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.
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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Will the Far Right Change Europe’s Russia Policy?Commentary
The European far right might fail to steer EU policy in the direction Russia wants, but they will create enough chaos inside Europe to benefit the Kremlin.
Dimitar Bechev
- Leaving Russian-Speakers Without Representation Is a Risk for LatviaCommentary
If the Russian-speaking community in Latvia cannot articulate their interests without being seen as disloyal, they could end up embracing a pro-Kremlin agenda.
Sergejs Potapkins
- What Should We Take From Andrey Melnichenko’s Essay in the Economist?Commentary
Andrey Melnichenko’s essay offers no answer to the fundamental question of how, under any kind of negotiated settlement, Europe can protect itself from the Russian ressentiment that is inevitable in all scenarios except for an outright victory for Putin.
Leonid Bershidsky
- Moldova’s Ruling Party PAS Must Graduate From Crisis Management to State GovernanceCommentary
Whether PAS can refocus on the unfinished business of state-building may ultimately prove more consequential for Moldova’s European future than the pace of its accession negotiations.
Balázs Jarábik
- Simmering U.S.-Iran Conflict Is Moscow’s Ideal OutcomeCommentary
Ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East allows Moscow to both increase its influence in Tehran and continue to enjoy the financial windfall of higher oil prices.
Nikita Smagin
