• Commentary
  • Research
  • Experts
  • Events
Carnegie China logoCarnegie lettermark logo
{
  "authors": [
    "Erik Brattberg"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "EP",
  "programs": [
    "Europe"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Western Europe",
    "United Kingdom",
    "Iran"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Democracy",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Global Governance"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media

A No-Deal Brexit Would Be a Geopolitical Crisis

A no-deal Brexit would consume all political and strategic energy in London at a time when Europe is facing rising geopolitical threats from Russia and China.

Link Copied
By Erik Brattberg
Published on Jan 11, 2019

Source: Axios

The House of Commons will vote on Jan. 15 on Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit withdrawal agreement with the EU. If the agreement fails to gain support — a likely outcome — the specter of a no-deal Brexit will loom as the March 29 deadline approaches.

Why it matters: The prospect of a no-deal Brexit is alarming for both economic and geopolitical reasons. It would propel the U.K. out of the EU’s single market, roiling the U.K.’s economy and causing trade chaos with the EU. The Bank of England predicts an immediate 8% drop in British GDP under this scenario.

Moreover, Britain would be in complete political turmoil and its international standing would take a heavy toll. A no-deal Brexit would suck up all political and strategic energy and attention in London at a time when Europe is facing rising geopolitical threats from Russia and China.

Unfortunately for May, Washington is no help here. President Trump has taken the pro-Brexiteers’ side. He believes that a hard Brexit, or even a no-deal Brexit, would be beneficial for U.S. trade with Britain. Trump has on several occasions also undermined May’s efforts.

  • Ironically, one of the original motivations for Brexit was to pursue a closer relationship with countries such as the U.S. Under Trump, however, the special relationship is in shambles.

Yes, but: There might still be some wiggle room for last minute deal-making, though the margin for error is small. The U.K. could, for instance, try to secure an extension of the negotiations from the EU, but this would require unanimity from the 27 EU members. Other possible options include a new last-minute vote in Parliament, new elections or even a second Brexit referendum.

The bottom line: With so much at stake, the U.K. might decide to pull the plug on the entire Brexit enterprise to avoid the costs of exiting the EU. Barring such an outcome, British politicians could at least pursue the deal that May has reached, since it would limit the damage done by ensuring an orderly Brexit and paving the way for the next phase of discussing the future U.K.–EU relationship.

This article was originally published in Axios.

About the Author

Erik Brattberg

Former Director, Europe Program, Fellow

Erik Brattberg was director of the Europe Program and a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. He is an expert on European politics and security and transatlantic relations.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    How the Transatlantic Relationship Has Evolved, One Year Into the Biden Administration
      • +11

      Cornelius Adebahr, Dan Baer, Rosa Balfour, …

  • Paper
    China’s Influence in Southeastern, Central, and Eastern Europe: Vulnerabilities and Resilience in Four Countries
      • +1

      Erik Brattberg, Philippe Le Corre, Paul Stronski, …

Erik Brattberg
Former Director, Europe Program, Fellow
Erik Brattberg
Political ReformDemocracyForeign PolicyGlobal GovernanceNorth AmericaUnited StatesWestern EuropeUnited KingdomIran

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

  • Commentary
    Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder

    Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly Nonpartisan

    For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.

      Elina Noor

  • Commentary
    Neither Comrade nor Ally: Decoding Vietnam’s First Army Drill with China

    In July 2025, Vietnam and China held their first joint army drill, a modest but symbolic move reflecting Hanoi’s strategic hedging amid U.S.–China rivalry.

      • Nguyen-khac-giang

      Nguyễn Khắc Giang

  • Commentary
    Today’s Rare Earths Conflict Echoes the 1973 Oil Crisis — But It’s Not the Same

    Regulation, not embargo, allows Beijing to shape how other countries and firms adapt to its terms.

      Alvin Camba

  • Commentary
    China’s Mediation Offer in the Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute Sheds Light on Beijing’s Security Role in Southeast Asia

    The Thai-Cambodian conflict highlights the limits to China's peacemaker ambition and the significance of this role on Southeast Asia’s balance of power.

      Pongphisoot (Paul) Busbarat

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
Carnegie China logo, white
Keck Seng Tower133 Cecil Street #10-01ASingapore, 069535Phone: +65 9650 7648
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie China
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.