(ASSIGNMENT) BRITAIN FOREIGN POLICY: THE INTERNAL CRISIS OF BREXIT

This essay examines what really matters on Brexit. In so doing, it claims that Brexit is a matter of strategic decision-making, triggered by uncontrollable global forces. These global forces, through interdependence, are expressed through systemic imperatives that push a region to change, adapt or transform itself. That further entails that strategic shifts comprise the ‘privilegium of the cognoscenti’. The British strategic options expand through the centuries and form a distinct path-dependence that produces certain ‘lock-ins’. The latter makes any strategic shift an uncontrollable and very expensive choice. Thus, acknowledging the importance, if not the imperative of this path-dependence, the essay concludes that Hard Brexit is the only choice that British elite can make and the Franco-German axel recognizes and understands. To prove the above hypothesis, the student supports the literature of political economy and of geopolitical studies. Specifically, in the first chapter the student answers to the question why Brexit now? What caused it? In the second chapter, it develops the understanding and the rationale behind Hard Brexit. It examines briefly the Europe’s old ‘lock-ins’. Subsequently, in chapter three, he discusses the Elite’s (British and Continental) decisive move forward. Finally, the essay concludes with final remarks and claims about Hard Brexit.

UCL European Institute Working Paper, 2017

Since the end of the Second World War, the UK has been a multilateral power par excellence, contributing to the construction and expansion of many of the most important institutions of international governance, and championing a rules-based international system. In its 2015 National Security Strategy document, for example, the British government identified the maintenance of this system as a core national interest, contributing to the UK’s capacity to ‘punch above its weight’ in international affairs. With Brexit entailing the UK’s departure from a major component of this system, a number of important questions must be addressed, including: • What challenges will Brexit pose to British foreign policy-makers and institutions? • What will be the future of UK-EU relations in the context of foreign, security and defence policy? • What will Brexit mean for how the UK engages with the wider world, and particularly the wider multilateral system? • And how can the UK government mitigate the risk of Brexit resulting in a significant loss of international influence, reducing the UK’s ability to defend, promote and pursue its interests globally?

Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 2019

Brexit has been described as a landmark event marking what Gilbert (2015) has neatly described as the "long 90s," meaning the period since the mid-90s during which neoliberalism became an unquestionable assumption in the running of the economy and politics of western democracies. Alongside the election of Trump as President of the United States and the rise of the far-right across Europe, Brexit has been interpreted as marking a shift away from the hege

The Political Quarterly

The vote by the British people to withdrawal from the EU – also known as a " Brexit " – means both the UK and the EU now face an unprecedented challenge. Brexit could have significant implications for the EU, the ideas and structures of European integration, and European geopolitics. The UK itself faces an uncertain future. This article examines why Brexit has come to pass and explores what it could mean for the EU, European integration, and Europe's economics and security. It argues that as with many of the other problems the EU has faced, the EU and UK will muddle through a Brexit, coping but not solving the challenges it presents.

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.

Interdisciplinary Political Studies, 2018

In 2016, the Brexit-Trump watershed resulted in two consecutive shocks for British foreign policy, which under the May governments has been rearticulated around the goal to forge 'Global Britain'. This article discusses how the 'Global Britain' strategy may play out in two broad international domains – trade and security – to elaborate on implications for the international order. The analysis especially elucidates the dubious feasibility of compensating 'hard Brexit' with free-trade agreements around the world, and the pitfalls of extrication from the EU as regards common foreign policy, data-sharing and sanctions policy. Trump's election is argued to bring about a more protectionist trade environment while facilitating the prospect of a UK-US trade deal, which however compels the British government to uneasy balancing acts. Finally, an interest-oriented Global Brit-ain about to face diplomatic overstretching and economic difficulties is suggested to have turned into a more precarious defender of the rules-based international order.

Brexit and Trump are manifestations of the same phenomenon in the UK and the US respectively: The reversal of the Thatcher and Reagan inspired New World Order of the late 1980s which was based on market fundamentalism. This phenomenon marks the end of socialist-capitalist political alignments which were inspired by the Soviet era. The emerging political alignments will be based on a spectrum defined by globalization. The new world order The birth of the so called " new world order " was most emphatically marked by the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. The world had been dominated by two opposing economic systems: capitalism and socialism, represented by the US and the Soviet Union respectively. For decades the two systems had been engaged in a grave confrontation and fierce competition which the Soviets had lost. Their system had been proven to be no match for capitalism and capitalism was in a triumphal mood. At the time of the fall of the Berlin wall a particularly virulent form of capitalism was dominant in the world having been orchestrated in the west by Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK. This system, which had been dubbed neo-liberalism, was based on market fundamentalism, the idea that the markets were always right and did not require government intervention. Its fundamental philosophy was the complete deregulation of markets. In its hour of triumph, the US proceeded to impose its neoliberal philosophy on international financial institutions which it controlled: the Bretton Woods Institutions, which include the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. On the basis of market fundamentalism these Washington based institutions formulated and prescribed a set of strict and uncompromising rules, which came to be known as the Washington Consensus, in terms of which governments around the world were expected to conduct their economic affairs if they expected to get approval and qualify for international funding. The following were the prescriptions of the Washington Consensus:  Market liberalization: This required the reduction of rules and regulations governing trade to a minimum. For instance it meant the removal of financial regulations and restrictions on currency movements.  Privatization: The privatization of all services which the private sector can provide at a profit  Drastic tax cuts: The reduction of taxes to a minimum and the flattening of the tax rates  Fiscal austerity: A drastic cut down on welfare services The Bretton Woods Institutions were soon reinforced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) which prescribed:  Lowering of tariffs: Allowing free flow of goods and services between countries Globalization The Bretton Woods Institutions and the WTO were defining a new world order of globalization, in which there was no longer a contest between capitalism and socialism. Instead the rules were designed to maximise world trade on uncontested capitalist terms. The world was to be run as if it were one giant country in which different regions did not need tariffs to protect their industries

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.