This could be the European Century

‘Are you happy?’ The magic circle solicitor I’d been at university with seemed thoroughly disconcerted by the question I asked when I saw him at a reception, probably 20-plus years ago. It turned out his three-year marriage had just ended and these days he never got time to play the viola.

I don’t remember why I asked him. Happiness, I know, is a matter of degree.

But, relevant here, let’s think of two newly qualified lawyers. One at a single office London firm earning £140,000, and another at a US headquartered firm, who earns £180,000. Maybe the latter signed the associates’ letter calling on their firm to not cave to President Trump’s war on Big Law’s DEI commitments after the firm was written to under direction of Trump’s White House.

I’m calling it. The lawyer on £140,000 is happier, is more pleased to get to work, and more likely to decide their long-term future is at the firm. We could observe that they’ve both drunk the kool aid, leaving behind first year undergraduate declarations that they were headed for important human rights work. But it turns out the less happy NQ drank, in Starbucks measures, a ‘vente’ mug of the stuff.

In this context, happiness is a European story. And the reason is that our happier lawyer gets to practise with reference to a jurisdiction that isn’t struggling with the rule of law, and where the current government does due diligence on the stability of its decisions.

The nineteenth century was the European Century; the twentieth century belonged to America; and there was an expectation that the twenty-first would be the Chinese Century.

Certainly, China laid some groundwork for this expected inheritance. While liberals like me struggle to get past the blood-red line of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, some important preconditions to China’s rise were already in the process of being met.

China’s economic reforms gathered pace from the 1980s onwards. Commerce was partially liberalised, and foreign investment allowed. And there with a growing confidence in how the state would behave – such predictability building civic and business confidence. By the early 2000s, civil society groups and ‘activist’ lawyers were growing in importance, providing a manageable release for the pressure that builds up from accumulated grievances.

Western firms opening an office in China helped with the professional capacity-building that a country bent on growth needs. And with the handover of Hong Kong, a China seeking to harness the power of capitalism had a system of law and commerce that could be learned from.

Instead, under president Xi, China is trapped in a cycle whereby reaction and clampdown follow each attempt at necessary reform. The imprisonment of lawyers and civic leaders, harsher censorship and persecution of those giving a voice to grievances has choked off orderly expressions of discontent. The trend for international firms is to withdraw, rather than open, in China.

The crackdown on Hong Kong has also been shown to be a crackdown on its economic dynamism and, of course, on the rule of law. The continuation of the latter had previously been signalled by the willingness of distinguished UK jurists to sit in a Hong Kong court. Xi made their position untenable, and they have resigned.

The result is expressed in a recent message from a friend in Hong Kong: ‘Hong Kong was a crazy and amazing place to live 10-15 years ago.... Now sadly the spark and vibrancy seems to have died. Markets are shrinking. A lot of people have left, others are talking about it. Not sure what the future holds.’

For these reasons, and despite the money, power and infrastructure it has used in the developing world over the past few decades, China is already in danger of forfeiting its century. A trade war with the US highlights the fragility of the project, while also underlining the way that the US is retreating from a position of global leadership.

And in general, various amounts of instability, political corruption, martial actions and repression have removed the promise once attached to all the ‘BRIC’ countries.

That leaves Europe. To do comparatively well from this global picture, though, the UK and the EU need to remain focused on the rule of law.

In each country, it should be acknowledged, there is a political threat from a surge in support for far-right parties. This is a source of instability in policy, but governments need to treat immigration, for example, as a political or practical, rather than an existential, problem. Labour peer Margaret Hodge’s account of ‘What smashed the far right in east London’, written for the Guardian, notes this was achieved not by aping the BNP, but by making sure their own elected representatives and candidates connected with, and assisted, people in the area.

In France, not enough politicians and journalists see Marine Le Pen’s embezzlement conviction as a rule of law issue. Where, I’ve been wondering, are questions like, ‘Marine, why did you do it?’ The only way out of her problems should be a successful appeal against her conviction. This needs a fair legal process, not a political solution.

There are things that need to be addressed differently, including in the UK, where loud calls to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights need to be answered better. Right now, around such issues, too many in government behave like passengers or the driver on a bus who, faced with a fight on board, simply hope the protagonists get off at the next stop.

And lies about the way our justice system works should not be dignified with a policy response. We of course need to invest in our justice system.

But it’s all doable.

Overall, although Europe can seem to move slowly, it is showing it can adapt in finance and defence. Our social welfare safety nets are under stress, but they exist, underwriting societal security.

Fiscal policy, with the exception of the Truss mini-budget, is not made on a whim, meaning we have stable currencies. Legislation provides some protection for whistleblowers, and regulators seek to govern our activities fairly.

For the most part, those who talk about ‘censorship’ in universities are simply hurt that their ideas don’t cut it when peer reviewed to a proper academic standard. It is in jurisdictions like China and Russia where restrictions on academic freedoms really drive down standards. Trump’s White House may be in the process of harming standards in the US’s world class universities. That will also be in part an assault on the rule of law.

If we protect our values, as well as our markets, find the right key in which to talk about both, and hold our political nerve when cooperating with European neighbours, then to the surprise of many, the twenty-first century can be the European Century.

In no small part that would be because this is a happier place to be.