Britain joined what became the EU in 1973. This year, on June 23, it is to hold a referendum on whether to leave. Should it?
Polls show a closely divided electorate. British Prime Minister David Cameron said that the concessions he has won from Britain’s EU partners should lay to rest popular concerns about a loss of sovereignty to Brussels and an influx of foreign workers from eastern Europe, but Cameron’s Conservative Party and his own Cabinet are deeply divided, while London’s populist mayor, Boris Johnson, has joined the supporters of British exit.
The question of the costs and benefits of British membership in the EU divides the British media as well. Many mass-circulation publications support “Brexit,” whereas the financial media supports continued membership. The Economist, for example, points out that about 45 percent of British exports go to other EU countries and that the atmosphere for negotiating a post-Brexit trade deal would likely be frosty.
Illustration: Tania Chou
Moreover, the EU has made clear to non-members such as Norway and Switzerland that they can have full access to the single market only if they accept most of its rules, including the free movement of people, and contribute to the EU budget. In other words, a Britain outside the EU would gain little in terms of “sovereignty”; on the contrary, it would lose its vote and influence over the terms of its participation in the single market. Meanwhile, rival financial centers such as Paris and Frankfurt would seize the chance to establish rules that would help them win back business from London.
Another complication is political: the rise of nationalism in Scotland and the effect of Brexit on the survival of the UK. In 2014, Scotland voted in its own referendum to remain in the UK; but the nationalists won almost all of Scotland’s seats in the general election eight months later. With Scottish opinion much more pro-European than in England, many believe that Brexit would lead to another referendum on independence. Cameron could be remembered as the prime minister who helped break up the UK (and possibly Europe).
In the US, US President Barack Obama’s administration has stated clearly its belief that Britain and Europe are both stronger together. Illusions of a special relationship with the US replacing the influence of Europe are mistaken, but British would weigh whether to support Brexit and a US hand on the scale could be counter-productive.
At the same time, in the words of former British Labour shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander, “since the end of World War II, America has been the system operator of international order built on a strong, stable transatlantic alliance supported by the twin pillars of NATO and the EU. If Britain leaves the EU, America’s closest ally would be marginalized… Brexit would leave the whole European project at risk of unraveling at precisely the time new economic and security threats confront the West.”
It is no wonder that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin would welcome Brexit and meddles in European countries’ domestic politics to try to weaken the EU.
The geopolitical consequences of Brexit might not appear immediately. The EU might even temporarily pull together, but there would be damage to Europe’s sense of mission and its soft power of attraction. Ensuring financial stability and managing immigration would be much more difficult as well.
In addition to a revival of Scottish separatism, Britain’s inward turn in recent years could accelerate. And over the longer run, the effects on the global balance of power and the liberal international order — in which Britain has a strong national interest — would be negative.
When it acts as an entity, Europe is the largest economy in the world and its population of about 500 million is considerably larger than the US’ 325 million. It has the world’s largest market, represents 17 percent of world trade and dispenses half of the world’s foreign assistance. It also has 27 universities ranked in the top 100 worldwide and its creative industries contribute about 7 percent to its GDP. US per capita income is higher, but in terms of human capital, technology and exports, Europe is very much an economic peer.
In terms of military expenditure, Europe is second only to the US, accounting for 15 percent of the world total, compared with 12 percent for China and 5 percent for Russia. Of course, that number is somewhat misleading, given Europe’s lack of military integration. France and Britain are the two major sources of European expeditionary power.
European and US resources are mutually reinforcing. Direct investment in both directions is higher than with Asia and US-European trade is more balanced than US trade with Asia. At the cultural level, Americans and Europeans share the values of democracy and human rights more with each other than with any other world regions.
Faced with a rising China, a declining but risk-inclined Russia and the prospect of prolonged turmoil in the Middle East, close transatlantic cooperation would be crucial to maintaining a liberal international order over the long term. Recognizing that Brexit, by weakening both Europe and Britain, would make a disorderly international system more likely, should tip the balance in favor of maintaining the “status quo.”
Joseph Nye Jr, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, is a professor at Harvard University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with