Politics

Aligning the West for an Uncertain World

Jan 18, 2017 Iain Conn

Just when the West needs alignment among the US, the UK, and the EU, national politics are pulling it apart. There are common forces behind the UK's Brexit referendum, Donald Trump's election in the US, and the rise of nationalism across Europe.

LONDON – In 2016, the United Kingdom made the momentous decision to leave the European Union, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, and many European countries continued to struggle with internal challenges. The EU feels less stable than at any point in my lifetime.

There are common forces that brought us to this dangerous place, and it is more important than ever that the developed democracies come together to address them. Sadly, the opposite is happening. Just when the West needs alignment among the US, the UK, and the EU, national politics are pulling it apart.

Within Europe, there are three major challenges. The first is Brexit, the biggest event in British politics in a generation. Many think that withdrawal from the EU is a mistake; but it is what more than half of those who voted decided, so now we have to implement it. It won’t be easy. Translating the vote into policy will be like defusing a bomb: determining which wires to cut will require great care.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

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

Subscribe Now

The Trump Enigma
AFP/Stringer

Longer Reads 26

The Trump Enigma

John Andrews asks whether Carl Bildt, Joschka Fischer, Ana Palacio, and other <em>Project Syndicate</em> commentators are right to be so uneasy about the incoming US administration.
Has Brexit Undermined the West?
Ian Gavan/Getty Images

Longer Reads 28

Has Brexit Undermined the West?

Philippe Legrain reviews what Carl Bildt, Ken Rogoff, George Soros, and others regard as the causes and effects of Europe’s biggest political earthquake in a generation.

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

0 Comments on this paragraph, 7 Comments on this article

M M Jan 19, 2017

The 60's and 70's here we come....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Terence McGuire Jan 19, 2017

This I can agree with and many Commercial Teams need to note this and be guarded and aware of any changes to procurement law. As a Bid Expert I can assure you nothing will change overnight, but policy will eventually change and we all need to be vigilant of this.
Other areas of law will also be affected and so it stands to reason regardless of your role within senior management or within the executive, note changes will happen.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Jan 19, 2017

THE PLANETS CAN DANCE - IN EQUILIBRIUM
The small nations of Europe need SIZE - hence the appeal of A European Community.
The small nations of Europe need SECURITY - hence the appeal of A NATO.
The small nations of Europe need ECONOMICS - hence the appeal of A Free Trade Zone.
In Asia, there is an equivalent body called ASEAN; in The Gulf, there is an equivalent body called GCC.
These have served the Regional Aspirations very well - without becoming a platform that threatens.
Association of South and East Europe - ASEAN 2.0 - perhaps the solution to Europe's needs.

If China and India and Japan operate from inside ASEAN, THE UNION will threaten World Equilibrium.
If Germany and France and Russia operate from inside ASEAN 2.0, THE UNION will threaten World Equilibrium.
The writing was on the wall - when the latter created One Currency, with their Security underwritten by The Anglosphere.
The writing will be on the wall - if China and India and Japan created One Currency, with their Security underwritten by The Anglosphere.
The Soviet Commonwealth was similar - Smaller Nations led by Russia, with The Rouble, Security underwritten by Russia.
The German Commonwealth will be similar - Smaller Nations led by Germany, with The Mark, Security underwritten by Germany.
The French Commonwealth will be similar - Smaller Nations led by France, with The Franc, Security underwritten by France.
To have allowed France and Germany to lead ASEAN 2.0 from inside, with Security underwritten - was An Invitation for Insecurity.
Those who have World Domination on their Agenda - can become Planets with their own Moons.
But The Solar System cannot have more than One Sun.
The Sun never sets in The Anglosphere.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Armin Schmidt Jan 18, 2017

"We must protect the ties that bind, and place our hope for the future in our alliances and shared traditions. "
I use the metaphor of binding versus liberating in the opposed sense, when I say, that liberating subgroups can be as reasonable as it can be dangerous. Two can play this game, to use another metaphor, in fact dozens can play this game globally. This issue moves me for a while now, so I created some thinking, to be found in my account's profile.

Related to the article I want to say: a proposal for a rule-of-thumb to somewhat safeguard subgroup liberation: "Responsible subgroup liberation demands fairness and mutual compensation."
And some years into the future, people might find, that endless subgroup liberation is vain and that attempting best-for-all is important, so maybe we should preserve activities, which go to that end.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Jan 18, 2017

The US can't afford to defend people who can defend themselves anymore. The US is tired we have problems at home that must be dealt with. If we don't the losers of globalization are going to turn from the worthless ballot box to the gun. A US in a long term low grade insurgency is of no use to anyone. And the US is headed that way. Bluntly we have our own problems Europe is going have to carry its own load. We spent all that money defending Europe for 50 - 60 years now your going to have to do it yourselves we can no longer afford to. Rather like Rome in the coming decade or two the troops will come home we can no longer carry the burden. Which leaves Europe and a whole lot of other countries 3 options: One) Learn Russian, Two) Learn Chinese, Three) Defend yourselves instead expecting someone else to do it and pay for it.
The choice is yours because The average US voter no longer cares. Europe has expected the US to carry the burden and we don't see a single reason why we should anymore. Good Luck. Given that Europe inevitably wants someone else to pick up the check for commitments so they don't have to. You are going to need it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christine Constable Jan 18, 2017

Iain, I don't share your pessimism about the Brexit vote. Firstly the EU was in desperate need of change and has been for a number of years. The elites in Brussels contemptuous of the need to change have been denying the obvious for a long time and Brexit was simply the canary in the coal mine that it could no longer ignore.

Sometimes fortuitous things happen and change is forced upon a situation when the people who should be making the change would rather look the other way.

Clearly the financial status of the bloc cannot be ignored for much longer, and sadly the continuing payments by the UK into the project removes much of the need for change, to improve production, create jobs and be more competitive, and without any motivation these much needed changes will continue to be fudged.

UK's leaving of the bloc will also force the EU to make sure that it can cut its cloth, and will force lazy change averse countries to start developing better solutions to deal with low growth; fear of market competition, and the subsidy junkies who have grown fat on taxpayers money.
China is not a member of the EU, yet from a trade perspective I see no impediment to them selling everything they can to everyone all the time, as virtually everything we seem to buy is made in China - how come without free movement and without having to donate billions to the EU China is able to flood the European market with their goods? How come, that despite the billions the UK has pumped into the EU things seem to be as bad as ever?
Canada has just secured a trade deal with the EU without free movement or massive EU contributions - the EU is a failed empire building project for Germany only a fool can't see this - no wonder the British got fed up with bankrolling it.

The UK wants proper trade deals and a reinstatement of the trading Anglosphere which has been derailed by the EU - probably because Germany and France were jealous about it.

The UK has no interest in seeing the end of th3e EU but it does have an interest in making the EU wake up and look at what is happening and change. I think many of us hoped that this "change" would dissuade them to continue working towards a country called Europe and that we could get back to a solid trading relationship, but clearly there are nations in the EU who hate themselves so much doing away with themselves as a nation is a higher priority than being a part of a successful nation state. Britain is not one of them. Few of us are prepared to betray the gift of freedom bequeathed to us from our forefathers and any behaviour from the EU which rants and is aggressive towards us is proof positive leaving was the best and only choice.
I agree that now we have made this decision we need to pick up the pieces and form a united western bloc and as the UK has bankrolled the EU for over 40 years I see no reason why the UK cannot be given an associate status in recognition of the billions it has given to Europe and that "associate" status has been bought by years of funding few countries can match.
- Ted Smith Jan 20, 2017
  
  1. With an annual budget of around €150 billion, the UK's net contribution of ~£8bn is material, but hardly a convincing case that those contributions "remove the need for change". I suspect having 28 members with differing domestic political priorities has a slightly larger impact on whether and how the EU changes!
  
  2. To understand China's position as a non-EU member you have to unpick what they export to the EU - industrial and consumer goods, machinery and equipment, footwear, clothing. I.e. manufactured goods, not services. China's hourly compensation costs in manufacturing are about $2. UK's are $32. A $30/hour labour cost differential gives you a lot a room to absorb tariffs. I'm not sure why you think it strange then that China can "flood" the EU without free movement of labour contributing to the EU. It's just comparative advantage in action.
  
  3. The Single Market is the world's most liberalised, integrated, trade barrier-free bloc. We are going to leave it, so our goods and services will face some barriers they did not face before. That is a statement of logic, not a subjective opinion. Those barriers may have a substantial impact on our export trade, or a more modest one. Time will tell, as the UK negotiates a new FTA.
  
  4. As the House of Lords EU Committee on Brexit Options for Trade report was at great pains to reiterate, every trade liberalisation agreement involves some trade-off of sovereignty (on setting regulations, standards, inspection and dispute adjudication). That is also a statement of logic and fact, not an opinion. I do find some cloth ears (not you!) have to be reminded of this.
  
  5. Canada. Look at CETA - it covers tariffs on industrial products, but not all fishing products. It includes limited liberalistation of trade. Services - mainly postal, telecoms and maritime transport service markets and public procurement. It provides a framework for professional qualification recognition and for employees and families of multinationals to relocate. Good deal? Yes. Is it equivalent to being a member of the Single Market? No.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.