In the 1970s
British novel, Watership Down, a band
of rabbits led by one Hazel escaped destruction and went on looking for a new place
to live. In the course of their odyssey,
they come across a warren of well fed but depressive rabbits; these resplendent
animals feed on mouth-watering lettuce planted by the local farmer, except that
this farmer also sets up snare wires in his field to catch them, one by one.
Unable to resist the lettuce yet afraid of the wires, the epicurean
leporids try to convince Hazel’s band to stay in order to lower their own chances
of strangulation. Showing both fortitude
and wisdom, Hazel and his friends move on.
Moving on to Europe in 2016.
Last week, the human inhabitants of Britain voted to exit the European
warren in search of a better life.
Unlike the rabbits, the British people don’t enjoy the support of
a seer and his conviction that they will succeed. But like the rabbits, I think that they made
the right choice. Europeans should take
this opportunity to change course as well.
Originally set up as a customs union, the EEC included six
founding members. With the passing of
General de Gaulle, the key opponent to federalism disappeared and the European institutions
went on increasing their areas of competence.
By 1973 Denmark, Ireland and the UK had joined in.
The 1980s set the seeds for real dissent by further enlarging
membership (Greece, Spain, Portugal) and further increasing the powers of the
European Parliament[1].
The 1990s brought the Treaty of Maastricht with expansion into foreign
policy, criminal justice, the military, and of course financial matters with
the creation of the euro. The euro was a
rushed job[2] and
a highly political compromise: Germany was wary of the euro but eager to absorb
East Germany; France was wary of German expansion but eager to adopt the euro. And three new countries joined the European
Union. The Treaty of Amsterdam further
built Brussels bureaucracy, to the point of making many of the new regulations
unworkable.
The 2000s brought in twelve more members, such as the Baltics, Bulgaria,
Cyprus and Malta but also created more conflicts between national and EU areas
of competence. The seemingly unchecked
reach of Brussels in a 27 country union with GDP per capita ranging from
$50,900 to $7,700[3]
encountered growing resistance among the core countries.
In retrospect, it is amazing that such a transformative integration
process as the EU was conceived and implemented with almost no popular consultation or
approval. Indeed, after the Dutch and French
popular rejections of 2005, the EU Constitution was recast under the 2007 Treaty
of Lisbon so as to avoid future popular referendums![4]
Suffering from a legitimacy deficit, the EU was at risk if its
members faced serious difficulties, and this is what has happened with: 1) poor
macro-economics in the aftermath of the 2008 global crisis, 2) recurring acts
of Islamic terrorism, and 3) uncontrolled immigration from the Middle East. Worse, being part of the Union didn’t seem to
help.
I for one am fairly optimistic for the UK:
-The British Isles haven’t drifted towards the freezing Artic,
- The commercial, industrial, financial and touristic ties built with
the EU countries over the last three decades are not going to disappear any
time soon as they are mutually beneficial,
- The UK and London have always been open to the world; this
culture, the skills and the soft infrastructure developed over the centuries
will endure and should facilitate an international revival free from the
cumbersome shackles of Brussels.
For the remaining 27 EU members, Breixit is also an opportunity to
reform the Union. Indeed, former
President Giscard d’Estaing, of no-referendum fame, declared yesterday that the EU
needed more democracy, less bureaucracy and more differentiation between big
and small countries.
The EU is often made fun for silly rules such as the curvature of
bananas, and why not? But more serious
rules stand in the way, such as those preventing Italy today from recapitalizing
its ailing banks.
Prestige aside, the euro zone has disappointed. Instead of bringing about stronger finances,
it has incentivized its members to take advantage of lower interest rates to load
up on debts. Rich countries like Germany
are now indirectly supporting the weak fiscal policies of others while the
weakest ones, unable to devalue, must squeeze their workers to the point of endangering
social stability.
Returning power to the states, limiting bureaucratic creep by
cutting down the number of commissions and agencies, mandating sunset provisions
in new regulations, tying national voting power to population and GDP size should
count among the steps towards establishing a better union of so many members.
The UK has been the catalyst for change. It is messy, jarring, worrying, yet necessary
for survival. Following in the steps of
Hazel, Fiver and Bigwig, Britain is on the move again, and who knows, it may decide
to join a reformed European Union?
[1] Starting to cause the first serious frictions
with a number of member countries, Ireland having to amend its Constitution to
accommodate this power increase.
[2] Common currency without fiscal integration or
even harmonization as the so-called convergence criteria were soon disregarded
by the major countries.
[3] Austria and Bulgaria. Luxembourg is excluded.
[4] Former President Giscard d’Estaing candidly
confessed to that in an op-ed in Le Monde
on 10/29/07.
No comments:
Post a Comment