“The only way to be influential is to stay together”

On 18 May, only 36 days before the BREXIT Referendum, the Sciences Po Paris School of International Affairs (PSIA) hosted a thought provoking and dynamic discussion on the implications of the British people’s choice regarding their EU membership. The debate compared the various British and continental positions.

ROUND ONE: BRITISH PERSPECTIVES

The first debate between Hugo Dixon, chairman and editor-in-chief of InFacts, and Toby Young, associate editor of The Spectator, gave a taste of the intensity and rhetorical pitch of the BREXIT debate across the channel.

Hugo Dixon: “We would move from being a policy maker to a policy taker”

Dixon set out the reasons why Britain should vote to remain in the EU: “[in leaving,] we would lose control of important rules that affect us. […] We would move from being a policy maker to a policy taker”. In his view, no post-BREXIT trade deal with the EU could grant the same satisfactory access to the Single Market. But the case for remaining in the EU is not merely economic. According to Dixon, with turmoil at the Southern European border, instability in the East, and the possibility of Donald Trump becoming the next American president, “this is not a time for Britain to be out in the cold on its own. We would not be in the room when Europe decides how to address these risks”.

Toby Young: “Pooling sovereignty means diluting democracy.”

In contrast, Young based his advocacy for leaving the EU on the traditional arguments against Brussels: member states’ loss of sovereignty and the European institutions' overall lack of democratic accountability. He stated that “the principle of democracy and national self-determination being indivisible is violated in many ways by the EU. Pooling sovereignty means diluting democracy. […] Democracy and national self-determination go hand in hand.” Young is convinced that an orderly BREXIT could represent a model of associated membership and, in turn, create a much longer-lasting Union, which today he believes is doomed to fail because of its excessive diversity.

ROUND TWO: THE EUROPEAN PROJECT CALLED INTO QUESTION

In the second part of the discussion, the Continental Europeans took the floor, presenting their views on the possible consequences of BREXIT for the future of the Union. Ana Palacio, former Spanish minister of foreign affairs, Hubert Védrine, former French minister of foreign affairs, and Enrico Letta, former Italian prime minister addressed the issue one by one.

Ana Palacio: “You are presenting a very nostalgic picture of the absolute sovereignty of the Westphalian world, which is now totally unrealistic […] today non-state actors are defining a new concept of sovereignty.” Palacio disagreed with Young’s sovereignty argument, marking it as anachronistic for the multilateralism of the 21st Century. She also stressed that despite some inefficiencies, the EU performed much better than the caricature he had painted of it.

Hubert Védrine: “Whatever the response of the British people, the European project is in danger and the EU needs to refocus on the essentials to gain back the confidence of the people.” Emphasizing the transnational character of the debate, Védrine focused on the fact that many people are not anti-Europe per se, but they have become discouraged, disillusioned and skeptical due to excessive integration.

Enrico Letta: “Be clear that the EU needs a big change in terms of destination, meaning, and relationship with public opinion because we can’t build a European Union against Europeans.” PSIA Dean Enrico Letta underlined how crucial this referendum is for the future of the EU and that either outcome will change the European landscape significantly. For him, if the UK remains, the referendum offers a chance to resolve the traditional ambiguity around the final goal of the European project.

To conclude, Letta shifted the focus to the broader picture, emphasising the importance of BREXIT's longer-term implications: “What will be the role of the European countries in the world of 2040? […] The only way to be influential in the future, even for the British and Germans, is to stay together as Europeans because we share values in terms of human rights, democracy, the economy, and the environment.”

Adapted from a text by Michele Bellini (student in International Public Management (Master) at the Paris School of International Affairs of Sciences Po)

Learn more

• about the Paris School of International Affairs (PSIA)