{"id":27465,"date":"2016-07-04T12:30:53","date_gmt":"2016-07-04T02:30:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=27465"},"modified":"2016-07-01T11:17:08","modified_gmt":"2016-07-01T01:17:08","slug":"reawakening-europe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/reawakening-europe\/","title":{"rendered":"Reawakening Europe"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
The decision by the United Kingdom\u2019s voters to \u2018Brexit\u2019 the European Union is not an example of the British black humor that I love. It\u2019s not \u2018Monty Python\u2019s Flying Circus,\u2019 \u2018Yes, Prime Minister,\u2019 or \u2018Fawlty Towers\u2019; it\u2019s just Boris, Michael, and Nigel and their disastrous political reality show.<\/span><\/p>\n Given the UK\u2019s economic, political, and military significance, Brexit will leave a gaping hole in the EU. But it will not destroy Europe. At the moment, the same cannot be said of the UK. Will the country remain united, or will the Scots leave, with Northern Ireland seeking unification with the Republic of Ireland? Has Brexit paved the way for the decline of one of the EU\u2019s most dynamic economies and the end of London\u2019s reign as a global financial center?<\/span><\/p>\n The UK\u2019s withdrawal from the EU is a hitherto unprecedented move and will no doubt throw up many unpleasant surprises. Until now, with the exception of Greenland, the EU has experienced only enlargements, which is why no one really knows how Brexit will take place, how long it will take (Greenland\u2019s exit took three years), and what implications it will have for the UK and the EU.<\/span><\/p>\n In any case, one thing is certain: the British decision\u2014even if implemented in the fastest conceivable way\u2014has initiated a long period of political and economic uncertainty and European preoccupation with its own affairs, even as the world around it changes dramatically. If only rational reasoning was the basis of decision-making, the remaining 27 member states would, in line with their interests,<\/span> move to strengthen the EU<\/span><\/a> by taking immediate steps toward stabilization and enhanced integration. But there seems little hope of that.<\/span><\/p>\n Differences over strategy and tactics between the key members of the currency union, especially Germany and France, and between the eurozone\u2019s northern and southern members, simply run too deep. Everyone is aware of what needs to be done: find a new compromise within the currency union between the stubborn German-led focus on austerity and the Mediterranean countries\u2019 need for increased spending to restore growth and boost competitiveness. But Europe\u2019s political leaders seem to lack the courage to pursue this.<\/span><\/p>\n As a result, no sign of strengthening or of a new start for the EU can be expected. On the contrary, despite many loud assertions after the initial Brexit shock that things must change, there are many indications that business as usual will prevail.<\/span><\/p>\n But the underlying causes for the rejection of Europe run much deeper than current conflicts. Resurgent nationalism has revived the myth of a bygone golden age of ethnically and politically homogenous national states free of external constraints and not exposed to the negative consequences of globalization.<\/span><\/p>\n I write this a few days before the centenary of the carnage at the Somme on July 1, 1916. Apparently, the myth-busting power of two terrible world wars, once sufficient to forge a common Europe and establish the EU, is no longer enough to sustain the post-1945 European integration project. The words spoken by former French President Fran\u00e7ois Mitterand in his last speech before the European Parliament\u2014\u2018Le nationalisme c\u2019est la guerre!\u2019\u2014seem to have sunk into oblivion.<\/span><\/p>\n