Comments 37

欧洲的雄心是如何吓跑英国的

Jun 28, 2016 Martin Feldstein

发自剑桥——就在英国举行“脱欧”公投的前几天，我的一位极为睿智的英国朋友说他将投票支持留欧，因为他担心英国脱离欧盟会带来经济上的不确定性。但他又补了一句，说如果他早知道欧盟会演变成今天这个样子，就不会赞成英国于1973年加入欧盟。

虽然投票脱欧者的原因各异，但许多人都注意到欧盟领导人们已经僭越了他们最初的领受的任务，创造了一个更庞大且更具侵入性的组织。

欧盟缔造者让·莫内（Jean Monnet）建立欧洲合众国的梦想可不是英国人在40年前加入欧盟时想得到的东西，他们也不想如德国战后第一任总理康拉德·阿登纳（Konrad Adenauer）曾一度鼓吹的那样借欧洲抗衡美国。英国只是想通过促进与英吉利海峡对面的国家的贸易，并从劳动力市场一体化中得益。

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

Featured

What’s Been Stopping the Left?

Apr 10, 2018 Dani Rodrik
Political Machismo

Apr 10, 2018 Ian Buruma
Will China Really Supplant US Economic Hegemony?

Apr 2, 2018 Kenneth Rogoff
Should Tech Companies Be More Tightly Regulated?

Mar 30, 2018 Simon Johnson
Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

Mar 21, 2018 Richard N. Haass

Martin Feldstein

Writing for PS since 2008
119 Commentaries

Martin Feldstein, Professor of Economics at Harvard University and President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research, chaired President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984. In 2006, he was appointed to President Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and, in 2009, was appointed to President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. Currently, he is on the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the Group of 30, a non-profit, international body that seeks greater understanding of global economic issues.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 63 in all 63 Comments on this article

Stephen Ching Aug 13, 2016

"authorising the European Commission to oversee members’ annual budgets and impose fines for violating budget and debt targets (though no fines have been levied)."

Correct, but should have added that even before the crisis of 2008/9 both Germany and France breached these limits but did not enforce the very penalties they themselves had designed.

This shows that what the EU calls 'fundamental' such as only being part of the single market provided that there is the free movement of people may not be so fundamental.

Time and again, the EU papers over fundamental problems and Brexit will be no exception. Decision making by 28 countries is almost a contradiction in terms. Just look at how the US and UK wrangled over strategy in WWII and that was fewer countries and with a much more savage and existential threat to motivate a unified approach.

The EU is a beautiful dream but a Gordian Knot in practical terms and the Brits are a practical people.
Michael Hullevad Jul 10, 2016

The "Fossils" are sø sure they are right and that The voters are "jackasses" that there will be No going back to basics.
The outturn will be a disintegration and The "Federal dream" is dead.
A reset is in The cards!
Cary Fraser Jul 5, 2016

Feldstein should recall the admonition from Marcus Antonius in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar - "Ambition should be made of sterner stuff..." - when Brexit is weighed in the balance of the UK's domestic and foreign policies.
Michael Muoio Jul 4, 2016

To remain is cowardice in the face of tyranny. To exit is a bold and courageous step to true democracy in the land of the Magna Carta.

God Save the Queen.
Donald Last Jul 3, 2016

The Euro is a single currency but is not backed by a fully-fledged State so the EU is inevitably prone to economic and financial instability. The crises it has suffered are familiar and the extremely poor growth since the inception of the Euro is well documented. To meet the self-evident deficiency French and German governments have proposed closer and deeper political union which would be based on a solid foundation, the bond between France and Germany. One does not blame the two countries trying to set-up what essentially is a Franco-German empire but how the other various European nations fitnin is a pretty conundrum and for Britain almost certainly a non-starter. Not least of the problems is the fact that Europe is based on Roman Law and Britain has Common Law built up over centuries since Magna Carta.
Donald Last Jul 3, 2016

The Euro is a single currency without a fully-f
Michael Hullevad Jul 3, 2016

Central planning, regulations and a control that does not work. A currency without a common financial policy and a "bank" manipulating financial markets. A german chancellor that ignores the Shengen open border resolution and invites + 1 mio. migrants. Do I love Europe, yes!
But certainly not the EU as it has developed in to.
David Neunuebel Jul 3, 2016

Yeah!
Donald Last Jul 3, 2016

The Euro was adopted in order to force the pace of political integration since the authors must have known that a single currency needs a full-fledged State otherwise it is prone to constant economic and financial instabilies. Europe has had the instabilities and the crises with very poor growth. So now comes the call for closer and deeper political integration. France and Germany have produced a joint memo calling for such, openly stating that its firm foundation would be the bond between France and Germany. It is a taxing conundrum as to how Britain would fit into this France-German Empire, and not Britain alone. The not least problem is legal: Europe is based on Roman Law and Britain has Common Law built up over centuries. The European court has already declared that its jurisdiction is superior to all Member State's jurisdictions.
Fritz Mustermann Jul 3, 2016

I don't buy it. The unskilled, the old and poor voted for Brexit, the young, skilled and more affluent voted for remain. This is consistent for all the the other European countries where data are available.
The victims of Globalisation and financial meltdown, people with unsecure jobs and zero hour contract blame it to the EU, they should blame it on their own political elite.
- Ray Small Jul 7, 2016
  
  I shall tell you what you shall be buying, Fritz is 12 million Turks continuing their unfinished business which was stopped at the gates of Vienna in 1683.
jonathan Story Jul 3, 2016

Many thanks, Martin Feldstein. The EU is a Napoleonic undertaking, designed to stand up to the great powers of the moment. In consider that the UK electorate voted ultimately about governance: we need to be able to sanction our lawmakers.
Cristiano Carlutti Jul 3, 2016

Martin, where did you read that Italy will have parliamentary election later this year? Did you see it in your crystal ball or is it some sort of CIA forecast or what? There are no elections planned in Italy this year, nor the next one, for the time being...
Odyssios Redux Jul 3, 2016

'The question of Britain’s EU membership has been decided.'

It has NOT. In legal terms, the referendum was consultative rather than binding on parliament, which has sovereignty in this country; the people don't. It would be possible for Parliament to decide to set aside the decision - tho would require political courage (a contradiction in terms) and a very clear statement of the extent to which 'Leave' lied on a scale worthy of Goebbels. If there were reasons to mote 'leave' (and an argument can be made), these were not the ones adduced by 'Leave.' If subject to consumer law, the Brexit campaign would be sued for gross misrepresentation, and its 'product' recalled.

I'd argue that it's not that the EU overreached, but that the British under-reached. As is typical of them, they could see no farther than the tip of their damp little noses. Napoleon was right - they're a nation of shop-keepers. Any other activity has been a result of transient historical circumstance.

The global economy will readily survive this little hiccup. While notoriously short-term skittish, markets are quite robust beasts over the long term. The ultimate equilibrium will be to shrug and carry on with whatever negotiation produces. Unless the whole thing is called off - which it can, and should be. It's the European political,not economic, consequences, that may be alarming.
Oliver Denker Jul 3, 2016

"Jean Monnet’s dream of a United States of Europe was not what the British wanted when they joined the EU 40 years ago."

Then the Brits should not have joined...40 years ago.
- Ian Maitland Jul 3, 2016
  
  In fairness, the Brits joined the EEC -- a common market. The "EU overreach" followed despite British grumbles.
Walter Gingery Jul 2, 2016

It is worth reminding folks that the "deficit of democracy" in the EU was intentional from the outset.

Given Europe's disastrous experiences with nationalism in the first half of the Twentieth Century, it is scarcely surprising that the founders of the European project should attempt to dilute populist tendencies, so as to permit the "experts" to make decisions rationally.

Unfortunately, however, European institutions have not kept pace with circumstances. Consequently, with no reform in sight, the EU finds itself, I would argue, in a dead end.

Brexit constituted one exit from the dead end.

All the above notwithstanding, I incline to the view that, given the importance of immigration , Brexit would never have passed, but for the Conservatives' policy of an austerity as savage as it was senseless.

In London, voters chose Remain, even though London is full of migrants. The reason is obvious: London offered jobs to both natives and migrants.

The Conservatives thought that by reducing the deficit, they would rekindle business confidence and investment. That has proven to be fallacious and, now, disastrous.
- Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Jul 28, 2016
  
  @ Walter Gingery. Yours are commonly held opinions but sadly they are simply not right.
  
  Polling data showed the largest single reason for Leavers voting was the sentiment 'decisions about the UK should be made in the UK'.
  
  Furthermore, short term economic considerations look to have been minimal. There is a good article here:
  http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/explaining-brexit/
- Odyssios Redux Jul 3, 2016
  
  ' ... the "deficit of democracy" in the EU was intentional from the outset.'
  
  Certainly. But remember that the (now) EU was instituted as a coal and steel cartel! Essentially a business, not political, proposition. God forbid that any other than Cartel board members should have a say! But the former European Coal and Steel community has morphed into an essentially political project, without any real consideration of how this should be done. The resulting kluge is now what a lot of people, and several nations, are tripping over. It desperately needs reform. Whether it'll get it, remains to be seen. I'm not hopeful.
- Christine Constable Jul 3, 2016
  
  One Size Fits ALL was probably the bomb that sat under "rational decision making"; a melting away of democratic systems; meddling and dictatorial tendencies of EU institutions and a complete and total failure to listen and adapt. It is clear that the EU as structured is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. The only way this is going to work is for the EU to allow subsidiarity to deal with the worst excesses of the one size fits all approach and to look at an EU structure that allows for differing levels of integration. The UK did not need to be pushed out had our reasonable requests been better solved and had our justifiable concerns regarding mass inward migration and security been properly dealt with. The dismissive Franco/German axis is also poisoning British goodwill - where we see the EU becoming a clube for these two nations to push other countries around and force their agendas upon them. If the EU is to work then we all have to treat each other as equals and no Franco/German kitchen cabinet decision making. Mrs. Merkel's unilateral decision to admit 1.5 million undocumented "asylum" seekers into a free movement EU was the biggest betrayal of our security and safety since the second world war - she had no business making decisions like that which could threaten our lives. Britain knows only too well how serious this can be - the terrible incidents in France and Germany already is proof enough she was wrong to have done that. If the EU can't protect us we have to protect ourselves.
- M M Jul 2, 2016
  
  +1.
james durante Jul 1, 2016

Yes, NAFTA was so successful that it led to the Zapatistas, a string of superexploitative maquilladoras on the border (including murder city, Juarez), and the nomination of Donald Trump. It's precisely very well compensated free market zealots like Feldstein and Greenspan, intellectual architects of the most momentous transfer of wealth to the top in world history, who spur revulsion at elites and a desire to separate from them at all costs. "Humanity will only be free when the last bureaucrat is strangled with the entrails of the last capitalist."
Karl Barber Jun 30, 2016

Finally somebody who does not predict the end of the world
- julika winkler Jul 3, 2016
  
  Thank you, Karl B.arber
- julika winkler Jul 3, 2016
  
  Thank you, Karl Barber.
Robert Pringle Jun 30, 2016

Martin Feldstein sees Brexit as a blow for Britain's market orientation versus the planning, socialist, state-dominated traditions of other EU countries. I wish he were right but sitting in London, it does not feel like that - this is no neo-Thatcherite dash for market freedom. The US needs to respond too: Henry Kissinger points the way forward http://www.themoneytrap.com/kissinger-brexit/ READ LESS
Steve Marriott Jun 30, 2016

Hmmm... You highlight the difference between the UKs market oriented economy and EU country's socialist and regulated economies yet I am a lefty who voted leave because I view as a capitalist club - and I can back it up with real tangible examples:
1) it is against eu law to re-nationalise industry
2) it is against Eu law to give state aid to support failing industry eg. Steel

So much for your argument!
Christopher williams Jun 30, 2016

The questions of whether the referendum should be binding or advisory, and if the larger point of government or Parliament being empowered to enact Article 50 are critical to this debate. The link
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/
goes a long way to settling this in my view.
With a new PM being appointed in the next six to ten weeks, it is important to know whether the current PM or the applicants for the position are prepared to formally acknowledge the need for a vote to approve or disapprove enactment of Article 50.
There is urgency to deal with this matter in two respects: firstly, the number of businesses being forced to look at where to move to conform with their market requirements of working in a member state. Any delay will have serious risks for the UK in this regard, along with the downgrading of UK by the agencies, this has the overall negative impact on the currency and the markets.
Secondly, the EU in all its various forms is currently assuming the referendum is decisive, bringing about their plans for the UK's departure as a given fact. This must be clarified as to being subject to parliamentary approval, and therefore far from certain, particularly in light of the highly misleading Leave commitments which have subsequently been denied or proven inaccurate.
It is time for MPs to look to their role of protecting the best interests of their constituents.
David Lloyd-Jones Jun 29, 2016

Marty,

The future of the UK and the rest of the EC has nothing like "been decided." Britain is still a Parliamentary democracy, not a school class voting on the prom queen.

If Parliament decides to listen, then it has been told to enter into a two year program of negotiation over the shape of Britain's continued relationship with, or within, the E.C.

In the United States in the early 1780's revolutionary fervor died down, and people became annoyed at bureaucrats making them fillout paper to take a tun of molasses from Manhattan to new jersey. The whole Articles operation broke down, and by 1789 America had a new Constitution for the centuries.

Same thing in Europe now. The idealism of the Jean Monets, the anti-imperialism of post-WWII Labour, even the cold paracticality of Chancellor Kohl, are in the past. Today people are annoyed at the "elitist" Eurocrats, and it's time for a new and better Constitution.

This s the end of the beginning.

-dlj.
Norm Winn Jun 29, 2016

Thoughtful and well articulated. Thank you!

The second paragraph perhaps summarizes what the majority of people that voted in the referendum "sensed" - overreach by elected/appointed representatives that are either too insulated from or indifferent too the consequences of their actions, intended or not. Trade and immigration are too often used (misused) to fan the flames.

We have the same problem here in the United Sates - two political parties that have lost touch with main street America. Look at the complete and total dysfunction of our Congress and the technocrats they have appointed.
Like Brexit, one of our "pretenders" seeking the presidency seems to blame poor trade deals and immigration for most of our ills. Could we do a much better job negotiating trade deals and managing immigration - absolutely. But the facts show that since 2000, the United States has permanently lost 7.5-8.5 million jobs. Of this total, approximately 1M lost jobs were the result of NAFTA; our trade imbalance with China accounts for another 2M. The balance of lost jobs are attributable to technological advances in manufacturing, communications and smart networks. Worse yet, estimates going forward reflect upwards of another 40M jobs will be lost over the next 20 years in the services industry! Its not about trade and immigration as much as it is about jobs and income, and the opportunity to provide a reasonable lifestyle for your family.

The "great recession" (what a misnomer) was the result of a freeze of in credit markets combined with a significant decline in real estate prices. That last time we witnessed such an event was during the Great Depression. History shows it can take 8-10 YEARS BEFORE for the "green shoots" of recovery to take root, ASSUMING responsible actions are taken by government and central bankers. However, when the actions taken appear to result in a significant redistribution of wealth and income to a select few, whether intended or incidental, main street isn't going to be particularly happy. And when the ruling class (or their wannabes) are too insulated or indifferent to the concerns of the people, you create an environment where populist rhetoric and scapegoating overrides sound judgement, making real world, workable solutions nearly impossible to obtain.

The people are speaking - LOUDLY. The only question is whether our respective elected representatives are willing to stop the partisan politicking long enough to listen?
M M Jun 29, 2016

The irony is that many authors of articles and commentators still believe that migration or the immigrant is the problem. Assuming for a minute this is the case, what created this influx of migrants in the first place? The answer is quite simple, the great divide between the North and the South, the ones that took and won and the ones that lost and had to migrate, in another word Inequality.
Christopher williams Jun 29, 2016

I disagree with the view that a decision has been made; we live in a parliamentary democracy and while there was a vote to have a referendum, there is a further vote needed to act upon it.
We do not need a second referendum; there is a need for a vote in Parliament to approve (or disapprove) an application for Article 50 as a commencement of withdrawal from the EU. Assuming it is an open vote, and that should be a factor in deciding who should lead the Tory party, we may see a strong majority of our elected officials rejecting the advice of the narrow referendum win for Brexit, based as it was on misleading information and what has proven to be impossible plans.
Whether the current or new leader of the Tories calls for this vote as soon as possible, or decides to have a snap election to confirm their right to govern in this manner, is a question of policy. Each day we wait, we lose credibility in the world - and have businesses work on where and how to move away from the UK to one or more of the 27. So, action now is better, but I can see the case for bringing about the total embarrassment of Labour in what appears to be its self destruction.
Would Theresa May commit to such a path? I think if she did, she can also bring an end to this Brexit nonsense internally as well.
If Parliament votes to leave, then we should apply for Article 50 immediately and accept there is no reasonable way to anticipate trading with the 27 in the near future; we will have done the federalists a great service.
- Christine Constable Jul 3, 2016
  
  Well, if the MPs refuse to action the mandate then we have to have a General Election and if the Tories won't carry the BREXIT vote you could find Farage at No 10!
- John Brian Shannon Jun 29, 2016
  
  Hi Christopher,
  
  Well sure, keep having referendums until you get the result you want.
  
  Imagine however, if 'Brexit' had lost, and they wanted that?
  
  Cheers, JBS
- Steve Hurst Jun 29, 2016
  
  @Christopher
  
  MPs will want to hang onto their seats so will reflect the mood in their constituency. If you want to play the blame game then ask the young voters why when they say they want to remain they only made a 36% turnout
  
  @Luca
  
  I dont know where you get your figures, so far I have only see Remain voters asking for the vote to be ignored. There was wall to wall information about the downside and the majority ignored it as they believed the only way was out. In a near 50/50 split it is inevitable nearly half of voters are unhappy. In the forthcoming US elections I expect a lot of unhappy voters when Trump loses
- jagjeet sinha Jun 29, 2016
  
  + 1
  
  Respect for Democracy required the Referendum.
  Respect for Democracy requires the Parliamentary deliberations and the Vote.
  And if the Elected Commons Representatives Vote to Leave - Article 50 would be immediately triggered.
  But if the Elected Commons Representatives defer to proceed with Article 50 in haste, Vox Populi may be needed again.
  The Leave Leadership is expected to be in charge - Cameron's interim days hopefully over by then - to decide Democracy's next step.
  The Leave Leadership credibility perhaps on the firing line within months - put to the test by the people.
  Time would have elapsed allowing the people to experience the consequences of following The Leave Leadership.
  Time that would also have crystallized the best possible wisdom in BRITAIN'S TRYST with A EUROPEAN DESTINY.
- Luca Grande Jun 29, 2016
  
  You Britons are making yourselves quite ridiculous with this vote, you know? You were never really IN, you voted OUT, one day later even those who voted OUT want back IN.... We often complain about politicians not doing their job but look what happens when you let people decide
John Reid Jun 29, 2016

I can't find another account of the history like this in any of the history books I have to hand on this era (more than one). The truth is that the UK joined the EU with eyes wide open (and they're all grown ups). They've been a permanent one country awkward squad ever since the Thatcher era, and their approach to improving things has been invariably selfish (what more will YOU all do to make MY existence better?). Only once have they come up with an idea that was mutually beneficial (the 'single market') and as one of the bigger beneficiaries of this they now propose to throw away the business they've built up as the EU's banking HQ; the anks in London are already talking about 1000,000 job losses in the CIty from Brexit. When Banking is about 20% of your GDP and you need to be in the EU for London to be an attractive base it's madness to throw this away – the banking won't disappear, it will simply change address.

Brexit is the most spectacular act of collective self-harm I've ever seen, or ever expect to see. No wonder the Scots want out.
- John Reid Jun 29, 2016
  
  The UK will only be able to hang on to its status if it is part of the single market, and that means agreeing to freedom of movement. Seems the UK rates xenophobia as more important than paying the bills. The UK could have talked to its partners, but it preferred to hector them. As an approach to life it's hopeless, and always will be.
  
  Meanwhile, this is how others deal with the perceived failures of the EU (and yes, they know there are major issues). Paywall may apply. http://abonnes.lemonde.fr//idees/article/2016/06/29/vous-ne-riez-plus-les-europeens-depasses-par-le-reel_4960188_3232.html
- Luca Grande Jun 29, 2016
  
  I totally agree with this article. If European Union was based on its simple premises of free trade and free movement of people and capital I think the vast majority of Europeans and Britons would want to be IN. But in time, the EU has overextended itself both geographically and in political reach. At the moment Europe is on its feet only because of Mario Draghi reckless policies; when his bazooka runs out of ammo, Britons will laugh at the rest of Europe sinking in economic and political chaos.
- Steve Hurst Jun 29, 2016
  
  @John Reid
  
  Typically 60% of those outside metropolitan areas voted out. In London 40% also voted out, it is hardly as if the whole of London was in the Remain camp. The only conclusion you can come to is the EU has failed to convince people it is to their benefit
- Steve Hurst Jun 29, 2016
  
  @JBS
  
  Switzerland is due to run into the same problem. Switzerland is not in the EU but has trade agreements which have free movement argeements. The Swiss have had a referendum demanding EU free movement into stop, they cannot cope with it. That is now Swiss law. The EU has said, Non, Nein etc and it was put to one side until the Brexit referendum. It will now be back in play and as usual there is no common ground
- John Brian Shannon Jun 29, 2016
  
  Hi John,
  
  Non-EU member *and banking superpower* Switzerland seems to be doing just fine, as does non-EU members Liechtenstein, Andorra, and Norway.
  
  Cheers, JBS
P. Kamath Jun 28, 2016

It is worth boding back one's quickly remarks and judgements about "folly" of Brixit. Increasing number of arguments are coming into the open justifying "Exit" option. That include deep concern for one's historical identity, independence, dislike for beaurocratic civil service that regulates, immigration from low wage countries etc. Let us see the other side of the coin here!
John Brian Shannon Jun 28, 2016

Hi Martin,

Thank you for this moment of sanity and clarity, when much of the debate has been hysterical hyperbole and hand-wringing by so-called 'elites'.

I'm certain of one thing; Had UK citizens been able to peer into the future from 1973 and see how joining the EU would transform Britain, almost every one of them would've voted to 'Nix-It' instead of 'Join'. I'm talking 80-90% -- even in Scotland.

The problem with incremental change is that it's largely invisible until the elephant is actually sitting on you.

Brexiters were merely the first to realize it.

Smothered by rules and regulations from afar (advanced by an unlected Nomenklatura in Brussels) loss of jobs (due to globalization *and* massive eastern European immigration) and spiralling out of control inequality.

As for the financial markets; Already today the markets are moving higher, and 'the sky is falling' crowd is beginning to look sheepish. (As usual)

I now look forward to a reinvigorated Anglosphere where countries that have English legislated as *one* of their official languages are free to join The Commonwealth of Nations to pursue mutual advantage.

Jagjeet Sinha often talks about SIZE mattering in the new economy, and I agree with him.

A renewed Anglosphere could represent as many as 1.5 billion people worldwide.

However, it must be noted, that only 375 million are native English-speakers -- while others speak English as a Second Language (ESL)

But any country that passes English as an Official Language (EOL) in the future should be eligible to apply to join The Commonwealth of Nations and reap the benefits thereof.

SIZE does matter. EOL matters and even ESL matters.

For now, everyone thinks that Brexit is the 'Biggest Thing in The World'.

I disagree. What Brexiters have done is set us on a path towards common and complimentary interests among EOL nations.

In a modern world where *economic power* continues to concentrate around common culture/regions (instead of around religion and military might -- Roman Empire, Ancient Egypt, etc), and increasingly supplant traditional forms of power projection, it makes sense for EOL nations to work together for mutual benefit.

One day, the English-speaking world will thank the courageous Brexiters for standing up for their right to have self-rule and not be ruled by unelected apparatchiks from afar, for control over how many economic migrants they allow into their country, and the corresponding job losses (due to globalization *and* massive eastern European immigration) and for taking a stand against spiralling-out-of-control-inequality.

Not only is it a good idea for Anglophiles, it's a worthwhile idea for La Francophonie, BTW.

Thank you again for adding much-needed clarity, Martin.

As always, very best regards, JBS

"In 2015, there were 67 sovereign states and 27 non-sovereign entities where English was an official language." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_entities_where_English_is_an_official_language
- jagjeet sinha Jun 29, 2016
  
  @JBS
  
  Thank you for the reference you make to my Faith in The Anglosphere.
  SIZE has been created - by One Language above all, not One Religion, One Race or One Caste/Sect.
  Had multiple European languages been allowed in America - my belief is that it would not become the Superpower it has.
  If only The Roman Empire had made Latin its One Language, European Economics today would rival The Anglosphere.
  India remains United perhaps due the preponderance of English - it's linguistic subnationalisms perhaps as fatal as Europe.
  
  The referendum has inflicted a result where Migration overshadowed Economics - unfettered Migration from Europe beyond controls.
  The heat of the moment may have been avoidable - if the Leave Leaders now can show the Light that was Invisible to most.
  The Leave Leadership have a responsibility to be accountable - given the consequences unleashed.
  Democracy does have checks and balances that should be allowed to complete the predicament.
  Respecting Democracy that enabled the British public to exercise its Sovereign Freedom.
  
  Brexit May turn out to be The Truth that needed to win - Inclusive Economics not necessarily predicated on Geography in a Global Game.
  Inclusiveness based on Race Religion Region perhaps not the reason why The Anglosphere became the World's Economic Epicentre.
  Allowing diversity and harnessing the migrants energies over three centuries perhaps The Truth behind The Anglosphere.
  One Language that enabled all to create SIZE that produced Mankind's Greatest Macroeconomics.
  Europe with One Language could become the Superpower of its dreams - China's Mandarins have revalidated the One Language template.
  
  I voted Remain - given the role SIZE plays in the destiny of Nations - as a believer in Britain's participation in building Europe.
  Britain and Germany were together taking 75 % of the Migration within Europe - in the REFERENDUM, perhaps the cause of Brexit in the end.
  Despite my eternal Faith in The Anglosphere, I could completely comprehend The European foundations of Britain's history.
  Saddened by the gravity of the predicament that threatens SIZE - always a believer that Civilizations of SIZE are The Pillars of Humanity.
  India Europe China Arabia perhaps the Four Corners - The Anglosphere clearly The Fifth and The Greatest that draws from all.
  
  Regards to JBS for sharing his insights fascinating always.
Petey Bee Jun 28, 2016

Great article, but the most visible part of the migrant/immigrant issue resulted directly from foreign policy, namely the misguided and repeated interventionism by the "international community", of which the EU is a critical part.

Although you could say that the UK has actually been a leading proponent of interventionism, facing this issue directly does not make for good politics. But blaming everything on foreigners does -- French/Germans in Brussels, Eastern-Europeans, and Arabs, all at once. Such is life. It was the responsibility of the EU leadership to avoid mega-disaster situations for which it would get blamed. Having won no new friends from its careless treatment of member states after the financial crisis, the blowback from foreign policy adventures to which EU leadership consented was enough to tip the scales.

Although many an official's summer vacation is now ruined, the UK and its relationship to the continent will be just fine. Despite the current huffing and puffing, the Germans know how to compromise when they need to, and will respect the English enough to do it.

What is not clear is whether the powers in charge are willing to learn from this vote in terms of the fact that their pattern of governance has been feeding the various nationalists and right-wingers throughout their lands, and feeding them very generously. Some recognition, involving some humility, of this is in order.
- John Brian Shannon Jun 29, 2016
  
  Hi Petey Bee,
  
  A very thoughtful comment. +1
  
  Cheers, JBS
M M Jun 28, 2016

The ordinary Brits care only about their livelihood and not about trade and all the nonsense mentioned in this article. The Brits and the population of other EU countries, to include Germany, never voted for a federal EU state. The Brits in particular always rejected the idea of a federal Europe, not because they did not like it, it is just not possible. The UK (which stands for United-Kingdom) is a Monarchy, albeit a Parliamentary democracy, how is it going to be incorporated within a federal state, how about the commonwealth countries? Also after the way the Greeks and the Cypriots were treated by the EU, all bets are off. If referendums are held today in the other EU countries about whether to accept or reject a Federal Europe, the answer shall be OUT. The constitutions of the 27/28/29 EU member states are not compatible and they can never be, whether under the umbrella of austerity or reforms. It is all about nationalism, independence, social cohesion and above all sovereignty. Trade has got nothing to do with it.
Steve Hurst Jun 28, 2016

When interviewed on the news recently an EU migrant said they were in the UK because in their East European country they would get 1/5th of the hourly rate in the UK. If free movement is available people will use it as will corporations, and who can blame them, but these Eastern economies were not in the EU until recenty. It is their inclusion - which was a political act to absorb the ex Communist countries - that will destroy the EU as the mechanism demands wealth transfer from old to new in an already hostile globalisation environment and the transfer rate exceeds any collective growth. It is the same fundamental that is behind the Greek crisis and the EU is blind to the need to address the problem instead belligerently trying to defend its fantasy sand castle while the tide comes in. And I write this as somebody who voted Remain
- Steve Hurst Jun 28, 2016
  
  @Jose
  The cusp was German reunification. To enable this the ECB reduced interest rates lower than it should have and that caused a bubble. Ever since that bubble there has been one problem after another and the hole they have dug has just got bigger and bigger so it s now a tunnel network with tunnel vision leadership. You are dealing with a belief system. Like most belief systems the holders are not responsive to facts, which incidentally was very much the case with the Brexiteers - warnings of a 7% drop in GDP a size directly equal to the 2008 event were shrugged off
- Jose araujo Jun 28, 2016
  
  And that's why in the end I'm glad for the Brexit, because I think the English want the same thing has the Germans, they just haven't realized it, or maybe they have but they just have no voice of the new colonialism policies.
- Jose araujo Jun 28, 2016
  
  Steve, we must remember that the biggest labor movements were not when Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Italy joined the EU, and we must ask why?
  
  The reason is that before there was a real commitment in developing an European space, but since Germany took over the EU the mentality has turned into lower wages and people migrating.
  
  The proof of the pudding is that industries didn’t relocate to the areas of low wages…This isn’t integration; this is colonialism, which is a very different animal…
Jose araujo Jun 28, 2016

The “Stability and Growth Pact” is profoundly against the idea of Jean Monnet and the founders of the EU, it wasn't an attempt to deepening the relations in Europe, quite the contrary, it was the negation of the Social Christian and Social Democratic values of Europe that since have been replaced by a very cumbersome version of Reagonomics.

For the common European, the EU was much much more then free trade, free capital movements and free people movement across Europe. I was born in this times and witnessed it first hand, and believe me, nobody could ever thought that we would come to the place where we are.

England never wanted to be a part of the original project, but most of us don't want to be part of this one.
- Peter Schneider Jun 29, 2016
  
  @Jose:
  So you think - literally speaking - that if you eat up my pension savings without my approval this will deepen our relationship? If not then please respect the treaties or vote leave. I will certainly vote leave if I should ever get the chance because noone seems to respect the common treaties anymore.
  
  It might have escaped your attention that the "Stability and Growth Pact" was introduced to prevent moral hazard and that it was the German precondition for accepting monetary union. So, if you want to get rid of the "Stability and Growth Pact" then unfortunatedly either you have to leave the monetary union or we have to leave. This is non-negotiable.
  
  Of course, I can fully understand your concerns and I don't want your parliament to be restricted in any kind. But at the same time, I want my parliament to be in full control over our budget as it is granted by our constitution and the idea was never that supra-national organizations lacking any kind of democratic legitimation organize large scale fiscal transfers thus circumventing democratically legitimated parliaments.
  
  The monetary union divides us, it deteriorates our relationship. We have fundamental disagreements on most important political, economical, financial and monetary issues. But we know there was a time before all that mess where we could live with each other in peace and prosperity. Our common interest is certainly that we the people maintain the possibility to decide over our own destiny. So, in the end, I see us standing on the same side in our wish to destroy the "EU" and go back to the European Community we once had.
Lewis Jacobson Jun 28, 2016

Dr. Feldstein may be describing the motivations of a few members of the "elite" in the UK. It's an intellectually defensible case. But the overwhelming majority of the pro-Brexit vote was not that, it was xenophobia and England-first, far more emotional than rational. The spike in racial incidents after the vote was not motivated by any cool calculation of governance issues.
Marc Freed Jun 28, 2016

Brilliant commentary but it seems that of all the issues you raise immigration stands out as the one to which those who feel they have not benefitted from freer trade react most negatively and directly. As you point out, while the EU explicitly approved free movement of labor, NAFTA did nothing of the sort. Yet the hostility generated by a feeling that immigrants lower wages for natives and take jobs from them exists equally in both the legal and "undocumented" cases. While there may be some truth to this, most economists including you, I suspect, would argue that labor market flexibility, legal or not, increases total welfare even as it redistributes its benefits. To preserve this benefit, perhaps we need policies that aim to quantify and redistribute some of these benefits to those genuinely dispossessed by the policies that beget them along with a healthy dose of transparency and communication explaining their value. Even a crude attempt at that would be a great improvement over fairy tales about increasing NHS spending in the UK or bringing long-lost industrial jobs back to the US. You can't beat something with nothing, and it appears that REMAIN had a lot of nothing.
- jack lasersohn Jun 28, 2016
  
  While it is true that NAFTA does not produce all the benefits of an open market with full labor mobility, it does produce those benefits in the trade-able sectors of the economy. Moreover, any member country in Nafta is free to permit as much immigration as it wants, in any sector it wants. (The US does this with H1B visas).
  To give up these benefits, by demanding only full labor mobility, is to reject half a loaf in the futile quest for the whole. As i said, the demand for unlimited migration is a political vision not an economic requirement.
  It is clear that there has always been a solution to the Brexit problem (reasonable limits on migration), but it is not clear whether the zealots in Brussels will accept anything that undermines their 'United States of Europe" program. Maybe staring into the abyss will clear their minds.
- Jose araujo Jun 28, 2016
  
  Immigration was never a problem, because the EU was founded on the idea of balanced development, so that nobody had to imigrate or migrate to have an European standard of living.
  
  Since then the EU has turned into neo colonialism policies, and forgot all about the balanced development of the European space to favour basic 19th century doctrines.
jack lasersohn Jun 28, 2016

Feldstein is correct that Britain has always seen the EU as primarily a free trade zone, while much of Europe has seen it as a path to political union. This explains the vitriolic response in Brussels to the Brexit vote, which jeopardizes this latest pan European Utopian agenda.
There is no economic reason to require unlimited labor mobility (the main British complaint) as part of a tariff free zone, except that tariff reduction has been the incentive used to further the political agenda.
One could argue that both sides are entitled to disagree and to pursue their own priorities, but it is worth noting that the history of all prior pan European Utopian (or dystopian) programs has been disastrous. The inflexible zealotry shown by Brussels in defense of the icons of the EU program (such as the rejection of Cameron's request for some cap on migration) suggests the EU project has taken on nearly religious significance for many.
The tone of negotiations over the next few months, will tell us whether the leaders of the EU are practical and reasonable, or political zealots. If the later, as one increasingly suspects, many other factions in Europe will decide that they did not intend to join a cult and will leave.
- Jose araujo Jun 28, 2016
  
  How ignorant do you have to be to not realize that the biggest problems are for the countries that are losing the best and the brightest? Yet no one is defending this point of view.
  
  Unless the real goal of labor movement was to lower wages throughout Europe and diminish the quality of life of all European workers…
  
  Like many times in our lives, I think again good was done even if it was for the wrong reasons.
Patrick Crowley Jun 28, 2016

This comment is similar to Feldstein's doom and gloom forecasts about the euro and the EU in general over the past few decades - just more of the same.

The Treaty of Rome is very clear that it seeks to ensure "the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe," and when the Brits were uncomfortable with elements of this "closer union" they were always given opt-outs. Mrs. Thatcher famously negotiated a budget "rebate" to make the EU cost less money for the UK, and the UK was given an abrogation from the euro. No, the EU bent over backwards to keep the UK in the EU, despite the clarity of the federalist aims of visionaries like Jacques Delors.

So no Mr. Feldstein, Britain was never "pushed out" - it decided in a democratic referendum to leave, and mostly because of inaccurate economics and xenophobic campaign rhetoric linked to migration.

On a more general point, I wish US economists would stop pontificating on something they know so little about - for those of us who have researched EU topics for decades it is painful to see their comments constantly highlighted in the media.
Bernhard Kopp Jun 28, 2016

It remains to be seen. If the Britisch economy is heading for recession later this year, and quite some economists predict it will, and, when it takes London several months to sort out its politics, political unrest mounts in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, then a new government, and a new parliament after possible elections, may have a strong mandate to reconsider the British position and decide that the June 23-referendum is irrelevant. I suspect that the matter may not yet be final.

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

Log in/Register

欧洲的雄心是如何吓跑英国的

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Featured

What’s Been Stopping the Left?

Political Machismo

Will China Really Supplant US Economic Hegemony?

Should Tech Companies Be More Tightly Regulated?

Liberal World Order, R.I.P.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

America’s Weak Case Against China

Quratulain Fatima on Gender and Politics in Pakistan

Staying on Track to End Malaria

Macron’s Real Limits

Time for a Global Financial Makeover

The Low Costs of a Zero-Carbon Economy

The Drums of Trade War

Macron’s Vital Message