BREXIT & THE RE-MAKING OF BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY

Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies, 2020

2016

This is the report of a Hearing of the LSE Commission on the Future of Britain in Europe that took place at the LSE on the 1 March 2016. Participants were invited based on their knowledge, expertise and experience of British foreign and security policy (including foreign economic and trade policy). The focus of the Hearing was the impact on British foreign policy of a possible Brexit. A secondary area of discussion centred on the consequences of Brexit on EU external relations. We are extremely grateful for the insightful contributions by the participants during the hearing. We extend special thanks to Lord Christopher Tugendhat and Professor Christopher Hill for their introductory remarks, which set the scene for the general discussion. This report is based on the ensuing discussion. None of the views or conclusions included in this report may be attributed to a single individual listed in the participant list. They are rather the summary views and conclusions drawn from the collec...

Rapporteurs: Spyros Economides (LSE) Mareike Kleine (LSE) Assistant Rapporteur: Julia Himmrich Experts from the UK and other EU member states discussed the effects of a possible Brexit on British foreign policy and European security. The discussions were structured around the themes of sovereignty, diplomacy, the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy, its Security and Defence Policy and trade.

Rome, IAI, September 2020, 14 p. (EU IDEA Policy Briefs ; 2), 2020

This policy brief examines the EU’s foreign, security and defence policy relations with third countries, and their relevance to the EU’s future co-operation with the UK in these areas. It highlights the key points in the EU’s proposals for the future relationship with the UK. The British government is currently refusing to negotiate any arrangements in these areas, and the policy brief looks at why. Since the UK’s refusal to engage may turn out to be only temporary, the paper also looks at possible arrangements falling short of a legally-binding agreement, from the perspective of negotiability with the UK as well as their contribution to meeting EU objectives. It then considers the impact on the EU and the UK of having a treaty (however unlikely), no formal agreement, or a “light” agreement, and the implications of the EU’s future relationship with the UK for its relationships with other third countries.

MA Dissertation Global Diplomacy SOAS Assessment, 2018

The solution to the political and economic uncertainty of Brexit and questions about the United Kingdom’s role and its position in the world following the outcome of the UK Referendum to leave the European Union (EU) on 23 June 2016, cannot be resolved without seeking a historical narrative. It requires a critical frame and an economic argument for understanding the reasons for leaving the EU. There are social and political consequences for the United Kingdom, which impact gender, race, class, language, and create social economic inequalities, which are reflected in more recent data analysis. Increasing tensions have also highlighted weaknesses in the Union of the UK, which have raised questions about the future of devolution, the Brexit process, and the future of the countries of the United Kingdom. The purpose of a historical narrative is to document and record the events which led to Brexit, and its subsequent diplomatic events and negotiations. Political Theory enables us to understand the neoliberal processes of the economics of Brexit and the political decisions which were subsequently made by the British Government. Themes which arise include a crisis of identity in the state, the capacity of the UK government and the civil service to manage the transition, and the diplomatic processes of Brexit. Other themes include complex international relations in the global economy, which reflect ongoing relationships between the UK and non-EU countries - trade with members of the Commonwealth. Brexit implies a cultural change, and a realignment away from EU regulation, but the UK will receive guidance from the European Union (EU) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ). A move from the EU has cultural and social policy implications as well as economic consequences on any future trade agreements between the UK-EU. Moving forward into a post-Brexit existence for the state demands an analytical framework in which to examine the role of institutions; their economic, social welfare and public policy decisions. Public choice theory and neoliberal economic models designed to promote growth in the economy are the most appropriate tools for assessing impact on constitutional bureaucracy and public policy outcomes. But public policy models are also organic and must account for human behaviour, culture, and the psychology of negotiation and social political change. These models are often criticised and require assessment. The hypothesis of this dissertation is that new trade agreements between the United Kingdom and countries of the Commonwealth are unlikely to create pressures on existing constitutional institutions within the UK, such as the UK Supreme Court or the UK Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC), as a means of dispute resolution and ultimate sanction. Instead European institutions will manage the transition with the British Government, to ensure future prosperity for the UK and create a position of least damage to the economy. This hypothesis is being tested daily. The different type and number of cases that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council manages, is a good indicator of changes amongst smaller countries in the Commonwealth. Any trade dispute the UK-EU and individual countries on tariffs would under normal circumstances, be heard by the WTO. Trade and regulatory regimes and legal issues would be aligned with the European Union. This analytical framework draws on systems of historiography, economic analysis (from standard economic modelling), published data and critical views of the state. Policy analysis has provided information about the impact of Brexit upon employment; immigration, particularly on the NHS and agriculture. Public access to government documents, academic economic analysis, and data from international organisation, provided by UK businesses and UK financial networks, has created the possibility to examine the diplomatic processes of Brexit. The process of pre-negotiation agenda setting by the European Union and the United Kingdom, and the leadership and constitutional role which the Prime Minister has provided in relation to establishing hard and soft diplomatic relations, provides enough information to make an assessment of the diplomatic processes involved in Brexit. Seeking political and historical precedence is a good beginning for a narrative.

Marmara Üniversitesi Avrupa Topluluğu Enstitüsü Avrupa Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2018

One of the most striking questions raised by Brexit is undoubtedly related to security and defence. What should we expect from the United Kingdom (UK) in the collective and multilateral efforts within the European Union (EU) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) after Brexit? This article aims to contribute to an answer by arguing that, in the security and defence field, Brexit hardly represents a threat to NATO or the EU. Instead, it offers an opportunity to readjust priorities and investments towards an effective multilateralism, both European and transatlantic. The paper argues that, faced with an apparent overlap of the threats and challenges shaped by the strategic environment and the priority concerns of both organisations, it is expected that the UK will continue to be engaged in the EU common security and defence policy's (CSDP) civilian missions and military operations as a third country, as well as enhance NATO's commitments in the aftermath of the implementation of the 2016 Warsaw Declaration.

Among the changes and uncertainties of the post-post cold war period in Europe, the British vote to leave the European Union on 23 June 2017 (or Brexit) probably stands out as one of the most unexpected and potentially far-reaching developments for the future of the continent. The process of actually leaving the EU promises to be extremely complex and lengthy, and the nature of the relations between the UK and the continent is still unknown. Similarly, in strategic terms, and especially as far as the future of British foreign policy is concerned, most questions remain unanswered. What role will Britain play in Europe and the world ? Is economic and therefore political decline inevitable, at least in the short term ? Can the dream of the supporters of leaving the EU, a 'Global Britain', be achieved ? Bearing in mind the distinction between a realist interpretation of events and an interpretation consistent with realism that Jack Connelly suggests, we may safely assert that realist theory is helpful to understand post-1945 British foreign policy if we understand it in the neo-classical sense, where rational actors are constrained by the structure in which they find themselves and adjust their behaviour to their limited margin of manoeuvre. British foreign policy was informed throughout the cold war by a classical realist perspective, itself inherited from the 19 th Century, whereby power politics, the defence of national interests and maintaining the global balance of power, here between East and West, were the policy-makers' utmost priorities. The pursuit of power was mitigated by a realization of the UK's reduced capabilities and therefore bigger reliance on the alliance with the USA. British leaders had a cautious approach towards idealism and international law, although they were keen to take part in a number of multilateral international organisations-all relying on American postwar hegemony, which enabled the stability of an otherwise chaotic system.

Swedish Institute of International Affairs, 2018

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Finding Britain's role in a changing world: The principles for Global Britain, 2020

The maintenance and enhancement of the international rules-based order, particularly through the effective functioning of key multilateral pillars such as the UN, WTO, IMF, etc, is an essential British national interest. As a middle-rank power the UK still exercises quite significant degrees of international influence, but its capacity to do so rests increasingly on whether other states - especially dominant actors such as the US and China, but also emergent powers such as India - recognise the value and legitimacy of the structures created in the 75 years since Second World War. In its post-Brexit foreign policy the UK must therefore not only commit to ensuring the international rules-based order functions effectively, efficiently and fairly, but also demonstrate leadership in this regard, for example in forums such as the UN Security Council and WTO. By doing so it can limit the risk that other powers see the Brexit decision as part of a broader strategic retreat by the UK, while serving to buttress institutions that have become increasingly vulnerable to the global rise in nationalism.