By The Economist
PEOPLE who find their neighbours tiresome
can move to another neighbourhood, whereas countries can't. But suppose they
could. Rejigging the map of Europe would make life more logical and friendlier.
Britain, which after its general election
will have to confront its dire public finances, should move closer to the
southern-European countries that find themselves in a similar position. It
could be towed to a new position near the Azores. (If the journey proves a
bumpy one, it might be a good opportunity to make Wales and Scotland into
separate islands).
In Britain's place should come Poland,
which has suffered quite enough in its location between Russia and Germany and
deserves a chance to enjoy the bracing winds of the North Atlantic and the security
of sea water between it and any potential invaders.
Belgium's incomprehensible Flemish-French
language squabbles (which have just brought down a government) are redolent of
central Europe at its worst, especially the nonsenses Slovakia thinks up for
its Hungarian-speaking ethnic minority. So Belgium should swap places with the
Czech Republic. The stolid, well-organised Czechs would get on splendidly with
their new Dutch neighbours, and vice versa.
Belarus, currently landlocked and trying
to wriggle out from under Russia's thumb, would benefit greatly from exposure
to the Nordic region, whose influence played a big role in helping the Baltics
shed their Soviet legacy. So it should move northwards to the Baltic, taking
the place of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. These three countries should move
to a new location somewhere near Ireland. Like the Emerald Isle, they have
bitten the bullet of “internal devaluation”, regaining competitiveness by
cutting wages and prices, rather than taking the easy option of depreciating
the currency, or borrowing recklessly as Greece has. The Baltics would also be
glad to be farther away from Russia and closer to America. Amid the other
moves, Kaliningrad could shift up the coast towards Russia, ending its
anomalous status as a legacy exclave of the second world war and removing any
possibility of future Russian mischief-making about rail transit.
Into the slots vacated by Poland and
Belarus should come the western and central parts of Ukraine. Germany, with the
Ukrainian border now only 100km from Berlin, would start having to take the
country's European integration seriously. The Ukrainian shift would allow
Russia to move west and south too, thus vacating Siberia for the Chinese, who
will take it sooner or later anyway.
Next comes some reordering of the Balkans.
Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo should rotate places, with Macedonia taking
Kosovo's place next to Serbia, Kosovo moving to Albania's slot on the coast,
and Albania shifting inland. Paranoid Greek fantasies about territorial claims from the
deluded Slav irredentists from the north would evaporate. Bosnia is too fragile
to move and will have to stay where it is.
Switzerland and Sweden are often confused.
So it would make sense to move Switzerland north, where it would fit neatly
into the Nordic countries. Its neutrality would go down well with the Finns and
Swedes; Norway would be glad to have another non-EU country next door.
Germany can stay where it is, as can France.
But Austria could shift westwards into Switzerland's place, making room for
Slovenia and Croatia to move north-west too.* They could join northern Italy in a
new regional alliance (ideally it would run by a Doge, from Venice). The rest
of Italy, from Rome downwards, would separate and join with Sicily to form a
new country, officially called the Kingdom of Two Sicilies (but nicknamed
Bordello). It could form a currency union with Greece, but nobody else.
* A welcome side-effect of these changes will be to make
space for previously fictional creations such as Anthony Hope's Ruritania,
HergĂ©'s Syldavia and Borduria, and Vulgaria, the backdrop for “Chitty Chitty
Bang Bang”.
No comments:
Post a Comment