Comments 10

梅的舞台

Aug 30, 2016 Chris Patten

伦敦——摆在英国新任首相特雷莎·梅面前的是一个艰巨的任务：执行英国人——或者更确切的说，英格兰和威尔士——选民“退出欧盟”的要求并管理这项工作所带来的意义深远的后果。她所面临的这项挑战令近年来的历届前任首相相形见绌。但她或许有能力完成这项任务。

任何人都不应低估梅。像在一系列危机中已经证明勇气的德国总理默克尔一样，完成任务所需的一切工具都掌握在梅的手中。她聪明坚韧，对废话没有耐心。她拥有强烈的公共服务意识及同样强烈的价值观。她不受任何意识形态的约束，非常善于掌握控制权，她在自我划定的界限中行事，以确保熟悉所处理的问题。

梅在参与的多数战役中获胜，对那些曾用卑鄙手段对付她的人毫不留情。但她在党内却树敌甚少，并在普通党员中颇受欢迎。这是一种强大的组合——她需要充分加以利用以领导英国的退欧进程。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

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

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

Pacific Press/Getty Images

Emmanuele Contini/NurPhoto via ZUMA Press

Dominick Reuter/AFP/Getty Images

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 11 in all 11 Comments on this article

Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Oct 25, 2016

Chris Patten is the worst kind of dishonest politician going. This article has no real basis in fact (the opinions regarding Theresa May might turn out be accurate but we clearly cannot take his word for it).

He clearly has not reviewed the polling data with any effort or he would understand some of the subtleties in the June 23rd vote, most significant of which was not "the blue-collar workers of England’s North and Midlands" but the fact that the middle classes couldn't bring themselves to hold their nose and vote remain.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

What annoys me is that to justify the opinion he espouses, that people want protectionism, he uses Jeremy Corbyn's words as justification and yet he has to know that Corbyn's words are an irrelevant minority view. Shabby and grubby politics.

If Lord Patten wants to know why the EU is failing he should look in the mirror.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Sep 15, 2016

Globalization will not be undone, but it can be managed better. Allowing unfettered capitalist determination of trade and investment without attention to the losers in the process has led to the current backlash. But when did the winners ever pay attention to the losers? The welfare state can provide basic life necessities to the poor and unemployed but it cannot offer meaning and a personal sense of value, nor optimism. The backlash is more of a cri du cour rather than an organized opposition to the "rules of the game.".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Sep 1, 2016

Once upon a time there was Great Britain......and there shall always be the one and only Queen Victoria.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Aug 31, 2016

In her "monumental task" of translating words into action - "Brexit means Brexit - Chris Patten is certain that Theresa May will not be able to make everyone's day, despite her qualities - clever, tough, conscientious and mindful of public service, pragmatic and composed. She is in many ways like Angela Merkel, and had won "most of the battles" she fought, showing "little mercy to those who have used underhanded tactics against her." Since she has "few known enemies within her party" there is hope that she might hold the Tory Party together, a minority of which had put enormous pressure on David Cameron to hold this fateful referendum.
However the June referendum had "unleashed a storm of populist sentiment that will be difficult to control," and there seems to be several visions for Brexit. In May's cabinet the three "Leavers" - Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox, dubbed the three "Brexiteers" - will play a crucial role in negotiating with the EU and forge new international trade deals for Britain. But each of them has his own vision of how negotiations be conducted and what a post-Brexit Britain should look like. They only held a private meeting a few days ago to “clear the air” after weeks of significant tensions. Indeed, these talks are not just an effort to mask, delay and consequently cancel the referendum in a perfidious way. It shows that "Britain is on its way out."
Prominent Leaders of the "Leave" camp - Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage - have been accused of misleading voters, who simply banked on "false promises" to regain control and "return Britain to a safer and more prosperous past." They will soon realise that Breixt "will utterly fail to benefit" them, "no matter what it looks like." And this may be "the one challenge that May" has to face. Cameron did not do any emergency planning for a potential "Leave" vote ahead of the referendum. May has to implement Brexit by hiring a team of skilled negotiators to manage the complex business of negotiating withdrawal and ensuring Britain gets the best possible deal.
Patten says, "blue-collar workers of England’s North and Midlands" - avid Brexit supporters - resent the political establishment and the financial elites in metropolitan areas, especially London. They have felt "left behind by globalization, and marginalized by its perceived agent, the EU," which - they say - had benefited the urban folks, but not them. With their "Leave" vote they are hoping for a better future, despite the whole mess they had created and the uncertainty they face.
The problem is that Brexiteers may succeed in taking Britain out of the EU, but they can't halt globalisation, and they wouldn't have a say on migration from the EU. Patten argues: "Any attempt to do so would devastate UK businesses. Even if a faltering economy leads to falling immigration, the workers who voted for Brexit will probably find, frustratingly, that low-paid jobs are still low paid, and that their public services are still under pressure."
Indeed, even if May succeeds, "she may find that not just some people are dissatisfied – an unavoidable outcome – but that everyone is." This will add "another major challenge" to her government: "narrowing the yawning divide in British society that the Brexit campaign exposed." The question is whether she would survive politically if Members of Parliament chose to pass a no confidence vote to topple her.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Daniel Esmond Aug 31, 2016

It is a little bit disingenuous to say that Brexit was the result of the disaffected Northern and Midlands working class voters. Of course, this makes sense from a partisan point of few as these are traditionally Labour constituencies and clearly Labour under Corbyn campaigned only half-heartedly for the remain vote. But let’s not forget that the vast majority (if not all) Conservative constituencies have voted for Brexit. That a lot of prosperous (or at least reasonably well off) conservative supporters, largely elderly, living in prosperous rural areas or commuter belts or leafy suburbia have voted on mass for Brexit. There is no way we can talk about some kind of economic disaffection in their case (they might have even voted against their own self-interest by wanting to limit the cheap foreign labour they use for domestic help or as careers). And if we look at the overwhelming support of the right wing tabloids (who usually support the Conservative Party), we can see the nationalistic, xenophobic populism unleased which also made a significant contribution to Brexit. So let’s stop blaming just the Northern working class and the Conservatives should have a really good look at themselves and acknowledge their share of responsibility in peddling nationalism and Europhobia under the allegedly respectable label of Euroscepticism for decades.
By the way, the news in the UK today is report about a Polish immigrant being killed in apparently racist attack. The details are not yet clear, but this would fit into the intolerance unleashed by Brexiters.
Now what might happen with Brexit: I am less optimistic about how successful T. May can be in navigating the process. The Conservative Party is probably more divided now over Europe than it was before the referendum, with those wanting a hard Brexit (complete departure, no links whatsoever) and those for a soft Brexit (something along the Norwegian or Swiss model). The reality of the referendum’s result will make compromise very difficult, if possible at all. The EU is unlikely to go out of its way to be exceedingly accommodating or flexible. And with a small majority in the parliament, May doesn’t have a lot of time or scope for manoeuvre as her options will become fewer and fewer. Early elections would not solve much, especially if she has to call elections due to disagreements on Brexit as it is likely to lead to a repeat of the referendum campaign, further deepening divisions in the country and the party. While May does have the qualities attributed to her by C. Patten and she could have been a modernising, pragmatic and popular prime minister, it is very likely that she won’t succeed.

As some comments below were asking about what could be done now after Brexit, here are a few ideas.
First, a really interesting paper has been published already by the some taking part in the Bruegel meetings. See here http://bruegel.org/2016/08/europe-after-brexit-a-proposal-for-a-continental-partnership/ . In short, this is a revival of elements of the older idea of a concentric EU, with a nucleus of fully integrated members (likely to be the Eurozone countries), surrounded by other circles of countries which either don’t want to (Sweden, Denmark, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic) or can’t yet (Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia) join the Eurozone and the nucleus. A further external circle this time could be composed of countries that participate in a selective manner in EU institutions and processes, maybe as some kind of associate member (again, this is an old category used during the negotiation with the Eastern members, but it never really meant much in practical terms). The UK, Norway, Switzerland, Iceland, potentially Turkey and Ukraine could be part of this circle. It will be a lengthy debate what this could mean, but the article I suggested makes a start on this debate. And one could also think of this category of associate membership as both a way into the EU (for countries currently negotiating entry like Montenegro and Serbia) or countries stuck in a limbo with their entry negotiations (Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosovo, probably Albania, maybe Moldova, unless it decides to reunite with Romania).
Secondly, a moratorium or a temporary, strictly time linked and constantly re-evaluated suspension of freedom of movement of labour should be introduced. Returning to the same process that was in place after the admission of the Eastern countries when the old members were able to limit freedom of movement for seven years (2+3+2 years, with certain conditions re-evaluated after each period). The limits on accessing benefits that were granted to Cameron during the renegotiation before the referendum could be looked at again and potentially left to the discretion of countries to adopt those or not. As migration and benefit tourism are such a critical argument and vote winner for populists (irrespective now of its real scale, impact, benefits or costs), such limits could re-establish a sense of control and confidence at a time of crisis.
Thirdly, growth oriented policies, move beyond monetary policy, moderation of austerity, some form of solidarity between countries (debt mutualisation, debt relief, some transfers etc.) could kick start the economy and lift the doom and gloom that is making everything worse.
Sadly, I can’t see any of the above happening. The first two points are likely to be rejected as they would involve treaty change and complex negotiations, and the fear is that both will fail. And the third point (made so many times, by so many!) is likely to be rejected due to the persistence of the current economic dogma.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Daniel Esmond Aug 31, 2016

It is a little bit disingenuous to say that Brexit was the result of the disaffected Northern and Midlands working class voters. Of course, this makes sense from a partisan point of few as these are traditionally Labour constituencies and clearly Labour under Corbyn campaigned only half-heartedly for the remain vote. But let’s not forget that the vast majority (if not all) Conservative constituencies have voted for Brexit. That a lot of prosperous (or at least reasonably well off) conservative supporters, largely elderly, living in prosperous rural areas or commuter belts or leafy suburbia have voted on mass for Brexit. There is no way we can talk about some kind of economic disaffection in their case (they might have even voted against their own self-interest by wanting to limit the cheap foreign labour they use for domestic help or as careers). And if we look at the overwhelming support of the right wing tabloids (who usually support the Conservative Party), we can see the nationalistic, xenophobic populism unleased which also made a significant contribution to Brexit. So let’s stop blaming just the Northern working class and the Conservatives should have a really good look at themselves and acknowledge their share of responsibility in peddling nationalism and Europhobia under the allegedly respectable label of Euroscepticism for decades.
By the way, the news in the UK today is report about a Polish immigrant being killed in apparently racist attack. The details are not yet clear, but this would fit into the intolerance unleashed by Brexiters.
Now what might happen with Brexit: I am less optimistic about how successful T. May can be in navigating the process. The Conservative Party is probably more divided now over Europe than it was before the referendum, with those wanting a hard Brexit (complete departure, no links whatsoever) and those for a soft Brexit (something along the Norwegian or Swiss model). The reality of the referendum’s result will make compromise very difficult, if possible at all. The EU is unlikely to go out of its way to be exceedingly accommodating or flexible. And with a small majority in the parliament, May doesn’t have a lot of time or scope for manoeuvre as her options will become fewer and fewer. Early elections would not solve much, especially if she has to call elections due to disagreements on Brexit as it is likely to lead to a repeat of the referendum campaign, further deepening divisions in the country and the party. While May does have the qualities attributed to her by C. Patten and she could have been a modernising, pragmatic and popular prime minister, it is very likely that she won’t succeed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Aug 30, 2016

What you do not ask Mr Patten is where is the EU going

Further -

'The Brexit vote was driven by the blue-collar workers of England’s North and Midlands' Patten

Absolute cobblers, so now 52% of the UK live in the North of Englan and the Midlands and are blue collar workers. How imaginary. Actually the Brexit vote was driven by the majority of youth who claimed to support Remain but couldnt be bothered to vote. Youth who are educated to a higher level than ever before and see themselves as white collar workers
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christopher williams Aug 30, 2016

I struggle to accept the basis of the "Britain is on its way out" conclusion. While Mrs. May has said the words, her actions tend to leave that far from certain. The appointment of three warring Brexiteers to come up with a proposal as to how it can be done (presumably following the format of their commitments made in the lead-up to the referendum) suggests she has cleverly given them the rope with which to hang themselves.
I would also like to address the issue of what is going on in the large Member States remaining in the EU; there is sufficient political risk for each governing party in Germany, France, Italy and Spain as to suggest they would all like to come up with what could be classified as a win for a reinvigorated Europe. To that end, some form of agreement with the UK, whether that be for a continued membership or some form of new agreement to unite all countries in the European continent, is irrelevant as long as it sounds good to their electorates.
There is an argument for saying that each of these governments need this more than the UK; it is certainly the case that Mrs. May can come out of any conference of the big countries with at least as much chance to claim success.
The considerable added value for Mrs. May would be in having a justification for calling an early election to ask for approval of her new deal for Europe. Given the state of the other parties, and the difficulties of her right wing in showing a Brexit which could work, she could earn a massive majority. Indeed she could consider how to de-select the hard right from the process, if she really wants to settle that issue for the future.
What could be built into the Big Five agreement that would be a vote winner on both sides of the channel? How about a structured reduction in contributions (and payments) to the EU central budget? Close down half the EU Commission; make each country pay for their representatives; no more tax-free jobs; cease the single country veto facility and have all decisions solely needing 60% of the voting total of EU countries?
As above, it would be easy enough to come up with 'new deal' terms, I believe, to help each of the leaders during their difficult times .. and for Mrs. May a great position to be acknowledged as a new European leader to (almost) match Mrs. Merkel.
So, in short, let's think outside the Brexit box; and I am sure the Project Syndicate contributors can come up with more and better ideas for the new deal terms!!
- jagjeet sinha Aug 31, 2016
  
  THE MAJORITY BLOC
  
  The Big Five sounds like an idea from the United Nations heritage repertoire.
  Votes that elect The Leaderships in each will remain National for the foreseeable future.
  By creating The Brussels Bureaucracy, the Sixth Big Power in fact has become the Biggest Superpower.
  Contrast this with The United Nations - which remains a coordination agency at best, not Brussels.
  Jean Claude Juncker and Ban Ki Moon - are two opposites, in terms of abrogation of powers.
  It is not an accident - The Majority Bloc within wanted those dictatorial powers, unlike The UN.
  Brussels Bureaucracy in fact not only assumes The Federal Capital role - but without responsibility and without elections.
  The Beijing Mandarins have responsibility and accountability - to deliver Economics and Security.
  Migration to The Capital is inevitable - unless Investment Equalization is created, Brussels unable to do so.
  Security architecture is with NATO - Brussels merely a bystander again, despite becoming Europe's Biggest Superpower.
  The Big Five that you suggest is a great template - but it is The Sixth One that you missed out.
  The UN Big Five are REAL - but in Europe, The Sixth is the defacto Superpower.
  BREXIT is a Little Island - that does say No.
  Whether One is enough - who knows.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Aug 30, 2016

The solution here is obvious (although not to Patten's liking). The UK should join the Canada-EU free trade agreement (that covers both goods and services) and impose its own immigration laws (no free movement of labor). If Europe won't accept the same deal that it is negotiating with Canada, then the UK should trade with the EU based on the WTO rules. If Europe attempts to restrict, UK exports of goods and services, the UK should immediately retaliate. Since the UK runs a huge trade deficit with Europe, the EU has far more to lose than the UK.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Aug 30, 2016

"The promises were false. Globalization cannot be undone, and migration from the EU cannot be cut off. Any attempt to do so would devastate UK businesses. "

So without cheap imported labor, the UK would collapse? Really? Or the greedy plutocracy would simply have to pay higher wages? I guess for the likes of Patten, higher wages for working people really are the "end of the world".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/22dxvto/zh;

梅的舞台

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Can Trump Make a Deal with China?

Will Germany Permit Joint European Security?

America First, Fallout Later

Business and Biodiversity

Iran’s 40 Years of Strife

Africa’s Digital Generation Gap

The AI Road to Serfdom?

What’s Left of the Populist Left?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register