Commentary
- +11
Cornelius Adebahr, Dan Baer, Rosa Balfour, …
{
"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.
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.
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.
- How the Transatlantic Relationship Has Evolved, One Year Into the Biden Administration
- China’s Influence in Southeastern, Central, and Eastern Europe: Vulnerabilities and Resilience in Four CountriesPaper
- +1
Erik Brattberg, Philippe Le Corre, Paul Stronski, …
Recent Work
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 Endowment for International Peace
- Pushing Beirut into an Armed Conflict With Hezbollah Is InsaneCommentary
The party’s domestic and regional roles have changed, so Lebanon should devise a disarmament strategy that encompasses this.
Michael Young
- Continental Asia and the Rise of Portfolio PoliticsArticle
“Central Asia” as an analytical category is itself part of the problem. The term is a Soviet administrative inheritance, drawn along lines that served the convenience of Moscow. The Central Asian states the Soviets named no longer see themselves through this category alone and are not aligning across political blocs but are instead building external partnerships sector by sector, assigning different partners to different functions.
Jennifer B. Murtazashvili
- Delimitation After Defeat: India’s Unfinished Debate Over RepresentationPaper
The battle over representation and regional power has been delayed—not resolved—and will shape the future of India’s federal balance.
Louise Tillin, Milan Vaishnav, Andy Robaina
- California’s Global Trade Cities: Driving Local and National OutcomesPaper
Cities across the United States facilitate investment in American communities. Yet, because global attention remains focused on U.S. trade policy, their distinctive and bold local approaches to international trade and investment promotion are often underappreciated.
Wyatt Frank, Marissa Jordan
- The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor CooperationCommentary
The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.
Shruti Mittal
