MERKEL, TRAS LOS RECORDS DE ADENAUER Y KOHL

Indispensable Angela

Merkel enfrenta su cuarto mandato desde una centralidad que empezó siendo alemana y ahora es ya europea y global

LLUIS BASSETS, DIARIO EL PAIS, MADRID, SABADO 16 DE SETIEMBRE DE 2017.

Así como hay una superpotencia indispensable, Estados Unidos, según la ex secretaria de Estado Madaleine Albright, también hay un personaje político europeo indispensable, según el semanario The Economist, y este es Angela Merkel. Si no fuera por la obsesión alemana por la discreción y por su reticencia al protagonismo, Merkel sería reconocida como la líder del mundo libre, especialmente desde que Obama dejó la Casa Blanca y le sustituyó el presidente más atrabiliario, errático e irresponsable que haya encabezado el Gobierno de Washington.

El próximo domingo los alemanes tendrán la oportunidad de darle por cuarta vez una mayoría parlamentaria, algo prácticamente asegurado a la vista de las encuestas, en las que las listas socialdemócratas, con su candidato Martin Schulz a la cabeza, se hallan a una distancia inalcanzable —entre 15 y 17 puntos por detrás— para aspirar a algo más que entrar como socios minoritarios en un gobierno de gran coalición. La única incógnita que dilucidarán los electores será la fórmula de gobierno, en función de la composición del Parlamento, pero no la centralidad de la coalición conservadora CDU-CSU y de la figura indispensable de Merkel.

La tonalidad del cuarto mandato de Merkel en la cancillería dependerá de los socios que se vea obligada a escoger entre las tres opciones posibles en un mapa parlamentario en el que no se dan mayorías de gobierno en solitario. La opción más clara son los liberales del FDP, el socio habitual de la CDU-CSU en la coalición burguesa durante los años de la Alemania de Bonn, con los que también Merkel hizo gobierno en su segundo mandato entre 2009 y 2013. Para que esta fórmula sea posible los liberales deben salir del bache en el que se metieron hace cuatro años, cuando se quedaron sin representación parlamentaria por primera vez desde la fundación de la actual república.

Siempre está a mano la gran coalición, la fórmula que mejor refleja el consenso central de la política alemana, que lleva a gobernar juntos a los dos partidos concebidos para actuar como adversarios, uno en el Gobierno y el otro en la oposición, con el inconveniente de que dan cancha política a quienes serán los extremos, la izquierda radical Die Linke y el partido anti inmigración AfD (Alternative für Deustchland).

Hay todavía una tercera fórmula inédita, en la que una insuficiente mayoría parlamentaria conservadora-liberal se vería completada por los diputados verdes, dando lugar a la Jamaica, una improbable coalición en la que ondean, como en la bandera de la isla caribeña, los colores negro (CDU-CSU), amarillo (FDP) y verde (Die Grüne). Para Merkel, tendría el atractivo de estrenar socio de coalición con el partido que gobernó con su antecesor Schröder y dio a Alemania un destacado ministro de Exteriores como Joschka Fischer, en el gabinete que mejor representó la llegada al poder de la generación revolucionaria del 68. Sentar juntos a liberales y verdes es algo con una dificultad objetiva en los programas contradictorios de ambas formaciones, especialmente respecto a los refugiados y a las emisiones contaminantes de los automóviles, pero también en una cuestión de culturas políticas opuestas e incluso enemigas.

Con 12 años de experiencia como canciller a sus espaldas y otros cuatro por delante, Merkel superará pronto a Konrad Adenauer, que permaneció 14 años al frente de la república de Bonn (entre 1949 y 1963), e igualará a quien fue su mentor, el canciller de la Alemania unida, recientemente fallecido, Helmut Kohl. Si el primero inauguró una Alemania en paz y el segundo consiguió reunificarla, Merkel se ha encontrado con el reto de responsabilizarse del rumbo de Europa entera en la época de mayores turbulencias para el proyecto de integración, que coincide también con la quiebra del liderazgo mundial de Estados Unidos.

El récord de permanencia en la cancillería llegará en 2021, cuando Merkel cumpla 67 años, todavía a seis de alcanzar la edad de Adenauer cuando fue investido como el primer canciller de la República Federal. Aunque muchos especulan con su jubilación al término del próximo mandato, nada está escrito sobre la eventualidad de un quinto mandato al que se presentaría con la edad de Hillary Clinton cuando aspiró a la presidencia de EE UU. Esta eventualidad, ahora remota, dependerá de dos factores: de su capacidad para superarse a sí misma en su balance de gobierno, de forma que se encuentre entonces en buen estado de forma política y de imagen pública; y del punto en que se halle el centro derecha, en cuanto a cohesión y liderazgos alternativos, ahora inexistentes.

Merkel, a diferencia de Adenauer y Kohl, ha adquirido envergadura gracias a las crisis existenciales con las que ha tropezado. No es lo mismo la oportunidad de un momento inaugural, como la Hora Cero que presidió Adenauer, o la caída del Muro, que correspondió a Kohl, que la dificultad de dos crisis como la del euro y la de los refugiados, que han hecho gravitar el peligro de desaparición sobre la propia idea de Europa.

Buena parte del éxito de Merkel tiene que ver con la solidez del sistema político e institucional alemán, en el que ella ha conseguido ocupar e identificarse con el centro ideológico e incluso topográfico. Pero también cuenta su personalidad, reflexiva y dubitativa, pragmática y posideológica, capaz de arriesgar pero alejada de visiones y fantasías (esa vision thing, que no tenían tampoco ni Bush padre ni Helmut Kohl) y con un sentido moral que la alejan del cinismo y de la arrogancia tan característicos de la profesión política masculina.

Una reciente encuesta del Pew Research Center, realizada en 37 países, revela el impacto global de la canciller, en contraste con el desprestigio de Donald Trump, Vladímir Putin y Xi Jinping. Un 42% de la mediana mundial de las encuestas confía en Merkel frente a un 31% que expresa su desconfianza, cifras que en el caso de Trump son del 22% y el 74%, respectivamente. En Europa, el grado de confianza llega al 60%, con la particularidad de que el Pew subraya el notable apoyo con que cuenta la canciller en la opinión de izquierdas.

Un exceso de expectativas puede también traducirse en nuevas decepciones, sobre todo cuando quien la espera son la Unión Europea en la salida de la crisis y el mundo sin presidente de Estados Unidos. Le sucedió a Obama solo llegar a la Casa Blanca y le puede suceder a Merkel en su cuarta investidura como canciller. Las tareas alemanas que tiene ante sí no son menores y no podrá desatenderlas en nombre de unos liderazgos europeos y globales que suscitan más reticencias que entusiasmos entre sus compatriotas.

La economía se halla en excelente forma pero todavía vive en buena parte del impulso reformista de su antecesor Gerhard Schröder. El país no tiene las infraestructuras que necesita, producto entre otras cosas de su aversión al gasto y al endeudamiento. Siendo un gigante industrial, la rama más puntera que es la digital se halla subdesarrollada. El prestigio de su industria automovilística se halla erosionado por el fraude de las emisiones. Sigue cayendo la capacidad adquisitiva de los trabajadores peor pagados, en una buena demostración de que Alemania no se sustrae al incremento global de las desigualdades que ha presidido la reciente crisis. Y es muy inquietante su demografía declinante con una población cada vez más envejecida.

A pesar de las exigencias interiores, hay demanda de Merkel en Europa —con Macron a la espera de dar juntos el gran impulso europeo— y la hay en el mundo, con esos liderazgos populistas y autoritarios, Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, que hacen todavía más urgente una brújula orientada por el derecho internacional y por los valores europeos que son los de Angela Merkel.

ARTICULO RELACIONADO DE TU INTERES 

MERKEL QUIERE EVITAR NUEVAS ELECCIONES Y BUSCA ACUERDO CON EL SPD

EL TURNO DE DONALD TRUMP: CONTRA TODO Y CONTRA TODOS

La noche se prolongó en medio mundo, sobre todo, donde habita la civilización latinoamericana y la mañana sorprendió al resto, particularmente gran parte de la azorada Europa. Las mercados, sobre todo, los asiáticos, tuvieron sus primeros cimbronazos, aunque luego del discurso, más bien corto y moderado, del candidato electo, podrían calmarse. Un nuevo "cisne negro" se había producido, pero esta vez, en la potencia más importante del planeta. Como en el "Brexit", el referéndum por la paz colombiana y no pocas elecciones presidenciales y parlamentarias de este año, las encuestas que predecían triunfos rotundos de Hillary Clinton, se equivocaron, aunque los Simpsons hace 16 años, lo hayan previsto. El mundo se pone más interesante.

Qué significa el triunfo de Donald Trump? Fundamentalmente, el triunfo de la decisión y hasta la apuesta del mismo hombre de juveniles 70 años, mucho más outsider que Reagan, Fox, Piñera, Macri o Berlusconi, contra la elite, el establishment, el "círculo rojo" en un país, donde los lobbies, las empresas y los medios mostraban al menos, hasta ayer, una enorme gravitación. Una vez más, se equivocaron todos: sus ex colegas empresarios, los grandes diarios, las cadenas, los artistas de Hollywood, los ex Presidentes vivos, incluso los Bush, los partidos, tanto el oficialismo como el suyo propio, el mundo académico, etc. Hacía más de un año, comenzando esto como si fuera un juego o una especie de apuesta, se animó a presentarse como precandidato, bajó uno por uno a los otros republicanos, llegó a postularse victorioso, aunque casi todos predecíamos que ganaría Hillary más fácilmente y en los últimos meses, hasta dudamos de la fuerte y creciente paridad de las posiciones, que sorprendió a la propia candidata demócrata. Trump era el "cambio" frente a una candidata con un viejo estilo, con viejos tics, con un prontuario donde ya había demostrado qué era y cómo se había desempeñado e incluso, con viejas mañas, como la tan difundida práctica de los mails, la defensa realista de medios ilegítimos y hasta la vieja, cerrada e hipócrita actitud moral con la que defendió a su marido en el affaire Lewinsky. Además, mucha gente en la Estados Unidos profunda, la rural y conservadora, lo ve a Trump como un rico o millonario -aunque ya no tanto-, excéntrico, pero auténtico, que se parece a "uno de nosotros". Esa identificación, un mix cultural, generacional e ideológico, es realmente contrahegemónica, en el sentido de un autor argentino ya fallecido, como Ernesto Laclau, que si viviera, no podría creer que sus preceptos tan caros, se hayan reivindicado no en los países latinoamericanos, sino en la propia cuna del "Imperio", aún cuando él mismo, en sus obras, había rescatado la prosapia populista norteamericana, a través del General Andrew Jackson en el siglo XIX.

Pero también Trump es un mentís a muchas categorías, preceptos morales y estilos que fueron hegemónicos, durante las últimas dos décadas, sobre todo en el mundo occidental. De pronto, los "malos" como él llegan al poder, de la mano de la misoginia, de la crítica al feminismo, al multiculturalismo, a las uniones gays, a la inmigración latina, etc. Apoyado sólo por Rudolph Giuliani -el padre de la tolerancia cero-, Newt Gingrich -el ex Speaker de la Cámara de Representantes- y algún otro "dinosaurio" marginal del Partido Republicano, canalizó el hartazgo con los Clinton y la política tradicional,  pero también con el propio Obama: el norteamericano medio simpsoniano no quiso una mujer en la Casa Blanca luego de un Presidente afroamericano, al que criticó sólo en el ámbito privado, temiendo la crítica social si lo hacía en público. Para aquellos que descreen hasta hoy que el liderazgo es una categoría antigua, lo de Trump lo revaloriza. Todavía hoy, existen personas concretas y reales, que cambian la historia, en un sentido u otro.

A nivel mundial, Trump es la consecuencia de la globalización de los noventa, la recesión de 2001, la crisis de 2008-2009 y la mala resolución estatista que conllevó. Tales episodios macroeconómicos, dejaron una abismal desigualdad social, ya desde los años setenta, haciendo añicos, el viejo "sueño americano", en un país que sólo recoge frutos positivos de la globalización en zonas tecnológicas como California pero muere en las tradicionales y otrora orgullosas de aquel mito, en Baltimore y Detroit, sin ninguna respuesta válida en los Clinton que no sea más globalización, más TPP, aún siendo ellos tributarios de un partido que fue históricamente proteccionista, más inmigración ilegal, más comercio asimétrico con China. Cabe esperar entonces una Estados Unidos más cerrada, aunque no sepamos a ciencia cierta, cómo lo financiará y lo podrá compatibilizar esa autarquía y nostalgia con el orden industrialista pre ochentas, con la asociación con China; con mayores y severos controles sobre la inmigración y como consecuencia de ello, más reacia a involucrarse en el mundo, excepto vía aliados y otros no tanto, como Rusia. Trump en la Casa Blanca es una buena noticia para Moscú, pero también para Londres, Tel Aviv, Tokio, Budapest, Damasco aunque no tanto para Beijing, Riad, Varsovia, Vilna, Riga, Berlín, Roma y París. En nuestra región, es una derrota para los Peña Nieto, los Santos -no para Uribe-, los Castro y hasta el Papa Francisco en El Vaticano.

Respecto a si, como profetizan no pocos neoidealistas, esta derrota es el fin del orden liberal de la postguerra o conllevará a un mundo más peligroso y al borde de nuevas guerras, todo está por verse. En principio, cambiarán algunas alianzas, se restablecerán otras, bajo otras condiciones, pero un Estados Unidos menos intervencionista y menos expuesto, tal vez, no sea tan mala noticia. Tal vez, ahora sí, por fin, otros tendrán que asumir nuevas o mayores responsabilidades colectivas.

BRITISH INSTITUTIONS ARE BLOCKING BREXIT?

The House of Lords has suddenly come into its own – white knights in ermine could rescue us from Brexit yet

In the past the Lords has acted as a valuable safety net for the Commons’ shortcomings – recently on veering from modern slavery, lobbying, pensions, trade union reform and privatisation of Royal Mail. They may not be to everyone’s taste, but we would have seriously missed them if they weren’t there

• Simon Sapper

, THE INDEPENDENT, NOVEMBER, FRIDAY, 4TH

Baroness Smith, Labour’s leader in the Lords, has declared that the upper house will not block Brexit following yesterday’s High Court ruling.  But her group has nowhere near a majority of votes in the Lords, so the prospect of “white knights” in ermine riding to the rescue of the Remain camp – and blocking Brexit once and for all – is real. 

This is truly a constitutional minefield, but the challenge of finding a safe way across is hugely increased by a deafening cacophony of conflicting views, each issue over-layering the other.

So, we have the judicial system pilloried – yet no serious doubt that the limit of Prime Ministerial prerogative was one that  needed to be legally  tested. We have suggestions that unelected peers (riding on the coat-tails of those pesky unelected judges) will deny the “will of the people” as expressed in the EU referendum, despite the obvious and sumptuous irony.  And we have the regurgitated threat to abolish the House of Lords when it does something the Commons doesn’t like.

The politics of all this reek. Do we not expect judges to look at facts, evidence and law and rule accordingly? Has no-one read the judgmentwhich is clearer than crystal? Are we really advocating only accepting those democratic decisions that go our way? Do we embrace opportunism as the basis for Parliamentary reform?

If, as the good Baroness also said, “we will scrutinise, we will examine.... we need to be adult about this, “  there is a genuine lack of clarity  about the Brexit strategy and now a clear  responsibility on Parliament to  scrutinise.  And even if everyone does act and speak in good faith, the Prime Minister’s assertion that her timetable for activating Article 50 is unchanged seems untenable.  Debate and oversight inevitably take time, and the prospect of significant delay is very real.

There is an even greater irony in the attacks now falling thick and fast on the Peers when you look at where they are coming from. That so many conservative or right-wing commentators – the  traditional allies, supporters and defenders of the Lords – have taken up pens against them shows (again) the toxicity of the Brexit debate.

But is this a defining moment for the noble members? What the Lords do best is scrutiny of the most detailed kind. The views of the 182 cross-bench (or independent) peers are hugely influential, impervious to party bullying or blandishments, and rightly and keenly sought. Notions of fairness, morality and justice seem to weigh more heavily on the red benches than the green.

On one level there is no mystery to how the Lords may delay a move to activate Article 50. It is simply by raising questions and moving amendments at every stage of the parliamentary process they can. There is a separate and detailed debate about the precise nature of that process, including timescales. But since 1911, the Lords have only a limited period of time for which they can delay legislation coming from the Commons, not a veto.

So the Lords could not block Article 50 on their own – but depending on the format of the legislation, the length of time the government will take to formulate a plan, and  the likely delays in the Commons before it reaches the Lords, the Peers’ action could be decisive, especially if it means a final decision is delayed until after a General Election.

The mutterings about the Lords being abolished if they defy the will of Parliament is therefore disingenuous hyperbole. Proper scrutiny is important as well as, now, a legal requirement. In the past the Lords has acted as a valuable safety net for the Commons’ shortcomings – recently on veering from modern slavery, lobbying, pensions, trade union reform and privatisation of Royal Mail. They may not be to everyone’s taste, but we would have seriously missed them if they weren’t there.

But once we get to within  touching  distance of the next General Election, you can bet that the pace will slow and, lo and behold, we go to the polls in 2020 in what is effectively a rerun of the EU referendum (which is what an election earlier would be too). What a mess.

But there is a long way to go in this process. And right now we seem to be committed only to stoking the pyre of common sense with a likely government appeal to the Supreme Court, whose sessions are usually live-streamed. More delay, more confusion, more shouting.

The EU referendum (which, remember, started all this) showed how fractured our country has become, with a breakdown in the relationshipbetween the people and the political, media, and business elite. The residents of this growing Tower of Babel forget that at their peril.

GRAN BRETAÑA Y EL MUNDO POST "BREXIT"

Medio mundo no durmió esperando ansiosamente el resultado oficial de las 4.00 (hora argentina) y el medio restante se despertó con la gran noticia. De manera apretada pero decisiva e inobjetable, la mitad más uno de los británicos han decidido en un referéndum, la salida del Reino Unido de la UE. Más allá de analizar las enormes e inesperadas derivaciones que surgen del hecho, éste en sí mismo, encierra particularidades dignas de analizar. 

En primer lugar, contrariamente a lo que predecían una vez más las encuestas y el propio Premier británico David Cameron, cuando adelantó de modo audaz, la fecha de la consulta popular, creyendo que la ganaría, acicateado por el triunfo del "No" a la separación escocesa en setiembre de 2014, los votantes británicos decidieron el "Brexit. Este tiene todas las características de un nuevo "Cisne Negro": inesperado y de consecuencias devastadoras. El evento se inscribe en una marea de sucesos sorpresivos y sorprendentes, que vienen ocurriendo en la arena internacional y que amenazan con continuar en diferentes lugares del globo. Si existe alguna semejanza, es con la decisión de Mikhail Gorbachov de terminar con la Guerra Fría, en los ochenta, lo cual arrastró en poco tiempo, a la caída del propio Gorbachov y su Imperio soviético o mucho más atrás en el tiempo, con el fin del patrón oro. Son movimientos cataclísmicos, tectónicos, que se sabe, dónde y cómo empiezan pero nunca dónde y cómo terminan. 

En segundo lugar, la decisión electoral sucedió en un contexto de hechos precedentes que sin embargo, parecen tener cierta concatenación a través de dos factores comunes: por un lado, un discurso antielitista, contra el "establishment" (político y empresarial-financiero), aunque sea liderado por aristócratas o millonarios como el ex periodista del Daily Telegraph y ex alcalde conservador de Londres (2008-2016), Boris Johnson y el propio candidato republicano a la Casa Blanca, Donald Trump y por el otro, en ausencia de ideologías sólidas, su reemplazo por una oleada nacionalista, que anticipa movimientos xenófobos, racistas, autárquicos y de "destino manifiesto"("Britain First", "America First", etc.), algo semejante a lo vivido por el mundo occidental en los años treinta del siglo XX. Paradójico es que, quienes hoy se hallan a la vanguardia de las masas, sean conductores marginados o en la periferia de sus respectivos sistemas políticos, con discursos conservadores o neoconservadores, arriconando a liberales e izquierdas del lado perdedor de la historia. Todo ello, hoy, ocurre con el peso de los votos,  Las "clases populares", de manera algo desordenada y a veces, hasta incongruente y facilista,  hoy votan por los Johnson, Farage, Le Pen o Trump en contra de la inmigración, de políticas públicas ortodoxas en el campo fiscal, de burocracias centralistas e impersonales como las de Bruselas o Washington, alejadas de la realidad, que no necesariamente reeditúan en favor de aquéllas, de subsidios o transferencias enormes de dinero regresivas, etc. Claramente, los más viejos y hombres votan a favor de este tipo de políticos y políticas; los más jóvenes y mujeres, optan por salidas "civilizadas" y "cosmopolitas". La tentación populista parece retroceder aunque no tanto en América Latina, pero adelanta posiciones de modo vertiginoso, en el mundo occidental desarrollado. 

En tercer lugar, la salida de Gran Bretaña de la UE no será rápida, puede demorar algo o bastante, según opere sobre ella, la pesada institucionalidad de Bruselas, pero lo que resulta claro, que nadie en adelante, podrá subestimar el peso de los votos de anoche, con lo cual, el resultado operará sobre las cabezas de los negociadores, tanto británicos como europeos.

Vamos a las consecuencias que serán enormes, aunque no sólo en el plano financiero y comercial. La economía británica ya no es lo que era en los años treinta y mucho menos, después de los ajustes thatcherianos. Londres es un centro financiero de fundamental relevancia para Europa pero también depende de ésta, al igual que el comercio de las Islas. Los vínculos militares y culturales con Estados Unidos existen, ídem con los emergentes como China, India y hasta la propia Rusia, pero la globalización para el Reino Unido, pasaba sustancialmente por la UE. La creencia de que China e India pueden sustituir al bloque de Bruselas, es tan ingenua como la creencia del Presidente ruso Putin de que el gas europeo puede ser reemplazado por la demanda china. Esta decisión de salida afectará demasiado a la libra esterlina, al estilo del golpe de Soros contra el Banco de Inglaterra en 1992, pero también dañará las exportaciones británicas y prácticamente aislará comercialmente a las Islas. Habrá migración de capitales a la Bolsa de Frankfurt pero también, más de un "yuppie" británico perdidoso, imitará la conducta del personaje de Russell Crowe en la película de hace una década "Un buen año". 

La política, incluyendo la faz institucional-estatal, también puede salirse de su eje. No sólo Cameron pasa a engrosar las filas de los desocupados en octubre próximo: seguramente, Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Michael Gove, Priti Patel y hasta Neil Farage pasarán a pelear los espacios de poder de una Gran Bretaña más nacionalista y cerrada, con todo lo que ello conlleva en términos de pérdidas de cosmopolitismo y multiculturalidad, con una Londres convertida en una "isla" dentro de las Islas, dirigida por un abogado musulmán descendiente de pakistaníes, Sadiq Khan. Al mismo tiempo, el futuro del Reino Unido pende de un hilo. A pesar de que en la vereda de enfrente de Inglaterra y Gales, Escocia e Irlanda del Norte fueron fieles a la permanencia en la UE, precisamente, este resultado, vuelve a estimular las ansias de los escoceses por alejarse por fin de los ingleses y tender puentes de dependencia con Bruselas. Un nuevo referéndum escocés destinado a revertir el resultado de 2014, ya con los laboristas, por conveniencia, y los neoconservadores por convicciones, apoyando la secesión, prácticamente, significa el fin de la Unión trabajosa pero también coercitivamente lograda en 1701. 

Por último, el efecto dominó o cascada del "Brexit" más allá de las vigentes por no mucho tiempo, fronteras británicas. Trump, no es bien recibido en Escocia, por daños colaterales de sus inversiones y la solidaridad con sus cuestionados mexicanos, pero recibió con regocijo el voto británico porque se ilusiona con sus réplicas en Estados Unidos. Las elecciones españolas del domingo también cuentan con componente "Brexit" en los catalanes sino también en no pocos votantes de "Podemos" y hasta algunos del PP que puede ganar. La oleada populista puede seguir al interior de cada país europeo, habiéndose manifestado ya a nivel local, en Francia, Italia, Alemania, etc. Desde el Kremlin, Putin sigue atento la dinámica tectónica europea: le conviene una Europa débil que levante sanciones ahora o a fin de año y para dejarla más aislada a Ucrania y sin atractivo para la oposición doméstica proeuropea y DDHH, pero tampoco en exceso, porque puede dañarlo en la faz comercial energética. 

Para Argentina, el "Brexit" tiene una lectura ambigua. Para quienes se ilusionan con una Gran Bretaña más débil y ya sin la UE respaldándola atrás, capaz de negociar por Malvinas o con los españoles, Gibraltar, cabe no subestimar el componente nacionalista e imperialista inglés, perdiendo a los escoceses en el mediano plazo y aferrados sus nuevos gobernantes, como nunca antes, a la flema inglesa herida, por lo que no necesariamente, una Inglaterra aislada supondría mayor flexibilidad negociadora, sino lo contrario. 

Es que la historia ha mostrado muchos ejemplos de países que se suicidan porque no pueden asumir simplemente que ya no son lo que eran. La Inglaterra que emerja de una Gran Bretaña ya hecha añicos, no tiene por qué ser la excepción. En este aspecto como además, si estamos ante una era iliberal, con tanta fragmentación y populismos, algo parecida a los años treinta, previa a los grandes totalitarismos europeos, bien vale recordar la frase de Marx, "la historia se repite, primero como tragedia y luego, como farsa".

LA FRONTERA CON IRLANDA, UN GRAN ESCOLLO PARA EL "BREXIT"

UNITED KINGDOM OUTSIDE THE EUROPEAN UNION?

THE MEANING OF BREXIT

AN INTERVIEW WITH IAN BREMMER

THE ECONOMIST, Feb 23rd 2016, 13:55 BY BAGEHOT

DAVID CAMERON completed his EU renegotiation just days ago and yet, as some of us predicted, already it is receding into the distance. As the campaign gets underway, the focus has moved off the prime minister’s respectable but inevitably modest achievements in Brussels and onto the big arguments. What would a Brexit mean for the country, and for Europe? Would it leave it stronger or weaker? What sort of role should Britain seek to play in the world over the coming decades? One particularly lively fault line in Westminster (albeit perhaps not on the doorsteps) divides those who would leave the EU to forge better relations with Anglophone and emerging powers on other continents from those who believe Britain’s EU membership is a stepping stone to the wider world. 

To help make sense of these choices, last week (as Mr Cameron was finalising his renegotiation) I sat down with Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, and a foreign policy guru. I asked him about what Britain’s decision on June 23rd would mean for its role on the global stage and why partners like the United States are taking such a close interest in the outcome. His answers together amount to a grave warning of the risks of an “Out” vote. 

Mr Bremmer argued that:

• Brexit would bring the “further marginalisation of Britain as a power with influence”
• the prospects of TTIP (the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) and the attractiveness of the British market would be hit “very dramatically” by Brexit
• given the uncertainty about the EU’s future, now is a “very bad time for a referendum”
• for that reason, and given the way the state is changing, it cannot be assumed that the referendum will settle the European question
• another referendum in the medium term is a possibility
• in a “world with more currencies” it is entirely possible for Britain to thrive in the EU without adopting the Euro
• Britain should be doing “so much more” and “everything possible” to improve its relationship with India rather than obsessing about China, for which Germany will always be the best European partner
• the notion of an “incredibly overbearing” EU getting in Britain’s way does not match the weak reality: “I really would not be very worried that the EU is stopping Britain from accomplishing so much”
• Japan, not Britain, is best placed to sell services to the Chinese
• by backing out of Europe and thus making itself a “second tier power”, Britain is undermining its own attempts to attract Chinese attention and investment 
• it is dangerously short-termist for Brits to put “all of your eggs in the China basket”
• London’s concentration on winning small concessions from Brussels illustrates its lack of ambition on the world stage: “The very debate that is being had over this referendum proves my point that Britain is not as relevant as it used to be”
• Britain should be looking to set Europe’s course: “if you vote to stay in the EU the Brits can and should embrace a leadership role in what is a weaker Europe that needs Britain"
• Brexit could put off Eurosceptics in other EU countries, because they will see how “painful” and “technically difficult to engineer” leaving the union is
• Brexit would contribute to a much broader trend: the hollowing out of the transatlantic relationship and America’s associated turn towards the Pacific

NB: This interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

BAGEHOT: What would Brexit look like for Britain? What does it mean if we vote to leave?

IAN BREMMER: Well first of all it probably means a couple of years to unwind. The level of distraction, technically, to figure out how to do it with the Europeans is going to involve an enormous amount of political effort and resource, at the exclusion of many other things. We had a Supreme Justice who just died two days ago in the United States.

BAGEHOT: Scalia.

IAN BREMMER: Think about how much time that’s going to take; every other piece of legislation that you thought was relevant is suddenly thrown under a bus until they get through that discussion. Well, it’s that times ten. I think that’s one thing. The second thing is that it’s the further marginalisation of Britain as a power with influence, whether that is true diplomatically, economically or militarily (with the United States or more broadly). Now the US relationship is already weaker than it used to be, because the US see the Germans as generally more important and relevant, and the Brits have wanted to make themselves China’s best friends in the West. 

BAGEHOT: I joined George Osborne on his recent trip to Beijing. It was a whole different approach.

IAN BREMMER: It was quite something. I don't support that approach, for what it’s worth. But I do think, whether it means getting the TTIP done (which is important for the global economic architecture, the alignment of the West and trying to stop the fragmentation of values and standards in the international economy) or the attractiveness of the British market; all of these things will be hit very dramatically by Brexit. And that’s leaving aside the presumption that Scotland would leave Britain after Brexit (there would certainly be another referendum, because it reopens everything). So as much as I understand that Europe looks bad right now (and it does), I think that Brexit would be a truly unfortunate decision for the British nation.

BAGEHOT: Let’s pick over a couple of the counter-arguments put by the Eurosceptics. The first is that Brexit might seem like an uncertain prospect, but the status quo is not a known quantity either, in that Europe is changing, the Eurozone is trying to integrate, where Europe will be in five to ten years we don't exactly know…

IAN BREMMER: Sounds like a very bad time for a referendum. That is a very good argument for having the referendum when it is less politically expedient for Cameron. Unfortunately political figures are politicians, and that is their priority in all counts.

BAGEHOT: But Cameron having chosen to have the referendum now… What is the counter-argument to the “it’s riskier to stay in” objection?

IAN BREMMER: Have another one. If things get really ugly for you in five years time can’t you have another referendum? Are you legally blocked from having one?

BAGEHOT: Not at all, it’s up to the government of the day.

IAN BREMMER: Then explain to me why that argument [that Britain cannot hold another referendum in a few years] holds any water whatsoever. I just haven’t heard anyone actually say: “well why don’t you do one then”! I just don’t understand it. There’s nothing stopping you.

BAGEHOT: Eurosceptics would say that the Europhile establishment has somehow been pressured into giving us this referendum now, but that it won’t give us another one in five years. 

IAN BREMMER: If if becomes obvious that things are getting much worse… Look, I think it’s fair to say that the grounds for Euroscepticism have been getting larger over time. If Europe continues to deteriorate, that will not change. So it may be easier now to have a referendum than any time before - until tomorrow. I would think you would want as many referenda as possible. At the end of the day Quebec wasn’t satisfied with just one.

BAGEHOT: The “neverendum”.

IAN BREMMER: The neverendum! That’s right.

BAGEHOT: I think we need to use that word more. But you’re right: even if we vote to stay in by quite a large margin (which it might not be), the idea that this is going to settle anything is nonsense.

IAN BREMMER: It is! It’s dangerous to assume these things are settled. And I say that in particular because what it means to be a state is changing quickly. And that itself is going to have an impact on these discussions. There is so much decentralisation of power happening.

BAGEHOT: Within states?

IAN BREMMER: Within states. In terms of municipalities.

BAGEHOT: That’s certainly true here.

IAN BREMMER: And it’s true in the United States too. And in states in the United States. There’s just a lot of decentralisation. And I don’t see anything slowing that down. Again, in five or ten years time, if large democracies continue to see themselves as being controlled by special interests, incredibly ineffective, very slow moving, unable to respond to the demands of their constituents, then I think we have a whole different set of issues on our plate than the nature of Britain’s affiliation with the EU. You want to understand what the hell Britain is, and how it works. I think those are more fundamental questions.

BAGEHOT: To put another anti-EU argument to you, the Eurozone is going to have to integrate in some way, at whatever level. Britain is outside the Eurozone; Cameron claims to have some sort of protection built into the renegotiation. Formally, at least, every EU country but two (Britain and Denmark) is obliged to join the Euro eventually and although the likes of Sweden may take a long time about that it is possible to imagine a future in which the Eurozone and the EU look more and more identical. Admittedly, it’s quite an optimistic one from the Brussels point of view, but it is conceivable. Where does that leave a country like Britain, that looks extremely unlikely to join the Euro at any time in the next couple of generations? And a country that trades so much on its financial prowess?

IAN BREMMER: As long as you have a common market and the financial regulations themselves are more and more harmonised (between Britain and the rest of the European Union), then that actually allows London to stand quite significantly as a global financial centre. It is true that we are seeing more fragmentation, of the world over the long term, away from the dollar. Now in the last few years since the financial crisis the dollar has actually strengthened and more people have held it, but as the Americans unilaterally use the dollar as a tool of coercive diplomacy and use financial institutions (what I call “the weaponisation of finance”), lots of people are going to hedge. And they’re going to hedge towards the RMB (particularly as they [the Chinese] reform more). It’s going to be a world with more currencies. And I don’t necessarily believe that means that it’s a mistake for Brits to want to be in the EU but not have the Euro. I think that’s OK.

BAGEHOT: On that point about the country’s place in the world, some say Britain should cut itself free from the sclerotic EU and use the freedoms that it wins by leaving the union to build better relationships with the rising markets, with the Commonwealth. For example, because we get so much immigration from the European countries we can’t take as many computer engineers from Bangalore, or whatever. Do you see any merit in that argument? In the idea of Britain as a truly global rather than European player, aided by leaving the EU?

IAN BREMMER: I think the Commonwealth is extraordinarily important to Britain, and the Brits should invest more in it. The very fact that they decided to spend less on the Foreign Office and were able to coordinate their embassies and share resources with the Canadians and the Aussies and the Kiwis… I would have preferred it if the Brits had spent more themselves. But I’d still want them to be doing that sharing. I think it’s hugely important, like the Five Eyes agreement on cyber, which has been very helpful to the United States as well. You look at Britain’s ability to develop a stronger relationship with a country like India, given its ties, and it should be doing so much more. Because India is a rising country, a vibrant democracy and is finally starting to get governance in place. Right now the best relationship India has in the world is with Japan. Britain should not be happy about that. Britain should have been doing everything possible to get in that position; as opposed to China, where the Brits are never going to be able to compete with the Germans. The Germans will always have a better relationship with China than Britain.

BAGEHOT: But are you convinced that Britain staying in the EU doesn’t inhibit that?

IAN BREMMER: Not to a meaningful degree. Not to a degree that matters, compared with the dangers and downsides of leaving. Let’s be honest with ourselves: it’s not like the EU is getting stronger. The EU is getting weaker. Schengen is falling apart and countries are increasingly looking to themselves. Common values in Europe are falling apart. So in the EU that the Brits are thinking about leaving—because ostensibly it is so incredibly overbearing—those things are eroding. Europe doesn’t stand for what it used to. I happen to think that’s sad, because of course the supra-national, democratic identity that Europe took on was in many ways the most bold and courageous experiment that advanced industrial democracies have ever embarked upon. They failed. And you see that in Europe with governments moving away from rule of law, moving away from an independent judiciary. You see it in Hungary, in Poland, in Greece. You see it with the rise of populism in many of the larger European economies as well. In this regard, I really would not be very worried that the EU is stopping Britain from accomplishing so much.

BAGEHOT: You mention India and China. The argument for the great Osborne charm offensive towards the Chinese is that their economy is evolving: where once it had a seemingly unquenchable thirst for the machine goods, the hard engineering exports, in which Germany specialises, now as its middle class grows, as it starts building up a welfare state, Britain’s strengths come into play. Financial, educational, business services are suddenly a larger part of China’s imports. And Osborne’s thinking is that now is therefore the time to try and beat the Germans at their own game. What’s the counter argument?

IAN BREMMER: There are a few. One is that the Chinese take advantage of you when they think you’re desperate. And the Brits smacked of desperation a bit. Not just in joining the AIIB [the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank] but joining it first and saying: “you see, we made this happen for you.” They drive tougher commercial bargains when that happens. The second point is that, long-term, the major economy that the Chinese will ultimately need the most is not Britain. It is Japan. Because Japan has by far the oldest population, they have a healthcare system that really works, they’ve got the most resilient infrastructure in the world. They know how to market to a much older population, develop consumer goods for it. And they’re right there. So good luck to Britain on that one. 

The third point is that, unlike Germany, the Brits actually play a geopolitical role. The Brits are much more interested in talking about human rights internationally, things like the Dalai Lama, Taiwan, Hong Kong. It is true that, for the time being, you have a British government that has jettisoned all that in favour of the Chinese. What happens when the next British government gets elected? Is Cameron able to promise that everyone who comes after him is going to have an equally benign view of a communist China? The Chinese absolutely know that what the Germans do is industrial policy. That’s what they focus on. So the Chinese feel much more certain, long term, that the Germans are not just a good bet; they’re a safe bet. Not only are the Brits not as good a bet, but they’re a very unsafe bet!

BAGEHOT: Let me play devil’s advocate. Britain is progressing towards a less geopolitically significant role. You’ve been saying that in this interview.

IAN BREMMER: Yes, I agree.

BAGEHOT: Meanwhile Germany at least seems to be aware of the fact that there is now more pressure on it, more expectation of it, to lead. The US picks up the phone to Germany rather than Britain for a reason. And OK, Cameron can’t bind his successors, but it looks like the Tories will be in power for quite a while. Aren’t we moving towards a place where Britain can play Germany at its own game?

IAN BREMMER: We are. I think those are both really good points. But I also think that you aren’t going to change a country’s stripes over a couple of years. This British charm offensive was virtually overnight. And British role on Hong Kong and Taiwan lasted a little longer than that. Those are places that are going to get more problematic over time. Yes, the Germans will play a more significant—even military—role. But the British role is more significant militarily in NATO, in the Middle East than Germany’s is today, and it will be in two years and in five years. The fact that the Americans are closer to the Germans is not because the Germans are doing so much militarily. In fact, in part it’s because Obama is becoming more German and the United States is moving in that direction. And also because Germany is clearly the leader of Europe, which by the way is the same reason the Chinese want to be with Germany; if you can make only one stop in Europe where do you go? You’re going to go to where things matter. To whoever’s taking a leadership role. 

The Brits are basically saying: you know what? We’re a second-tier power. Well the Chinese are very likely to take you as a second-tier power. And that’s not where they spend their money, it’s not where they spend their time. Let’s not pretend China is changing its SOE [state owned enterprise] stripes overnight, and the relationships that they continue to have with the big German manufacturers are going away; there’s still an awful lot the Chinese want to learn from and steal from them. And in that regard the fact the Brits are very aligned with the Americans on things like cyber, and the Germans are not, is also useful from the German perspective. Huawei can get into Germany.

BAGEHOT: Ironically one of ways the Germans are different to the Brits is their wariness about the surveillance state. Funny how these things work out.

IAN BREMMER: It is. It’s very ironic, is it not. Look, I’m very sympathetic to the Cameron-Osborne notion that Britain needs to have much better relations with rising powers. I’m very sympathetic to the notion that the Brits need to hedge and that the United States right now doesn’t really know what it is. And so the Special Relationship is not all that special. I get that. I think the China decision is a mistake. What you do is not put all of your eggs in the China basket. What you do is you play very hard with the fact that you’ve got the Commonwealth, in India and you basically do what the Japanese have been doing, which is that you go around planting flags and engaging. But it really should not be: “hey, the Chinese are writing cheques so let’s get the money now.” That’s a short-term strategy. That’s the kind of thing you do if you are the CEO of a company and are planning to retire in a couple of years. It’s not what you do if you’re the prime minister of a country and are looking for your legacy.

BAGEHOT: I think they’re almost explicit about that comparison: the chief-executive prime minister going around cutting deals and flogging British goods.

IAN BREMMER: That’s the problem. The average CEO lasts for less than five years, so they’re all looking at: what do we do to ensure we maximise shareholder value for now? How to we pump those stocks? Gotta make sure we make that money and right now. Doesn’t matter what it means in five or ten years. The problem is the British people are around longer than shareholders. And you can’t do that to your constituents, to your voters. That’s why this is not something they should be embracing. 

BAGEHOT: You mentioned the idea that Britain is becoming marginal and a “second-tier power”. To put the counter-argument, it’s spending its 2% of GDP on defence, it is an international aid superpower, Osborne has stopped the haemorrhage of funds out of the Foreign Office. Britain is still on the UN Security Council, we’re still in the EU. Is it exaggerating to say that the country is pulling back from the world?

IAN BREMMER: Philip Hammond’s speech at Munich was a hell of a lot better than the British statements last year. So I do think there’s something to it. I’m the one who tweeted that the most influence Britain has these days is what’s written in The Economist. And I meant it. Precisely because that is soft power, it does matter and Britain is seen as much more relevant on stuff that it has done for a long time than on what the British government is coming up with these days. The fact that you’re in the Security Council? Who cares. It’s an irrelevant, feckless organisation. 

Look, I think that there’s something to be said: if you vote to stay in the EU the Brits can and should embrace a leadership role in what is a weaker Europe that needs Britain. That needs Britain. Why is it that this entire debate is only about what Britain needs? That shows how much smaller Britain has become.

BAGEHOT: Insecure? 

IAN BREMMER: The very debate that is being had over this referendum proves my point that Britain is not as relevant as it used to be. It needs to get beyond that and say: Britain can be there for others and the Europeans need Britain. The Europeans really need Britain. The Germans, Merkel, need Britain. The French need Britain. The Italians need Britain. And Britain’s not there. Britain doesn’t care. (They need America too, and America’s not there.) Is that the world we want? I wrote about the “G-Zero”, so I’m fully invested in the fact that that’s the way the world is going. But I don’t like it. I don’t think it’s good. I don’t think it’s good for Britain.

BAGEHOT: At the start of this I asked you what Brexit would mean for Britain. What would it mean for the rest of the world? Why is there so much concern in Washington?

IAN BREMMER: There isn’t enough concern in Washington about this! Kerry made his first significant statement on this in Munich.

BAGEHOT: A “strong UK in a strong EU.”

IAN BREMMER: Exactly. And Obama’s going to make a statement, I’m sure. But this has been irrelevant to the Republican and Democratic primaries. There’s been a lot of debate on foreign policy but not on the transatlantic relationship. We [Eurasia Group] set out our top risks for this year and number one was the “hollow alliance”. We believe that it is weaker than at any point in the last 75 years. And it’s precisely because of all the dangers around the EU, including Brexit, that we wrote that. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, I think, is the single biggest thing Obama has done in seven years on foreign policy. It’s something that not only brings America closer to like-minded countries in the Pacific, but it will also, ultimately, help the Chinese integrate in that direction as well, because they don’t want to be left out. Let’s keep in mind that America is relatively new as an Atlantic power. Before World War Two it was focussed more on the Pacific. And it will be again, and it will be much more if Britain leaves the EU.

BAGEHOT: So Britain leaving the EU would help the “pivot”?

IAN BREMMER: Absolutely. The Europeans will be seen as less relevant as allies to Americans. Especially because so many bad things are happening in Europe. All of the geopolitical issues that don’t wash up onto American shores. People say they do, but ISIS is so much less of a problem for America than it is for Europe. Britain leaves the EU, and that is going to be even more so.

BAGEHOT: The fact that Trump is concentrating on Mexicans is telling. 

IAN BREMMER: Sure. That’s because we have an ocean; where with Mexico there’s actually a border.

BAGEHOT: Do you think that Brexit would create a domino effect in the EU?

IAN BREMMER: I certainly believe that other countries would look into having their own referenda; that that political process would gather steam. I don’t necessarily think that Britain leaving would suddenly lead to a wave. I don’t think it would lead to the end of the EU. Because people will also see how painful it is. And they’ll also see how technically difficult it is to engineer. I think that will scare them.

BAGEHOT: How do you think Cameron has handled this whole issue?

IAN BREMMER: He’s a strong prime minister. The Labour Party has imploded. His alliance with the Lib Dems has left the Lib Dems much the worse for it. I think you could say that politically he has handled things extremely well. His cabinet is mostly behind him. He’s a strong premier. But in terms of what that’s meant for Britain as a country, I think it has come off the worse. 

BAGEHOT: Ian Bremmer, thank you.

IAN BREMMER: Thank you.