Britain’s future role in Europe and the world is one of the key disagreements in the Brexit debate: whether it’ll surge or decline is the question? Mareike Kleine focuses on an aspect that has so far received less attention in the debate, namely the relationship between domestic politics and Britain’s role in world affairs, and concludes that a Brexit will likely condemn the UK to parochialism.
Most proponents of the Britain’s exit from the EU allege that it would strengthen rather than weaken the UK’s role in world affairs. Most foreign policy and trade pundits disagree with this claim, citing the damaging uncertainty in the aftermath of an “Out”-vote and the UK’s diminished bargaining power in future trade negotiations.
In this post, I will focus on an aspect that has so far received less attention in the debate, namely the relationship between domestic politics and Britain’s role in world affairs. To exaggerate only slightly, because of this relationship, Brexit will likely condemn the UK to parochialism.
Leave campaigners base their argument on the assumption that, without the EU, the UK will be free to pursue its enlightened, rational foreign policy, as it did in the past. I believe that this is a very questionable assumption that is based on a biased reading of British history, overconfidence in a supposed British foreign policy culture and, most importantly, an ignorance of the UK’s changed political landscape.
First, and most apparent, the public has lost interest in global engagement, certainly engagement by military means.
Second, we know from the political economy literature that majoritarian electoral systems, as in the UK, tend to be more responsive to protectionist pressures, ceteris paribus, than systems of proportional representation, as they exist on the continent. My colleague Stephanie Rickard found that this holds true not only for tariffs, but also for non-tariff barriers and subsidies.
European Union law against non-discrimination and the EU’s very successful and highly effective competition policy prevent government from national protectionist reflexes, as demonstrated in aftermath of the financial crisis when Europe was spared the protectionist backlash that many feared.
How will British governments fight off protectionist forces and damaging beggar-thy-neighbor impulses without the disciplining power of EU law and the EU’s competition policy? It is quite possible that these interests would hijack the post-Brexit renegotiations with the EU as well as the renegotiations of the many Preferential Trade Agreements that the UK will drop out of in the event of Brexit. Great Britain is likely going to end up more cut off global markets than ever before.
Third, there is substantial evidence that governments with unstable domestic coalitions become more equivocal and hesitant to commit. Although it looks like the Conservative party will stay in power for a long time to come, it will still have to tip toe on eggshells in order not to upset the many cross-cutting frictions within the UK. Just to mention a few:
- The Conservative party itself will continue to fight over the UK’s specific relationship to the EU, as demonstrated by the frictions within the cabinet over Brexit.
- UKIP is not going to go away after Brexit. The potentially arduous renegotiations with the EU will offer plenty of opportunities for UKIP to mobilize and exploit frictions within the Conservative party.
- These fights will put a strain on England’s relationship with the more pro-European Scotland and the deeply divided Northern Ireland.
- Any trade negotiation with the EU and third countries will lay bare the massive imbalances between London and the rest of the UK.
These unstable and volatile domestic interests will make any ruling government very hesitant to pursue a clear and stable foreign policy. This ambiguity will in turn make the UK a very unattractive because a potentially unreliable cooperating partner, to the EU and to the rest of the world, no matter how special the relationship.
In short: Think not Norway, Switzerland or Singapore. Think Liechtenstein, and you will get a picture of Britain’s future status in world affairs.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of BrexitVote, nor the LSE. Image by Mike Peel CC-BY-SA-4.0.
Dr Mareike Kleine is Associate Professor of EU and International Politics at the LSE European Institute
You seem to forget we have a permanent seat at the UN with a veto, we will sit as an equal to the EU at the WTO we have seat at the table of the Commonwealth group of nations. We are members of the G7 & G20. We are the most capable member of NATO in Europe, we are a Nuclear Power, we have an indigenous defense industry & global network of military bases. We are members of the Five Power Defense pact as well as members of the Five Eyes group of nations. We are never short of water, gas or Oil do I need to go on?
My point is: What’s it worth if you are not capable of using it, for domestic reasons. The Liechtenstein comparison stands. Putting this all aside: the UK’s veto power in the UNSC is the biggest anachronism in global affairs today. Thankfully, this will give UN reforms a much needed push.
Putting aside the Lichtenstein comment … it’s a lovely place that doesn’t go about mucking up the lives of millions of innocents … doesn’t the gist of what is being argued here boil down to blatant nationalism of the worst kind? Commercial Britannia engaging in free and fair trade with the world will hardly be parochial.
I fully get the arguments for free trade, but at what cost? Funny how people who treasure the NHS for its sense of solidarity are the same ones who are willing to sacrifice millions of their fellow citizens to an ever declining standard of living in the name of free trade.
The vast variation in inequality across Europe tells you that free trade is not the sole cause of social problems. Domestic politics matters. That’s exactly my point.
The vast variation in inequality across Europe tells you that free trade is not the sole cause of social problems. Domestic politics matters. That’s exactly my point.
The fact is that Ms. Kleine works on the premise that the UK P5 veto position in the UNSC should be at the disposal of the EU but is no good to the UK [sic].
Well, the UK will certainly use their UNSC P5 position alongside the family [Canada, Australia & New Zealand].
But above all other factors, the British people do not trust Europeans & are angry with ALL politicians & the people will vote to the [probable] surprise of us all.
No great change in strategic direction has ever been accomplished by planning & Brussels is not going to be the first to do that.
Brexit it should be. God willing.
Come to think about it, there are very few countries in Europe that have not attacked or invaded Britain at one time or another in the past 2,000 years – except Liechtenstein of course.
What I find stunning about this pre-brexit article is the outrageous suggestion that, and I quote verbatim:
“European Union law against non-discrimination and the EU’s very successful and highly effective competition policy prevent government from national protectionist reflexes”
When the evidence to the contrary is clear – time & time again. Across the EU, France, Italy & Germany have along with numerous others have all been found guilty of illegally supporting local industries & companies & distorting EU competition for there own selfish, nationalist agenda’s.
For you, a so called academic of repute to state that is been highly successful & effective is laughable and amplifies why the brexit outcome occurred.