“We cannot let [Britain] profit from Brexit, as that would be lethal for the EU.” So says Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, a largely ceremonial position designed to be a guiding figurehead over the other European Union institutions and the other six presidents therein. Tusk was not alone in his thinking. In fact, this quote was rather tame. The reaction from Brussels has been far more vitriolic than Tusk’s more measured comments this week.
From the perspective of EU leaders, there is a legitimate concern that a tragedy of the commons scenario might arise post Brexit, where everyone wants to access a free and open Europe, but no one wants to pay for it.
Unlike others, I acknowledge that the EU does do some good, particularly for new members from former-communist countries. But the tone of many European presidents has been far from presidential; it’s been more like an angry ex-spouse who is more concerned with inflicting pain than actually resolving the issues.
If money were the only concern, EU leaders could have proposed a system where Britain got the “emergency brake” on EU migration for an extra billion euros. David Cameron would have done cartwheels for that deal, and it would have likely swung the referendum the other way. But EU officials thought Britain would roll over and take that travesty of a deal. They were wrong.
And in the wake of Brexit, the reaction has been to blame and punish Britain rather than reflect on what reforms the EU might need to institute to stay relevant to the people they govern.
The USSR failed because it was incapable of changing with the times. It forced an undemocratic, bureaucratic inefficient economic system onto people who didn’t want it or vote for it. While the EU is a benign and peaceful institution, parallels are starting to emerge.
When you know what you’re offering isn’t working, you have to bully and threaten people to accept your bad product. When your product is beneficial and producing great results, then one person choosing to depart is not a “lethal” matter.
Sadly, so many Europeans have blindly accepted the notion that EU equals peace and prosperity that to question any practice — no matter how undemocratic — becomes heresy. Should perhaps three of the EU’s seven presidents be elected by Europeans? (At present only one is elected.)
Should the rule-making bodies of the EU move away from political integration and focus on policies that deliver jobs? Should leaders radically re-think the single currency? In refusing to reform, or even engage in the appearance of reflection, these EU leaders are only hastening the demise of the institutions they claim to love so much.
By failing to reflect on their responsibility in Brexit, they expose themselves to criticisms of being “out of touch” and “hypocritical.” And when mainstream politicians don’t push for major EU reform, they cede a vital debate to fringe candidates who propose annihilating the EU institutions all together. The “fault” of Brexit, assuming you believe that the EU is good and should continue to move forward with economic and political integration, is not with the British people, but with the Brussels elite, who refused to give Cameron a real victory before the vote and have so far refused to reform afterwards.
How exactly does a good deal for Britain hurt the EU? It clearly wasn’t a lack of money, because you could have gotten more of it if that was your ultimate goal. Or was it a democratic check on the direction Brussels was moving?
Addressing the democratic deficit might increase the popularity of European integration. If they want to improve the popularity of the EU, Brussels should stop worrying about new regulations, and start giving the people of Europe a say in what direction they choose. People in different countries could campaign internationally across common political platforms. If EU Presidents Junker and Tusk occasionally showed up to campaign at a British pub in North England, it would be a lot harder for people like Nigel Farage to paint the EU as the devil incarnate.
I am not denying that an undercurrent of prejudice and hostility erupted here in England. I was shocked and appalled. But EU leaders (and the American beltway media) used these acts of racism as justification for the EU status quo. The acts of racism let EU leaders off the hook. As an African-American Democrat who moved to Britain, it’s harder to brand me a racist, although a white American did have the gall to call me racist for articulating non-racial reasons to leave the EU.
The suggestion made me apoplectic. But I’m merely calling out a system that isn’t delivering for its people. How can I applaud civil rights icon John Lewis for campaigning to ensure that all Americans get the right to vote and then quietly turn a blind eye to so many glaring issues with an undemocratic EU? Democracy on both sides of the Atlantic are consistent views in my book.
And yet there has been no dialog on either side of the Atlantic about how to radically reform Europe. And so the EU answer to every crisis remains unchanged: More power to Brussels, which means tighter regulations on business, and the public feel increasingly bullied by a distant elite. But in the wake of Brexit, the status quo in Brussels can’t be left unchallenged.
Stuart Young is a Harvard lawyer and public relations consultant, living in London, England. He has worked in Parliament and for the BBC. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
