The Economist

10 Leaders The EconomistJuly 21 st 2018

1

D

ONALD TRUMP likes to

boast that he does things

differently from his predeces-

sors. That was certainly true of

his trip to Europe. In Brussels he

chided Germany for a gas deal

that left it “totally controlled by

Russia”. In England he humiliat-

ed his host Theresa May blasting her Brexit plan before hold-

ingherhand and hailing“the highest level ofspecial” relation-

ship. From his Scottish golf resort he called the European

Union a “foe” on trade. And in Helsinki asked whether Russia

had attacked America’s democracy he treated President Vladi-

mir Putin assomeone he trusts more than hisown intelligence

agencies. It was a rotten result for America and the world.

Americans were more than usually outraged. At the post-

summitpress conference in Helsinki with the world watching

and the American flag behind him their head of state had ap-

peared weak (see Europe section). He was unwilling to stand

up for America in the face of an assault that had been graphi-

cally described three days earlier by Robert Mueller the spe-

cial counsel probing election meddling in his indictment of 12

Russian military-intelligence officers (see Lexington). Republi-

cans were among Mr Trump’s fiercest critics. “No prior presi-

dent has ever abased himself more abjectly before a tyrant”

wrote Senator John McCain. Even Newt Gingrich normally a

staunch defender decried “the most serious mistake of his

presidency”. The reaction forced Mr Trump into a convoluted

series ofclimbdowns which did little to repair the damage.

Yet for all his hostility towards allies and cosiness with Mr

Putin the trip could have been an even bigger disaster. Fears

that Mr Trump might torpedo the NATO summit as he had the

G 7 one proved overblown. He put his name to a communiqué

reaffirming the allies’ commitment to mutual defence and

their tough stance against Russia. Worries that with Mr Putin

he might promise to roll back sanctions or recognise Russia’s

annexation of Crimea proved groundless—as far as we can tell

(the presidents met with only their interpreters present).

Mr Trump even did some useful things. He was right to

press NATO allies to spend more on defence even if his claim

to have raised “vast amounts of money” is an exaggeration.

Andtalkingtohis Russian counterpartmakessense. To be sure

Mr Trump’s hopes for a tremendous relationship with Mr Pu-

tin may end in a familiar disappointment: George W. Bush

looked into Mr Putin’s eyes and detected a soul and Russia in-

vaded Georgia; Barack Obama pressed a “reset” button and

Russia invaded Ukraine. But America and Russia have a lot to

discuss not least on nuclear-arms control.

America worst

However these gains come at too high a price. Mr Trump’s be-

haviour a quixotic mix of poison and flattery has further un-

dermined Europeans’ trust in America. When asked about the

Mueller probe and the decline in relations with Russia Mr

Trump said feebly that he holds “both countries responsible”.

Perhaps his vanity does not allow him to treat seriously a Rus-

sian attack that he fears could tarnish his own election tri-

umph. Perhaps as some suspect Mr Putin really does have

material compromisingMr Trump. Either way where America

once aspiredto bea beacon relativism rules. Thatleaves all de-

mocracies more vulnerable.

Mr Putin fresh from a successful World Cup thus emerges

as the winner in Helsinki. True he may have scored an own

goalinadmittingthatyes he had wanted MrTrump to win the

election. But a self-doubting West damaged democracy and

the spectacle of America’s president deferring to him on the

world stage count as a hat-trickat the otherend. In Helsinki Mr

Putin looked smug. Mr Trump looked at best a mug. 7

Donald Trump’s European tour

Humiliation in Helsinki

How to interpret a shameful press conference with VladimirPutin

T

HE new Brexit plan has

crumpled on its first contact

with reality. Faster than even we

expected Parliament has been

seized by the idea that Theresa

May might not be able to win a

majority for a Brexit ofany sort.

Ifnothingchanges the prime

minister could breakthe jam in three ways: use crashing out of

the European Union without a deal as a threat to get MPs to

compromise; ask voters to elect a new Parliament that is up to

the task; or asthe authorRobertHarrissays hand “the scream-

ing defecating vomiting baby back to its parents—the elector-

ate” for a second referendum. All three have problems but if

Brexit must be unblocked a referendum would be least bad.

Mrs May’s plan imposed on her cabinet this month at Che-

quers her official country house set Britain on the path to a

“soft” Brexit. Ifthe EUagrees to it the country would in effect

stay in the single market for goods though not services. It

would pay heed to EU standards and court rulings. Until the

government could devise a way of collecting tariffs without

border checks Britain would remain in a customs union.

This plan was supposed to rally Conservatives. Instead the

partyis atwarwith itself. This weekhard-Brexiteers claimed to

have wrecked the Chequers plan by getting Mrs May to accept

amendments that contradict it. Whether they are right or not

Britain and the EU

The case for a second referendum

IfParliament cannotagree on a Brexit deal the decision must go backto the people