For a while, Britain has been mutely attempting to create a new European bloc. Now that Britain (precisely the UK) has voted to leave the long survived union among the European states, there is every possibility that Britain would, along with other European countries having “NOT so pro-European Union” sentimental establishments/regimes, move towards forming and institutionalizing this new bloc.
European Union: Less important for Britain
Since the war-torn Europe became very vulnerable in all aspects after the Second World War, the region, which holds massive energy resources, required collaboration to save their existence from inside weaknesses and from outside entities. Integration and cooperation among the European countries were necessary not just to ensure peace in Europe through avoiding further wars among the European neighbors, but also to stay relevant in world affairs against the strong global presence of neighboring former Soviet Union. Also, unhindered economic progress was one of the major reasons, no doubt, for initiating the regional integration process through the formation of the European Union (EU).
After the Second World War, the victorious Britain considered itself to be the leading European power. As a result, a unified platform among the Europeans was seen by Britain as an option to serve its purposes and not as a requirement for survival. However, for the other war-torn mainland European countries, the union among the European countries was a requirement for survival. So, the union was more important to the likes of Germany and France than Britain.
Britain-led new European bloc
In the current-day scenario, the pro-EU governments within the EU, such as France, fear that Britain’s exit from the EU may pave the way for other EU member states to follow suit. However, the extent to which Britain’s exit may fuel a series of exits by other member states out of the EU largely depends on Britain’s success as a non-EU state after Britain “formally” exits the union – which would require at least two more years.
What would be Britain’s next regional stance once it “formally” leaves the EU? Would Britain follow the examples of the member states of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) like Switzerland and Norway, which, despite having no EU membership, enjoy prosperity and success?
The possible-most case would be the creation of a new European bloc consisting of European countries with “NOT so pro-EU” sentimental establishments/regimes. Indeed, Britain already has been, as mentioned earlier, mutely attempting to create a bloc that is often addressed as the “northern league”. All the probable northern-leaguers – namely Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland and Britain itself – share a common desire to restrict the power of the EU. With the attempt of forming such a bloc or alliance, Britain is perhaps trying to restrict the expansion of the EU and to divide the existing EU in order to serve Britain’s own geopolitical interests.
Predictions for a chaotic Europe
If Britain makes its move towards institutionalizing the “northern league” and also joins the aforesaid EFTA after “formally” leaving the EU, a two-centric Europe would emerge — one led by France and Germany (Franco-German duo) under the banner of the EU and the other led by Britain — creating scopes for further division, cold relations, conflicts and, perhaps, wars.
There is every possibility that one of the two European blocs that might emerge out of Britain’s “formal” exit from the EU may lean towards, or align with, the Sino-Russian side of global geopolitics in confronting the other side that would avail the backing from the US.
With such two opposite blocs in Europe, wars or proxy wars are the only possibilities. The conflict of interests between the Western bloc (led by the US) and the Eastern bloc (led by the former Soviet Union) during the cold war period led to a number of proxy wars around the world. Similarly, Saudi-Iran regional rivalry has been resulting in a number of proxy wars in the Middle Eastern region. Therefore, it would not be unprecedented if the two spread heads of the two future European regional blocs, one led by the Franco-German duo and the other led by Britain, fight between themselves through proxies. However, a ‘direct’ war between these European spearheads is most likely to spread all over Europe, turning the region into a chaotic place.
Observations
• Britain’s “formal” exit from the EU might bring about a serious power-imbalance in greater Europe. There is the likelihood that Europe will become bipolar, and thus, the Europeans will no longer remain important players with regard to global affairs. Europe would become a fragmented territory that would become subjugated by other powerful state-players, all of which would use the fragmented pieces of Europe as objects of power rivalries among themselves.
• A chaotic Europe would neither be advantageous for Franco-German duo nor for Britain. Such Europe-wide chaos would destroy the social, economic and political institutions of each European state from the core. Chaos not only would halt the progresses that both sides have made so far after the Second World War, but also would cause their development to be reversed back to centuries.
• Russia would be mistaken if it thinks it may enjoy the chaos in Europe. A spill-over effect of European-chaos might hit Russia as was the case during the Second World War, where Russia, despite not having an active involvement in the war at the beginning, was attacked by the German Army.
• A direct war between the European spearheads is most likely to spread all over the world, similar to what had been seen in the previous two world wars that started as European conflicts only to turn into world wars.
Looking from the traditional European, or better put, Western paradigm, it sounds logical. But this thinking has been obsolete for a while — without its proponents realizing it. The reason being — they, the West, are the fount of thinking, geopolitical brain, global leadership. With this mindset, how can they go wrong? How can their paradigm be wrong? But it is. UK taking over the access to Russia’s back yard, of course, is a dream come true from this exceptional line of thinking.
But the world has changed. The formula of getting one’s way with impunity has stopped working. The post-cold war ravage of global economies with IMF SAP, has taken its toll, sending millions of migrants from the poor countries to their once colonial masters. The arrogant wars to reshape the Middle East, sent millons more refugees from the ravages of wars and endless interventions. And all of it is creatively blamed to global warming/climate change. Well, if that makes the global West happy, the delusion is serving the purpose. To a point. To a point called Brexit, or Trump. And many more to follow.
And what is the forecast? Another attempt at block building, more alliances, more confrontation, more urge for domination. And it will not work — again. It will not work for as long as the thinking persists that global security is reserved only for a select club, then clubs, followed by clubs within clubs. We have seen this before, many a time, and the paradigm is typically European, Western.
How can any relationship with the Russian-Chinese led set of principles be even possible? One can call Shanghai Cooperation Organization a block, out of a habit. But it is not a block — as it does not have a prerequisite, to be united at the exclusion of others, or to do form business or political realationship with the intent to harm others. The Organization is about principles, not blocks. And it is not easy to apply principle of sovereignty, respect for diversity — not just cultural, but the divesity based on traditions of political and religious institutions, as well as the diversity of development and trade models. Such principes are totally foreign to Western political institutions, as they are not based on volumes of rules and regulations, but on working on any project of common interest to two or more parties. To achive this, a combination of competition, complimentary intersts, and the harmonizing of interests through consultations — is a process. The whole point of the process is to build in the long run — the trust. The trust that is based on differences, not on smothering the differences by imposing
"superior" thinking onto "inferior". But retaining the diversity, many long-term problems are addressed. One, social diversity as any other ecology, is healthier then mono-cultures, and insures evolution that is not disrupting to the social harmony and stability. With the globe so much more connected, the migration will be more healty, more based on individual goals, not coercion of war and poverty. The trust cannot be enshrined in fancy documents, must be worked on, in everyday interaction — from security to economy, from energy to science.
It took years for Russia and China to develop the relationship of trust, and to pull along the four Central Asian states in the slow and haltering process of building relationships — among countries that are so different in their size, power and economic wealth. Yet, it was and is the key. The organization has two levels of "probation" if you will, to insure that they progress form partners to observers and finally, to join the permanent membership.
Can one even imagine any Western country accepting the idea of equality with other "less developed", and not "democratic" countries? I can only laugh at the very idea. But in order for any European countries to join the Eurasian network of global equals — it will require reeducation. But it may happen on a case by case basis, and it will come out of self-intrerest. Not the interest of some block loyalty, but the interest of one’s own country. Not in the interest of global fiancial elite, but in the interst of one’s own population. Self-interest, without the European instict to seek harm to others, while advancing oneself, will require some cognitive restructuring. But in the meantime, a growing group of countries that have slowly started to accept the new globalism, is entering the the global blood stream. It is confusing to the West that countries like India and Pakistan are on their way to become full fledged members of SCO, yet, are having constructive relationship with all other countries. You see, it is expecting that suddenly, they will become "loyal" to "their block", and if they are not, it is assumed that it is not much of a block. But there is one difference — not being tempted into offers that will HARM others. This baffles Western thinking.
I was reading and then got to your Eurasian reeducatioon, laughed and stopped reading. Why? Simply because your position is so conceited and based on opinion and not fact. Your blind digging at anything remotely western is also sublime, just say what you want to lol. By the way, for your "Eurasia" to work everyone needs to be friends with China > good bloody luck there my dear 😉
A well rounded article, a good read, a surprise these days! Mr Foizee clealry has a decent, non EU (lol) education. The only thing is to suggest a two tier Europe is a joke, a very EU joke. It will be the League and non league members, that simple. Germany and France will never be invited to join > socialists cannot be trusted as they proved with the EU. I’d also like to remind you, as you’ve been London based> Whitehall has been playing these European ‘allies’ for centuries > way back past Philip of Spain and beyond …. the League is not a new or even newish concept by historical standards its the master plan 😉 We’ve enjoyed pitting them against each other over the years, the French against the Germans the Germans against the French, The Frech and Dutch against the Germans, The Spanish against the Dutch > a frightful mess old chap but all part of the plan
ps- as for getting ones way with impunity > I refer yout o China, again. Your whole argument is convoluted and duplicitous at best. On a side note > why is my cat your profile picture hahahaha? Joking, but it looks exactly like my kitkat, random 😉