For a passionate Anglophile, the prospect of the UK leaving the EU is a disaster. A disaster for Europe, but also for Britain itself. In a world in which ther European continent is being slowly marginalized, a union without Britain would be paralyzed down one side. This certainly holds for the Americans, because even though the “special relationship” may no longer exist, London is not a European capital like any other.
It also holds for a vast swath of the world from the Gulf to New Delhi, for which European influence is historically identical to British presence. It also holds for China, who is counting “economic divisions” the way fomer Russian dictator Josef Stalin counted military ones, and for whom an EU amputated like this would be seriously weakened.
However, it is not just about Britain’s global strategic presence. The EU needs the UK as a tireless advocate of the free market and of competition with member states — France first and foremost — that have less of a market culture, while remaining subject to protectionist and mercantilist temptations. Last, in a world where the values of freedom and democracy are the order of the day, for Europe even more than for the US, the absence of “the land of habeas corpus” would be an unfortunate symbol.
However, even without the UK, Europe will keep on going. Without Europe, on the other hand, the UK will be in a dead end. Since joining the EU, Britain has pursued a very skilful policy toward Brussels: It has benefited from the single market, reduced its budgetary contribution without having convincingly explained why and perfected the art of “opt-outs.” In terms of European policy, these are the equivalent of “warrants” on the financial markets — the chance of profiting from an opportunity without paying the full price. Why would the leaders of Britain, so famed for its tradition of common sense and empiricism, abandon a strategy that suits them so well in favor of a more ideology-based approach? How can they imagine that a UK liberal and open to globalization would be to Europe what Hong Kong is to China?
Continental Europeans are not altar boys. Can anyone really imagine they are going to let the most profitable activities stay solely within London, and allow the City (financial sector) to remain the financial capital of the euro without Britain sharing the rights and duties of the EU?
Today, ambiguity is the mainstay of the City: the continentals might well put up with the capital of the euro being outside the eurozone, but still in the EU. They will not — politically, economically or financially — accept it being outside the EU. There is no point trying to imagine the UK being treated like Norway or Switzerland, keeping all the advantages of the single market. You grant advantages to countries you hope will one day join the gang, not to a country that has just slammed the door in your face.
Let the British be under no illusions. It is not the French who will be most aggressive about this, but the Germans. The French will still be attached to the idea of maintaining a little counterbalance with regard to Berlin; the Germans will continue on their well-trodden path of reason and power, albeit somewhat tempered. Without the UK — a traditional brake on strengthening EU institutions — the onward march will resume more easily, and the eurozone, soon to be widened to include Poland, will integrate more quickly and become the de facto Europe, excluding two or three member states.
With a “continental blockade” across the English Channel, commercial agreements between London and Brussels will not be easy to negotiate — which way will the UK look? Toward the US? However, US President Barack Obama sees the Europeans, the British included, the way we Europeans see the Swiss: slightly weary rich friends who do not create any problems for you, but do not bring you any solutions either. What is the point of a UK back in splendid isolation when its preoccupations were Chinese, Asian and Pakistani? What weight will an isolated country of 65 million people carry in the eyes of the Chinese, or even the Indians?
The wager of the British Euroskeptics is based on a double premise: taking advantage of the single market and the euro while remaining outside it; and being a “hub” of a globalized economic space. The first premise assumes the continentals being conciliatory, when they will be acrimonious.
The second confuses London and the UK. Even if London maintains the extraordinary status it has invented for itself, which makes it the capital of the non-US world, it is not enough to ensure a good standard of living in the Midlands (central England), Wales or Scotland.
What can we call a fatal error in history? An irreversible decision based on a mistaken diagnosis with incalculable consequences. Which this would be.
Alain Minc was an adviser to Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US