Politics

戴维·卡梅伦和欧盟的滑铁卢

Jun 11, 2015 Ashoka Mody

普林斯顿——两百年前的同一个月，拿破仑·波拿巴在滑铁卢战役中败于威灵顿公爵所率盟军之手重新塑造了欧洲的未来。英国或许现在准备再次书写历史。

英国新任的保守党多数政府承诺到2017年底、甚至就在明年就欧盟成员国资格举行公投其实并不像外界所描绘的那样孤立。事实上，这是欧盟体制萎缩的开始。即使决定继续留在欧盟，英国也将继续稳步将重心转向欧盟之外。因为其他地方的商业机会更具吸引力，多数欧洲国家将步英国的后尘。

对欧盟而言，满足英国的要求——限制外来工利益、限制可能有损伦敦城的金融监管及否认“前所未有的紧密联盟”的目标需要进行根本性的转变，包括根本没有任何可能的对支撑欧盟体制的条约进行修改。讨论内容也因此转向能否赋予英国特殊地位抑或容许其退出更多的欧盟条约。

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

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 15 Comments on this article

hari naidu Jun 12, 2015

For whatever reason, Brexit will be a blessing in disguise. UK Treasury mandarins never accepted the notion of Euro - an independent single currency of EU. And that included not only Gordon Brown but also Blair - when he had a chance to join Euro and influence policy developments inside Berlamont.

For Mody, for whatever reason, it's difficult to understand the culture and history of Berlamont. It's the political economy, stupid, that guides decision-making inside Berlamont.

The financial crisis has allowed ECB to establish a Single EU Banking Union with a single EU/ECB supervisor based in Frankfurt. Mody doesn't understand macro policy implications of EU Banking Union...and what will follow it.
EU is a political project - not a theoretical model for macroeconomists who generated the false equilibrium leading to 2008 financial crisis. Macroeconomics has been debunked for what it is... and more.
Grexit followed by Brexit will ultimately solidify closer economic union and foster transparency of Single Market.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Gerry Hofman Jun 12, 2015

Having the EU fall apart would be the ultimate justification for the Tory group pursuing a Brexit, as it would prove to the world the correctness of their world view. But how exactly would this serve the economic interest of any of the other nations in the EU? After the chaos of the collapse of the union, they would again have to go back to individual currencies, with all the costs and disadvantages attached; back to conflicting, duplicating and self serving regulation, legislation, border crossings and all the other mess they were leaving behind, and for what? A rise in GDP, for all of them, based on separation of their eonomies? This argument is so flaky it would fall apart in the morning fog. The real way forward for the EU lies in further integration with of without the UK. Mody is a champion for the British view alone, and seems to have no understanding of how the rest of us think. This is no Waterloo, it is just another chapter in the EU's course of development.
- Khaled Blah Jun 14, 2015
  
  Mr. Hofman, you read my mind! I completely agree with you!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alejandro Moreno Jun 12, 2015

Relative, it does not seem to take into consideration the strength of the UK lies (mainly London), within a global financial services network, which tries to conquer China as part of its financial strategy and expancion domain. In addition are the decidentes.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Jun 12, 2015

1945: Europe was in meltdown, led to the abyss by the bravado of its Fuehrer. Just as in 1815, another meltdown, led Europe into another abyss led by the Corporal from Corsica. Europe needed the Trans-Atlantic partnership to rebuild. The Marshall Plan helped. The Dollar standard instead of the Gold standard. Bretton Woods Institutions allowed Europe to emerge. Then, as in 1814 & 1914, time ultimately to return to hubris. The desire to end the domination of The Anglosphere, never far from the surface.
1971 : 15 August marked the end of the Dollar standard. The genius of Kissinger recovered ground pulverized by DeGaulle, ungrateful for the American largesse that rebuilt Europe. It took France just 25 years to revert to revenge for Waterloo.

The Author brilliantly points to the the need for Europe to discover the rationale for the Union - now that 1945 is history.
Eastern European ambitions have enlarged the Union to accommodate and allow the integration of the periphery.
The heart is still somewhere in the Brussels triangle between France Germany Italy.
The heart reverts to hubris, unless meltdown keeps dangling its Damocles.
Unfortunately the mind that unravels is destructive - to spite The Anglosphere that is its salvation whenever meltdown happens.

Yes Europe can only move forward if it rediscovered a rationale other than demolition of The Anglosphere.
Otherwise hubris and revenge for Waterloo will remain its key drivers.
Sectarian divisions triggering Exits - Europe's 3 G, one after another.
Greece, Great Britain, Germany.
And history always repeats itself, every 100 years.

As if Economic growth never the primary target - always Politics uber alles.
Until all roads lead to Rome, again and again.
Empires of the past ALWAYS the drivers.
Towards the next Waterloo.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Jun 11, 2015

"a new unifying objective – shared material gains"

I like the sound of that, would be nice indeed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Jun 11, 2015

This month marks the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo, which saw Napoleon's defeat by the Duke of Wellington and his European allies, and a victory that determined the fate of Europe. Ashoka Mody says David Cameron might see history repeat itself with his in/out referendum on Britain's EU-membership. Mody believes even if Britain opted for an "in", it would "continue to move steadily away from Europe."
In order to keep this country in the Union, the EU would have to contemplate a treaty change, providing it "with a special status or allowing it to opt out of more EU provisions." Yet nobody knows whether it would jeopardise the credo of an "ever closer union", words that echo from its founding Treaty of Rome. Signed by France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg in 1957, the treaty established the European Economic Community, and it is one of the EU's foundation stones.
The British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had already decided against joining the nascent European community, and the beginning of the New Europe was hardly of interest in Britain. It only joined the community in 1973. Today Cameron claims that "Europe no longer offers an economic dividend," and that his demand for change finds a sympathetic ear. It's true that change is necessary. But history shows that Britain has always complained about the loss of national interests, while European member-states support and trust the "shared institutions".
Gordon Brown said about the EU being “a good thing only insofar as it delivered practical benefits of peace and prosperity to Britain.” Margaret Thatcher was likewise pragmatic and sought to "maximize" benefits and gains, by advocating the 1986 Single European Act, which modified the Treaty of Rome. It set up a framework for the Single European Market by increasing the Commission's powers and introducing qualified majority voting for a number of issues. She received lukewarm support from German chancellor Helmut Kohl. Basically Britain cherry-picks economic prosperity of a common European market, without promoting closer ties with the Union.
Mody says, the 1991 Maastricht Treaty marked the point when "European integration went into overdrive," saying the "Treaty’s architects were so busy playing internal power games that they failed to recognize that monetary union could not stem Europe’s decline," relative to rapid growth in the US and economic recovery in Asia. The idea of a single currency was not a mistake. It was only wrong to let countries in, which bent the strict rules, that defined targets for inflation, interest rates and budget deficits. Mody urges the EU to "return to the fundamental driver of its success, pursuing a renewed single-market agenda that reflects the rationale of the Treaty of Rome". Yet he doubts if there is political will and the "ability to achieve such an outcome".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Teo Firpo Jun 11, 2015

Unconvincing - the article swirls half-truths and clichés without a shred of evidence. Among others, support for the Union shows a more complicated relationship than that described here - and it actually seems to be on an upward trend lately, at least according to surveys (see, for instance, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/world/europe/support-for-the-european-union-is-rising-survey-suggests.html?_r=0). A more careful study of the data and evidence, and a check on one's assumptions, is a healthy practice for columnists...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Jun 11, 2015

"No institutional framework can survive unless it serves the material interests of its constituency."

What a truly remarkable statement that speaks volumes, I think, about where the West finds itself in the 21st century!

What about the possibility of institutional frameworks that serve to CHECK material interests? Do we conclude that such frameworks are inherently utopian and a waste of any realist's time? Do we conclude that institutions that pursue justice, for example, can continue to exist only insofar as they promote somebody's material interests?

Perhaps it's worth remembering that for almost two thousand years the Catholic church has at least claimed to serve something other than the material interests of its congregation -- and that in the 9th century there was much debate over the role of the church as a check against the secular power of kings.

Materialism unbound? Perhaps Emerson was right: Things are in the saddle and ride mankind.
- Curtis Carpenter Jun 13, 2015
  
  I think I understand Mr. Mody's view on the EU and Britain's role in determining its future. I also take seriously his claim that no institutional framework can survive unless it serves the material interests of its constituency. That view can be stretched without too much difficulty to encompass the idea that the old and the infirm who aren't contributing to the material interests of the state (as the state sees it anyway) ought to be put down.
  
  But that is perhaps too much of a limit case (although not one without historical precedent).
  
  Whether Britain stays in the union or not is up to the British, and I admire the fact that they will hold a referendum on the matter and let the people decide. I hope though that the people will take a long view of the value of pan European cooperation, and not let "material interests" dominate their views entirely. As they deliberate the question, the sheer force of those 21st century material interests continue their unchecked rape of our planet.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Matthew McCarthy Jun 12, 2015
  
  @Curtis Carpenter - I think you have answered your own argument and it is only one small step further to understanding the point of the article. Certainly institutions can exist whose end is not material interest - and you point out an example in the Catholic Church. An example of a less religious end: Justice. What is the purpose of the European Union? It does not serve the ends of justice, it does not serve the ends of democracy or freedom, it does not serve material ends. What is the purpose? Per the author its initial claim at the Treaty of Rome was economic - which it no longer serves. The Single European Act expands that to include joint foreign policy, but specifies freedom and human rights. You may argue about human rights, but certainly the ever-centralizing non-democratic Brussels bureaucracy is anathema to freedom - as is testified to in Greek, German, French and British votes against expansion of power in the EU. If the EU keeps pretending it doesn't see what Britain is telling them they will be in trouble.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jun 11, 2015

Velko,
I think you missed the author’s point, he is fully aware the EU is a political entity. An EU made up of politically driven institutions is fine provided that their political objectives are beneficial (and mostly that means economically beneficial now that the continent is unlikely to go war with itself again) to their constituents.

The author’s assertion that this hasn’t really been the case since before the Maastricht Treaty is bang on the money. All we have is an ever increasing base of legislation, half-baked political projects (EMU) that have massive and detrimental effects on the continent’s wealth creation capacity.

You could boil down the article into a series of questions:
What has the Treaty of Rome ever done for me?
What has the Single European Act ever done for me?
What has the Maastricht Treaty ever done for me?
What has the Lisbon Treaty ever done for me?
In each case the benefits are increasingly marginal or the dis-benefits increasingly great.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Velko Simeonov Jun 11, 2015

Why are economists so unable to understand any motivation outside of their professional sphere?!? The EU is a POLITICAL NOT ECONOMICAL entity. It might have started as an economic entity but political integration has been the key driver behind the Union’s development in the last 15 years. The brits don’t get it and when they leave they will pay the price. The author keeps on blabbering about other markets and so on, but which…… India or maybe Brazil? Yes the EU is in bad shape, but is still home to the largest consumer group with high spending capacity for all goods across the board, from BMW’s to cheap dish washer (obviously the US, Canada, Japan, and Australia fall into the same category but I assume the author was not referring to them). Not everything is driven by economic motivation, can all of you economists get it?
- John Reid Jun 13, 2015
  
  Those who doubt that the UK will pay a price for leaving the EU should perhaps read http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/06/12/uk-britain-ratings-s-p-idUKKBN0OS1X520150612
  
  Seems that S&P doesn't agree with them.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Celt Darnell Jun 12, 2015
  
  @Velko
  Re: "The EU is a POLITICAL NOT ECONOMICAL entity....The brits [sic] don’t get it and when they leave they will pay the price."
  
  How exactly will the British "pay the price" by leaving a political union of which they never wished to be part?
  None of the countries you list: "US, Canada, Japan, and Australia are part of any wider political union and Canada's and Australia's economies are much smaller than the UK's. Japan, meantime, is not much wealthier and, like the UK, is an island.
  Britain doesn't need to be in a political union with Europe to prosper -- it never has.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/477HZV0zh

戴维·卡梅伦和欧盟的滑铁卢

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

戴维·卡梅伦和欧盟的滑铁卢

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification