Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson.The Globe and Mail
It was always evident that successive U.S. administrations opposed Quebec secession. Every serious U.S. foreign-policy analyst who thought about the matter – and few did, it should be said – concluded that a united Canada best served American interests.
American presidents tended to walk a bit on eggs when addressing the Quebec issue, in case they were seen as excessively interfering in a Canadian decision. The most decisive pro-federalism statement came from president Bill Clinton at a conference at Mont-Tremblant in October, 1999. Then-Parti Québécois premier Lucien Bouchard attended but was reduced to spluttering, so passionately and persuasively had Mr. Clinton defended federalist principles. The president (who had thrown away his State Department speech) never mentioned Quebec, but everyone in the hall got the message.
Walking on eggs, however, does not describe what President Barack Obama just did in London.
Far from avoiding the debate about Britain's departure from the European Union, the President presented a forceful argument for staying and a warning about the risks of leaving.
Mr. Obama could have bobbed, weaved and said that the matter was for the British people to decide. Instead, he told them that the dream that somehow a shrunken Britain would enjoy some special status with the United States was a mirage.
In London, and later in Germany, Mr. Obama's forcefulness underscored legitimate U.S. worries about the state of contemporary Europe – worries that Canadians should share. Britain's departure would weaken both the EU and Britain, for a British departure would probably persuade Scotland to leave Great Britain. The triumph of Little England would be at hand.
Every serious European leader wants Britain to remain in the EU, even if the country exasperates others with its periodic whining, demands for special treatment and braying anti-Europe press. Even Chinese President Xi Jinping has urged Britain to stay.
The only leader quite happy with disarray within the EU is Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose state-controlled media pours venom on Europe, fabricates conspiracy theories and whose agencies assist right-wing and nationalist parties that are eating away at the EU's cohesion. A weaker, divided Europe makes Russia's adventurism and pressure more difficult to resist.
Twice in the past century, we should remind ourselves when thinking about Europe, the United States and Canada crossed the Atlantic to re-establish a liberal order in Europe; or to put it another way, to stop Europeans from slaughtering each other. As Mr. Obama remarked, the last half of the past century was a lot better than the first half, and for that, the European Community and then the European Union are partly responsible.
At a recent conference, one of the grand old men of contemporary Europe described the EU as above all a "peace pact," adding that if it fell apart, some sort of violence could not be ruled out. Exaggerated fears? Maybe, but why take any chances?
The EU is struggling because one huge challenge cascades upon another. Slow growth leads to more inequality and anger. Disparate growth between northern Europe (especially Germany) and southern Europe makes internal harmony more difficult.
How to handle Russian aggressiveness makes finding a common approach difficult, although by and large the Europeans have found common cause, led by Germany, whose government now harbours no illusions about a special relationship with Mr. Putin.
The migration/refugee crisis of last year – and the certainty that hundreds of thousands more migrants and refugees want to go to Europe – strained the politics in many EU countries, the exceptions being perhaps Italy, Spain and Portugal.
Those urging Europe to keep taking in many additional refugees should note that people are unhappy and are turning to right-wing, nationalist, anti-immigration parties everywhere from France and Germany to Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Austria, where last weekend a far-right candidate led the first-round of polling for state president.
It is easy in these countries to see why people might blame the EU for problems; it is less credible in Britain, which has more control of its own immigration, currency and laws. But nostalgia always lives in Britain, as does the false dream of some special relationship with the United States and Commonwealth countries.
Perhaps Mr. Obama's intervention might help Britain think straight as it heads to the June referendum on whether to remain in the EU. He spoke especially of young people, as well he might. Polls show a big majority of those under 30 years of age are in favour of the EU. They are the future. They are Europe's and Britain's best hope. But will they vote?