What now for Europe? After Britain’s vote to exit the European Union, leaders will be tempted to keep the rest of the EU together by making an example of the continent’s second-largest economy. In fact, insisting that Britain’s exit be unnecessarily difficult would lead to more economic pain for all.

Start by remembering why a generation of leaders built organizations such as the EU. Nation-states have come together in international institutions to make their conduct regular and predictable, which promotes the free flow of goods, money, people and ideas and the wealth-creation that follows. Over the past 70 years, these institutions have been remarkably successful.

But such institutions are always imperfect, because it is exceptionally difficult to get independent countries to agree on common rules. They are always subject to exaggerated criticism, because the benefits of cooperation inevitably require some surrender of sovereign control. It takes brave leadership to explain the benefits and defend against demagogic attacks on the hated “status quo” or shadowy “elites.”

Now, if leadership continues to be lacking, we may learn that such institutions are far easier to dismantle than they are to build. Scotland and Northern Ireland, where majorities voted to stay in Europe, may decide to leave the United Kingdom. Other restive provinces in Europe (such as Catalonia) will seek to break up other nations. Meanwhile, France, the Netherlands and other countries will debate following Britain out of the EU.

Can all this be accomplished cheerfully, with a happy nod to returning democratic control closer to the people and no price to pay? Possibly. But anyone passingly familiar with European history knows that, when relations between even seemingly enlightened countries breach, very dark forces can take control. Some voters may have been motivated by a carefully researched resentment of Brussels-imposed regulations, but others were moved by more emotional fears of refugees and other foreigners. Unscrupulous leaders are exploiting similar anxieties elsewhere.

Managing the U.K.’s divorce will be a complex task. Whoever leads Britain after Cameron must strive to keep the country as interconnected with Europe as possible, following the model of Norway or Switzerland. Europe, in turn, must resist the understandable urge to punish Britain, and allow a graceful exit. Europe has tried the alternative path of unrestrained nationalism, escalating rounds of retributive economic policy and the autarkic misery that resulted.

Donald Trump’s substance-free railings against “stupid” trade deals and free-riding allies echo the appeal to voters’ suspicions that prevailed in Britain. Brexit’s success should offer one more argument against complacency to those who fear Trump’s appeals to bigotry. But no precise analogies can be drawn between Europe and the United States, nor between Trump and the Brexiteers. Americans still have an opportunity to make their own decisions and write their own history.

Editorial by The Washington Post


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.