|
|
If Brexit was an earthquake for the EU, it was triggered by the seismic fault line that has been a feature of relations between the United Kingdom and “Europe” from the outset. Numerous cyclical and circumstantial factors contributed to the outcome of the referendum, including rejection of the political and financial elites in London and power struggles within the Conservative Party.
But the outcome also reflects the UK’s specific historical and geographical characteristics linked in particular to its insular nature, its imperial past, a more global economic gaze and its brave stand against Nazism, which explains why older voters are not as “pro-European” as elsewhere. Nor should we too rapidly overlook the crass and unrelenting Europhobic nature of the British tabloid press, which also played a key role in the outcome of the vote. [...]
The Brexit earthquake is going to spawn aftershocks in other European countries, sparking calls for national referendums on EU membership. This predilection for plebiscites is frequently evinced by minority political forces incapable of getting into power through the normal channels of representative democracy. It’s up to them to win the next election in order to call a referendum, be it on the EU or on a whole host of other issues.
As we look across the Channel, we should take care not to confuse Euroscepticism, in other words (often contradictory) criticism of the EU and the deterioration of its image, with Europhobia, which is the will to leave the EU.
Nor should we forget that, for many of its member states, leaving the EU would also mean leaving the euro and Schengen areas, and that that dual break would have far weightier consequences than Britain’s “simple” exit, which nevertheless appears to be sufficiently destabilising for the UK.
Brexit is primarily an additional political challenge for the EU, which needs to immediately recognise the seriousness of the crisis gripping it and to act with ever greater vigour. With all the respect that we owe our British friends who have opted to go it alone, the national and European authorities now need to focus on other pressing challenges, by stressing why we are stronger together in this globalised world.
They need to lay additional emphasis on the fact that Europeans share a common will to reconcile economic efficiency with social cohesion and environmental safeguards in a pluralistic framework. And they need to reach decisions that translate this unique will for a balance not found anywhere else in the world into concrete action, in particular by supporting growth and employment – for instance through the launch of a major new investment plan expanding on the existing Juncker Plan. [...]
The European and national authorities need to respond to the identity concerns voiced by EU citizens, [...]
In short, they need to lead their peoples into a new world which is at once bursting with opportunities but also fraught with threats, and in which Europe is in a less and less central position. This presupposes speaking to the hearts and minds of Europe’s citizens, responding to their hopes and fears without downgrading them to the level of mere consumers and taxpayers. Initiatives designed to strengthen our collective security would beneficially combine operational urgency and the emotional dimension, for instance through the creation of a European counter-terrorism prosecutor’s office. [...]