The EU after Brexit – A Vision for Success

Much has been written about the effects of Brexit on the UK, but there has been little thought given to the future of the EU itself.

The problems of the EU are well known. What Europe needs is a Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, Napoleon or a Bismark (or all of them). Angela Merkel showed hints of European leadership, until her disastrous error in allowing unlimited numbers of “refugees” into Germany. Even though there is the lack of leadership, clear common goals and periodic crises, the EU muddles through, in spite of the British press gleefully predicting the imminent break-up of the EU and the collapse of the Euro

If we look at the EU today, it can be split into three main groups:

• North – Germany, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria, Ireland, Sweden, Finland
• South – Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus, Malta
• East – Poland, Chechia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovenia

Politically, each country is dominated by a centre-left/left and a centre right/right party, all of which can be classed as “liberal”. In recent years there has been a rise in “populist/nationalist” parties. These have achieved power in several countries, particularly in the eastern states, Hungary and Poland being the most notable. Italy seems to have followed suit and Greece now has a right wing government which rejects further austerity. Brexit can also be seen as a rise in populism in Britain. The political contest seems to be moving to liberal vs populist. The BBC summarised the populist/nationalist performance in recent elections in 2018 (see map)

The main impetus for the rise of the populist parties is immigration, especially Muslim immigration. Concerns about failure to integrate, cultural practices based on extreme misogyny and lack of respect for western values (particularly with respect to women) have led to this rise.

Britain’s confusion between EU immigration and Muslim immigration is probably the major factor behind Brexit, though it is now being portrayed as a call for national sovereignty.

For the “liberals”, only multiculturalism is morally acceptable, with any other view instantly labelled “racist”.

On the other hand, the populists want to maintain their national/cultural identity and they fear alien cultural practices and attitudes; there is also no doubt that there is an element of racism in some of their supporters. It must be remembered that many of the East European countries had to fight to maintain their nation and their cultures.

Poland in particular was partitioned between Russia, Prussia and Austria for 150 years, with uprisings in 1794, 1830 and 1864, all of which were put down brutally. When Poland regained its independence in 1919 after the treaty of Versailles it had to fight the Bolsheviks from 1919 to 1921. The second world war started with the invasion of Poland by the Germans from the west and the Soviets from the East. After 6 years of Nazi occupation, Poland ended up in the Soviet sphere of influence (after the Treaties of Yalta and Tehran – known in Poland as the “great betrayal”).  Resulting in the “Soviet occupation” until the fall of the Soviet Union. With this history, it is no wonder that Poland is not keen on multi-culturalism.

So what are the possible ways forward?

First, the immigrant/asylum problem must be solved. At present, each country has its own approach. Surprisingly, liberal Denmark has the strictest asylum laws among the “northern” countries. If a unified strategy can be agreed upon, with strict guidelines and an efficient/effective deportation system the problem should be brought under control. Perhaps the Saudis and Iranians can be persuaded to take in Sunni and Shia refugees respectively?  Strictly limited numbers of secular refugees can be admitted, with instant deportation on any wrong-doing.

The EU can then progress.

The French and the Germans seem to be keen on “ever closer union” and this is why they are probably very happy to see the UK out of the EU, since the UK was always standing against this concept, wanting the EU to be no more than a trading block. However, they see the EU becoming a Franco-German empire, with the other countries toeing their line.. The French in particular have been dismissive of the smaller countries. This, of course is not going to work. For “ever closer union” all of the states must feel included.

Several items can bring “ever closer union” about:

• Making the EU more democratic and less bureaucratic.
• Expanding the euro zone to include all EU countries
• Common Euro budget
• Pooling of some national debt (to help the Southern’s economies to grow)
• Harmonisation of national tax rates (i.e. removing tax competition to lure business)

None of these will be universally popular, but if enacted, would make the EU a more unified entity.

On the international front, developments outside Europe may force some changes as well:

• Russia’s military adventurism
• China increasingly throwing its weight around, both militarily and economically
• US withdrawing from the world scene under Trump

These items suggest that Europe will have to look after its own defence to a greater degree. This means increased spending. It may also involve the creation of a European army. Germany in particular has a problem getting enough recruits for its (already weak) military. A European army, made up largely of Eastern European personnel, but paid for by the Northern group (especially Germany) may be a cost effective way to increase European security.

The planned departures of Juncker, Tusk and Merkel (which may be hastened by her observed physical problems) may mark a turning point for the EU.

If the EU succeeds in solving some of its problems to all members satisfaction, then it can truly emerge as the second Western superpower, becoming a useful counterbalance to the US and a bulwark against Russian aggression and Chinese expansion.