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": "",
"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 Endowment for International Peace
- Who Will Be Iran’s Next Supreme Leader?Commentary
If the succession process can be carried out as Khamenei intended, it will likely bring a hardliner into power.
Eric Lob
- Turkey Has Two Key Interests in the Iran ConflictCommentary
But to achieve either, it needs to retain Washington’s ear.
Alper Coşkun
- What Is Israel’s Plan in Lebanon?Commentary
At heart, to impose unconditional surrender on Hezbollah and uproot the party among its coreligionists.
Yezid Sayigh
- What Does War in the Middle East Mean for Russia–Iran Ties?Commentary
If the regime in Tehran survives, it could be obliged to hand Moscow significant political influence in exchange for supplies of weapons and humanitarian aid.
Nikita Smagin
- Bombing Campaigns Do Not Bring About Democracy. Nor Does Regime Change Without a Plan.Commentary
Just look at Iraq in 1991.
Marwan Muasher
