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 Russia Eurasia Center
- Is Opposition to Online Restrictions an Inflection Point for the Russian Regime?Commentary
After four years of war, there is no one who can stand up to the security establishment, and President Vladimir Putin is increasingly passive.
Tatiana Stanovaya
- What’s Having More Impact on Russian Oil Export Revenues: Ukrainian Strikes or Rising Prices?Commentary
Although Ukrainian strikes have led to a noticeable decline in the physical volume of Russian oil exports, the rise in prices has more than made up for it.
Sergey Vakulenko
- Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle EastCommentary
The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.
Nikita Smagin
- Is Frustration With Armenia’s Pashinyan Enough to Bring the Pro-Russia Opposition to Power?Commentary
It’s true that many Armenians would vote for anyone just to be rid of Pashinyan, whom they blame for the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh, but the pro-Russia opposition is unlikely to be able to channel that frustration into an electoral victory.
Mikayel Zolyan
- Will Hungary’s New Leader Really Change EU Policy on Russia and Ukraine?Commentary
Orbán created an image for himself as virtually the only opponent of aid to Ukraine in the entire EU. But in reality, he was simply willing to use his veto to absorb all the backlash, allowing other opponents to remain in the shadows.
Maksim Samorukov
