STOCKHOLM – The world is fundamentally different after the “Brexit” referendum in the United Kingdom. It will be decades before we know the full effect of British voters’ decision to leave the European Union.
One thing we can know for sure, however, is that it is in the EU’s best interest to maintain strong ties with the UK, despite the fact that British voters made their decision unilaterally. Too much is at stake to allow the process to be dominated by petty power games that overshadow or undermine common interests, as happens so often in European politics.
Economically, growth in the EU will undoubtedly benefit from an open trading relationship with Britain. A free-trade agreement that includes financial services will minimize the damage from Brexit for all parties involved, because European firms will still rely on London as the region’s only global financial center. Even if banking services migrate elsewhere in the eurozone, companies like Volvo, Siemens, and Total will still need London if they are to compete with companies like Toyota, GE, and Exxon.
Politically, the EU and the UK will benefit from maintaining close cooperation because neither side is spared from the problems afflicting the region today. These include increasing aggression from Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin; the rise of ISIS and the threat of homegrown terrorism; and refugees fleeing to Europe from the Middle East and North Africa. Moreover, the Brexit vote does not change the strategic importance of NATO, where continued cooperation is necessary and where the EU needs the UK as much as the UK needs the EU.
So, what should the EU do? European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has called for more federalism – for more power to be delegated to the EU’s governing institutions. I consider Juncker a close friend, but I strongly disagree with him about this idea. Moving toward deeper integration or centralized control would be a dangerous path to take, for it would increase the risk of other members choosing to leave the EU. And, beyond that hazard, there are other reasons to avoid federalist measures.
Consider the main economic argument offered by federalists: the eurozone needs a common fiscal policy to harmonize policy decisions, such as taxation. This is wrong for two reasons.
First, the EU’s fundamental economic problems are structural. Europeans will continue to gravitate toward populism if they do not see improvements in their standard of living, which will happen only with higher productivity growth. A single fiscal policy would not bring this about – and could make the problem worse. What Europe needs, instead, is a reform strategy that increases competitiveness and reduces barriers to competition.
In particular, EU policymakers should pursue policies that make labor markets more flexible. These would include lower marginal tax rates, tighter criteria for determining benefits eligibility, stricter requirements for job searches, more resources for skills training, and less restrictive employment-protection regulation.
The second reason is political. Put plainly, there is no political support for the higher taxes and spending cuts that would be necessary with a common fiscal policy. Brussels would be accused of wasting taxpayers’ money, and any effort to disregard public opinion and impose fiscal integration on EU members would only backfire and fuel the wave of populist rage that carried the Brexiteers to victory.
Today, supporters of the EU must face the facts: an ever-closer union is not the European people’s will, even in the member states that would never choose to leave it. If the European Commission forces the post-Brexit narrative in this direction, the result will be the opposite of what was intended. In fact, federalism is probably the single greatest threat to the future of the EU.
Those who want the EU to survive should resist the temptation to assert more control. We need a Europe that stands united because it wants to, not because it is forced to by new political super-structures that lack any underpinning of popular support.
Comments
Hide Comments Read Comments (25)Please log in or register to leave a comment.
Comment Commented gaston goyret
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... Read more
Comment Commented marc ménard
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. Read more
Comment Commented rachid mepi
i totally agree Read more
Comment Commented Angel Gavieiro
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). Read more
Comment Commented rachid mepi
you have a good view that is based in a reality syndrome Read more
Comment Commented Michael Ellison
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. Read more
Comment Commented Christine Constable
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. Read more
Comment Commented Curtis Carpenter
My apologies to Ms. Constable for misidentifying her in the note below. Read more
Comment Commented Curtis Carpenter
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. Read more
Comment Commented Michael Ellison
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. Read more
Comment Commented D. V. Gendre
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. Read more
Comment Commented Michael Hullevad
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. Read more
Comment Commented koen van peteghem
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.
Read more
Comment Commented ROHIT CHANDAVARKER
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. Read more
Comment Commented Steve Hurst
@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 Read more
Comment Commented koen van peteghem
@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? Read more
Comment Commented Steve Hurst
@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 Read more
Comment Commented koen van peteghem
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. Read more
Comment Commented Steve Hurst
@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. Read more
Comment Commented Curtis Carpenter
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.
Read more
Comment Commented Luis Gonzalez
I am confused by the author's use of the term 'federalism'. Isn't Federalism supposed to be the opposite of 'centralism'? Read more
Comment Commented Raphael Turra
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. Read more
Comment Commented M M
It is back to the 70's and 80's, four + decades of hard work lost in a few days. Humanity never learns. Read more
Comment Commented Steve Hurst
The chances of getting all euro users to give up sovereignty, which is what is required for fully functioning federalism, is nonexistant Read more
Comment Commented Paul Daley
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. Read more
Featured
Unburdening the Facebook Generation
Mohamed A. El-Erian urges young people to participate in politics, lest older generations steal their future.
Turkey’s Baffling Coup
Dani Rodrik expects the failed putsch to result in massive purges and further erosion of the rule of law.
What’s the Problem With Protectionism?
Barry Eichengreen says that trade tariffs could counter deflationary pressures, but are still not worth it.