Geo-economics may be defined in two different ways: as the relationship between economic policy, changes in national power and geopolitics (in other words, the geopolitical consequences of economic phenomena); or as the economic consequences of trends in geopolitics and national power. Both the notion that ‘trade follows the flag’ (that the projection of national power has economic consequences) and that ‘the flag follows trade’ (that there are geopolitical consequences of essentially economic phenomena) points to the subject matter of geo-economics.
Brexit on 23 June, glyphosate on 24 June…
On issues big and small, the EU needs to re-build itself from top to bottom
20 years ago I published “L’Europe à contresens”. This small book made a big impact in the press. Its key message was simple. Starting from the premise that the accession of Sweden, Finland and Austria in 1995 planted the seeds of the European Union’s dilution, I argued that the enlargement process should be put on hold in order to achieve the unified Common Market built by Delors. In short, remain at 15 Member States for as long as possible, encourage the new democracies of eastern Europe to organise themselves, make the single currency conditional on a prior harmonisation of tax, welfare systems and budgets, and prioritise the Community preference over a globalised free-trade approach. Continue reading
Be an Informed Voter: For your children and your children’s children
As a European happily living and working in London, the EU Referendum debate has been rife with controversies, grotesque lies to the public and a stirring up of hate filled sentiments that have already claimed the life of one member of UK parliament fulfilling her democratic responsibility to constituents.
Jo Cox stressed in her Yorkshire Post article, days before her death, not to fall for the spin present in the campaigns.
Like many practitioners writing at European Public Affairs, I am thoroughly acquainted with the art of spin in politics, but the current campaigns for UK’s EU referendum have taken it too far, with the number of retracted media pieces skyrocketing – though the damage is done for members of the public who have seen the initial incorrect articles, with their decisions influenced, and choices unsubstantiated by fact.
With the referendum on the UK’s membership to the EU just around the corner and polls indicating a neck and neck race, campaigners on both sides are understandably desperate to score points. Winston Churchill has been resurrected in both Europhile and Eurosceptic forms. “If Britain must choose between Europe and the open sea, she must always choose the open sea”. This quote sings to the tune of the Leave campaigners’ favourite economic
argument which proclaims a Britain out of the EU will be able to tie itself with the vibrant economies of the Commonwealth and the rest of the world and rid itself from the dictates of a sclerotic EU. Churchill made this statement in a heated exchange with Charles de Gaulle during the Normandy landings in 1944, long before the Schumann declaration. The Remain campaigners like to remind us of Churchill’s vision of a “United States of Europe”. How involved Churchill would have liked Britain to be in a federal union remains heavily debated. In 1961, Churchill wrote, “I think the Government are right to apply to join the European Economic Community”. The application was subsequently vetoed by De Gaulle in 1963 as he saw Britain as too different in its geography, history, economy and trade relations to genuinely integrate with ‘the Continentals’. The Leave campaigners argue that Churchill would never have agreed to Britain in the EU in its current form and this is where the Churchill debate become purely speculative. To understand Brexit, it is best to look at how it became a possibility in the first place.
What I tell my friends when they ask about Brexit
As we draw closer to what promises to be a momentous vote for both the future of the UK and Europe – the British referendum on the country’s membership in the European Union – I have observed a peculiar phenomenon. My friends, profoundly concerned about the likelihood of Britain leaving the EU, have gone into a state of mind ranging from a self-inflicted semi-trepidation to downright hysteria.
I must confess: as it happens, most of my friends and Facebook acquaintances are no fence-sitters on the issue of Brexit. They want the UK to stay in the EU and they fear the worst: that Britain will pull up its draw bridge and return to its 19th century ‘splendid isolation’ policy. Their worries stem from the same epiphany that serves as a cause for exaltation for the Leave campaign: the opinion polls.
A sceptic by nature, I take these polls with a pinch of salt. Pollsters do not always get it right (if at all). But my sentiments about the validity of the opinion polls do little to simmer down the fear. And so I try other tactics; I use reason. I tell my friends two things:
First, do not despair. If you are fed up with the withering remarks, disdainful snorts, misinformation and downright lies, there are only so many days left in the campaign until people cast their votes and decide.
Second, I recite the list of reasons why I believe Britain will ultimately make the decision to remain in the EU: