Which Abyss for Britain?

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

A “leap into the abyss” is what Britain would be taking with a decision to leave the European Union, according to a column this morning in the London Financial Times by its economic warhorse, Martin Wolf. Prime Minister Cameron is frantically trying to renegotiate Britain’s relations with Europe in advance of an “in-or-out” referendum that he has promised. Mr. Wolf reckons this could come as early as “early summer.” He offers seven points, summarized below with comment:

1. Renegotiation and referendum are an “unnecessary irritant.” Maybe. But neither was the referendum entirely voluntary. Mr. Cameron promised it in a speech in January 2013, only two months after a poll found that a staggering 56% of Britons would vote in a referendum to quit the EU. Mr. Cameron made the promise to put the question to the people in order to bolster his chances for re-election. He got re-elected. So why is it un-necessary?

2. Renegotiation is based on a premise that is “foolish.” Mr. Wolf focuses on the folly that Mr. Cameron “can deliver a radical renegotiation” that would “rectify” the notion that Britain’s future “does not lie in the EU as it is now.” He characterizes the changes Mr. Cameron seeks as “modest” and predicts he’ll get less than he seeks. He notes that for Eurosceptics the logic the “prime minister’s premise” is exit. “Alas, they will be right,” he says. What’s with the “alas”?

3. Debate will “plunge into a mass of technical detail” though the question is strategic. He describes it as about “whether the best future for the UK is as an at least notionally independent sovereign state or as a member of a complex and messy partnership of European states.” He declares himself as against holding out for being an “at least notionally sovereign state.” It makes one wonder whether the pollsters put the question to Elizabeth II.

4. Details are “too complex for the public to judge.” By crumpets, he’s worried about the damned democracy. It is “inevitable,” Mr. Wolf reckons, that the referendum will ultimately be decided by “fear, hope, and, not least, trust.” He reckons that the public is more likely to “trust” those who want the “status quo,” since they’re familiar with it. He thinks the EU hasn’t “hitherto” done “dreadful things.” So why was the tide was running so strong against the EU?

5. A vote for the “unknown” is worse than a vote for an “uncomfortable status quo.” What a bizarre vote of no-confidence in the idea of British bravery. He is worried that voters won’t know “what the objectives of the new negotiations might be and how long they will last.” He cavils that voters will “not know how remaining members of the EU would react” — not to mention the surly Scots. This is his leap into the abyss business. Lucky Mr. Wolf wasn’t at Agincourt.

6. “Full exit” is the only “intellectually coherent alternative” to staying inside the EU. What this means, Mr. Wolf argues, is that the only coherent alternative to EU membership would be living according to the rules of the World Trade Organization, which was established 20 years ago at Marrakesh. But there are 162 nations, including America, that are supposed to live by the deal struck at Marrakesh. What are they, chopped liver?

7. If the “outcome is decisive,” the question of Britain’s EU membership “is likely to be put to bed for some decades.” Then again, Mr. Wolf reckons, if it is not decisive, “the referendum might resolve nothing.” Writes he: “This is particularly likely, if, as seems plausible, the Eurosceptic drift of the Conservative party continues.” Then again, too, the longer outcome “also depends on what is going to happen inside the rest of the EU,” which is “increasingly” unpredictable.

All this, Mr. Wolf suggests, presages a year of painful debate that is “unnecessary.” But why wouldn’t his seven points suggest precisely that the debate is essential. The latest polls put the question as close. So close that, in our view, a constructive role could be played by some expressions from the Republican contenders that America could strengthen its special relationship with Britain. The Democrats, after all, have entered the fray in favor of the Abyss of Europe.


The New York Sun

© 2024 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use