Brexit - A Watershed Moment for Europe

On June 23, 2016, the British voted to depart from the European Union. Some 70 per cent of voters took to the polls, passing the referendum with a 51.9 per cent majority. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which governs departure, foresees a two-year negotiation period that can be extended if necessary. However, both the UK and the EU are not interested in drawing out negotiations, for uncertainty about the outcomes is harmful to both sides.

Numerous questions remain to be answered: Will British banks be able to operate as before in continental Europe? Will British universities be able to participate in European research projects as before? And to what extent will the free movement of people be restricted? For good reason, economic commentators were nearly unanimous in their recommendation that Britain should remain within the EU. Indeed, one would recommend that the British should use current treaties as the basis for negotiating their future relationship with Europe, if this wasn’t so absurd.

Discontent Results From Sense of Outside Rule From Brussels

The British vote, fuelled by unhappiness with decisions made in Brussels, means the EU is losing an important member state. Following this watershed moment in the EU's history, a "business as usual" attitude would be wholly inappropriate. Discontent with the EU, which is now visible in many European countries, is driven by the feeling that Brussels is an entity imposing decisions from without. Even though the Council of Ministers is usually involved in making decisions, national governments are all too eager to pass blame to Brussels in order to sidestep conflict with domestic interest groups.

Current debates surrounding the CETA and TTIP are illustrative of this fact. The EU is responsible for negotiating and ratifying such treaties. This makes it easy for politicians within member states to use criticism of the treaties as a tool for rabble rousing and catering to their power base. National parliaments need to take a more active role in the debate if this negative dynamic is to be avoided. Indeed, in the case of CETA, precisely this has occurred: Recent events have compelled the EU Commission to declare that CETA is a "mixed agreement", meaning that national governments must also debate and ratify it.

The Result Would be a Europe with Variable Geometry

The usual and compelling argument against allowing national governments to play a role in decision-making is that it enables individual member states to play an obstructionist role, thus paralyzing all of Europe. Such obstructionism could be prevented if it was possible to make exceptions with respect to the unanimity rule, but this could fan the flames of resentment against Brussels. Another option would be to allow treaties that are not ratified by all member states. The result would be a Europe that operates at different speeds, or – somewhat more neutrally formulated – a Europe with a "variable geometry".

This idea definitely has an allure. Currently, a rejection of CETA at the national level will call the entire treaty into question, and could thus be instrumentalised as a protest against the EU project. But if instead ratifications by individual states were possible, national leaders would think twice before deciding to join the ranks of outsiders not part of the treaty. Non-ratifying countries would have a distinct competitive disadvantage against member states who had decided to sign.

Britain's decision to leave the EU is a watershed moment in Europe's history. Great Britain will change, and the EU will be forced to change as well. Clearly, national parliaments must play a greater role in deciding Europe's future. A step in this direction was taken during the parliamentary meeting in London on the Monday following the Brexit vote, when British MPs discussed the consequences of departure. In the Houses of Parliament, one had rarely heard so much discussion of the advantages of European unity before.