Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
EU Wargames
I recently participated in a symposium at Mosaic magazine about the future of Europe. You can read my advice to Europe here. As I put it, Europe’s now facing history’s biggest constitutional crisis.
With that in mind, I just watched OpenEurope’s simulation of the negotiations that will determine Britain’s place in Europe with particular interest.
Yesterday, they simulated EU Reform and Brexit negotiations, with the key roles played by real, top-level British and European politicians. The former British Foreign Secretary and former Chancellor of the Exchequer played Britain; the former Deputy Prime Minister and Governor of the Bank of Poland played Poland, France’s former Minister for Europe played France, Germany’s former Ambassador to the UK played Germany, and so forth.
They played out two scenarios, one in the morning and one in the afternoon:
1) The Reform Scenario starts from the current basis that EU member states are engaging with David Cameron’s EU reform bid. Talks will centre around the key pillars of the government’s EU renegotiation as laid out in Cameron’s letter to Council President Donald Tusk, testing the ‘red lines,’ and where there is scope for a deal.
2) The Brexit Scenario starts on the assumption that the British public has voted in a referendum to leave the EU. The UK government and EU leaders have gathered to discuss what the UK’s future relationship with the EU will look like.
Here’s the video of the simulation:
I’m guessing that no one here is going to watch the whole day’s negotiations — I confess I missed more than a few hours — but you might want to watch parts of it here and there to get a sense of the tone and the issues.
Now, as it happens, these negotiations will take place for real in a few weeks. Prime Minister David Cameron will be playing Britain at the February European Council meeting. The polls show that the prospect of a Brexit is real. So he — or his successor — could soon be negotiating an entirely new deal between the UK and the EU.
The most heated parts of the discussion were about four issues: the equal treatment of non-eurozone members, economic competitiveness, national sovereignty and how to curb immigration. On economic competitiveness, everyone pretty much agreed. But things began to get nasty when it came to changing the voting rules to give more power to non-Eurozone members — and to giving national parliaments veto powers.
Here’s Robert Colville’s summary of how it went, which is actually much better than mine, so I refer you to it. The highlights from the morning session …
The day began with protestations of goodwill all round. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, playing Britain, set out the main areas that Cameron hopes to make progress in. The representatives for Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Ireland, Sweden and the EU institutions (played by a variety of similarly experienced figures, including Enrico Letta, former Italian PM, and John Bruton, former Irish Taoiseach), expressed their love for the UK, and their certain belief that a deal could be done.
It soon turned out, however, that the theme of the morning would be taken from Meat Loaf: “I would do anything for love, but I won’t do that.” We were told that many of the specifics of Cameron’s deal would either have unforeseen consequences, or were simply impossible, or that our European friends couldn’t really understand what we were on about.
The symbolic commitment to ditching “ever closer union”, for example – why did Britain keep raising this ludicrous idea of a superstate? A “red card” or “emergency brake” for national parliaments – this, said Germany, was a “crazy” idea, so “please take that off the table”. Others rushed to agree: wouldn’t it dilute the power of the European Parliament? (Well, yes.) And wasn’t it more likely to be used against Britain, rather than by it – for example in blocking moves to extend the free market in services, where the UK is Europe’s dominant player? (A rather better point.) Within 20 minutes, they were practically banging on the table. …
It ended, as he puts it, reasonably positively. “[e]ven if there was quarrelling over the specifics, there was a clear sense that a deal can be done – even if it ends up pretty close to the status quo.”
But the afternoon? Not positive at all. It was, as Colville put it, “a lynch mob.”
“There is no such thing as a free lunch,” explained the former German deputy finance minister. “Brexit is something which does not only affect your country but our country. The cherry-picking after torturing us for months is not acceptable.”
… then the bloodbath began. France said it could only offer a vanilla free trade agreement – nothing else. … The Netherlands predicted an effort to channel investment to Scotland, in an effort to peel it off from the rest of the UK. …
The harshest words came from John Bruton, playing Ireland. Brexit, he said, would be a “devastating decision” for Ireland – “I would regard it as an unfriendly act… a huge, self-imposed, politically generated shock to our economy.” It would undo much of the work of the peace process, and create huge questions over borders and labour market access. Out of pure self-interest, Dublin would probably try to grab whatever financial services from London hadn’t been stolen by Frankfurt. Indeed, there was unanimous agreement that the EU would do everything in its power to avoid its financial capital lying outside its borders, and regulatory reach. France, for example, would surely lean on its banks to move their operations back home.
… one thing that emerged from the talks is that European countries have electorates, too. And after Britain leaves, those electorates might not be terribly keen on immediately granting it access to the single market, carte blanche for the City of London, preferential treatment for British visitors to the Continent and so on. Also, Poland pointed out, there will be a temptation to come up with the most punitive terms possible – to avoid other countries following Britain’s lead.
So, questions for Ricochet: Do you think “Cameron” negotiated well? Could he have done better? Do you think Europe would really react that way to a Brexit? Would they be justified in doing so, in your mind? Or do you think cooler heads would prevail?
What advice do you think our Founding Fathers would give them?
Published in General
On this point, I highly recommend that anyone who is interested listen to (at least) the first episode of Dan Carlin’s podcast series entitled Blueprint for Armageddon. He describes very well how none of the players at the start of WW I (including the military commanders) had the faintest idea of how warfare had changed due to technology and due to logistical developments that made possible the mass mobilization of a nation state.
I disagree with Claire’s U.S. Civil War analogy though. Neither that war, nor the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 was an adequate harbinger of what was to come in WW I.
I agree with you, and didn’t mean to suggest otherwise. But it was certainly a hint. A big one.
Just sitting down to get into the war-games, per Claire’s suggestion. Push it up to somewhere around the 12 minute mark, because there is no sound or video before that, and that’s where it seems to begin.
While I suppose the question is a fair one, I’m not sure. The main differences here were common law and the constitution. Here it was a ground up emergent system there it is a top down, black law system. All the difference in the world. And this is why it is so impossible for me to get my mind around it. When it’s napoleonic code, administrative law and centralized control you have to understand more than humans are capable of understanding. With freedom under the rule of law you don’t have to understand everything, just let it evolve with an occasional new law.
IF the Brits vote to exit do you think Cameron will be a good negotiator for that exit. I can’t imagine he supports the idea. Why not undermine the move by being a terrible negotiator. When you come back with a sorry deal would Parliament really move to leave the Union? Or is the vote more than just a means of measuring public opinion? Is it a binding vote to leave?
Divorce is never amicable when real money is on the table.
My prediction is that no matter how the vote turns out in Britain Cameron will not move to leave the EU but he will engage in some form of Kabuki. Only way for Britain to leave on good terms is for someone else to break up the EU first. For that to happen we would then be looking at some major economic collapse in Italy or Spain or the migrant issue pushing in various nationalist parties in the rest of the EU to power. Then we will see it all collapse, in mutual acrimony.
I dunno. Louisiana seems to do okay.
Are you seriously suggesting that LA is still under the Napoleonic code?
No. If I were a rational British voter who wanted out for rational reasons, I would wait for a better prime minister.
Well, he does want to keep his job as prime minister.
It will go to a referendum — it’s really not up to Parliament.
The referendum would be binding, yes — you can see in the second part how Britain comes back and says, “Well, goodness, this is all very awkward, but that’s democracy, we have to respect it … so (cough) perhaps we could talk about having access to your markets anyway? Must things really change so much? Not really in anyone’s advantage to be nasty, is it?” And they basically say, “Sure. Wait in line after Malawi, bub. We’ll be as fair to you as we are to them. Of course you’ll understand why we’ve decided it’s important for the financial capital of Europe to be in Europe — stability, you know — so we’re afraid your banks no longer conform to the acquis.”
Never truer words spoken.
I think that’s how I’d bet, too.
It has vestiges of it.
Not relevant, they’re part of the US. Cities have administrative law and can prosper as well but only because they’re part of the larger whole and can’t regulate overall commerce, national security, border security, immigration, etc. etc. La has to compete with the rest of the nation so can’t get too far off kilter, even so the corruption and dysfunction led for many decades until we caught up. Even so, small homogenous places can do far more centrally and top down than large heterogenous places. Size matters greatly so does homogeneity.
Exactly! This is what these negotiations are about.
Well yes, but the European Commission is top down administrative law, staffed mostly by people from top down administrative law countries, representing the political and bureaucratic interests that have been created over the last 3 decades. Can that thing be changed by the people who run it, who represent those interests, who grasp more details than all outsiders combined, but who know only a tiny piece of what is necessary to run so vast an enterprise centrally. Some Latin American countries who are far more homogeneous and much smaller than Europe have tried to reform law away from the rigid Napoleonic code and haven’t succeeded. I can only see Europe getting more rigid, bureaucratic, corrupt, exploitative and non accountable, (as is happening in Washington), until it simply disintegrates, but like I said, I can’t come close to grasping the complexity of the process they have to undertake.
You know, I don’t. That’s one possibility, and the other possibility is complete collapse, but the one thing I don’t see is the huge danger sign I saw when I wrote about this ten years ago: Blithe, unrealistic optimism. I’m now seeing really vigorous debate about what the EU means, what it should mean, and how to respond to complaints from various electorates — to which politicians are accountable — that the EU seems to them rigid, bureaucratic, corrupt, exploitative and non-accountable. And seeing a lot of real thought about how to fix it. I’m not quick to dismiss this these EU negotiations as meaningless or pointless anymore. Sometimes a crisis can make people get serious about solving a problem.
The thing that’s important is that yes, they are accountable to their electorates. And there’s a shared memory of what happens to a disunited Europe that will never be erased from cultural memory, so I think they’re really working in mostly good faith to think this through. And it’s a very, very tough problem. I hope they’re as blessed with wisdom as our Founding Fathers were. Living through this makes me see their genius more and more every day.
If it was possible to form a Union between slave states and free states — one that has survived to this day having endured only one civil war — it seems to me that it should be possible to form an enduring European Union. No cultural difference among the European countries is anywhere near that vast.
Apparently the Swedes see another real possibility looming:
I picked a random starting point at about 1hr into the deliberation, and have now been watching for 15 minutes. I’m hooked. This really is fascinating.
Everyone in Europe does. I sure do. Russia is terrifying the Continent. It’s one of the creepiest things I’ve ever lived through. But again, I was worried about this prospect ten years ago, and people basically told me I was nuts. Now at least, they’re taking it as seriously as I do, which is much more encouraging than being told, “What are you talking about?”
That said, ten years ago there was at least something of an open question about Russia. Now the danger’s out in the open to anyone who isn’t in complete denial. Unfortunately, many still are.
Told ya.
If you’ve only got an hour to give, make sure not to miss hour five.
Worse still, it seems some of those people are our leaders, or in the case of Trump our future leaders.
There’s a major demographic element in this. Both Russia and China are facing a rapidly aging population and a rapid decline in their working age populations over the next generation. Both look to be grabbing what they can while they can.
Russia’s decades of low life expectancy pretty much ended (where have I heard that figure lately) ten years ago, which helps Putin, but Russia is up against the Chinese (whose life expectancy has been improving steadily) in competition for resources in the East. Putin sees easier pickings in the West.
A rapidly aging Europe imports young people (so far mostly male, some already jihadis) to meet its demographic crisis. Will these men be reliable soldiers for their new countries if Russia makes a move? Fifth columnists? How will Russia use European jihadi cells, and jihad attacks mounted against Europe by sea to forward its schemes?
Thanks. Just watched the first hour–I’ll skip ahead. It is very interesting. I was a bit shocked at the “We love you’s” directed at Sir Malcolm–I know they were not simply lovey-dovey, but still, it was odd. And I see that the Eurozone issue is knotty. I’d no idea. It really is like a marriage on the rocks.
I am unconvinced that Russia represents a real threat to Europe. (Poland or any country west of Poland.) Lots of bluster. A threat to the former SSRs, yes, but not to Europe proper.
In fact I am not sure that if oil stays below $35, Russia’s economy doesn’t collapse this fall.
Too complicated for me to absorb on a subject I don’t have any passion. I can tell you I would have a heck of a lot of respect for Cameron if he bolted out of the EU. My hunch is he’s making a show of it for political purposes back home but will not pull out. I would have a heck of a lot of respect for any leader that pulled their country out of this. I see very little reason to stay in the EU while subjected to another layer of a super state over one’s populace.
I saw the CapX write-up of the thing.
It struck me that Colville’s summary description of a messy divorce was overwrought and overcomplexified. There need be nothing messy about it from Britain’s perspective: they just walk (which they should do, anyway; they’d be several orders of magnitude better off outside the EU). “Negotiations” (because the continent seemed bent on being sticky for sticky’s sake) should wait until after the Brits have walked out the door and shut it behind them.
Too, if the write-up is an accurate summary, it seems to me that “France’s” response and those of others sharing “France’s” disdain for London were little more than threats, both against Great Britain’s London financial center and against “France’s,” et al., domestic banks. And so inducements to move themselves to London with its lesser regulation and commensurately lower cost of doing business.
Similarly with “Ireland’s” response that it would take a British exit as a personal threat. The proper Brit response should be to walk, and then to bite their collective thumb at the Irish.
This sort of thing just isn’t that hard to do from the British perspective, and for the Brits that’s the only perspective that should matter.
Eric Hines
On John Batchelor’s broadcast last night, Gordon Chang talked about capital “leaking” from China (around a trillion dollars last year) and about the Chinese and the Russians buying up property in NYC and elsewhere. He believes this will be followed by a wave of emigration to the U.S.and other areas, that China is returning to a period like that of the cultural revolution (yikes!). One can see a parallel political trend in Russia. He also predicts a 1929-like crash for China. The broadcast may be heard here.
Does this present an opportunity for the US to create a new free-trade zone with the UK and the Dominions? (Are they still called Dominions?)
I see significant benefits to a closer relationship between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and NZ, and probably the other, smaller UK-affiliated nations.
Of course, to avoid upsetting the ghost of George Orwell, we’d have to avoid the name Oceania.
Quebec law is also derived from Napoleonic law, and Quebec at times has difficulty getting along with the rest of Canada. It may be in part because Quebec is a larger part of Canada than Louisiana is of the United States.
A lot of Russia’s neighbors think Russia is a threat. Do you think they don’t have the same information about oil prices that we do? And the former SSRs aren’t any less a part of Europe than the countries further west. Some of them are even our allies. If Russia is a threat to the former satellite countries, it’s a threat to others. It already makes the UK modify its behavior.
Here’s one perspective on the EU Wargame from today’s Telegraph. (Interestingly, the online poll at the bottom of the article – although (i) online, and (ii) of Daily Telegraph readers, so hardly scientific, shows 81% in favour of leaving the EU.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12124497/How-the-EU-ganged-up-on-Britain-in-our-Brexit-wargame-and-denied-Cameron-a-deal.html