How will Britain’s power in the world look after a no-deal exit? A chaotic exit from the EU would certianly destroy the UK’s international reputation, argues Nicholas Westcott (SOAS).
One thing you can say about much of the British media – they don’t let contact with the outside world sully their views on the Brexit debate. Weeks assiduously reading the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, The Times and The Sun while also talking to a wide range of foreign government and media representatives from all over the globe suggests the disconnect between Britain’s self-image and how the rest of the world sees us has never been wider. Brexit is steadily destroying Britain’s reputation in the world, and a no-deal exit will shatter it. It will be seen everywhere (but here) as a resounding defeat for Britain and a clear demonstration of its accelerating decline into international irrelevance.
Brexiteers, of course, see things differently. They see an exit by whatever means, at whatever cost, as a proof that Britain is strong, independent and free: ‘free’ to control its own borders, set its own laws, assure its own security, negotiate its own trade deals. If the rest of the world thinks differently, they say, just wait till we show them. Britain remains a Great Power with one of the largest economies, best militaries, biggest aid programmes (‘a development superpower’) as well as a seat on the Security Council and immeasurable soft power. As the Prime Minister, a master of boosterism, would put it, the British have an infinite capacity to make do and mend, use our ingenuity, vim and vigour to ping off the guy ropes of adversity, and leap from the telephone booth of Brexit into superhero-like action… or whatever.
But they are wrong. Let me explain why.
It’s all about power. Power depends on three things: economic strength, military strength, and having friends. If you have all three, you are treated with respect. If you have the first two, but not the third, your power is acknowledged but resented. The less you have of the first two, the more you need the third. That was part of the genius of the European Union: it provided small countries with guaranteed friends, prevented big countries going to war, and enabled them all to negotiate as equals with the great economic powers of the world – the US, Japan and China. In pooling their power, as friends, they made themselves individually stronger in the world.
How will Britain’s power look after a no-deal exit?
First, the freedom to control our own borders. In a no-deal scenario, the government say they will keep the Irish border open. But the EU will impose controls on it, to save the Single Market from destruction. Who wins? Not the UK: the border controls will be there. The EU will protect the Single Market – one of the most valuable economic innovations of the 20th century – but the UK will have imposed heavy additional costs on everyone, especially themselves. Not great. Certainly not a success. In addition, EU immigrants to Britain will fall off. But to keep our economy, agriculture and health services running, we will have to open up to more immigration from other parts of the world, to our friends in Africa and Asia. Which is fine, if that is what you wanted.
Second, freedom to conclude trade deals. Everyone will be happy to sign new trade agreements with us. The question is, on what terms? There is no free lunch in international trade (I know, I have spent years negotiating such deals). Size matters: the bigger you are, the better the deal you get. Britain is smaller than the EU, the US, China or Japan. Once we have left the EU with no deal – on the infamous ‘WTO terms’ – we will be at a disadvantage to everyone else who currently has a free trade deal with the EU, and will be demandeur for the best deal anyone will give us. The US Administration has generously offered a quick deal (though it is Congress not the Administration that will decide what it is and when we get it) and that offer will be to open up the British market to US food and US pharmaceuticals, on their terms. This will cut us off from, or penalise us in accessing, the EU markets that currently take most of our goods. And will the US really open up to our services in its current protectionist frame of mind? So who wins? The US, not the UK. India, Africa and China will all demand a quid pro quo for continued trade, an improvement on the deals they have with the EU. These concessions will not be what the UK wants, because we need the deal more, but what they want: more protection for services and industry, freer immigration access to the UK, less human rights conditionality. Who wins? Again, everyone but the UK.
Third, freedom of laws and security. The EU was built on the principle of the rule of law, and member states collaborate extensively on law enforcement. Security is one area where everyone has said the UK will be worse off if, under no deal, we lose access to police cooperation. Who wins? Not the British public, whose security services will be overstretched trying to compensate for the lost intelligence. And have the Royal Navy really enough ships (and sailors) to police all the UK’s fishing waters now we no longer have access to the European Court of Justice to enforce British rights, and escort British tankers in the Gulf, police the Red Sea and challenge China in the South China Seas?
Finally, in leaving the EU Treaty obligations without a Withdrawal Agreement, and effectively abrogating the Good Friday Agreement by forcing the re-establishment of a border in Ireland, the UK will be seen as untrustworthy – not to be relied upon to respect its international commitments. If in addition, it refuses to pay its debts by settling its outstanding budget obligations, its creditworthiness will also come into question – which could prove costly to both the government and the country. Do the British public care about this? Maybe not. But the rest of the world will, and a reputation once lost is very hard to recover.
In short, a no-deal Brexit would be seen as a heavy international defeat for Britain. We would not have got our way. We would have proven unable to negotiate – with our nearest friends – a deal that protected our economic interests. And the world will see this. They – the US, China, India, Russia, the Gulf states, African and Latin American countries, Spain, Mauritius, Argentina – all will say to themselves that Britain is now weak, it needs our support, and we can ask for whatever we want.
The Prime Minister will blame the EU (or rebel Tories, or anyone else he can think of) for his defeat. Of course. I’m sure Napoleon blamed Wellington for his defeat at Waterloo; Charles I (the last man to try to rid himself of a troublesome Parliament) no doubt blamed Cromwell for his defeat in the Civil War. But they still ended up defeated and, in the latter case, dead. What the PM’s famed War Cabinet do not seem to realise is that they have ten tanks and their opponents have fifty. That requires very skillful tactics to win. Sadly, the PM’s tactics seem more reminiscent of the Charge of the Light Brigade than El Alamein. It might make a great poem, but not a famous victory.
In the anarchic society that international relations is becoming once more, it is important to know your strengths. But it is even more important to know your weaknesses, so that at least you don’t expose them. It is surprising that the Prime Minister does not realise this, riding into battle with his rusty armour hanging off. But nor it seems does the Foreign Secretary, nor the Chancellor, the International Trade Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the International Development Secretary or the Home Secretary, who are supposed to tell him. I am sure their officials are all too aware of the limits of British power, but it seems they are no longer welcome to explain them. Doomsters and gloomsters will be banished, like some disloyal SPAD.
In today’s international jungle it will also be more important than ever to have friends, and a no-deal Brexit is the best way to lose them fast. The Commonwealth is too disparate, and will wonder if this is how Britain treats its neighbours, how will it treat them? So Britain may have no option but to turn to the US, swapping 27 firm and equal friends for one big fickle one. Good luck with that.
There was a time, in living memory, when a British government ignored the realities of power and ploughed ahead to prove its virility to the world. But the Suez crisis of 1956 did not end well for Britain, thanks no little to the US. In less than ten years the British Empire had disappeared. This time the victim of a no-deal Brexit is more likely to be the United Kingdom itself, broken into pieces too small to even pretend to be a great power. Some might call it hubris. Others, unbelievable stupidity. But either way, Britain will be the weaker and the poorer, and the world will know it, even if we don’t.
This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor the LSE. Image copyright Jon Worth, Some rights reserved.
Dr Nicholas Westcott is Research Associate, Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, SOAS.
Thank you for stating succintly the obvious, that war does not benefit the common man.
What is the interest of the Brexit leaders? Are they going to say like Göring upon being arrested : “Wenigstens zwölf Jahre anständig gelebt.”
Their good life may not last that long.
One small point about individual countries being small but powerful as a group. True but within that group very soon they will not have the same veto as of now to protect themselves. Majority will soon rule within the EU.
They will no longer be as safe as they think in their ability to control their own destination. The EU has other plans for them.
One small point about individual countries being small but powerful as a group. True but within that group very soon they will not have the same veto as of now to protect themselves. Majority will soon rule within the EU.
They will no longer be as safe as they think in their ability to control their own destination. The EU has other plans for them
It will not fail the notice of the World that the EU has been so obstructive in the delaying to mutual satisfaction the exit of the UK from arrangements of membership of the EU which was changing for member states daily..
cont,d
It will not fail the notice of the World that the EU has been so obstructive in the delaying to mutual satisfaction the exit of the UK from arrangements of membership of the EU which was changing for member states daily..
I am biased, like everybody is, but I have consistently seen Brexit as an exercise in English nationalism.
Why is England so out of step with the rest of Europe at the current time. Undeniably, this is largely as a result of being in charge of the “greatest empire the world has ever seen”. Problems over immigration, a common currency, Brussels rule, etc. may appear important, but the supreme driver is undoubtedly English exceptionalism. Certainly not British exceptionalism, as the Northern Irish and Scottish are as appalled as everybody else by the current antics at Westminster.
You see this in the extensive amount of commemoration there is in the UK for the First and Second World Wars, which took place when the dreaded Germans were our enemies (not allies as they have been in the EU for 50 years) 75 and 100 years ago. Undoubtedly it is important to remember the horrors of the two World Wars. But the countries of Europe are now our allies against the rest of the world (China, India, Africa, South America, etc.), not our enemies in inter-Europe civil wars.
World War movies see masses of British tanks, ships and planes take on and defeat the dreaded “other” (then Germany, now the EU). As one commentator astutely put it in something I read recently : “The World Wars make exciting movies, but they are not of much relevance to the UK in the situation it now finds itself.”
@Friedrich: “I have consistently seen Brexit as an exercise in English nationalism.” I think if the UK is to get out of the Brexit rut it is currently stuck in then people on both sides need to avoid simplistic characterisations of their opponents like this. It is probably the case that people who identify strongly with being English are more likely to be Leavers (I think I have seen an opinion poll to that effect), but it does not follow that they all are, nor does it follow that identification with Englishness makes people into Leavers. (Correlation is not causation.)
“either way, Britain will be the weaker and the poorer”
But Scotland, when it leaves the UK and rejoins, at the very least, EFTA, will become richer. Don’t be misled by GERS figures, which were purposely formulated to downgrade the perceptions of the Scottish economy. Read the McCrone Report, (and the reasons for its suppression), which although now getting on a bit, is still broadly relevant.
Brexit is not, could never be, about power. There are no votes in power; Britain’s deployable armed forces smaller than ‘Momentum’.
Brexit is about prosperity, democracy and self respect.
Harold Wilson’s withdrawal of this country from ‘East of Suez’ with that part of the globe on the cusp of startling economic growth was myopic, a strategic blunder. Remaining in an unreformed EU simply compounds that hopeless incompetence.
Britain’s global reputation seems likely to suffer even further if the result of a democratic vote, held with no ifs, no buts, everyone’s eyes open as a consequence of the government’s pro EU leaflet delivered to every home, warnings clear, stark, is disregarded.
The EU has had its accounts qualified every year for over 20 years, its senior functionaries and politicians appointed by boardroom coup or by unscrutinised stitch ups. It cannot, will not, reform itself.
Britain wants to ‘break into pieces’ and why not? Many of the most prosperous places on earth are small economic units. There is a majority in Scotland now for independence, but that is mirrored in the rest of the country in a wish for the Scots to be independent. Indeed there is a bill under consideration in the House of Lords to facilitate exactly that, democratically:
https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/actofunion/documents.html
The ‘Pandora’s box’ of devolution, including the ‘West Lothian question’, has required resolution for some time. Now is the moment: ‘Nothing to fear but etc etc……’
The choice is between myopia and introspection, the management of decline, on the one hand and buoyant commercial expansionism on the other; a glass half empty, or a glass half full.
And the electorate have already, democratically, made their choice.
Intelligently written but a biased brexiter set of cliches including :
‘The EU has had its accounts qualified every year for over 20 years, its senior functionaries and politicians appointed by boardroom coup or by unscrutinised stitch ups. It cannot, will not, reform itself.’
The EU is a political construct between sovereign states. It is a delicate balance between a democratic model (the EU parliament) and a technocratic structure (the EU commission) to avoid replacing the states that have built the model over time. Brexiters (and all nationalists in other countries) complain alternatively (according to the argument they are pushing forward) that it aims to replace sovereign states or that it is an alternative ‘shadow’ model.
Talking about the need for being reformed, another usual cliche argument of brexiters, the question resides in why ?
Other ‘grand’ brexiter cliche : ‘buoyant commercial expansionism’. Can you remind us how the DIT of Mr Fox and now the high-profile Liz Tuss has achieved amazing results ? Can you remind us how the UK has been able to rebuild their industrial basis since the brexit vote?
Gibraltar punches above its weight because of its association with the UK. It will probably get a better relationship with the EU by working with the UK than it would do if it tried leave on its own accord. There is only one problem. Gibraltar voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. Having friends is not so good if your friends want to play a different game from you.
Trade deals involve trade offs. Suppose the EU decides to make a concession in trade negotiations so that it can better export olives or lemons. The northern EU countries get the negative effects from the concession but they get no advantage from the possibility of an expanded market for olives or lemons. A trading entity can be too small but it can also be too big. In the case of EU trade negotiations, German industrial output and French agriculture seem to have had a greater priority in the past than UK financial services.