A Silver Lining for a Hard Brexit

Nov 20, 2017 Jacek Rostowski

During a time of American waywardness under US President Donald Trump, the United Kingdom's national security has increasingly come to depend on the European Union as a buffer against Russian revanchism. Ironically, then, the safest form of Brexit might be the one that hurts the most, so long as it leaves behind a stable EU.

LONDON – It is easy to forget that defense and security are not the same thing. Defense is what countries must resort to when their security breaks down. And during peacetime, countries spend money on defense precisely because they fear for their security.

Since 2014, the security environment for Britain and the European Union has deteriorated sharply. In March of that year, Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. It was the first time since World War II that a major European power sought to redraw its own borders by force of arms.

In 1994, Russia agreed to defend Ukraine’s territorial integrity in exchange for Ukraine’s handover of the nuclear weapons it had inherited from the Soviet Union. But Russia didn’t stop with Crimea; since then, it has waged a low-intensity unconventional war against Ukraine in the country’s eastern Donbas region.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

US President-elect Joe Biden may have promised a “return to normalcy,” but the truth is that there is no going back. The world is changing in fundamental ways, and the actions the world takes in the next few years will be critical to lay the groundwork for a sustainable, secure, and prosperous future.

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

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

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

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

Subscribe Now

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 12 in all 12 Comments on this article

Peter Schaeffer Mar 26, 2018

"the construction industry would be denuded of its EU workers"

Imagine the horror, the pain, the pity. UK construction firms might have to hire UK workers. Can anything that awful even be imagined? Certainly not.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Dec 12, 2017

Europe has vastly more people and GDP than Russia. The ratios are huge. The idea that Russia threatens Europe, says more about the European elite war on the European people than it does about Russia.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Dec 12, 2017

The notion that a hard Brexit would be a good thing because it would scare other countries into staying in the EU is hoodlum thinking. Basically, a mobster threatening to kill a kidnap victim to ensure payment of a ransom. This is what the EUSSR has become.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Dec 3, 2017

Hi Jacek,

I can't agree with you in this case, unfortunately.

The most appalling error is to assume that Brexiteers want to see the EU fail, because that's far from the truth.

Most Brexiteers want the EU to thrive as British exports need thriving markets -- including the EU which represents 15% of UK output. The EU isn't everything to the UK, but 15% represents an important trade partner by any standard.

If there is a Hard Brexit, there won't be any high economic cost. That's a Project Fear notion which continues to be disproved with facts.

According to Project Fear, even now the UK economy was supposed to be in a tailspin, almost at civil war, and every Briton crying in front of the telly.

Except that the UK economy is doing well, people are looking forward to undoing the undemocratic trick that was done to them (the UK signed up for a trade union, OK, but then a customs union was added, and then suddenly the UK was expected to pay the lion's share of EU expenses along with Germany) and all of it done in secret.

From the highest possible viewpoint; The UK joined the EC to help continental Europe 'gel together' as one political unit in hopes there would never be another World War caused by continental Europeans. And the UK had every intention of leaving the bloc as soon as that was accomplished. That time is now.

Also, the U.S. continues to pivot to Asia as part of a geostrategic move to where the money is. After helping to solve two world wars in the previous century, and helping to rebuild Europe in the postwar era, 'Europe can stand on its own two feet' (and solve it's own problems) is the new U.S. thinking.

But like the UK, a stable and economically viable EU is in the American interest which is why the U.S. will continue to support NATO -- although threats were made to leave if European partners didn't pay their fair share. (Important to note the UK always meets the minimum 2% of GDP spend required by NATO member countries)

I just can't let this paragraph go unchallenged:

"Since 2014, the security environment for Britain and the European Union has deteriorated sharply. In March of that year, Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. It was the first time since World War II that a major European power sought to redraw its own borders by force of arms." -- Jacek Rostowski

1) The security environment hasn't deteriorated at all.
2) Crimea was only 'annexed' because 97.1% of Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia, and after the election/referendum Crimean leaders visited Moscow and presented their re-admission to the Russian Federation as a fait accompli to Vlad Putin. "Yes, you *are* taking us back."
3) Russia has not invaded Ukraine. Since 1990, Ukrainian militia groups have wrested much of the Donbass region away from Ukraine. Since 1990, it has been a 'no go zone' for the Ukrainian military, who can only fire artillery shells into the region and can't even fly their own warplanes over the Donbass without them getting shot down. Since 1990, it has been a lawless region. All that you describe in one sentence has occurred over 27 years, and Russian military involvement is slim to none. (I was there in 1989, 1990, and 1994) There have been reports that Russian soldiers use their vacation time to visit the Donbass, as part of an unofficial fact-finding mission to find out what's really happening on the ground there, and maybe make some friendships there. That's a soldier's private life. Those sorts of things happen and not only in the Donbass.

I certainly agree with your opening paragraph:

"It is easy to forget that defense and security are not the same thing. Defense is what countries must resort to when their security breaks down. And during peacetime, countries spend money on defense precisely because they fear for their security." -- Jacek Rostowski

To summarize, the Brits joined the EC/EU to leave it eventually, the U.S. thinks that Europe is all grown up now and can live without an American parent telling it what to do, NATO will continue just fine, the pivot to Asia is the biggest thing in the world, Brexit will occur and Project Fear will be wrong yet again, and the Russians didn't take Crimea by force, neither did they take the Donbass by force *it was already taken* by local militias.

Thank you for posting your well-written essay at ProSyn, respectfully, I don't agree your conclusions.

As always, best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Wim Roffel Nov 26, 2017

I consider Rostowski one of the forces of evil who betray the ideals of the founding fathers of Europe. As an EU citizen I don't want this kind of "leaders" who deliberately give the Brits a bad deal in order to "discourage others" with the claim that that would make Europe more stable as it will make it less likely that other countries will want to leave. We didn't throw out Napoleon and Hitler to see their policies reimplemented by bureaucrats.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Nov 24, 2017

Jacek Rostowski believes a "hard" Brexit would be a "silver lining" for Europe, because it would "discourage other EU members from following the UK’s lead." While Britain would feel the financial pain in many aspects of the economy, he says, a hard Brexit could actually buttress European stability, "helping Britain maintain its national security." As paradoxical as such an outcome could be, it might be "the most important consideration in the long run."
There are opposing views regarding Brexit and the security issue that entails. Brexiters believe Britain is crucial to Europe's security, saying it has excellent armed forces, and the Europeans do not spend enough on defence. They will also need Britain to share intelligence etc. The author says, a hard Brexit would be "one advantage." At least it "would not further undermine European stability, which also happens to be Britain’s biggest security asset."
No doubt diehard Brexiteers would not agree to this assumption. Looking forward to seeing to see the EU " fail," they are "convinced that their vision of a buccaneering, global Britain can be achieved only with a clean break from Europe. They might soon find out if they’re right." But there is no majority for a hard Brexit, and nationalists seek to impose their hard stance on the rest of the country, insisting the "people have spoken" and voted to leave.
The author says, Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its hybrid warfare in Eastern Ukraine must serve Europeans as a wakeup call that their security is no longer a given. Although Obama had urged his European allies to spend more on defence, Trump has made it clear that he only pursues his "America First" agenda. "In the absence of US leadership, a stable and secure EU could thus become the most important pillar of the UK’s post-Brexit security strategy."
In our world of interdependence, a failure to reach an agreement on security issues would mean cooperation in the fight against crime, aggression, terrorism would be weakened. It requires all parties to work hard to avoid that outcome. "A politically cohesive EU would be a bulwark of stability stretching from the English Channel to Ukraine’s Dnieper River."
In recent months European allies had decided to get their act together and wean themselves off their reliance on America's security umbrella. Last year the EU had unveiled a plan to increase defence funding, research and procurement. Concerns run deep among some EU and Nato members about Russian revanchism and Trump's closeness to Putin. Brexit had also been a factor in the creation of the plan, because the UK has traditionally blocked Franco-German initiatives to give the EU a greater security dimension.
Only a stable EU will provide for its security. The author says, "the stability of the EU is far from guaranteed, because a smooth and painless Brexit may tempt other member states to also quit the bloc. Some argue that this outcome is unlikely, because it is impossible, in practice, for eurozone countries to leave. If a eurozone country even suggested that it might withdraw from the euro and the EU, the resulting capital flight would devastate its economy. According to this view, the fact that two-thirds of EU member states belong to the euro is enough to prevent the EU from unraveling."
As there are a few important EU members which are not in the eurozone - Poland, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Romania, and Sweden - there had been discussions about a multi-track Europe to accommodate "eurozone countries with current-account surpluses" – such as Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Austria. Instead of leaving the eurozone, albeit "without suffering catastrophic harm," these strong countries could form a bloc of their own. Even Emmanuel Macron has supported this project, hoping it would encourage Britain to return to the EU one day.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Nov 21, 2017

Totally ignores the fact NATO exists quite satisfactorily and that NATO includes Turkey which is outside the EU - and then rabbits on about some new superglue bonding 27 EU dysfunctionalities together into the siamese 27 so they all have to march in step or fall over. Its a bit like a film of Snow White and the 7 dwarves and them all trogging of to the mine everyday except there are 27 and Big Bad Vlad is the villain lurking behind every tree in the dark wood. Must get some popcorn, certainly cannot see it as a horror film. . Oh my gawd if the EU loses the UKs 15% subscription the 27 will have to spend less or pay more, that's a bombshell. Cinema ticket prices will have to go up and entertainment may have to be gathering around a bucket of burning wood in a barn and dancing around it
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ariel Tejera Nov 20, 2017

Mr. Rostowski's article also flags the odd case of Poland, of course, who is displaying as well wayward behaviour, challenging core European Union values.

Given that France itself deemed it essential for its viability to come to terms with Germany (long term), creating a common supra-national state, then why, a country like Poland, who risks much more, given that it is geographically bound by no less than Germany and Russia, puts them in jeopardy ?
- Jan Stecki Nov 24, 2017
  
  Mr Tejera says "Poland", meaning the government of the day, "challenges EU core values": this can only make sense if one assumes that "core values " means blind obedience to bureaucrats from Brussels, slaves to lobbyists and narrow-minded power seekers. Did you already renamed "carrots" as "fruits" in all Spain? Or are you challenging "core values" ??
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Nov 20, 2017

BACK IN THE U.S.S.R
Security Guarantees from The European Union - for Britain's future.
Even the French President doesn't have the temerity to offer Security Guarantees.
In a Region beset with Security Issues - Lebanon clearly screaming for one.
And here we have Poland's Deputy Prime Minister offering EUSSR cover.
For a Britain that has democratically decided to leave the EUSSR.
Faith in the Infallibility of EUSSR perhaps Poland's best hope.
Am sure the suggestion is well meaning but after EUSSR punishments for Brexit.
And cognizant of The Anglosphere success despite Europe for 500 years.
Cheques from a failing bank is the closest analogy.
- robert mcgrath Nov 26, 2017
  
  Rather than a EUSSR is the EU not a Fourth Reich?
  - jagjeet sinha Nov 26, 2017
    
    There are many in Europe who believe that it indeed is The Fourth Reich.
    The problem with that narrative then is Germany will become isolated.
    And Isolation of Germany means - Guaranteed German Exit.
    Not the best outcome - if history is any guide.
    I voted Remain - in the hope Britain inside is the best option.
    Despite the differences in postures - Britain Germany France together.
    The Troika must settles differences within the Common European Home.
    Difficult but not Impossible.
    A new reply to this comment has been posted.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.