Marele Brexit, o capodopera a teatrului politic

Marele Brexit- o capodopera a teatrului politic – 22 mai 2016

 

Dinica Roman

The great Brexit kabuki — a masterclass in political theatre
Lead actors on both sides are expert in the arts of mask and illusion, 
Andrew Moravcsik

The Brexit debate has become a global spectator sport, which suggests that something very important must be at stake. Yet, unlike issues such as migration, the euro crisis and Ukraine, it lacks real significance: under no circumstances will Britain leave Europe, regardless of the result of the referendum on June 23.

It is instead a long kabuki drama in which politicians, not least Eurosceptics, advocate policies they would never actually implement. Kabuki — the ancient Japanese theatre art in which actors employ masks, make-up and illusions — is a common Washington metaphor for stylised but meaningless posturing. This year's presidential primaries demonstrate how our politicians have refined this art. Now we are watching the British do us one better.

The illusory nature of Brexit was evident at the start. Politicians do not call EU referendums because they are genuinely dissatisfied with Europe. They do so to extricate themselves from domestic political jams. So in 2013 David Cameron, a moderate pro-European, introduced a referendum as the most expedient domestic political gambit to silence pesky Eurosceptics in his own party.

Yet to justify extended national deliberations over Europe, the UK prime minister needed to stage a negotiation in which he appeared to wring concessions out of other European governments. This proved a challenge. In past decades the EU has moved so far in Britain's direction that there are few principled issues where London suffers outside the European consensus.

Mr Cameron termed the final deal "fundamental, far-reaching change" resulting in a "special status" for Britain. But aside from two modest items — a reduction in non-resident child benefits, which Germany also favoured, and a temporary cut in tax credits — the items he negotiated were symbolic.

This faux negotiation ushered in the referendum. The Remain camp seems likely to prevail since the opposition, business, foreign investors and most educated commentators all back the government. In referendums, more­over, undecided voters tend to favour the status quo — a tendency reinforced by uncertainty about exactly what Britain would do after Brexit. Still, critics are correct that Mr Cameron is playing with fire. Referendums are unpredictable, especially when issues such as migration and terrorism are in the mix.

This uncertainty would be more troubling if the referendum really mattered. Yet Britain looks unlikely to exit Europe even if its citizens voted to do so. Instead, the government would probably do just what EU members — Denmark, France, Ireland and the Netherlands — have always done after such votes. It would negotiate a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise it in opaque language and ratify it. The public, essentially ignorant about Europe, always goes along.

In contemplating this possibility, leading Eurosceptics have shown themselves to be the craftiest political illusionists of all. Now that Brexit appears within their grasp, they are backing away from it. What they really seek is domestic political power. If Britain votes to leave, the government will fall or, at the very least, the cabinet will be reshuffled. For Eurosceptic backbenchers, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Yet they lack parliamentary and popular majorities to govern alone. They would have to strike a deal, which means moderating anti-European demands — all amid post-referendum economic chaos. Renegotiation inside the EU would be almost inevitable.

Excessively cynical? Hardly. Few Eurosceptics are more prominent (or ambitious) than Boris Johnson, and he has signalled his willingness to compromise. The mayor of London's soundbites remain flamboyant: "The door of the jail [is] open, and people can see the sunlit land beyond." But read the fine print.

When the referendum was announced, Mr Johnson said that voting to leave need not necessarily mean leaving. Britain might renegotiate a better deal inside the EU, followed by a second referendum. So voters need not worry: "If you vote to leave, all your options are good." The prime minister has, for now, dismissed that option, but Mr Johnson's statements continue to leave just enough wriggle room.

A flip-flop? Not at all. Mr Johnson reminds us that he supported Brexit only at the last minute, after Mr Cameron's EU deal failed to include his proposed wording recognising "parliamentary sovereignty" — just the type of frothily symbolic concession on which future renegotiations could be based.

Finally, what if Messrs Cameron and Johnson and other politicians lose control of domestic politics, or if other EU leaders tire of Eurosceptic obstreperousness and toss the Brits out? Even in this worst-case scenario, Britain would not really leave Europe.

Eurosceptics propose that Britain negotiate with 27 frustrated European governments, under tumultuous economic conditions, simply to re-establish its current economic status outside the EU. Britain's bargaining position in such a negotiation would be exceedingly weak because it is much more dependent on Europe for exports and investment than vice versa. The inevitable result, as the Swiss know only too well, is that Europe will dictate which regulations Britain must accept. Worse, Britain will surrender any future democratic control over their making.

The lesson is simple. Europe is real because globalisation means every day more British people rely on the EU to secure and stabilise trade, investment, travel, litigation, national security and political values. So the same politicians who lead a majority of Britons down the path to leave Europe would have to lead them back up again the next day to save their own political skins. Even politicians who have mastered the kabuki arts of mask and illusion must sooner or later face reality.

The writer is professor of politics at Princeton University

https://next-geebee.ft.com/…/http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepubli…
___________________
Harold Godwinson 
An excellent article exposing the true underlying reasons for the referendum even happening.

No serious commentator advances the idea the UK would do economically better outside the EU in anything but the distant future and even that is supremely doubtful.

The simple truth is that there is absolutely no doubt that for a period of at least 5 or 6 years there would be economic chaos and the collapse of the pound and all UK markets. All for an advantage that the Brexiters cannot even begin to elucidate.

Most Brexiters are old (50 plus) like me and they are are betraying the youth of our country.

We have already betrayed them by bequeathing them a huge debt they will have to pay off. Shall we further betray them by denying them so many opportunities across Europe?

Fellow old gits I implore you to stop being selfish old gits. You are betraying all our children and grandchildren for an advantage you can't even define.

Tiresias 
I cannot be alone in deeply resenting the suggestion that because I support leaving the EU then I am uneducated. The writer is a typical bien pensant academic; the overwhelming vote to leave on 23 June will not be about any of the abstruse generalities he deals in, but a response to an overbearing, undemocratic, quasi-authoritarian institution which has failed to have its accounts approved for the past 18 years, and has also failed Greece, Italy, Spain and others. The latest 'success' of the EU is stitching up a deal with Turkey - one of the world's least democratic regimes today - to ship back hapless people from Greece to Turkey for billions of euros. This kind of selling of souls is shameful to all EU member states.

A vote to stay will be a vote for the status quo - which is rotten to the core.

And, BTW, we already know what way the FT is going to encourage readers to vote, without yet another piece of soft propaganda from a professor of politics at that deeply-in-touch institution Princeton.

Park Slope 
@Tiresias Are you offering to have Greece ship these "hapless people" to the UK?

Tiresias 
@Park Slope @Tiresias If the EU were really a 'union' we would have a union-wide response/solution to the emigration problem. Which may well include taking an agreed number of these hapless people, yes. As it stands, it's not a union, but a collection of ill-assorted grumbling countries under the tutelage (to put it at its weakest) of Angela Merkel. No-one has voted for this; no-one can vote against it; no-one even knows what the immigration policy is, which (like much else of the EU) is made up on the hoof, late at night, in haste and without transparency. If the European Commission was in charge of a pub it would run out of beer a long time ago because no-one knows if it's solvent; it would have run out of customers because the service is crap.

Brazuca 
Very good! the best text I have read about this non sense political discussion!

A.J. Maher 
I see. The St. Simon of the divine right of globalisation has spoken. He tells us that globalisation is the great imperative which transforms the EU into our unavoidable manifest destiny. The electorate have no agency. The leadership have no agency. It is clear that although bondholders have agency, rentiers have agency & markets have agency we citizens are but flies to the wanton gods of globalisation. This revival of primitive fatalism is not to be seen as the indicator of intellectual defeat and decadence (as it might once have been) but is now to be seen as the necessary world weary cynicism we will need to survive our brave new future as factors of global output and factors of global consumption. The age of the citizen is dead! long live the age of the global junta.

Thanks for clearing all that up prof. but don't let us detain you any further - I'm sure there's a seance or an astrological reading that you would far rather attend...

ScepticalChymist 
If the EU were a going concern, (ie now, not just in terms of past glories) the one or two propositions that the article contains may have some relevance.

But it isn't so they don't.

N_W 
I am not really sure someone sitting in his lofty tower at Princeton is qualified to comment on this democratic exercise. The language may be elegant but I get more insight down the local pub.

 

 

Prospectiv A-z .
Ce omite sa spuna Andrew Moravcsik este ca la centrul negocierilor se afla cel mai probabil 'dreptul' britanicilor de a specula financiar pe continent. Poate ca Andrew este orbit de sclipirea sectorului financiar parazit din New York City-ul vecin...

 

Mihai Ion Turcu Asemenea crize se vor repeta in toate situatiile critice prin care va trece UE dovedind lipsa de reaqlism a proiecvtului federalist.

 

Eugénia Paraschiv Poate proiectul fi "vázut" de logica divide et impera lansatá de peste mările ţárilor....;)

 

Smaranda Dobrescu "In fact, Brexit would entail big economic costs for Britain. The uncertainty and disruption of drawn-out and doubtless acrimonious divorce proceedings would depress investment and growth. Permanent separation would reduce trade, foreign investment, and migration, hurting competition, productivity growth, and living standards. And "independence" would deprive Britain of influence over future EU reforms – notably, the completion of the single market in services – from which it would benefit."
https://www.socialeurope.eu/.../economic-consequences.../

 

 

The Economic Consequences Of Brexit

Thinking of all the implications of Brexit is complicated. But the bottom line is simple: Leaving the EU would…

SOCIALEUROPE.EU|BY PHILIPPE LEGRAIN