late for that. The EU could've done that at any time since 1973. But they didn't. Now it's too late. Brexit will occur. No hard feelings, though!

("Countries don't have friends, they have interests." -- Sir Winston Churchill)

If the second-largest contributor to the EU budget (the UK) and the strongest NATO supporter (the UK) and the country with the largest number of EU expats (the UK) and all of it with surprisingly little complaint isn't worth listening to and accommodating British concerns in EU policy, then I have to say, the EU was merely using the UK as a cash-cow to fund EU-centric priorities, and not UK priorities.

Some 160 countries around the world aren't part of the EU, nor do they have any special trade, defence or social policies in common with the EU, and many of them are doing just fine. As will the UK.

Mercedes Benz, BMW and other EU companies don't want a messy divorce, nor do they want a recession in the UK (it's their best market outside of the EU and the United States) nor does BP want a messy divorce or a recession in the EU for similar reasons.

I think that **anything** 'Win-Lose' is worse than having a clean divorce and just going by WTO rules, etc.

Of course, 'Win-Win' outcomes are much preferable to everything else.

My tolerance for hostile negotiations (by either side) for negative press reports (that could damage the image of either side) or any kind of overt pressure to accept a 'bad deal' (by either side) is extremely low.

Rather than causing further damage to the UK/EU relationship it would be better to simply 'walk' and leave without any kind of deal.

To sum up: If it looks like negotiations are turning negative or hostile, or even dragging on without much success, I would much rather go for a sudden WTO-type Brexit, than risk causing any further harm to either the UK or the EU, to leaders on either side, and in particular, to the economies of either side and their respective industries.

The UK and the EU will continue to live in near proximity to each other for generations, temporal issues that might arise during Brexit negotiations (no matter how strongly felt at the time) must never be allowed to derail the overall relationship between half a billion European citizens.

Brexit will happen, it's up to leaders to make it as painless as possible.

I certainly respect your opinions as expressed in your well-written essay, Ana. I respectfully suggest however, that it is primarily written from an EU perspective.

As always, very best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernard Fudim Jul 20, 2017

Britain’s European Ties That Blind
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Jul 20, 2017

It is not going to happen. Neither side is dealing in good faith all though for the UK it seems more amateur hour then deliberate. In the EU's case demands including effective extraterritorial status for EU an EU demand for a separation fee that is beyond ridiculous. My opinion and it's worth what you pay for it I suppose is that Nato won't outlast Brexit by much. You don't assist your open enemies period and the EU is most definitely proving it is only interested in punishment not an equitable deal. The EU is encouraging the fragmentation of the UK hardly the act of a friendly or even neutral that is the act of an enemy no ifs ands or buts. And only Spain has any say on Gibraltar ? they lost it 300 years ago. If we are going back to the maps of 300 years ago borders are going to look mighty different. 2 things apply to this situation... 1) You do not defend your enemies so those British troops are going to be coming home the UK will no longer be able to afford it and why on earth should they defend Germany, France or any of the other EU states?? And if the UK pulls out of NATO the US won't be far behind. 2) And this is for EU: If you have peace prepare for war. A still valid quote. Remember they said in 1920 there would be no more wars. And for those who believe trade prevents war I will point out Germanies biggest trading partner in 1938 was.... France. So for those who believe war is impossible it is a bad bet. Perhaps the EU is right and the UK has no will to cooperate I don't know. But the EU is making demands and performing actions that the most backward 3rd world country wouldn't accept. And they honestly expect terms that went out fashion with Colonialism. Newsflash for Brussels Colonialism and we only answer to our own courts went out of fashion a while back.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jul 19, 2017

Ana Palacio points out that in Theresa May's letter in March to the European Council triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, she underscored two "key elements" of Britain's "deep and special partnership" with the EU that are of mutual significance - "economic and security cooperation." The author says, while May hopes to agree with the EU on these two issues, "they are not two sides of the same coin." May and many Brexiteers have failed to realise that they can't have an “à la carte” Brexit deal and that Britain can't cherry-pick EU benefits, while closing its borders. Access to the single market is closely linked to the EU's free movement of goods, capital, services and labour.
Since the June 2016 referendum, much bad blood has been spilled between Britain and the EU over the "divorce settlement," the role of the European Court of Justice, and the rights of EU citizens in the post-Brexit Britain. Given its reputation for being "aloof" and implacable, Britain has been seen as a "hostile negotiating partner" by its EU counterparts, "lacking any real commitment to cooperation."
Despite the raucous mantra about a "hard" Brexit, the author maintains that "the interests of the UK and the EU are closely aligned, particularly in three vital and interconnected areas: foreign affairs, security strategy, and defense policy." She says they have "so far received little attention," but they "might be the key to creating the cooperative frameworks needed to address the most controversial matters."
Regarding "security operation" the author sees plenty of room for both sides to develop, as such a concept is still "incipient" because the infrastructure is "less developed" compared to current economic institutions. She says Britain - as "a world-class and readily deployable military, permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, a nuclear deterrent, and a robust relationship with the United States" - is a valuable asset to the EU, which lacks Britain's "experience as a global power." If it wants to "become a global actor" it would be useful to have Britain on board. May be!
Vice versa Britain has "plenty to gain" from the EU as an "important force multiplier." It has recently suffered a diplomatic setback in a dispute over a military base in Mauritius, a former British colony. This should be a reminder of Britain's diminished clout in its former colonies. It could benefit from the potential of the 27 EU members to "bring together diverse actors – institutional, national, non-governmental, and corporate" - that only the US can match - but just narrowly. As the US is in retreat under Trump, the EU could emerge stronger as a global player.
No doubt, Britain and the EU need each other to achieve geopolitical goals. "The question now is how to design a framework for the relationship, once the UK is no longer an EU member." While it is important to keep Britain in the fold, it has no role to play "in formal EU decision-making" process, as "it would diminish the value of membership. But losing a vote need not mean losing a voice." So Britain should adopt the Norwegian model, "which liaises with the EU on foreign policy, but is not in the room when key decisions are made. But the weakening of the UK’s ability to shape decision-making under such a framework would be bad for both sides."
As there is no standard formula for negotiating Brexit, much relies on the diplomatic skills of the negotiators. To start with, they need "to clear the air between the two sides, laying the foundations for stronger, trust-based cooperation in other areas. But, given EU leaders’ current lack of faith in the UK’s will to cooperate, it will be possible only if May’s government takes the lead." The problem is that she and her Brexiteers are overwhelmed by the magnitude of Brexit. This prompts Tony Blair to propose Britain to remain within a "reformed European Union." Both sides would have to make compromises, and it depends much on whether there is appetite for such a move.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry H Jul 19, 2017

I have so many issues with this article I don't even know where to begin. However the comment of the UK "lacking any real commitment to cooperation" probably best characterises the UK's entire involvement with the EU. Ana's examples are about all the things that could have been, but never were to become reality and probably never will. Brexit however has become the greatest impetus to reevaluate all those policies that just didn't work out too well. Having just one uncooperative partner less might just make the difference.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Jul 19, 2017

Of course many ties bind the EU and UK.
It is easier to sum up the ties that do not bind.
That is the freedom of labor. As a principle it sounds nice. But in actual terms it means that the UK, and any other EU member, have to accept immigrants in unlimited numbers. Driving natives out of their jobs, their housse and neighbourhoods. The latter meaning that their right on their identity and culture is denied. If a member state wants to set limits, it is European Commission and countries like Greece and Italy who can block such measures.
It could have been solved by accepting the principle but setting limits on the numbers immigrants.
If the UK had fought this principle she would have found much support. The people in western Europe are fed up with the never endling flow of immigrants.
The problems the UK has with the ECJ I do not understand.
Perhaps it is just the aloofness that has led to the Brexit.
Perhaps also that the British people have not yet come to realise that they are not leaders of an empire anymore.
- Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jul 25, 2017
  
  Henk,
  It sounds like we largely agree but from a different base. You are talking about markets and trade, which Britain voted in favour of (that was how the first referendum in 1975 was presented). Indeed, the Single Market was a UK initiative of the Thatcher government.
  
  However, that is not what the EU is about, it is made up of many opaque institutions, staffed by an un-elected elite who all think the same things –if you don’t you simply will not progress through the ranks. The idea to which they subscribe is to create a new country called Europe and they believe this can be done undemocratically (usually at crisis point) now and then legitimated later, when people see the costs of dismantling it are too high (e.g. the Euro).
  
  It isn’t about a Common Market for commercial goods and services anymore, in fact most Brits now realise it never was but trade was a more sellable story.
  
  Finally, your point on the ECJ is illustrative of what I have just written; A series of pro-EU elite establishment governments within the member-states agreed a succession of supra-national treatise that (among many other things in ‘000 page documents) conferred supreme legal rights over an ever expanding competence base to the ECJ, nullifying many laws that many previous generations had fought hard for.
  
  I agree that intra-nation trade and investment requires an adjudication body and with the EU it is complicated because it has so many legal systems that a central body is required (note it isn’t between say Canada and Australia or the UK and New Zealand or India because we can simply trust each other’s courts and Common Law systems). The issue now regarding Brexit is the ECJ cannot be used because it is openly biased in favour of Brussels (whether agreed by member-states or not).
  
  The more EU member-states’ populations understand these realities, the more they will realise the EU is not about markets and trade –it is really about something else.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Henk Crop Jul 22, 2017
  
  Alisdair. To me it appears that the outcome of the Brexit refendum was a surprise on both sides of the Channel. A subsequent poll showed that the majority of the people in the EU, incl. the UK did not want that. Nevertheless the UK voters made their choice. However the UK politicians did not have any plan as to where they were going. Nevertheless Mrs. May came with big words and set the Brexit in motion. I just wonder what the voters had been told about their future if their Government did not know ? The Brexit is a strategic decision. In any responsible organisation such a decision would have been based on a thorough analysis. Therefore to me the Brexit is just a historical failure. It is to the disadvantage of both the EU and UK. The UK will lose benefits and influence in shaping a 500 million market.
  I think that after the German elections it is time to discuss with Macron and Merkel if the UK needa to proceed with the Brexit.
  
  How come that mr. Cameron his reasonable request was not granted ?
  My guess is that the UK did not have gained, over the years, the position it was entitled to as a big and important EU member.
  The EU is on paper a well structured bureaucracy with many institutions.
  However all along it was the Franco-German axis who decided, and they controlled Brussels.
  Despite all the rulings the EU had, some countries simply disregarded the rules and agreements. Sometimes they even got approval from Brussels in for it.
  Last week Italy saved, with 17 billion Euro's, a Bank with taxpayers money. Which we al had agreed upon not to do only one year ago.
  When Hungary wanted to stop immigrants at its border a few years ago, in opposition to Brussels, mr. Orban travelled all over the EU to obtain support. Now at least half a dozen EU members have closed their borders on immigrants also.
  It's a somewhat Mediterranean approach that has developed in the EU. I am not sure the UK did all that.
  
  Concerning the EJC. I think when you have a common market you also need an institution to solve conflicts. If this leads to interface problems with national legislation that has to be solved. Altough I agree they are evermore expanding there interference.
  On a TV program they defended themselves and said that they operated on guidelines that were approved by the memberstates.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jul 21, 2017
  
  @ Henk Crop, let me enlighten you….
  
  1. avid Cameron tried to get an ‘emergency brake’ mechanism agreed but the EC and Merkel were not interested and did not take his referendum pledge or the risk of a vote for Brexit seriously.
  https://www.ft.com/content/3901dd48-3cee-11e6-9f2c-36b487ebd80a?mhq5j=e2
  
  2. The ECJ is a political court. This is anathema to most Brits, the original basis of the British constitution is the rule of law and equality before it. The ECJ is open about interpreting the law in a way that furthers EU integration (a political objective that should be driven through politics).
  
  http://hanselawreview.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Vol6No01Art01.pdf
  
  https://eustudies.org/conference/papers/download/67
  https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/aug/10/european-court-justice-legal-political
  
  3. Empire is irrelevant history; this about whether supra national government is an effective way of governing multiple states and it appears that a majority of Brits (and opinion polls suggest a substantial minority within other member nations do not think so).
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jul 19, 2017

I do not understand why the EU feels that an EU citizen who opts to live in the UK, effectively opting to be a UK citizen, should be given addition rights greater than UK citizens hold. If the UK rights are not satisfactory they can always return to the EU. The whole argument behind Brexit was the return of sovereignty. The EU is not respecting the concept UK sovereignty
- Andrew (Andy) Crow Jul 19, 2017
  
  The EU does not accept the notion of national sovereignty, Steve. But neither does the UK with respect to Scotland.
  
  Neither does the EU accept the basic principles of democratic accountability. But neither does the UK
  
  Brexit is a spat between the ruling elite of Europe and the ruling elite of the UK. There are parallels with The Tudor breakaway from the Church of Rome. Most of the economic arguments today are as esoteric and pointless as the religious arguments of those earlier times.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/N4eUoW8/zh;

建立有约束力的英欧关系

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Brexit’s Lost World

Showdown in Munich

India’s Trifecta of Failure

This Time Really Is Different

The Big Tech/FinTech Disruption

The Dialectic of Global Trade Policy

A Bright Future for Africa’s Girls

The Ideology Trap

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register