Growing up
in the Netherlands, my history teachers made very sure that I understood the
meaning and the history of the expression “La Perfide Albion”. Albion, of
course, being the archaic name for Great Britain. After all, the Dutch had
fought three wars against the British, all in the seventeenth century when the
Netherlands was a power at par with England and even felt compelled to sail its
Dutch fleet up the river Thames to scare the daylight out of Londoners and
teach the British a lesson. And we were not alone in our mistrust in the
British. The French coined the phrase “La Perfide Albion” after the French
revolution when England turned its back on the French Republic and aligned
itself with the other great European powers who all had preserved their
monarchies.
Seen in this
context, there seems to be nothing new in England’s decision to turn its back
on the European Union. You can never rely on the Brits to be predictable. Days
after the fateful vote in the BREXIT referendum most observers and even most
actors in the event are still in disbelief with the outcome. Europe went to
sleep on June 24 thinking that the British voters, when it came to brass tacks,
would not have the audacity to leave the EU. After all, virtually all the
pundits, the markets and even the bookies had told them so. That explains the
depth of the shock experienced when people and markets were waking up the next
morning to the reality that more Brits had chosen to leave the EU than to remain,
be it only by a small margin. To bet against the prevailing wisdom must have
paid off handsomely!
But here we
are, the British voters have spoken and now the real question is “what’s next”.
Judging by the developments of the last few days, that question will not be
easily nor quickly answered. Both in Brussels and in London officials are
struggling to make sense out of the chaos created by the referendum. One thing
has become abundantly clear: Much like after the Pyrrhus victory of the USA
over Sadam Hussein’s Iraq, the Pyrrhus victory of “Leave” over “Remain” exposes
the ugly reality that the politicians who were actively promoting BREXIT have
failed to have even a rudimentary plan in place for how to proceed now that
they have won. They may have won the battle, but can they win the war?
David
Cameron made a crucial mistake when he decided to appease the anti-EU faction
in his party by offering to put the BREXIT question to a referendum. As much as
he believed (and was told) that he could not possibly lose that vote and had,
therefore, offered an empty pacifier in an attempt to once and for all end the
Conservative party rift on the issue of the EU, he failed to unequivocally
stand up and make the argument that leaving the EU would be like turning the
clock back forty-three years. It looked like preserving party unity was more
important to him than preserving EU strength in solidarity. The other mistake
he made is that he allowed the referendum to be decided by a simple majority. If
he felt that a referendum was the appropriate tool by which to resolve the
dispute, he should have required a qualified majority for an exit decision. The
decision to break up 43 years of European integration is so momentous and consequential
that it should not have been decided against the will of a large minority,
which included almost all business and opinion leaders in the UK.
It seems
though that, in the end, Cameron’s principal opponent, Boris Johnson, who
ostensibly came out as the winner in this contest, may have made even bigger
mistakes and managed to put himself in a no win situation. He has little choice
but to run for the leadership of his party now that David Cameron is resigning.
If he fails to get the party behind him, he is finished. But if he does, he
will have to follow through on the promises he made in the BREXIT campaign,
when it is already clear that delivering on these promises is unwise,
impractical and virtually undoable. If he fails to give his supporters what
they voted for he will also be jettisoned. Finally, if he becomes the
Conservative leader and British prime minister and he pulls the UK out of the
EU, the UK itself will break up, the EU will play hardball and the British economy
and people will be suffering the consequences. There seems to be no way to win
for Boris. (He apparently realizes his conundrum and announces just now that he
does not want to stand for the leadership of the Conservative party.) Labour
Party leader Jeremy Corbyn is in no better position. He failed his party and
his people and yet resists stepping down after convincingly losing a
no-confidence vote.
There is a
real question mark if the politicians who drove the “Leave” vote have the
quality, the capacity, to now do the hard work of negotiating the exit
conditions with the EU and the bilateral trade agreements they will need, now
that they will be excluded from the EU trade umbrella.
The fundamental
and serious problem with all of this stumbling is that when politicians fail,
the people are paying the price.
I grew up in
an era of admiration for the Brits who, at their own peril, stood up against
the Nazis and fought a long hard and bitter war against the Axis. Without the
Brits (Churchill’s leadership), America would have stayed out of the war in
Europe and the Allies would have lost. European unity would have been imposed
and enforced by Nazi Germany in a much different way from how the European
Union was put together. On the other hand, the perfidiousness of Albion showed
up immediately after the war when Churchill, who had engineered the victory, was
unceremoniously dismissed by the British voters.
Britain,
after the war, has been a faithful and reliable partner for the US in the Cold
War and a dependable force in building global institutions, like the UN, NATO, the
IMF and the World Bank, that could take the sharp edge off nationalist
tendencies that had disturbed the peace for centuries. And it still is. With
the continuing globalization, the threat of radical Islam, the resulting
refugee problem and the emergence of China as a formidable undemocratic world
power, the western alliance, of which the USA, Great Britain and the EU are the
linchpins, should be strengthened rather than weakened.And the rift,
caused by the British BREXIT vote, can only be detrimental to the strength of
that alliance. It should, and easily could, have been avoided.
There is
plenty of room for constructive criticism of what the EU has morphed into. It
is a valid question if it has been too ambitious in growing its membership, in
taking away more authority from the member states than it had to in order to be
effective. And the growth of its faceless bureaucracy and stifling regulation is
cause for legitimate concern as is the cost of supporting this super national
apparatus. But all of these issues could have been addressed inside the union.
If there is any good to come out of BREXIT it is that it will compel the
leadership of the EU and the member nations to seriously address the merit of
significant and structural changes to the system of European super national
governance. That discussion should have been had, with British participation, a
long time ago.
BREXIT is a
case study in miscalculation, political arrogance and unintended consequences. It
was brought about by the Brits, voting to give up on the European Union. Which
will give the history teachers of my grandchildren good reason to teach them
about the Perfide Albion.
