By Irene Caratelli
Associate Professor of International Relations and Global Politics – The American University of Rome
The sterling will likely get even weaker in the short run, since markets have the tendency to overreact and overshoot. Brexit will strengthen the appeal of national right wing parties across Europe, which are already calling for other Referenda to be held (e. g. France). Brexit is yet another crisis for the EU, after the most recent ones: Greece, migrants, Libya, Syria, and Russia. The EU institutions are crises management offices for home-made crises. The EU could be, and should be, much more.
The EU is a supranational actor, encompassing the richest market of the world, with a potential role as a global actor, not willing to be a new model. A model of what? In theory a model of democracy, welfare, human rights, open doors to people threatened by nasty regimes, etc. The EU is walking backwards, putting into question principles that were at the roots of its foundation. The economic and political impact of Brexit on the EU could be of short term if only Politics (with capital P!) was able to put the hands on the steering-wheel again. Hence, Brexit could be the window of opportunity for the EU to become what it was supposed to be.
A crisis could bring the patient (the EU) either to a recovery, or finally to death. Unfortunately, medicine has made such progress that the patient could remain in a vegetative state for a long time. The EU has thus two main options. Option one, stand still and wait for the inevitable snowball effect of Brexit, and the other crises, to bury the Union one way or another – that is either a slow disintegration (i. e. Grexit, Frexit, Departugal, Italeave, Oustria, Czechout, and so on), or falling in a deep coma. Option two, become a political actor across the spectrum, dealing with all the transnational issues that have long been left off the table: security, environmental protection, migration, the banking system, money laundering, etc.
The window of opportunity offered by Brexit indicates that the EU should go on towards a political dimension based on three pillars: more democracy, more transparency, more participation of EU citizens. The EU should stop being an elite-driven project. People need to be socialized, brought in to and participate in the European project. EU citizens should not believe in the EU, its leaders, or its Institutions. The EU should be rebuilt as a collective project from below, putting society before the economy, and not society at the service of economic interests. Theoretically speaking this is an option, and European leaders seem to have endorsed it in the hours after the British Referendum. Don’t hold your breath though.
EU-EXIT TEMPTATIONS AND VICTORY: WHY?
The economic crisis has had a severe impact on many countries and people across the EU, generating fears and insecurity. Politics has not been able to give the proper answers at the political, social, and economic level. People’s anxiety has been increasing. It is not surprising that there has been an upsurge in nationalist parties, anti-immigration sentiments, and isolationist decisions –e. g. Brexit. Economic crisis, citizens’ fears, and weak politics incapable of dealing with national and transnational issues, are a ticking bomb. Ask people to vote and…BOOM!
The EU is not able to display a collective action, a shared responsibility, nor a strong leadership to answer the major problems it has been producing and facing in the recent years. Each country is reacting in its own selfish short term interest, hoping to save itself against its neighbor. To be sure: this is not going to happen. When the country next to you is sinking, you should not feel safe, because you might be next. When the country next to you is leaving, you might feel tempted to leave. And yet, populism, protectionism, nationalism have all been tried from time to time, and they have always failed. Brutally failed.
European citizens now fear The Other as never before since the end of World War II. The Other can be identified in infinite ways: the migrant, the refugee, the citizen from another European country moving into your own country; someone moving from South to North in the same country, or someone moving from a village in the mountains to another village on the opposite mountain. When these options are finished, there are other ways to fear people looking at differences in: color of the skin, language, religion, and tradition. The variants of otherness are unlimited.
Whose fault is it if European citizens fear The Other? The short answer is: politics. Politics has been reacting to people’s distress in three ways. First, blaming the strangers and setting off the alarm – e. g. the extreme right wing nationalists. Second, arguing that nationalism and protectionism are a good way out. In theory, this point of view is held by right wing parties; in practice, it has been supported by both conservative and left wing parties (under the pressure of Unions and/or anti-immigration parties, while neoliberal forces lobby for openness). Third, politics reacted to citizens’ fears by asking them to be moral, i. e. being welcoming and caring towards those who are in trouble, e. g. refugees (i. e. left wing parties).
Citizens will react differently to the economic and political crisis depending on two main factors: ideology and economic conditions. If you are a member of a middle-high-income class, your answer to both the economic crisis, and security threats, is likely to be driven mostly by your ideology. If you are a member of a lower-income class, you might leave your ideology aside to embrace nationalist and racist agendas to safeguard what you think are your interests. Human beings are open when they feel secure. Increasing support for nationalist, protectionist and isolationist political parties is a reaction to the conditions of people, not a natural tendency. The blame should be on politics, not on citizens. The blame should be on the economics that politics has been endorsing. The politics and the economics of the EU are a failure. The economic austerity of the EU became a threat to most of its citizens. Citizens are now reacting with anger, asking for closure, protection, walls, and the like, against The Other instead of blaming their own politicians. Citizens across the European continent are vigorously expressing their discontent, while irresponsible political leaders are either exacerbating their fears, or unable to give proper answers.
BREXIT: NOT ON EU’S LIST OF FAULTS AND WEAKNESSES
The EU has many faults and weaknesses both in the economic and political realm. The EU suffers of a long lasting democratic deficit. It is negotiating its major trade agreement with the United States (i. e. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP) in complete secrecy, hiding from its citizens and the members of the European Parliament the chapters that are still under negotiation. The TTIP has been promoted and is being negotiated following the inputs of the lobbies on the two sides of the Atlantic. The TTIP is conducted against basic democratic procedures, as there is no transparency, no accountability, and EU citizens might end up with the rules and principles of an agreement that have been decided by a tiny minority with its own vested interests. Transparency is an essential, vital, and compulsory element of any democracy. No economic interest or negotiation tactic can permit exceptions.
The list of EU mistakes and failings has not even started to be drawn. A historical political responsibility the EU will have to live with is Turkey’s dramatic change of direction after a century of westernization, initiated by Atatürk. The EU squashed any possibility of Turkey becoming a member of the Union, leaving the country to simmer for years, opening the negotiation procedures, and finally telling Ankara abruptly: ‘actually, you are not Europe, you are not Christian, and you will never become a member’. Germany and France feared that the entry of Turkey would jeopardizethe future of the EU, not considering however that the actor that was sabotaging European political integration was already a member since 1973 –the UK.
One of the few things historians will not ascribe to the EU is Brexit. The EU has actually been allowing the UK to maintain privileges and special conditions, which have never yielded the Europeanization of the Britons, but helped to keep the UK as a skeptic member, which has been disrupting EU’s political integration since day one. Now, with Brexit in place, former French President Charles De Gaulle will finally rest in peace. The EU however will have to find a way to manage this transition.
HOW WILL BREXIT OCCUR?
“See EU Later!” runs the title of The Sun and The Daily Star newspapers on June 23, 2016. In order to leave the EU, the United Kingdom should now call Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to withdraw from the Union and set the conditions of its future relations with the Union. Those campaigning for Brexit are now cautious, they suddenly seem to have no rush to formalize UK’s exit. During the campaign some Brexit leaders even suggested that exit negotiations should be completed in 2020, i.e. when the next UK general elections are scheduled. Prime Minister David Cameron declared that whoever will succeed him in office will trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Prime Minister Cameron broke the plates, but someone else will have to clean up the mess. The UK entered a one-way street, unless it decides to ignore the results of the referendum (not an option), the procedure will have to be activated sooner or later. The European Union cannot force the UK to call the exit procedure (Article 50), but the Union has no interest in taking further UK’s internal political struggles, which are feeding economic and political uncertainty across the continent. The EU will have to balance the intention to negotiate with the UK a new agreement, to smooth the transitions and lessen the damages, with the necessity to signal that it will be tough on members that exit the Union in order to avoid temptations of other countries to follow the lead.
Once the UK calls Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, a two-year procedure will be opened and the UK will negotiate with the EU its exit and the agreements that will regulate their relationship. EU Treaties and law will apply to the UK during the negotiation period, but during this time-frame the UK will not participate in EU internal discussions, or decisions, on its withdrawal. The UK will take part in EU business until the withdrawal agreement will come into force, but the UK will lose its voice in the EU at the start of its exit procedure.
As soon as the withdrawal agreement between the EU and the UK will be reached, and enters into force, the EU Treaties would cease to apply to the UK. If, after two years, no withdrawal agreement is concluded between the EU and the UK, the EU Treaties would cease to apply to the UK unless there is a unanimous agreement to extend the negotiation period.
If the EU-UK withdrawal agreement will cover policy areas that are in the exclusive competence of EU member states (e. g. certain services sectors, transport, and investment protection), the new EU-UK agreement will require additional ratification by every national parliament in the EU (since it would be a ‘mixed agreement’). The final EU-UK agreement would need to be ratified by the EU via a qualified majority vote, a majority in the European Parliament, as well as the national parliaments of the 27 EU member states.
UK’S FUTURE: A NEW SWITZERLAND?
Despite the ‘Declaration of Independence’ (Nigel Farage), which followed the victory of the Leave side, UK’s own integrity might even be at risk. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain, Wales and England opted for Brexit. Scotland might call a second Referendum to leave the UK now and ask for EU membership. A true nightmare for the UK indeed!
Assuming the UK will be able to maintain its integrity, perhaps it has an option of becoming a new sort of Switzerland. In this case, the UK would not try to produce cuckoo clocks, chocolate, and watches, but rather continue attracting foreign capital, by giving ‘special terms and conditions’ to money coming from anywhere. As far as the EU is concerned, the UK will try to keep the agreements related to goods and services, but not those related to free movement of people. And yet multinational corporation and companies around the world are now wondering whether they can and should still maintain their regional offices in the UK.
CLOSING EU’S CAPABILITY EXPECTATIONS GAP
In 1993 Christopher Hill argued that the European Community suffered the capability-expectations gap, referring to the discrepancy between what Europe was supposed to stand for and what it was actually able to deliver – the security dimension was the case illustrating the inability of the Europe to live up to the expectations. Today, the EU is even in deeper crisis and in danger compared to 1993. The EU still lacks foreign and security policies, and the Union has been destroying its own internal structure with an economic ideology (i. e. austerity dogma) that is demolishing the texture of its member countries. Politics should go back to indicate the objectives of economics, and politics should be based on democracy, transparency, accountability, and citizens’ participation (no technocrats, no lobbies, no vested interests). Economics should serve the society, this might seem obvious, but clearly it is not.
According to a legend, science cannot explain how the bumble-bee flies, since it is argued that either its body is too heavy in respect to its wings, or that its wings do not have the capacity in term of size and beat per second to carry its weight in the air. However, the bumble-bee does fly when it flaps its wings. There is a window of opportunity for the EU to fly after Brexit, but radical changes are needed.