From a no-deal Brexit to a no-Brexit deal

MUNICH - With the recent signing of the Treaty of Aachen, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have renewed the Franco-German friendship pact and taken an important and necessary step forward for Europe. But the United Kingdom should not have been left out.

FEB 5, 2019 

BY HANS-WERNER SINN

The U.K. is an integral part of Europe; as the European Union’s second-largest economy, its GDP equals that of the 19 smallest EU member states combined. Its exodus thus would shake Europe to its core and destroy the European postwar order.

Moreover, it is worth remembering that in 1963, the Bundestag prefaced the Elysee Treaty with a preamble stipulating that Germany hoped to bring Britain into the European Economic Community; in 1973, that is what happened. A similar overture to Britain would be no less appropriate today.

As it happens, the leaders of Germany’s three largest political parties, as well as business leaders and members of the public, recently published an open letter inviting the British people to stay in the EU. Given this, it is not inconceivable that the Bundestag could adopt a resolution along the same lines.

Now that British Prime Minister Theresa May’s negotiated exit treaty has been soundly defeated in the House of Commons, all options are on the table. The looming tragedy of Brexit could still be averted at the last minute.

Lest we forget, a British withdrawal would endanger the EU’s fundamental position of openness to the world, particularly with respect to trade, from which everyone, not least Germany, has profited. It would also introduce a new security risk, as Europe would lose the unconditional protection of one of its two nuclear powers just when U.S. President Donald Trump is undermining the cohesion of NATO.

For its part, the U.K. would lose either its national integrity or the framework for ensuring peace in Northern Ireland. There is no way around it: Brexit requires that Northern Ireland adopt a new border, either with the Republic of Ireland or with Great Britain. A border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would likely propel the Irish Republican Army back into action, threatening renewed civil conflict. But a border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain would augur the breakup of the U.K., especially if Scotland renewed its own push for independence.

May’s exit treaty represents a second option, because it includes a “backstop” in the event that negotiations over the future EU-U.K. relationship fail.

Pending a resolution, Northern Ireland would remain closely attached to the EU, and Great Britain would retain only its membership in the EU customs union. But this would mean that goods traveling from Northern Ireland to Great Britain — that is, within the national territory of the U.K. — would be subject to new checks. It is little wonder that a majority of British MPs rejected a deal that would allow for such an outcome.

Meanwhile, many EU politicians have been trying to figure out what it would take to convince Parliament to ratify May’s exit treaty after all. I find this annoying. Why focus on casting Britain out of the EU when you could be coming up with an offer to keep it in? Obviously, the latter scenario would be much better for Europe itself.

For example, the EU could offer a deal that picks up where it left off with former British Prime Minister David Cameron, before he called the Brexit referendum. Cameron’s main demand back in 2015-2016 was to reduce the appeal of intra-EU migration to the better-developed European welfare states. He had a point. If people come to a country to earn higher wages, the pie available for distribution gets bigger; but if they come for the social benefits, the pie gets smaller.

Given this, why not have a system in which host countries and countries of origin share the costs of social benefits for migrants? Host countries could assume the responsibility for administering benefits such as unemployment insurance, sick pay, and pensions. And countries of origin could continue to provide benefits not related to the employment relationship, such as allowances for children staying at home and services for migrants who are too old or sick to work when they arrive.

Such a change would create a win-win situation for the EU, because it would reduce the destructive appeal of welfare magnetism and give the British grounds to reconsider their exit decision with their heads held high.

Which is more important: insisting on the principle that host-countries pay for the provision of all social benefits, or maintaining the U.K.’s membership of the EU? For anyone who is genuinely committed to the European project, the answer should be obvious.

Hans-Werner Sinn, a professor of economics at the University of Munich, was president of the Ifo Institute for Economic Research and serves on the German economy ministry’s Advisory Council. © Project Syndicate, 2019 www.project-syndicate.org

Comments

GBR48 • 3 days ago

The author's idea is a good one, but it is a bit late, and like most continental European perspectives, fails to understand that the motivation for many Brexit supporters was not an economic one, but an emotional, xenophobic and racist one. The Little Englanders won, and will now make England (and the rest of the UK) a good deal littler in terms of its economy, its stature and the opportunities on offer to its citizens.

-all options are on the table.

All except one, unfortunately.

Brexit was not a party policy, it was a referendum. That means that it has to happen, regardless of the cost, and the collateral damage, or democracy is undermined. That is why sensible governments rarely hold referendums on such issues. And when they do, they demand that more than 50% of all those who are elligible to vote, must vote for change, rather than 50% of those who do vote.

Personally, I think we should build a corner on the fourth plinth of Trafalgar Square and make David Cameron stand in it, for at least an hour every day, for the rest of his life.

Post-Brexit Britain will be an example to the planet of the consequences of inadequate leadership and, with regard to the EU, the importance of reminding your citizens of the benefits of being part of any supra-national entity. Something the EU never really bothered to do, allowing themselves to become the go-to fall guy for political problems within the UK, for decades.

The EU does not seem to understand that persistent, creeping Federalisation will be counter-productive to the future coherence of the EU project, and will merely alienate an increasing number of people in member states. If their entire nation were to vote one way, and be out-voted by other nations, they would feel like a vassal state, and stripped of their voice and right of self-determination. That matters to people, and not just to nationalists. That is why the EU needs to accept a cap on the extent of Federalisation, and needs to evangelise the limits of Brussels' reach, embracing European diversity. If it does not, one of two things will happen: more nations will break away, or multiple nationalist regimes will take control of it, democratically, and turn the EU into a Fourth Reich - a toxic entity that will victimise people across Europe.

Ironically, should nationalists sweep to power as soon as the coming EU elections, those of us who voted 'remain' might consider the UK to be well out of it, and Brexit supporters will be heartbroken.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2019/02/05/commentary/world-commentary/no-deal-brexit-no-brexit-deal