CURRENT EVENTS // PAUL JOHNSON
Waiting for a new deal.
The referendum campaign on Britain’s membership in the EU has been marked by confusion, contradictions and a great deal of lying. The confusion is particularly evident in the U.S. government’s stance. The White House and Congress, along with prominent individuals, urge Britain to remain in the EU, but at a lower level quiet voices urge quitting.
The official line of the Defense Department is “Remain.” But many generals argue that the EU is undermining NATO and would like to see Britain leave. It’s the same at the State Department: Publicly it’s adamant that Britain remain, but many U.S. embassies in Europe believe departure is in the interests of both the U.K. and the U.s.—and say so, though not on the record.
President Obama has publicly urged the U.K. to remain, but his intervention was much resented in Britain and is likely to have been counterproductive. The view in London is that Obama doesn’t understand the EU and that his recent trip to Europe was a “comedy turn.”
High-placed people are not necessarily giving their true opinions. Those in Europe believe the EU will collapse within five years, as a result of the influx of millions of low-income refugees from Asia and Africa, which the Brussels mechanism can neither control nor compute. No one knows to the nearest half-million how many crossed EU borders in 2015—or are crossing them this year. A British vote to quit will almost certainly lead other countries to hold referendums and, in turn, quit. Then, insiders argue, Britain can be blamed for “destroying the EU.”
The lying has intensified as the campaign has progressed. Fear has been the dominant objective. One of the minor tragedies has been the way in which Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne have conspired to corrupt the British Treasury—hitherto notable for the moderation of its views—into publishing alarmist and factually unreliable reports on the consequences of Britain’s departure.
Mr. Cameron has been particularly rash in his speeches on the consequences of a British “No” vote, pretty much destroying his credibility on the subject. He is expected to resign, whatever happens, and is said to be “bomb happy” about the situation. His most likely successor is Boris Johnson, who leads the quit campaign and is the only British politician whose popularity ratings haven’t been seriously eroded.
Boris, as he is universally known, has a lot in common with Trump, and the two men are expected to get on well if, as seems increasingly likely, Trump is the next U.S. President.
Until recently official opinion throughout Britain and, indeed, in most of Europe, was that Mrs. Clinton would win the election. That’s no longer true. Trump’s rise is one of the many factors transforming world politics and making any kind of prediction hazardous. Cameron has always refused to take Trump seriously. But then, he’s ceasing to be taken seriously himself and is expected to fade rapidly from the scene in midsummer.
promising possibilities
A Donald Trump-boris Johnson understanding, along the lines of Margaret Thatcher’s with Ronald Reagan, is now a distinct possibility—and what the world needs. The Thatcher-reagan liaison was what won the Cold War for the West, along with many other benefits. The relationship between George W. Bush and Tony Blair, though close, was no real substitute, but it was better than nothing. The possibilities of a Trump-boris duo are promising, for both men stand comfortably outside the certainties of current world politics, against which public opinion everywhere is turning.
The truth is, what everyone wants, to revive an old phrase of FDR’S, is a New Deal, and a Trump-boris axis is one way to get it. Needless to say, such an outcome is highly uncertain and depends on results that are unpredictable but worth pondering.
Also worth thinking about is how to deal with Russia’s slippery Vladimir Putin. Against the hopeless President Obama he has seemed a master tactician, making the best possible use of the armed forces he inherited from the old Soviet empire. But he’s running out of money, and indications are that he won’t be able to defend his acquisitions with displays of force.
Whoever wins the U.S. presidential election, the first test of statesmanship will be whether he or she can persuade Mr. Putin to back down from his positions on, for instance, Crimea, without any saber-rattling.