An expulsion clause in the EU? Will it work?

“When, if at all, can a federal political order expel a member state against its will?”

This is my response to Can federations expel member states? On the political theory of expulsion by Eva Marlene Hausteiner.

I agree that the absence of legal frameworks for expulsion/secession carries potential risks for any given federal system. It is true that when countries and territories come together to form a united polity, they do not consider it a real possibility that the federation might fall apart or break off one day. However, not having a solid legal basis for this case can lead to a massive mess of legal and political debates. Much like the case of a company or a natural person going bankrupt; possibilities remain low, but they do happen. Moreover, there are legal frameworks that govern those situations. The logical consequence is that the discussion of a possible expulsion clause for the EU is necessary. Many are likely to see its relevance, particularly after Brexit. Possible adoption of such a clause can, as Hausteiner explains, reinforce the future identity and direction of the EU. This is where ASEAN is struggling with the Myanmar case. Besides the fact that ASEAN states have a hard time agreeing on ASEAN’s shared normative values on democracy and human rights, the absence of an expulsion/suspension clause has made it much more difficult for ASEAN to take collective actions against Myanmar.

In practical terms, though, I believe that an expulsion clause can be very prone to abuse by the decisive majority. Should the other EU member states agree to expel Poland or Hungary, the expelled state will undoubtedly disagree with the reasoning provided. It could very well hold grudges against the EU, brewing possibilities of even more undesirable outcomes in the future. In this regard, the expulsion of Singapore from Malaysia has some similarities but essential differences from the potential expulsion of an EU member state.

As a person with an avid interest in Southeast Asian affairs, I was hoping to read more about this Singapore case in the paper. However, unfortunately, Hausteiner mentions Singapore only on the first page. Besides, Hausteiner also fails to acknowledge that Singapore’s expulsion carried hugely political implications. The fact is that the newly established federation of Malaysia had long been struggling with inter-racial conflicts ever since the British left in 1957. With the central axis of the conflicts being the divide between the economically affluent minority Chinese and the politically powerful majority Malays, Chinese-majority Singapore was already growing discontent with how the Malaysian government handled the situation. But more importantly, the Malaysian politicians could not risk getting outvoted by the ethnic Chinese citizens. Lee Kuan Yew had already emerged as a key political figure in Singapore with massive Chinese support, forming a significant political opposition to the Malays. Hence, even though it was not precisely what many people had in mind as a long-term solution, the expulsion of Singapore from the Federation of Malaysia served as a form of gerrymandering by Malay politicians to remove their Chinese opposition. Also, because Singapore was still an impoverished, resource-deficient territory with seemingly limited prospects, Malay politicians did not think it a big deal to ‘lose’ Singapore. Singaporeans certainly did not welcome the expulsion, but the Malay-dominant political system of Malaysia was not going to be compatible with Singapore. So, as long as the domestic power struggle scene was dominated by ethnocentric nationalism and ethnic majority demographics of Singapore and Malaysia differed significantly, their separation was somewhat inevitable. It is just that the split took the form of Malaysia kicking out Singapore.

This is one aspect I find to be lacking in Hausteiner’s paper. Failing to address the political issues behind Singapore’s expulsion, she also fails to adequately explain how an expulsion clause should be designed and used in the EU context. Suppose the current circumstances evolve to the extreme and cause most EU member states to want to expel Poland or Hungary. How would that be different from Singapore’s case? Europeans could cite democracy and human rights as key reasons, yet the driving force behind such expulsion would mainly be political. Who could deny that? Indeed, in the case of Brexit, the British people (coerced by the dominant political force in the country) voted to leave the EU. Politics, coupled with nationalism, win out economic and normative reasons more often than not. Whatever the case, the people of a country have the right to determine the country’s future. So, I do think Brexit was a good thing, at least in principle. But an expulsion? Against the will of the people? I am not so sure.

All having been said, this topic does open up a whole new series of many more debates that may serve as an excellent starting point for my further studies. This paper reminded me of an essay I wrote last year about internal enlargement in the EU. Take a look here.