“Keepin’ it Real” is a weekly blog that analyzes news and events in the international system through a realist perspective. Realism describes the international order as anarchical, as actors are looking to serve and achieve their own interests. In this blog, Brett Boyden takes a look at Brexit and its implications for the UK moving forward.
This summer, the United Kingdom held an advisory referendum on continued membership in the European Union. People around the world were shocked when the British government revealed that a slim majority—only two percent more per BBC News—of the nation had voted to leave. British Prime Minister David Cameron, who had campaigned on a promise of said referendum, resigned almost immediately.
Now why would the UK, having been a happy member of the European Union since 1993, suddenly decide to go its own way? This is because, in their minds, priorities had shifted and the benefits had stopped outweighing the responsibilities.
The European Union is one of the largest regional economic markets in the world, giving each one of its 28 members the bargaining weight of an entire continent. The only catch? They must dismantle internal barriers to the free flow of goods, harmonize parts of their legal system, primarily market regulations to the EU norm and, for some, surrender control over their monetary policy or borders through entrance into the Euro and Schengen zones.
From a liberal perspective, that sounds like a great deal. Sacrificing control over a few policy fields in exchange for a mutually beneficial economic arrangement with your neighbours is a no-brainer. Or at least it was for 40 years. That’s because during these 40 years, trade and economic development were governmental priorities. But as Bob Dylan said, “the times,they are a-changing” and the perceived negatives of issues such as immigration, faltering economic sectors, and even globalization itself trumped the benefits of EU membership. Policies of trade protectionism and reduced international co-operation, hallmarks of realist thought, are no doubt to follow.
Flash forward to today, and besides a small cabinet reshuffle (which placed key Brexiteers in senior positions when Theresa May became prime minister) there has been little progress. This leaves everyone wondering what comes next. The UK is caught in an awkward phase—having held the initial referendum, initiating Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which allows for two years of negotiating before the secession is finalized, is the next step. However, having done little planning beforehand, the UK government must ensure they are prepared before escalating matters.
Being the first state to ever even contemplate leaving the EU since Greenland left the European Economic Community means there is no clear map or framework for the UK to follow. The Brexiteers must determine not only to what extent the separation should proceed, but also how best to pursue their trade goals in negotiations with the EU. Further complicating matters are the domestic issues revealed by Brexit vote statistics. Torcuil Crichton of the Daily Record reports that Scotland, which recently held a referendum on UK membership, and Northern Ireland both voted to remain in the EU; 62% and 55% respectively. This raises the question of just what those governments might do should Brexit continue, and if the UK is willing to let them go if they pursue the terms of a hard Brexit.
To learn more about the Brexit process
