Comments 16

欧洲的联邦主义威胁

Jul 14, 2016 Anders Borg

发自斯德哥尔摩——这个世界是在英国“脱欧”公投之后发生了根本性的变化。而只有再等几十年，我们才能真正认识到英国选民脱欧决定的全面影响。

但有一件事是确定无疑的，就是虽然英国选民单方面作出了自己的决定，但保持与英国的紧密联系依然符合欧盟的最佳利益。如果放任这一进程被可能掩盖或损害共同利益的细小权力博弈所左右，就必将影响到大局，正如欧洲政治中经常出现的那样。

在经济上，欧盟的增长无疑将从一个开放的对英贸易关系中受益。包括金融服务在内的自由贸易协议将最大限度地减少脱欧对各方的伤害，因为欧洲企业仍然得依赖伦敦作为该地区唯一的全球金融中心。即使银行服务在欧元区其他地区迁移，沃尔沃，西门子和道达尔这样的企业如果还想与丰田，通用电气，埃克森公司竞争的话，就没法绕开伦敦。

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

To read this article from our archive, please log in or register now. After entering your email, you'll have access to two free articles every month. For unlimited access to Project Syndicate, subscribe now.

Featured

The Sino-American Cold War’s Collateral Damage

Oct 19, 2018 Minxin Pei
The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment

Oct 17, 2018 Carl Bildt
Will Italy Sink Europe?

Oct 17, 2018 Jim O'Neill
The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

Oct 15, 2018 Daoud Kuttab
The Brexit Endgame

Oct 16, 2018 Robert Skidelsky

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 25 in all 25 Comments on this article

gaston goyret Jul 19, 2016

What's the problem with federalism? The most powerful country in the world is a federal state. The small people have the privilege and the destiny to think small. Unbearable villagers...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
marc ménard Jul 19, 2016

the greatest threats to Europe come from opinions like this "Borgmess"; archaïc thinking, coming from the selfish traditional policy of GB : free trade for the wealthy and the remains for others Europeans. Ideas dated from "l'Europe des nations" from de Gaulle's nationalistc vision. Close cooperation with British governments is delusion. let Europeans build their political system patiently, peacefully, free from this kind of knuckle head opinion.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
rachid mepi Jul 19, 2016

i totally agree
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Angel Gavieiro Jul 19, 2016

I agree with Mr. Borg conclusion that this is not the time for another major integration in the EU.
An analogy would be, if we imagine for a second that the EU have not had started the Eurozone back in 99, and the suggestion would be to start it now (i.e. an example of major integration effort)... unimaginable, right?. The key question: why the thought looks unimaginable now and was perfectly imaginable in 1999?

One of the main reasons is that the macro & micro conditions of the years before 1999' major integration (in that case monetary) were positively aligned to more than cushion the expected stresses of that integration (this is regardless whether or not the Eurozone was badly conceived, which is entirely another subject).
At this point, we could say the macro & micro situation is exactly the opposite, so any large integration effort (in this case, fiscal federation) would create way too much stress for the level of robustness of the walls that sustain the EU.

Although the difference in macroeconomic conditions of pre-99 and nowadays is very startling, I believe the difference in micro conditions is paramount. Among these, the long-term growth of standard of living is the key bedrock. MGI just published a global research on 24 nations that shows c. 65-70% of population reducing or barely maintaining their incomes in the period 2005-2014 (EU e.g.: Italy 90%, UK 70%, Netherlands 70%, France 63%), vs 2% in the period 1993-2005. This, along with the human tragedy behind these numbers (i.e. emotional impact), effectively has been one of the main drivers of populism and hence the backlash against EU, immigration, elites,... in great part with good justification.

Now, given the criticality of the huge fall of standards of living for a majority of the population, I am sceptic that many of the "reform strategy that increases competitiveness" advocated by Mr. Borg are going to help the micro problem above (e.g. further labour flexibility, though beneficial for business cost reduction, which helps exports, will not generate enough export pull to generate the number of jobs/income increase required to ramp up standards of living, because of both the sheer size of magnitude required and the only-natural counter-competitiveness reaction by non-EU countries).
Only many properly paid jobs, oriented to both internal & external market, will do over a long time frame, which will require many start-up/SME creation/development across Europe (i.e. usually pulls 80% of new job creation), which will need a full comprehensive and sustained Shock Programme for a min. 10 year period, which will need big Investment, both Public (yes, for Keynesian infrastructure/climate change expending) and Private (i.e. proper push/pull policies to incentivize currently scared private capital to come out to play), and that will require further Big Funding, part from Central Banks (yes, more ECB QE, but for entirely a totally different purpose, now directly to finance the Public projects) and part from Taxes (yes, but to ensure the solution to the "micro", I am afraid that will need to be highly progressive taxes).

Now, all of this, which within the current EU will still need to be approved at national level, DOES require coordination across the EU so to enact it as synchronized & balanced as possible (otherwise will surely fail)... and here is where the EU can take a Priority One item for its execution agenda.

Only if something like this produces enough GDP growth and, as a consequence by design, enough recovery of the standard of living for that bottom-65/70% of the population, then we may find the right "micro" conditions to undertake further EU integration of the sort aimed... now, probably will take 10/15 years to happen unfortunately for the current EU politicians...
... otherwise, do we think anything (EU included) will survive if this 65-70% becomes 80% or 90% in coming years? (ref. 30s and WWII).
- rachid mepi Jul 19, 2016
  
  you have a good view that is based in a reality syndrome
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Ellison Jul 18, 2016

This is an idealist vision that possibly overestimates the importance of Brexit to the world.
The EU is a major trading block and power centre in the world; the world's third largest economy and a unity of 27 nations. That will hardly diminish when Britain exits it (and if; it ain't over till its over). Economically the EU can damage British interests far more than Britain can damage it. History teaches us that if there is conflict between a single nation and an alliance then both will suffer damage but there is only ever going to be one winner. It's just a matter of time. The Brexit honeymoon is unlikely to last.
The economic EU is an embrace of globalisation which is here to stay and which Europe will benefit most by remaining the third largest world economy. Brexit will not change that. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
The political EU is a noble vision of far-sighted visionaries designed to prevent any return to The Great Dying in the killing fields of 20C Europe. The attempt of one puny nation (for Britain IS a supremely arrogant puny nation that derives all its power from USA and that can be taken out relatively easily if it has to defend itself unaided) should not and will not be allowed to spoil The Grand Vision. If the EUI has to use its economic power to crush Britain to save that Grand Vision then that is what it should do. It has nothing to lose. The world in general and Europe in particular is a far safer place with the EU than it would be without it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christine Constable Jul 18, 2016

Thank goodness someone who has the ear of Junker and can (hopefully) make him see sense.

As someone who voted for Brexit I would agree wholeheartedly that the EU would be better served if it accepted that it failed miserably at the negotiations Britain had with it to develop a plan that would enable the UK to remain in the EU. The UK gave the EU fair warning that a vote on remaining was imminent, Cameron did a lot of heartfelt pleading to give him an offer which would deal with our over population problem and serious security worries and the EU with Junker at the help humiliated Cameron and insulted the British.

The UK are in no mood to accept finger wagging and threats of retaliation from the EU. The EU failed to keep one of the most important members in the EU through its deafness to real and present problems and its inability to accommodate the needs of major nation states. It was the EU that failed the UK NOT the other way around let's get the facts where they need to be.

The UK can now negotiate with the rest of the world. If the EU wishes to retain the preeminent position it has as the largest export market for itself then it had better start coming up with a quick plan to envelope the UK in an upgraded EEA and not allow any of the tight ties in trade; science; manufacturing; and culture to slip - otherwise the UK will simply choose to turn its back on the EU and join forces with the Anglophone world and those who and to trade with it across the globe.

If the EU handle this wisely, the EU can benefit from the UK drawing more business and trade to Europe, but it will have to liberalise the services market which for the UK has been lamentably stunted for UK trade, despite the fact it is 80% of how we earn our money.

The EU must accept its full level of responsibility for failing to support the UK when Cameron asked for help, if the UK wa such an important strut to the permanence of the EU ideal, it should have done much much more to keep us.

Now the vote has been made, the best thing the EU can do is to remodel itself to ensure the UK doesn't want to cast its eyes to the wider world and gives the UK a deal as a special case, because the UK IS a special case:

Major and significant provider of NATO assets in Europe
Fifth largest Economy
Largest European Export market
Ability to fund the EU in or out of the EU
North Sea Assets and Fishing Rights
Nuclear power
Member of the Security Council
Member of the IMF

The EU rather than the UK is the player with the least cards and the EU should have humility to treat the British people with respect and accept that their democratic vote on the failure of the EU to manage its brief is something the EU has to consider with humility and wisdom.

On just about every count the EU has failed to deliver for the peoples of the EU:

1) No Agreed Foreign Policy
2) No Migrant policy
3) Declining proportion of trade with the World
4) Fiscal mismanagement
5) Disasterous Euro and stability pact management
6) Security crises across Europe
7) Overly red taped and legislated
8) Civil servant waste and corruption and lack of transparency
9) Budget is too large and unaffordable
10) Lack of democracy
11) Discontent across the EU - 60% of UK Peoples do not trust the EU (Eurobarometer findings)
12) Dictatorial inflexible approach
13) Lack of subsidiarity
14) failure of the one siz eto fit all
15) Humiliation and suffering of Greece

I could go one but what's the point. If the author is indeed a friend of Herr Junker, please send him a message from the UK. This is probably the last chance to make a go of the relationship with Britain. If the rest of Europe see any indication of penalising or hitting back hard the UK (for fear of something worse) then that will sign the fate of the EU - the British have many friends in Europe, it was not Europe we voted against it was the EU. The EU should now work to create an inner core and outer ring of European States all embedded into the EEA sharing large parts of the object. The UK was built over one thousand years, you cannot rub out our history, our values and our identity in forty years and it ridiclous to try.

The EU needs to prove it has worth, had it had worth the UK would have voted to stay. As it is we see it as a grasping incompetent project by out of touch political elites who have proved they are not up to the job of running 28 economies.

In many ways the UK has done the EU a favour - and only the UK could have done this, to force the EU to examine itself, to demonstrate it is failing and to force it to change.

No one in the UK wants to make an enemy of Europe, we have spent too much of our time and effort building it up - but the UK will not become a slave to Europe, and majority voting where we as a major funder and provider to the EU could be cut off and ignored in vital decisions was never going to be accepted long term.

The EU has failed the UK and the European States - IT MUST CHANGE, please take that message back to your friend and ensure the UK remains in the family of EU nations and has a deal it can live with.
- Curtis Carpenter Jul 19, 2016
  
  My apologies to Ms. Constable for misidentifying her in the note below.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Jul 18, 2016
  
  I fear you do the cause of European unity no service, Mr. Ellison, by dismissively cherry-picking Christine Ellison's comment. It seems fairly clear that her perspective is shared by a great many people from inside the states remaining in the EU.
  
  Putting genuine concerns down to "bigotry" can only lead to more difficulties as it demonstrates an inability -- or at least an unwillingness -- to confront the real (and perhaps insurmountable) challenges the idea of European union faces.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Michael Ellison Jul 18, 2016
  
  You may find that you are living in dreamland!
  
  I think this part of your comment sums up the whole.
  "The UK are in no mood to accept finger wagging and threats of retaliation from the EU. The EU failed to keep one of the most important members in the EU through its deafness to real and present problems and its inability to accommodate the needs of major nation states. It was the EU that failed the UK NOT the other way around let's get the facts where they need to be."
  This is what Junkers might write:
  "The EU is in no mood to accept lectures from UK bigots. The UK has failed to remain in the EU through its insufferable
  arrogance and deafness to real and present problems and its desire to posture as a major nation state. It is the UK that has failed to heed the lessons of history that teach that when a single nation confronts a large alliance of nations then there is
  only ever going to be one winner. It's just a matter of time. If you want to leave then just go but do not expect us to negotiate. If we decide to punish you then that is what will happen and none of your bland posturing will save you. Britain is caught between a past it can't forget and a future it can't avoid. That is the real fact."
  
  Wake up and smell the coffee.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
D. V. Gendre Jul 18, 2016

How can someone call for a common fiscal policy to harmonize policy decisions such as taxation and call this "federalism"? I call this Centralism!
The EU bureaucrats lack of fundamental understanding what "federalims", "democracy", "liberty" etc. means! That's why the EU is fundamentally flawed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Hullevad Jul 17, 2016

I agree 100%! I am afraid "the Fossils in Brussels" want much more federalism than anybody can accept. It will be the end of the EU.
The sacred free movement of labor is a mayor mistake. The poorer members loose "their talents" and gets to be less competitive.
Immigration limits should be allowed percentige wise.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
koen van peteghem Jul 16, 2016

There are 3 things threatening Europe:
1 . Impunity of those causing the banking crisis
2. Offshoring of vast nrs of jobs and oncoming automation
3. The impotence of europe to act on ISIS and to handle te refugee crisis.

The last is the most imminent.

This said , europe still has the best redistribution of wealth system in the world . So europeans have the most to loose. And they know that . This generation of leaders is painfully weak and mist of all void of anything inspirational. In the abscence of leadership , that void will be filled by the populists . It always does.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
ROHIT CHANDAVARKER Jul 15, 2016

In what can be described as an existential threat to the very edifice of European Union, Britain voted to exit the EU after more than 40 years of being its member. There were exits earlier, notably Norway, but a vital & important cog like Britain is a different kettle of fish. Brexit has the potential to galvanise Eurosceptics on the continent across nation states. The latent nationalism idea has germinated & threatens to engulf every country. To make matters worse is the spectacular terror attacks in Europe resulting in a wave of anti immigration rhetoric. Add to this, the migrants crisis overwhelming EU nations. But one clear fundamental issue that plagues EU is the economic downturn & its resultant deleterious effects. The rise of parties like UKIP in Britain, AfD in Germany & Marine Le Pen's National Front in France has its roots in anti-immigration principally due to moribund economies & high unemployment. The central banks of various countries have resorted to unprecedented measures like negative interest rates to kick start their economies but to no avail.
Hence the EU as an entity risks being consigned to history with a real prospect of more countries following in Britain's footsteps. The divorce will be keenly watched & is bound to be messy & bloody with neither parties willing to budge an inch for individual reasons. EU would not want to be seen as yielding too much for fear of other members using it as a precedent to renegotiate under the threat of exit. Britain, on the other hand, would seek to extract as much concessions as possible to justify the Brexit initiative & its supporters.
At the heart of the problem would be the refugee & migrants issue which seems bedeviling EU.
The way forward might be to tread the slow & painful path of economic reconstruction & reform to extricate themselves from the doldrums they are in & to become internationally competitive. This is easier said than done but will be essential for turning around the fortunes of member states & EU as an entity.
- Steve Hurst Jul 17, 2016
  
  @Koen
  
  I agree not all reform at national level needs EU sanction, and that reform at national level is problematic. There are however two seperate difficulties. EU reform is compromised by the one member veto mechanism on many issues, local National reform is frequently blocked by a voting bloc. I voted Remain in the hope of EU reform given time. The twin problem of EU rigidity and local national level reform obstuction will likely tear the EU apart. The EU and in particularthe EZ were based on the idea events - also known as crises - would force further binding, a reduction in sovereignty. That idea has clearly failed. The root of the problem is the expansion of the EU to include the ex-communist states whose culture and economies are too removed from the orginal members make up. It is compounded by decline in the original members and demogrsaphic trends. It is inevitable that individual members are driven to national reform by internal problems. It is not clear how reform can occur with the EU because there will always be a high likelihood of somebody somewhere wanting to veto and having the right to. If you think unpicking the UK from the EU is going to be difficult then imagine trying to break up the EZ. And the EZ has to reform or break up, it cannot function with the euro having different value depending which side of the street you are on which is the reality shown by different euro de facto interest rates. This is why Schauble went ape when he was first told there had to be a diiferent rates due to GR, its a declaration of nonfunctionality, and it continues
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- koen van peteghem Jul 17, 2016
  
  @Steve
  
  sure not all reform must be EU approved. If you look at how Germany and France reform (or not) that is done by them. with very different results... to my knowledge, and i may be mistaken, its further integration that needs full votes.. lobby groups indeed is a concern.. but frankly i can't see the countries on their own resist any better to them... Take away the EU and the lobby groups will just take over that slot. we may not like G Sachs with a EU , but i m not sure we d like it any better without the EU.. the level of know how within the countries themselves to deal with them probably just isn't there... bit like the council services from a metropolitan city compared to a small village.. the only country standing a chance of surviving a brake up is Germany. And it the play it well, Benelux and Denmark and Poland?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Jul 17, 2016
  
  @Koen
  
  'The amazing thing is that on the one hand the EU is blamed for being dictatorial and on the other hand is supposed to reform Europe. Well, as it isn’t the first it can’t do the second.'
  
  The amazing thing about the EU is that it provides a system that allows a single member to veto agreements or processes. In what way can that be described as democracy. Thus a lobby group in one of 28 members who block action in their own country, 1 of 28 members, can as an outcome block action in all 28 members
  
  Thus you have a rulebook established decades ago under one set of circumstances being used by new entrants under a completely different environment to stop reform and de facto stunt their own imperative to reform
  
  You leave individual members to their own reform and need the EU to be able to reform seperately
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- koen van peteghem Jul 16, 2016
  
  Rohit,
  
  The amazing thing is that on the one hand the EU is blamed for being dictatorial and on the other hand is supposed to reform Europe. Well, as it isn’t the first it can’t do the second.
  
  It is not up to the EU to transform its members; it is up to the members to reform themselves. The main reason of being for the EU is that the members by themselves are not very capable to do so in their own. What is always referred to as ‘austerity measures’ is on fact only the consequences of years of ill managed public finances after decades of socialist driven deficit spending and other in-efficiencies coming home to roost. Suppose tomorrow, Italy would have no Mafia problem? That would probably be a good thing, no? Well, is the mob an EU induced problem for the EU to solve? Or is it for Italy to solve? Is French labour law rigidity a EU problem imposed on France? Or is the will of the French to resist any reform something typical French? It sure is not German, nor Dutch. And is not Flemish but it sure is Walloon..
  
  Germany’s capability to adapt and reform swiftly and silently has made it the powerhouse that it is. And through the EU, when it had to dole out to keep the Greek afloat, instead of letting them of the hook for reforming the shambles their household was, they made sure that the Greek had to start cleaning up their shop. And yes, that hurts… but who’s to blame for decades of archaic non-management? The Germans? The EU? Or the Greek. And has Greece being in or out the of the EU had any effect on that? Did they start mismanaging after they entered, or had they been doing it forever? Like any child having to clean up its room, its making a lot of fuzz and hating it, now at least it is starting the process… If the individual members want to have a future, there is no alternative to sweep their own pavement and to deal with immigration and terrorism together.. all this together.
  
  If it all falls apart and France close their borders with Italy and the refugees/immigrants keep sailing over, what will Italy do? Pick them up? or just let them drown? drop them on the beach where they left from? Shoot them? Will Le Pen annul all the treaties France signed up to, including the Geneva convention?
  
  And Europe having to increase productivity? To do what? produce even more in a world of massive overcapacity? Effectively boosting stagnation? And it is very hard to increase productivity on jobs that are now in China and Bangalor. The way to balance this out and fill production capacity will lay in the rise of living standards of the new producing countries. If 400 mio Chinese and 200 mio Indians and Bangladeshi get a 200 % raise, that will make the difference. And the question will be how to achieve this.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Jul 15, 2016
  
  @Curtis
  
  The EU requires all members to be in full agreement for any significant change to anything. As you can imagine that makes it next to impossible to sort anything major out, there is always a vested interest wanting to veto action. This destroys the most valuable characteristic of a democracy, flexibiity in dealing with new situations.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Curtis Carpenter Jul 15, 2016
  
  You make a good case, and I too hope the EU will see Brexit as a call for serious introspection and reform. You describe "the slow & painful path of economic reconstruction & reform" though, while I am more attuned to the point of view of Paul Daley below: structural reform is needed which gives the people of Europe a greater voice in EU policies without the need to resort to the extremes of a Remain/Leave choice.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Luis Gonzalez Jul 15, 2016

I am confused by the author's use of the term 'federalism'. Isn't Federalism supposed to be the opposite of 'centralism'?
- Raphael Turra Jul 15, 2016
  
  Yes, but a federal political system would be more centralized than the actual supranational framework of the EU. Something like the United States or Brazil.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Jul 14, 2016

It is back to the 70's and 80's, four + decades of hard work lost in a few days. Humanity never learns.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Jul 14, 2016

The chances of getting all euro users to give up sovereignty, which is what is required for fully functioning federalism, is nonexistant
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Jul 14, 2016

The people's will is never expressed on an EU-wide basis, even on questions that clearly affect all, like migration, a common currency, fiscal integration, or the acceptance of new members. As a result, EU citizens often feel that policies of common interest have been imposed rather than chosen. That lack of broad democratic consultation on issues of common interest is the problem, but it is a problem of how decisions are made, not whether they are made at the center. In a common economic space, most decisions have to be made on an EU-wide basis.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/R1FxYPo/zh;

欧洲的联邦主义威胁

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

Featured

The Sino-American Cold War’s Collateral Damage

The End of Scandinavian Non-Alignment

Will Italy Sink Europe?

The Martyrdom of Jamal Khashoggi

The Brexit Endgame

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

What Has Google Ever Done for Us?

China’s Repressed Memory

The Economics of the Climate Crisis

The Sino-American Cold War’s Collateral Damage

The Disruptive Power of Ethnic Nationalism

When Agricultural Workers Go Hungry

Are Britons Really Softening on Immigration?

The High Cost of High Finance

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register