By Sheila Copps

First published in The Hill Times on November 19, 2018.

OTTAWA—Brexit boiling over should be no surprise to anyone.

The decision to leave the European Union was based on a simplistic, nostalgic notion that an exit vote would restore the greatness of Great Britain.

Brexiters enjoy many parallels with the “Make America Great Again” campaign of Donald Trump.

Candidate Trump himself travelled to his mother’s homeland of Scotland to urge citizens to vote in favour of Brexit.

He made common cause with chief exit architect and U.K. Independence Party Leader Nigel Farage, subsequently inviting Farage to join his presidential campaign.

Both Trump and Farage based their successful messages on the notion of taking their respective countries back to the future.

They harkened back to a time when good-paying jobs were plentiful and not too many foreigners were there to grab them up.

But neither country wants to abandon the benefits that global economic integration has conferred.

The United Kingdom expected to hold all the cards in the negotiation of their exit from the European Union.

Instead, the country has been forced to sign an agreement which appears to put most of the power back in the hands of Europe.

Prime Minister Theresa May is hanging by a thread. It looks highly unlikely that May will even muster the support of her own Parliament, which was highly skeptical about the benefits of her negotiated agreement. She is also facing a Conservative non-confidence motion which could cost her the prime minister’s position.

Some politicians are so dissatisfied with the Brexit agreement that they are calling for the prime minister’s head in a non-confidence motion.

Others want a new vote, claiming that the negative impact of leaving the European Union was not understood at the time of their national referendum.

Without a negotiated settlement, the United Kingdom would lose the right to sell goods freely into the European market. Movement of people, including Brits residing in Europe, and Europeans living in England, will also be blocked at the British border.

If the fragile deal fractures, which looks increasingly likely, the United Kingdom will face a European divorce next March with absolutely no backstops.

The same dream that Farage sold in the United Kingdom is the one that has Trump supporters rallying around the American president .

They believe Americans can withdraw from international agreements with absolutely no consequences.

Like the Brexiters, they believe that walls will return America to the standard of living and global glory it used to enjoy.

What neither country seems to realize is that neither the United States, nor the United Kingdom is the centre of their respective universes. Their empires have been displaced by powerful new economic and political forces.

The emergence of China as a world superpower is undeniable.

But China is not the only player changing the new world order. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) hosted a summit in Singapore last week that underscored the growing political muscle in that part of the world.

Trump sent his No. 2, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was there in person. His presence reflected an understanding that Canada’s future prosperity depends on diversifying our economic links.

What better place to start than in the ASEAN, with a rapidly-emerging middle class who could be great customers for Canadian goods and services.

The economic and political organization is a 10-country block comprising the third largest labour force in the world. In numbers, ASEAN is eclipsed by only China and India. Home to more than 600 million people, the association represents the seventh-largest economy in the world, with a combined GDP of $2.4-trillion in 2013. By 2050, it is expected to become the fourth largest world economy. Like the European Union, ASEAN has been working toward economic and political integration.

Unlike the United Kingdom and the United States, ASEAN sees the future in promoting multi-state partnerships, not ending them. The collective economy of these 10 member states is growing exponentially. Sixty per cent of internal growth has come through productivity gains.

The ASEAN block, combined with China and India, are eclipsing the United States and Europe as the economic powerhouses of the future. Those who expect the Asia-Pacific to revert to twentieth-century serfdom are simply wrong.

For Canada to invest time and political capital in our relationship with ASEAN partners makes sense. The result of those relationships will bring economic benefits and much-needed diversification.

ASEAN can use its political muscle to pressure the United States on international trade agreements.

With or without Trump and May, Asia is the way of the future.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published in The Hill Times on Monday, April 3, 2017.

OTTAWA—If ever the world needed a sexism wake-up call, the Brexit debate offered it up last week.

Just as two leaders were meeting to tackle the thorny issue of the United Kingdom’s divorce from the European Union, the best a British tabloid could do was serve up a piece on the shape of the leaders’ legs. “Never mind Brexit, who won Legs-it!,” the headline read, “Sarah Vine’s light-hearted verdict on the big showdown.”

Worse than even committing the sexist sin was The Daily Mail’s defence of its piece, admonishing upset readers to “get a life.”

One cannot imagine a “light-hearted piece” comparing the size of U.S. President Donald Trump’s butt cheeks with those of Vladimir Putin.

So why is it considered fair game to make light of women’s body parts, especially in the context of a political negotiation?

The Daily Mail’s piece served its purpose, reducing the seriousness of the conversation to a seduction attempt using women’s best weapons, sexy legs. In so doing, it trivialized the gravitas required to successfully negotiate the extraction of the United Kingdom from the rest of Europe.

The Brexit opening salvo last week involved British Prime Minister Theresa May triggering clause 50, in a six-page letter stating her intentions for a proposed departure from the EU within two years.

There is a huge amount at stake, for Britain and the EU. Speaking to Parliament, Prime Minister May heaped praise on Europe, focusing on the longstanding relationships and shared values developed over centuries. She also proposed a two-track parallel negotiating process, where costs and conditions for exiting are determined in tandem with a new trade pact mirroring that of the former common market.

If Europe refuses to negotiate on the British timeframe, the current integrated commerce rules would be forfeited in favour of those of the World Trade Organization, which some are characterizing as disastrous for the United Kingdom.

Remaining European states will be reluctant to negotiate preferential trading arrangements at the same time as they are finalizing the divorce, fearful that too sweet a deal might prompt other countries to follow the British lead.

The first runoff of the French election this month includes a leading candidate from the far right who is actively promoting an end to the European monetary system and a return to the French franc.

If the United Kingdom is seen to retain all the benefits of European integration without any political responsibilities, that could be an attractive catalyst for further disintegration.

On the other hand, Europe is Britain’s largest trading partner and vice versa, so there is a mutual need to keep borders as seamless as possible.

Then there are the internal challenges of the not so United Kingdom.

With Scotland voting over 60 per cent to remain in the EU, the Scottish Parliament just decided last week to hold another independence referendum.

Serious stuff indeed. And May’s meeting with Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was designed to tackle that issue as well.

So how could a newspaper possibly deduce that focusing on duelling pairs of legs was in any way relevant or worth reporting? In the first edition, the legs story led front page coverage, and actually played larger than an adjacent political piece referring to proposed British Brexit details.

The columnist writing about the legs of May and Sturgeon claimed that she was analysing the messages being sent out by each leader, based on where and how they placed their legs.

The writer, whose husband happens to be a Conservative MP, claimed the Scottish leader won the battle of the gams, by crossing her legs and pointing one of them directly at her audience in an effort to seduce them. She chided May for her vicar-approved posture.

The twittersphere exploded with harsh rebukes for the newspaper which must be laughing all the way to the bank.

The sexism angle vaulted the story to the lead on multiple newscasts around the world.

Even those reporting on the incident used inadvertently sexist language.

The London journalist covering the story for CNN pointed out that these two were among the most powerful women in politics. The anchor, another woman, corrected that unintended misstep, by stating the obvious. They were two of the most powerful people in politics.

In the current Brexit drama, May is arguably one of the most influential political figures in Europe, facing another potent leader in the person of Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Their legs should not be for turning.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter @Sheila_Copps.