After Brexit: finished the single market and everything else? Keep reason! Scenarios…

16th June 2016July 1, 2016 Nicolas Gros Verheyde

(BRUXELLES2) A few days before the vote, the referendum on Brexit gives rise to every blow. After the supporters of the departure, here are the supporters of the maintenance who give voice, by predicting the worst cataclysm in the event of the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union. This chest bulge has little to do with reality. Moving from the UK to Europe is difficult. And the opposite is also true. So we're going to make the usual... compromises. The lawyers are already at work. Here's a sketch of what could happen...

A few quotes to keep for the story...

« Deserters will not be welcomed with open arms », Jean-Claude Juncker (President of the European Commission, Le Monde, May 20).

“(Finished) the advantages of the European single market", Wolfgang Schäuble (German Finance Minister, Der Spiegel, June 10).

« This is the beginning of the destruction of Western political civilization », Donald Tusk (President of the European Council, Bild).

Stop the amphetamines?

I don't know what they took, Jean-Claude, Wolfgang, Donald and the others. But we are closer to supercharged amphetamine than organic salad. We have known our more discreet and more moderate European leaders. But rest assured, this "vibrant attitude" will not last. These are campaign remarks (1), just as fanciful as the rantings of the Daily Mail on the European army (read: Big news! The European army exists. The Daily Mail met her). During the years that I practiced it, when he chaired the Eurogroup, Juncker was the specialist in this type of statement. “Very strong words”, before entering the meeting … in the mode “we will see what we were going to see”. And, after the meeting, everything was back to normal. The "reasonable" side of Juncker had taken over the "imp" side of Jean-Claude.

Let's keep a sense of reasonableness! We will negotiate

That Brexit is not good news for Europe is obvious. That there is a risk in economic and political terms, for Europe or the United Kingdom, that is certain. That the unknown is in order, that's for sure. From there to announcing the end of the world and the apocalypse... you have to keep a sense of reason.

Great Britain is already an island and... will remain so

If the British take the step of leaving, until further notice, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, remain in the same geographical place. The island will not move and join the glacial areas of the Arctic or the desert of the Sahel. A map could illustrate, better than anything, the status of Great Britain: an island clearly located in Europe, if not on its mainland, a few cables from the European coast, 2 hours by Eurostar from Paris and Brussels and 2 hours by plane from Warsaw or Berlin...

The United Kingdom remains a (small) economic power

Doing without a market of nearly 60 million inhabitants, a City that still brings rain and shine and one of the first industrial powers seems difficult, not to mention a State that is still a contributor to the EU (7 million euros in net contribution, once the rebate has been removed, and the various and varied allocations to British projects). It will take a few months or even a few years of negotiation to negotiate a new "common house" for the British, tailor-made. The British, like the Europeans, have an interest in preserving a kind of free trade area between them.

Negotiating a new common house: a compromise

The lawyers are also at work, very very discreetly at the European Commission as in certain Member States to draw up this tailor-made solution (2). And the sketched drawing is not at all the one announced by the political leaders. The status of the United Kingdom "post Brexit" could then be somewhere between Norway - which participates fully in the single market, even in certain security and defense policies - and Switzerland - which has bilateral agreements.

Appropriate free movement policies

The free movement of capital, goods and services could thus be preserved. And the free movement of people would be more or less what was negotiated by David Cameron, with a few more specific measures. It is not even forbidden to sign social security agreements to allow Europeans to benefit from certain care in the United Kingdom and especially the British to benefit from reciprocal treatment in the countries where they are settled (south of France , Spain, Cyprus etc.). This is already practiced with certain "third" countries.

A la carte participation in programs

The United Kingdom could continue to participate in certain European programs, choosing those that interest it, a kind of à la carte Europe: Erasmus for students for example, Horizon 2020 for research, etc. It will be enough to find - as for the other third States - the methods of participation and contribution to the budget. It could continue – contrary to what some say – to benefit under certain conditions from the free trade or trade agreements signed by the European Union as an associated state (like Norway today).

England already has part of its hemisphere outside

The Out of "domestic" and European defense policies

On the other policies that could be described as "sovereignty", it must be clearly seen that the United Kingdom already has a series of opt-outs: it is already outside the Euro Zone, outside the Schengen system and control borders (of Frontex in particular), outside of police and judicial cooperation (apart from a few exceptions on the map). In terms of EU defence, the United Kingdom remains a theoretical actor. But he only pays lip service to the policies of the European Union. Its presence in NATO is enough for it. His departure will therefore not change a iota to the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). To say otherwise would be lying (see also: Brexit. Is the British necessary for European defense?)

The possibility of making ad hoc agreements

Moreover, nothing would prevent the United Kingdom from signing a framework agreement or agreements and following the best practices to take part either in CSDP missions or operations (as some twenty countries have done), or in the European Defense Agency or the future European Border and Coast Guard Corps. Nor, moreover, to participate in bilateral or multilateral programs (like the A400M) already outside the Community circuit. In the same way that the Irish participate today in Frontex operations or the Norwegians in anti-piracy operations...

A real change: participation in decision-making

In fact, the United Kingdom would thus continue to participate in a number of European policies and not to participate in the policies... in which it does not participate. The big change would rather be elsewhere: the United Kingdom will no longer have a say in deciding the evolution of legislation. But here again we can find some solutions. An informal consultation in the event of modification of certain legislations (as it is already practiced with some "friendly" States). It would no longer contribute to the European budget and would no longer receive European subsidies, particularly in agriculture.

The fate of British European civil servants: a smooth phasing out

Civil servants and agents of British nationality will no longer be able to be recruited by the European institutions. It is a fact. Some solutions will have to be found. But it is possible. On the one hand, the departure from the United Kingdom does not ipso facto lead to the end of the contracts. Then transition phases and arrangements would allow a smooth passage (until the retirement of these agents), with if necessary (or not) a British contribution for the payment of pensions (in a special fund, as we have done for other institutions, the Union for Western Europe for example). Finally, several of these agents have either dual nationality or the possibility of acquiring one (by marriage, right of residence in Belgium or quite simply by history in Northern Ireland, etc.).

Domestic political repercussions: difficult to assess

The risk of oil stain effect: not obvious!

If the Brit chooses "Out" (3), the period after June 23 will not really be a cakewalk. But to see the end of the world there is (a tad) exaggerated! The much-mentioned oil stain effect (with a Tchexit, a Danxit, or a Dutchxit) is very difficult to appreciate. Britain no doubt has some justification for putting itself outside continental Europe. Seeing the pattern reproduce elsewhere is more difficult. I wish a lot of courage to the Czechs, Dutch or Danes tempted at some point by this "little" suicide...

The very special status of the British: difficult to reproduce

No country in Europe has the same very special status as the United Kingdom. No country has so much of its mind and body in and out at the same time. London has the right hemisphere in Europe and the left hemisphere outside. No country, to my knowledge, is an island, does not have the international influence and the economic depth of the United Kingdom (membership of the Commonwealth, substantial army, seat and right of veto at the United Nations, etc.) not to mention a language spoken all over the world, which gives London and the British this particular strength...

An "electroshock" effect: hopefully, but let's stay realistic...

Some argue, like my friend Jean Quatremer, for a positive effect of Brexit (read: leave the first gentlemen the English!). The reasoning is logical. The departure of the United Kingdom would be an electric shock, causing a tightening effect for certain countries, to say to themselves that together finally "it's not happy every day but that there are still good times all the same". This is an intellectually appealing hypothesis. But I remain very skeptical about the reality, about the desire of certain leaders to show themselves in the middle of an election period (in France and Germany in particular) for further European integration.

In reality, with or without Brexit, the risks are elsewhere

A Europe lacking in founders

The desire to create a more integrated hard core (with equivalent and non-competitive taxation, similar economic policies, etc.) is not obvious. If Europe is down today, it is not because of London, Warsaw or Budapest. This is because the core of the founding countries (France, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Italy, etc.) can no longer produce new projects together. It's more like a collection of pistons and compressors swirling around in an uncoordinated fashion.

A painful moment of truth, the loss of a "useful adversary"

For many countries which today hide behind the United Kingdom to hide their own weaknesses and their own reluctance, Brexit can therefore be a moment of painful truth. Germany, which loudly proclaims its European attachment, will have to bring its hidden "vetoes" to light. Same for France. Other countries (Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc.) will lose a precious ally, in favor of a more liberal and commercial approach. The others will lose a "useful adversary". Example: when London demanded to set limits on the free movement of people, in The Hague, Paris, Berlin, you did not hear howling about the violation of rights. Only the European Commission — and a few Eastern European countries — have defended the European spirit.

The main risk of Brexit: the business as usual

The other risk of Brexit would be to fall back into a "business as usual"a bit like in previous referendums (France, the Netherlands, Ireland, Denmark, etc.). The population says no. We are moved. We are alarmed. Then we find an arrangement. And the machine starts again cahin cahan, with a gram of reflection in addition but no real changes. Support for Europe is shrinking, referendum after referendum, like a trickle. What does it matter! It is the people who are wrong, who understand nothing. The dynamics of the European bicycle (being always in motion according to the theory of Jacques Delors) prevails. And any criticism, even positive, of community work becomes "populism". The problem is that Europe today is not at a loss with its opponents but because Europe no longer mobilizes, disappoints, even vilifies its supporters.

The other main risk: withdrawal into oneself and forgetting the world

The second political risk of Brexit is to see Europe closing in on its own problems, to settle what, in itself, is just a matter of internal stewardship but not a threat of destruction of the Western world (read: A bavarois with passion fruit). In the same way that Europe, preoccupied with Greece, paid little attention to the Syrian conflict, the rise of Daesh in Iraq, of Boko Haram in Nigeria, there is a real risk, the real risk of Brexit, in my opinion: to see Europe more preoccupied with its navel than with the world.

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

(1) Quite strange remarks in themselves. Because when it is questioned, on the consequences of Brexit for example in legal matters, the official position of the European Commission remains "no comment", "The Commission does not participate in the campaign" displaying a very firm neutrality...

(2) Officially nobody admits it. But it is a fact, work is carried out if only to determine the possible method of negotiation, the induced timetable of the treaty, the legal loopholes, the solutions provided by international law (Vienna Convention, etc.), the possibilities of a transition period, the opt-out or opt-in policies that already exist, and the different association schemes already in force elsewhere (Norway, Switzerland, etc.)

(3) The polls are so fluctuating, the margin of uncertainty and error so important that the unknown is almost total.