January 18, 2017
You Can Check Out but You Cannot Leave: Why Brexit Cannot Occur
Andrew Moravcsik
Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University
Ruth Miller and Andrew Moravcsik
Minutes of the 16th Meeting of the 75th Year
On Wednesday Jan. 18, 2017, the Old Guard of Princeton met at the Friend Center at 10.15 a.m. The presiding officer was Owen Leach, and the invocation was by Julia Coale. Guests of six members were introduced. The meeting was attended by 112 members. The minutes of the previous meeting were read by Keith Wheelock.
Ruth Miller introduced the speaker and said it was unusual for the Old Guard to hear a talk on a topic from the day’s headlines. The speaker was Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University whose topic was Brexit, British exit from the European Union. His title was “You Can Check Out, but You Cannot Leave: Why Brexit Cannot Occur,” Coincidentally, a few hours earlier in London, the British prime minister, Theresa May, in a clear and open speech spoke on the same topic, outlining a 12-point plan for British policy.
Unlike May, Moravcsik was analytical in the mold of a political scientist rather than descriptive. He sought to focus on the fundamental issues and the broad trends involved, not on everyday events and changing views of the day. He explained the difficulties Britain faced in leaving the European Union. He said it would take a decade or more to sort out the relevant issues. As if answering the prime minister, he warned not to take too seriously the current statements of the British government. He was circumspect rather than negative about the likelihood of British success in negotiations with the European Union.
First, Moravcsik pointed out that trade drives trade agreements more than the reverse. The Britain can't change with whom it trades, and the reality is that 50 percent of the country’s exports (13 percent of G.D.P.), excluding services, go to the European Union. In contrast, the 27 other countries of the union export only 3 to 4 percent of their G.D.P. Exit is therefore likely to be an economic disadvantage to Britain since bargaining power favors the Europeans.
Secondly, he said that trade agreements would not change this direction of British trade. Britain can’t go elsewhere. Evoking British glories of World War II was not realistic in the present situation. Thirdly, for Britain to fall back on the World Trade Organization for negotiating deals arrangements would be a disaster.
Moravcsik held that the victory of Brexit was surprising because the European Union was becoming more British as time went on. There were mutual interests concerning privatization, enlargement of free market by bringing in Eastern European countries (that Britain urged), stronger defense and homeland security, also urged by Britain, and more informal ad hoc policies and multi-trading , though Britain opted out of Schengen and the euro. Even language was favorable. The European Union was not bilingual, as it was earlier, because everyone now speaks English. He asserted that the Europeans were more hospitable to Britain right now than ever before.
Therefore, Brexit should not have happened. Why did it?
1. Britain as always been skeptical of the European Union.
2. Immigration into Britain is high, and though the total is not large compared to other European Union countries, the rate has been increasing.
3. Britain, like the United States, has a majoritarian political system in which a determined minority in one party can dominate in policy. Moravcsik held that a minority of extreme Tories captured the Conservative party and pushed Brexit. There was no popular majority for Brexit.
The former prime minister, David Cameron, was wrong to call an unnecessary referendum. Otherwise Britain would not be withdrawing. Most people didn't know the real issues concerning the referendum, though salient issues were immigration, terrorism and economic fallout.
For example, what did a “no” vote mean? Moravcsik held that exit polls showed no real concern over economic issues and described the vote as largely emotional. The campaign against Brexit should have focused on emotional aspects. He gave the example of youngsters in London shouting “I love Europe.”
Moravcsik argued that Prime Minister May’s negotiating position was symbolic, aimed to keep the status quo on substantive issues. Britain had similar views to, and did not argue with, the EU on issues such as free market, defense, homeland security and law enforcement.
The real difference was on procedure, with insistence on repealing European Union law and substituting British law. In that way the British Parliament can make desired changes. Mrs. May indicated that she is willing to pay into the European Union regarding programs where British interests are involved. On immigration, the European countries are moving anyway to limit migrants, as Britain suggests.
At the same time the bargaining position of European Union is not easy, because all 27 countries must agree. But it can disregard the British argument of a lower corporate tax, since Britain already has a relatively low tax compared with other union members. The strict two years for negotiation favors the Europeans since there are so many issues.
Moravcsik was asked about a possible domino effect, of the case for exit spreading. Some European countries have Eurosceptics, but victories of far right political parties wanting to withdraw from the European Union were unlikely. Small countries won't pull out. The only exception may be Italy because of its messy political system, instability and the strength of anti-European Union parties.
A few conclusions:
1. British policy is more moderate than it appears to many commentators although it must face hard issues.
2. The referendum was a major mistake. People may vote "no," but what is “no.”
3. The European Union has 35,000 negotiators: Britain now has very few. Prime Minister May, who was not in favor of Brexit, has appointed people in favor of Brexit who must now figure out what to do.
4. Two years is not enough for a general agreement and implementation when so many different products and different regulations must be addressed.
5. Tory rhetoric about “Great Britain” is not realistic.
6. Britain has no special relationship with the United States My own comment. Mrs. May is meeting Trump in a few days. Will May trump the president?
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Curtis
Ruth Miller introduced the speaker and said it was unusual for the Old Guard to hear a talk on a topic from the day’s headlines. The speaker was Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University whose topic was Brexit, British exit from the European Union. His title was “You Can Check Out, but You Cannot Leave: Why Brexit Cannot Occur,” Coincidentally, a few hours earlier in London, the British prime minister, Theresa May, in a clear and open speech spoke on the same topic, outlining a 12-point plan for British policy.
Unlike May, Moravcsik was analytical in the mold of a political scientist rather than descriptive. He sought to focus on the fundamental issues and the broad trends involved, not on everyday events and changing views of the day. He explained the difficulties Britain faced in leaving the European Union. He said it would take a decade or more to sort out the relevant issues. As if answering the prime minister, he warned not to take too seriously the current statements of the British government. He was circumspect rather than negative about the likelihood of British success in negotiations with the European Union.
First, Moravcsik pointed out that trade drives trade agreements more than the reverse. The Britain can't change with whom it trades, and the reality is that 50 percent of the country’s exports (13 percent of G.D.P.), excluding services, go to the European Union. In contrast, the 27 other countries of the union export only 3 to 4 percent of their G.D.P. Exit is therefore likely to be an economic disadvantage to Britain since bargaining power favors the Europeans.
Secondly, he said that trade agreements would not change this direction of British trade. Britain can’t go elsewhere. Evoking British glories of World War II was not realistic in the present situation. Thirdly, for Britain to fall back on the World Trade Organization for negotiating deals arrangements would be a disaster.
Moravcsik held that the victory of Brexit was surprising because the European Union was becoming more British as time went on. There were mutual interests concerning privatization, enlargement of free market by bringing in Eastern European countries (that Britain urged), stronger defense and homeland security, also urged by Britain, and more informal ad hoc policies and multi-trading , though Britain opted out of Schengen and the euro. Even language was favorable. The European Union was not bilingual, as it was earlier, because everyone now speaks English. He asserted that the Europeans were more hospitable to Britain right now than ever before.
Therefore, Brexit should not have happened. Why did it?
1. Britain as always been skeptical of the European Union.
2. Immigration into Britain is high, and though the total is not large compared to other European Union countries, the rate has been increasing.
3. Britain, like the United States, has a majoritarian political system in which a determined minority in one party can dominate in policy. Moravcsik held that a minority of extreme Tories captured the Conservative party and pushed Brexit. There was no popular majority for Brexit.
The former prime minister, David Cameron, was wrong to call an unnecessary referendum. Otherwise Britain would not be withdrawing. Most people didn't know the real issues concerning the referendum, though salient issues were immigration, terrorism and economic fallout.
For example, what did a “no” vote mean? Moravcsik held that exit polls showed no real concern over economic issues and described the vote as largely emotional. The campaign against Brexit should have focused on emotional aspects. He gave the example of youngsters in London shouting “I love Europe.”
Moravcsik argued that Prime Minister May’s negotiating position was symbolic, aimed to keep the status quo on substantive issues. Britain had similar views to, and did not argue with, the EU on issues such as free market, defense, homeland security and law enforcement.
The real difference was on procedure, with insistence on repealing European Union law and substituting British law. In that way the British Parliament can make desired changes. Mrs. May indicated that she is willing to pay into the European Union regarding programs where British interests are involved. On immigration, the European countries are moving anyway to limit migrants, as Britain suggests.
At the same time the bargaining position of European Union is not easy, because all 27 countries must agree. But it can disregard the British argument of a lower corporate tax, since Britain already has a relatively low tax compared with other union members. The strict two years for negotiation favors the Europeans since there are so many issues.
Moravcsik was asked about a possible domino effect, of the case for exit spreading. Some European countries have Eurosceptics, but victories of far right political parties wanting to withdraw from the European Union were unlikely. Small countries won't pull out. The only exception may be Italy because of its messy political system, instability and the strength of anti-European Union parties.
A few conclusions:
1. British policy is more moderate than it appears to many commentators although it must face hard issues.
2. The referendum was a major mistake. People may vote "no," but what is “no.”
3. The European Union has 35,000 negotiators: Britain now has very few. Prime Minister May, who was not in favor of Brexit, has appointed people in favor of Brexit who must now figure out what to do.
4. Two years is not enough for a general agreement and implementation when so many different products and different regulations must be addressed.
5. Tory rhetoric about “Great Britain” is not realistic.
6. Britain has no special relationship with the United States My own comment. Mrs. May is meeting Trump in a few days. Will May trump the president?
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Curtis