Commentary
Peter Kellner
{
"authors": [
"Peter Kellner"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [
"EU Integration and Enlargement",
"Brexit and UK Politics"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "EP",
"programs": [
"Europe"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Europe",
"Western Europe",
"United Kingdom",
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"EU"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Key Questions Unresolved in May’s Latest Brexit Speech
The UK prime minister has failed to present a compelling vision for post-Brexit Europe and remains indecisive about Britain’s future trade relationship with the EU.
By Peter Kellner
Published on Mar 8, 2018
Source: Axios
In her address last Friday about Britain’s impending withdrawal from the European Union, Prime Minister Theresa May failed to present a compelling vision for post-Brexit Europe. To lay the groundwork for trade negotiations in Brussels, the speech needed to meet three objectives but accomplished one at most.
May’s goals:- Satisfy the two wings of her party, the pro-European Conservatives and the militant Brexiteers. May had modest success on that score, as both sides gave her speech a cautious welcome. But each wing wants May to pull May further in its own direction, a tension that will only increase in the months ahead.
- Resolve the future economic relationship between the U.K. and the EU.
- Clarify the U.K.’s larger goals. The question May has consistently dodged is how much autonomy is she prepared to surrender post-Brexit to keep a close trading relationship with the rest of the European Union.
May failed to meet either of her last objectives. On the economy, she expressed her desire for “frictionless” trade with the EU, but rejected the existing means that EU members currently use to achieve this. In a further display of indecision, May dropped her support of “binding commitments” to EU rules, which implies legally enforceable arrangements, opting instead for “strong” commitments, which implies no such thing. Discussion of the UK’s larger objectives was similarly muddled.
What’s next: The U.K. is due to leave the EU next March. To meet that deadline, members must agree to a deal by October. Since the EU insists that at least six months are needed to sort out the economic, technical and legal issues (still an optimistic time frame), that leaves only one month before negotiations must begin.
About the Author
Peter Kellner
Former Nonresident Scholar, Carnegie Europe
Kellner was a nonresident scholar at Carnegie Europe, where his research focused on Brexit, populism, and electoral democracy.
- The Moment of Truth for a UK-EU Reset
- The UK Braces for a Change of DirectionCommentary
Peter Kellner
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie China
- China-Europe Relations, Two Years After Russia Invaded UkraineCommentary
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a turning point in the EU-China relationship, and evolution of the China-Russia relationship will continue to impact EU-China relations.
Yifan Ding, Alice Ekman
- Is Europe Aligned on China?Commentary
Recent visits by European officials highlight the EU’s lack of internal cohesion.
- +1
Paul Haenle, Chan Heng Chee, Liu Yawei, …
- Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine Has Jeopardized the China-EU RelationshipCommentary
“It’s not so clear how we’re going to get out of this.”
Paul Haenle, Philippe Le Corre
- What the Russian War in Ukraine Means for the Middle EastCommentary
It’s about managing oil prices, bread prices, and strategic partnerships.
- +8
Amr Hamzawy, Karim Sadjadpour, Aaron David Miller, …
- The Race of Chinese Companies in the 5G CompetitionCommentary
With the potential of enabling not only significant economic growth but also the innovation of critical technologies in various fields, both the United States and China view 5G as one of the key influencing factors in the “great power competition.”
Lyu Jinghua
