• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    New Syria, Old Lebanon: Absence of the State

    Any move by the United States to make good on Trump’s suggestion that Washington persuade Damascus to confront Hezbollah militarily would have catastrophic consequences. 

      Kheder Khaddour

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Lebanon Should Try to Place Hezbollah on the U.S.-Iran Table

    As talks begin between Washington and Tehran, Beirut has an opening to advance a regional plan for the party’s disarmament.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Board Up Donald Trump’s Failed Board of Peace

    What is behind Marco Rubio’s announcement that the body is now an international nongovernmental organization?

      • Zaha Hassan

      Zaha Hassan

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Syria’s Mandatory Imperial Tribulation

    In an interview, Elizabeth Thompson recalls how the country formulated a liberal constitution in 1920, before being denied by France and Britain.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Looking Past the Wall on Palestine-Israel

    Policy discussion is ignoring that the Palestinian national project is hollowed out and apartheid is a present danger.

      Nathan J. Brown

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.