Post-Brexit playground politics: Will Europe ever learn?

Now UK citizens have done just that. In response, virtually the entirety of the EU's leadership, ranging from French President Francois Hollande, to European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker, to European Parliament President Martin Schulz, have signaled their intent to punish the UK for its decision.

Instead of admitting that the vote revealed defects in the EU which they would now seek to address, the EU leadership wants to brush Brexit under the rug by expediting the UK's departure, much as if they were kicking it out of their club rather than the UK having voted to leave it. They have justified this new found urgency on the grounds that "Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty".

What they really mean is they want to punish the UK in order to deter other countries from following its example. Instead of attempting to address the problems that stimulated Brexit and working patiently with the UK to ensure a minimum of disruption and indeed, a strengthening of Europe, they have panicked.

They have taken fright that their overly ambitious project now is fatally threatened. So the more problems arise from the undemocratic nature of the EU, the less inclined its leadership is to extend democracy. Without a mea culpa, without change to the fundamental nature of the EU, including a drastic reduction in the size, scope and power of the Brussels Eurocracy, the EU as presently constructed is doomed. 

The UK was wise to be the first to leave. It will not be the last

So how should these elites have responded? Instead of pushing the UK to the exit as fast as possible, they should have signaled their desire to work out a new relationship with it that strengthened both parties, hence Europe itself. Their fear of course is that if the UK benefits from Brexit, others will follow suit. The implication is that the EU's interests should prevail over those of its member states and over Europe as a whole. Doling out punishment to transgressors is akin to behaving as a bully in the school playground, a behavior almost guaranteed ultimately to stimulate ever more challengers.

So what Europe needs is not an ever stronger EU dictating policies to member states, but a Europe in which those sovereign states voluntarily enter into treaty relationships addressed to common problems. This process does not require an EU state in the making. Instead is requires an EU more like the UN in that it serves as a forum in which mutual problems are addressed.

When and if jointly agreed supervisory or other mechanisms are required by those agreements, they can be created on an ad hoc basis. There is no need for a European capital, because there is no European state and never will be.

Europe requires an EU more like the UN, in that it serves as a forum in which mutual problems are addressed

But there is a need for a strong Europe in which its nation states work effectively together to confront various challenges. The EU now is part of the problem rather than part of the solution to Europe's problems. Its leaders' knee jerk response to Brexit reflects their inability to recognise what is wrong with their organisation. It signals that nothing will be done by them to address these faults. 

The UK was wise to be the first to leave. It will not be the last. It is, therefore, vital that these successive divorces, commencing with the one now under negotiation, do not stimulate antagonisms that undermine the prospects for future bi and multilateral European cooperation.

If they do, the blame can more appropriately be laid at the EU's than the UK's doorstep. After all, Britain simply delivered the message to the EU that it is failing, for which the UK messenger is now to be shot. The message itself is going to be ignored.

Robert Springborg is Visiting Professor in the Department of War Studies, King's College London, and non-resident Research Fellow of the Italian Institute of International Affairs. Until October, 2013, he was Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School and Program Manager for the Middle East for the Center for Civil-Military Relations. 

From 2002 until 2008 he held the MBI Al Jaber Chair in Middle East Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, where he also served as Director of the London Middle East Institute. Before taking up that Chair he was Director of the American Research Center in Egypt.

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.