Brexit: Pour Encourager les Autres?

“In this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, in order to encourage the others”.

Voltaire, Candide

Alphen, Netherlands. 11 April. Is it really in the interests of the EU and Germany to destroy the UK? One of the many pleasures of being in the US last week was to have a week off from the partisan lunacy which appears to have descended on the denizens of the political swamp that is Brexit. Even respected commentators are now writing nonsense. One fanatical Remainer, having (of course) said that he respects the vote of the people (NOT!), even went as far as to suggest that because German feelings were hurt by Brexit Britain should be very gentle in its dealings with Berlin. Poor little diddums. This nonsense is either a failure to understand the ‘doings’ of international politics, or more likely simply another stratagem to weaken Britain and its position. From what I have been told Berlin and Brussels have absolutely no desire to be gentle with Britain, ‘pour encourager les autres’.

The EU is meant to be a voluntary association of democracies who voluntarily agree to pool sovereignty in pursuit of their own and some greater good. Given Europe’s violent history that greater good is plain to see. However, implicit in all the treaties (although quite deliberately not explicit – Article 50 or no) is the right of a member-state if its people so wish to leave the EU if a democratic mandate for exit has been established. Equally implicit in the idea of Union is that any such state should not be attacked for so deciding if a vote was held across the length and breadth of the land and a majority confirmed. This is precisely what happened with the June 23rd Brexit referendum vote.

And yet over the past week key members of the EU have behaved less like fellow members of a voluntary association and more like Imperial Rome. Their weapon of choice is Scotland and their apparent support for the nationalist secessionists led by Nicola Sturgeon. This is at best hypocrisy. Scottish Nationalist Party leader Ms Sturgeon legitimised the UK-wide vote by campaigning in it, but then refused to accept the result. Rather, she sees Brexit as simply yet another opportunity to destroy the UK.

Given that it was galling to say the least to hear senior German MEP Elmar Brok encouraging the secessionists by saying that there would be few obstacles to Scotland joining the EU. This attack on the UK was reinforced by the Spanish Foreign Minister saying that Madrid would not veto a membership application from an independent Scotland. A well-placed source of mine in Brussels told me that Brok was speaking with the support of Berlin and that Spain had been lent on by said Berlin to shift its position, even if that establishes a principle that would permit Catalonia to secede from Spain.

So, let’s pause for a moment and consider the implications for Europe of the destruction of the UK. Even though the Scottish population is only 8.3% of the UK the loss of Scotland would end Britain as a major international player. The result would be yet another weak, broke, small state Germany would have to support (having destroyed my country I would not support it), and an angry, resentful, broken rump UK that would see the EU, Germany in particular, as at best a frenemy, at worst an enemy. For a time rump UK would probably go through the motions of supporting NATO, but our heart (and my heart) would have gone out of it as we all wondered why we should risk lives and spend reduced our geld defending people who had consciously set out to destroy our country. The winner would be Vladimir Putin. The losers would be NATO, the US and, of course, the defence of Europe.

The Americans are fully aware of this. Time and again last week I was told by senior people on both sides of the Washington political divide that maintaining the integrity of the United Kingdom was a fundamental US interest. And, that the loss of the UK would also deal a potential death blow to NATO. Those are indeed the stakes, and Mr Brok and other German politicians need to be aware that they are playing with fire if they are seen to encourage Scotland to secede. If they persist such a stance could well break already fragile US-German relations.

My preference from the beginning of all this Brexit farago has been to find an equitable solution to that is in the interests of all given the circumstances. As a pro-German Brit who sees little to fear in Germany’s leadership of Europe I am particularly keen to establish a post-Brexit relationship between Britain and Germany built on respect and friendship. Playing the Scotland card will destroy any hope of that. Of course, some will say this is all pre-negotiation posturing. They would be wrong. Threatening the integrity of the UK is not what friends do, even if it is a pre-Brexit, pre-negotiating posture. Negotiate hard Germany by all means, but do not actively encourage Sturgeon and her fellow secessionists by artificially tipping the political field in their favour by making promises to them you know you cannot keep. 

As for my fellow Remainers my message is clear; a vote was taken, the result was clear, get over it! Given the horrors happening elsewhere around Europe’s borders it is vital, for the sake of Britain, the EU and NATO, that we come to an equitable deal and quickly. If not I will fight for my country Britain (peacefully of course) and people I had regarded as friends would soon become non-friends.

Given that, is it really in the interests of the EU and Germany to destroy the UK simply ‘pour encourager les autres’? Is it really in your interests Germany to have the rest of us in the UK hate you? Can you really build a democratic Union, Berlin and Brussels, by enforcing membership through fear?

Julian Lindley-French


Jaap Doornbos

Senior Consultant at ADSE Consulting & Engineering

7 年

Totally agree with the message of the article by prof. Lindley-French. A (small) majority of British voters has decided that the UK should terminate its EU membership, and thereby this has become unavoidable. However the motto "United we stand, divided we fall" is applicable both before and after Brexit. Limiting the damage as much as possible is much more important than anger, revenge and inspiring fear in other EU member states. Keeping the above motto and our ideals in mind, it would be extremely sad if Brexit would lead to a breakup of the UK. Instead we should aim to retain as much as possible of the benefits of close collaboration between all European countries in the interest of peace, democracy, prosperity and well-being for all. We must not aim for less!

回复
Edward Hunter Christie

Foreign and Security Policy

7 年

Julian, you make a strong case, but I feel you do not reserve sufficient criticism for the 'hard Brexiters' who take the political preferences of the people of Scotland (and Northern Ireland) for granted, on the basis of a simple majority rule across the entirety of the UK. The root of the problem is that the UK is not one nation, but four nations - and multinational states, as we both know all too well, have broken up in the past with ghastly consequences. The first step towards avoiding that scenario is for the dominant constituent nation - England - to rediscover what is in ITS interest, namely to convince Scotland to remain inside the UK. This requires paying heed to Scottish preferences through more than just a one-man-one-vote approach. I say this as someone who's experienced life in both Switzerland and Belgium - nations whose very unity has come under threat multiple times - and as someone who spent quite some time working on projects involving the former Yugoslavia. These parallels and scenarios may seem utterly un-British to some, but I sense a gigantic blind spot among English Conservatives regarding what it takes to ensure the UK's survival. Worse, I've encountered many who, completely cluelessly, say they'd gladly wave the Scots goodbye. I know that you know that that would be pure folly. But stopping it will take more than signalling displeasure at unthoughtful German or Spanish politicians. The main battle will be on home ground and involves the need for England to rediscover why Scottish membership of the UK is so precious and why it's worth more attention, more generosity, and more sacrifice.

回复
Callum Logan

Independant Consultant

7 年

Billy - could not agree more - Callum Logan

回复
Don Conklin

Polymath, System Designer, PMO Director, Product Manager, Technical Program Manager, Strategist, Ontologist, Retired Navy A-6 pilot

7 年

Twice in the last 100 years, the U.S. has gone to war to help Europe. "Europe" being that collection of democracies led by UK and France against an autocratic or fascist German threat. Subtract our 'Cousins' from that mix and the 22 miles of the Channel becomes another ocean. I believe most Americans look at UK as the 'gateway' to Europe. It may be a simple as at least we can speak to the UK without additional language schooling. Or it may be the liberal democratic philosophy espoused in UK and refined in the US. And yes, there was a sizable German presence in the colonies, not least by George III's fondness for Hessians. And yes again, the US is more diverse now and less inclined to the mother country. But the special relationship is real and runs deep, particularly in the institutions of power. Germany should keep that in mind. German actions will be watched closely from this side of the pond. Any motion towards cementing German hegemony will strain relations with the U.S. None of this is good for our collective defense. Daylight between NATO members only emboldens Russia.

回复

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Professor Dr Julian Lindley-French的更多文章

  • The Future Deterrence, Defence and Resilience Conference

    The Future Deterrence, Defence and Resilience Conference

    In October, I had the honour of directing the Future Defence, Deterrence and Resilience Conference at Wilton Park in…

    2 条评论
  • Riga Test 2024: Mean What We Say, Do What We Say!

    Riga Test 2024: Mean What We Say, Do What We Say!

    “That’s why I argue that the defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. It’s why I argue that Estonia and the border with…

    7 条评论
  • Athens and Sparta, Israel and Iran

    Athens and Sparta, Israel and Iran

    “The real cause I consider to be the one which was formerly most kept out of sight. The growth of the power of Athens…

    23 条评论
  • The Retreat from Strategy

    The Retreat from Strategy

    Though much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven;…

    19 条评论
  • Starmer the Disarmer?

    Starmer the Disarmer?

    The Retreat from Strategy (London: Hurst) Published September 2024 “We live in a time when intelligent people are being…

    16 条评论
  • Britain, Conscription, and a New National Guard

    Britain, Conscription, and a New National Guard

    “A house divided against itself, cannot stand.” President Abraham Lincoln A house divided August 10th.

    61 条评论
  • NATO 75 Essay: The Sad, the Mad and the Quite Possibly Bad

    NATO 75 Essay: The Sad, the Mad and the Quite Possibly Bad

    “…the Americans have not yet reached the stage where they regard themselves as equal partners in the enterprise…

    12 条评论
  • D-Day 80!

    D-Day 80!

    “I have…to announce to the House that during the night and the early hours of this morning the first of the series of…

    13 条评论
  • Appeasement, Realism, Collusion and Analysis

    Appeasement, Realism, Collusion and Analysis

    “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”. Winston Churchill May 28th.

    10 条评论
  • Putin’s Power Protection Racket

    Putin’s Power Protection Racket

    Extortion May 21st. General Omar Bradley once famously said, “amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics”.

    11 条评论

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了