The government of the UK’s nearest neighbor, Ireland, may prove to be one step ahead of its fellow EU member states in reckoning with the effects of Brexit. During an address given at Fordham Law School on Sept. 19, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Charles Flanagan told an audience of around 100 that his country had been preparing for a possible Brexit vote for a year.

“Expert reports were commissioned. All relevant government departments were asked to examine the possible impacts,” Flanagan said. “State agencies, business representatives, trades unions, and other stakeholders were consulted with and kept informed on the government’s approach.”

“When the UK leaves the EU, Northern Ireland will be the only region in Britain which shares a land border with another EU member state,” Flanagan said. “One of our key concerns raised by Brexit is a return to a hard or fortified border dividing north and south.”

Flanagan went on to say that the reinstating of a hard border would negatively affect cross-border trade and economic activity. However, more serious would be the symbolic effect of resurrecting historical divisions.

Despite the challenges ahead, Flanagan sounded an optimistic note when he told the audience that Fordham values can inspire politicians and government officials during this uncertain time.

“As the European Union and Ireland prepares for a challenging period ahead, there is much to learn from the Fordham ethos,” Flanagan said. “Above all, there will be a need to apply what is emphasized in this University in terms of critical thinking and creative problem-solving.”

Left to right: John Feerick ’61, professor and former dean of Fordham Law School; Charles Flanagan, Ireland’s minister for foreign affairs and trade; Anne Anderson, ambassador of Ireland to the United States; Barbara Jones, counsel general of Ireland; Joseph McShane, S.J., president of Fordham University. Photo by James Higgins.

1) For the uninitiated, why is the future of the European Union such a big deal? Or is it?

As things have turned out, the E.U. is not that big of a deal. The initial impetus was good–get rid of barriers to trade in Europe. That was a big plus.

One major minus was that trade with the rest of the world remained inhibited by tariffs and other non-tariff barriers. Pick any consumer durable–say a TV, a computer or an electric drill–and you will pay at least 25 percent more in an E.U. country than in the United States.

The second was that the E.U. has become a big bureaucracy that grows like [wild] year in and year out. That bureaucracy does what bureaucrats do. They inflict costs on the rest of society in the form of taxes and regulations. All of these things have costs in terms of diminished productivity and real GDP growth. People are made worse off.

And they restrict human freedom. European bureaucrats could not give a fig about the common man and woman. Theirs is a power trip.

Washington is getting out of control in this regard. Brussels [the Belgian city the European Union calls home]is worse. It does, however, have one saving grace: more Michelin-starred restaurants than any city other than Paris. And guess who pays the expense account bills for that?

2) The European Union is obviously a huge economic entity, but with some obviously shaky partners such as Greece.  [Will the]  pullout by Britain, one of the largest members of the union, signal an imminent collapse of the EU?

No, but it [is] a wake up call. Some other countries may start thinking hard about costs vs. returns from membership in the E.U., and more importantly, the single currency.

3) What is the potential impact on the U.S. dollar and commerce?

A leave [will] be good for us, not huge but a positive. Trade between the U.K. and the United States, which is already considerable, [will] increase further. The E.U. has free trade within its bloc, but 20 percent tariffs on goods from the rest of the world.

4)  If there are [stock]losses, will they be short-term or long-term?

The idea underlying theme is that real GDP will plummet and that those declines will feed directly into stock prices. The fact is that the U.K.’s real GDP is more likely to increase. Correspondingly, spillovers abroad will be minimal. Trade will not come to an end. It very likely will increase on net. Income will not fall. It very likely will rise. The only losers on this deal are the bureaucrats and the protected industries in the E.U. that would have to compete with industries in the rest of the world.

–Interview conducted and edited by John Schoonejongen