BY THELMA ASKEY  |  JUN 29

When the shock and emotional reaction to the United Kingdom’s decision to exit the European Union wears off, perhaps a more thoughtful and analytical view will emerge. For that, look at the heart of the problem. Look to Brussels.

Fifty-two percent of the British population are not ignorant, uneducated, white (now almost an epithet) isolationists with fear-mongering in their hearts and with buyer’s remorse in the aftermath. One needs to consider with a clear head what democracy has wrought. Most voters, as was intended, went to the polls guided by the perspective of their own life experiences; what they thought was best for themselves, their fellow citizens, and their country. For many, it was a very tough choice. It was a choice primarily for accountability, patriotism, AND stability. Voters were not leaping INTO the chaotic, great unknown outside the warmth of the EU; they were leaping OUT…they were saying NO to what they see as a disintegrating reality and an unpalatable, impalpable future.

Leaders within the EU and in capitals should now respond with sober, thoughtful reflection. Should the British be punished so they quickly see the error of their ways and perhaps reverse course, so that other recalcitrant populations do not follow suit? Do we hope the markets, central banks, and GNPs quickly teach bitter lessons? As the fifth largest economy in the world, the UK likely will weather the storm. Countries who have strong ties to the UK, within the EU and without, also will survive. But will the UK be a stronger, more vibrant country, still integrated with the greater Europe (albeit from outside the EU), as all should wish?

Remember that the UK will remain a leading participant, as it has in the past even from within the EU, in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and NATO. The economy of the UK has been among the strongest and most resilient. Its labor structure is among the most competitive and flexible. Outside the EU, it will have the freedom to become perhaps even more competitive and will remain an attractive market for trading partners. The UK was a leader in developing and supporting Open Skies as well as flight safety and security reforms.

Its intelligence capabilities are stellar. A case certainly can be made that the EU will be weaker and less influential as a body if it does not seek to integrate alongside the UK in its new status.

Perhaps the answer lies in Brussels. Remember that the UK has long felt the populist pressures that were evidenced in the Brexit decision. Leaders went to Brussels to try to negotiate a different path, one that would allow for greater autonomy and strength in the capitals, as well as protect culture and historical diversity and uniqueness. One could say the response from Brussels was bureaucratic, inflexible and arrogant. Does accommodation now equate with betrayal and disintegration?

Furthermore, it is time to acknowledge that discontent over how the EU has evolved extends far beyond the UK. Other countries, particularly France and the Netherlands, are grappling with the same dynamic. However, further “exits” leading to the inevitable breakup of the EU is not the only, or even the logical, retort to Brexit. Perhaps the answer lies in reining in Brussels, declawing the unelected bureaucracy, tamping down expanding ambitions for ultimate unification, allowing for the rights of nationhood and accountability in capitals, respecting cultural and historical differences, and focusing integration on the tendons that promote regional economic growth and stability.

Not responding to the UKs overtures to Brussels for greater autonomy and responsibility in capitals was a grave miscalculation. The opportunity should not be missed again. A quickie divorce to preserve the status quo within the EU is a blind response. Now capitals should insist that Brussels become a facilitator of cooperation rather than an obstinate policeman of integration. Rather than risking further stay-or-leave referendums, capitals should insist on immediate discussions to achieve a sustainable balance between cooperative efforts within the EU and national responsibilities.

Such cooperative efforts should center on preserving the current monetary and economic union, as envisioned at the EU’s origins. There is little doubt that a single currency and facilitated trade with very few tariff and non-tariff barriers, even with the pound sterling operating concurrently, has been the greatest benefit for EU Members (a cautionary note with respect to countries who were not fully prepared for membership). This monetary and economic cooperation for the greater Europe, including the UK, should become the laser focus of all parties. At least for now, Lennonesque imaginings of a borderless, uniform European utopia should be set aside.

Again, leaders should vigorously pursue efforts to reduce bureaucracy and increase accountability and responsibility both in Brussels and in capitals in order to strengthen cooperation within the union and among countries in the greater Europe that want to maintain close ties with the EU. In addition, other key objectives should be thoughtfully and deftly pursued with much more flexibility than in the past. Being in or out of the EU should not be viewed as a zero sum game, but rather as relationships that create mechanisms to spread economic, political and strategic principles while preserving strength.

Other important elements to consider:

• Borders. Having totally open and porous borders clearly has become problematic. For EU Members, such openness should not be viewed as sacrosanct. Borders among individual EU Member countries can be maintained while at the same time facilitating movement, perhaps through preclearance, specially marked passports, or specific easy-entry points for EU passport holders.

• Freedom of movement for individuals. It cannot be denied that immigration and migration played an important role in Brexit, and the current explosion in numbers is causing consternation throughout Europe. Rather than labeling these concerns as “racist” or “anti-immigrant” or “callous” against migrants, the EU can create greater flexibility for citizens of the EU to move or be hired outside their home countries while allowing Member countries flexibility to control workforce issues and address unique unemployment, training/education, and assimilation challenges.

• EU Expansion. Some experts contend that the pace and criteria for identifying and including new Members, and their subsequent absorption of the benefits and obligations of membership, have contributed to the current difficulties. With the strength, vitality and security of greater Europe being the ultimate goal, perhaps more attention can be paid to categories of affiliation. A category could be created for a longer transition to full EU membership, with escalating benefits and obligations. Greater attention should be paid to the category of countries that will remain outside the EU, but who nevertheless desire the greatest level of association. That desire that should be shared by EU Members and intense efforts should be made by all to develop the ties that bind.

• Peace. The EU and its allies should pursue with all necessary vigor and fortitude efforts to establish and maintain regional peace. War and extremism in Syria and its environs currently is the source of the explosion of migration to safety. The EU and its allies cannot afford (in every sense) to relocate entire populations. To allow the depopulation of war-torn countries, and permanently relocate and absorb their citizens, will seriously undermine the rebuilding of these countries and their cultures when the peace is achieved. It would be the ultimate irony if the EU, established to ensure peace, breaks apart in large because of the onslaught of migration caused by intractable wars festering nearby.

Brexit now must be viewed as opportunity. Time need not be wasted on recriminations and efforts to revisit, for neither will solve the underlying problems. The UK should be supported as it forms a new government, strengthens its internal unity and identity, and reestablishes and realigns its already strong ties with the EU and other allies. The extreme right and left wing parties hold some sway, but their influence has been highly exaggerated. Any extreme ideologies can be easily resisted and rejected in the process of moving forward. Leaving the EU does not mean rejecting a closely aligned Europe.

Brexiters are not “old”; perhaps they are “experienced” and have seen many governments come and go; they, quite likely, have actually fought for their country. Brexiters are not “uneducated” (as in ignorant); although perhaps without higher “public” education, they have learned in a variety of ways, including working hard every day for their families. Brexiters are not “white” (as a sneer) and “racist”, but are of all colors and stripes and are proud of their culture and country, and want accountability from their elected officials. All citizens of the UK love democracy and love their country, its heritage (including immigrants) and culture. They have exercised their rights. The world should respect.

Editor’s Note: Thelma Askey is president of The Rockardt Group Global Strategies and advises on trade, development, and economic policy. She is also a Senior Advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) on trade, development, and other foreign assistance issues. Ms. Askey served as Deputy Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Director of the US Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), and Commissioner of the US International Trade Commission (ITC). Previous to these presidential appointments, she served as Staff Director of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means.