Commentary
Peter Kellner
{
"authors": [
"Peter Kellner"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [
"Brexit and UK Politics"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Europe",
"Western Europe",
"United Kingdom"
],
"topics": [
"EU"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Fate of Brexit Still Muddled After Latest Round of Votes in Parliament
Whatever fate Brexit meets, Britain’s reputation for competent, pragmatic political stability—built up over centuries—is being trashed. It will take years, perhaps decades, to restore.
By Peter Kellner
Published on Mar 15, 2019
Source: Axios
The U.K. government lost two significant votes this week, as Parliament rejected Prime Minister Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement and ruled out a no-deal Brexit. They also rejected some alternative proposals for resolving the crisis.
The big picture: The problem is that members of Parliament fall into four main groups on the Brexit issues, and none commands a majority.
What each group broadly supports:- Leaving the EU without a deal
- Leaving the EU under May’s current agreement
- A “softer” departure that retains the closest possible trading links with the EU, minimizing damage to Britain’s economy (including the “Norway-plus” and “Common Market 2.0” plans)
- Remaining within the EU, especially if that’s the outcome supported by a new referendum (a small minority would simply revoke Britain’s application to leave the EU without putting a vote to the public)
Between the lines: A coalition of groups 3 and 4 could triumph, as a majority of MPs would prefer the kind of customs union or single market–style relationship the U.K. currently enjoys.
- Group 4 MPs, however, consider a “soft” Brexit ridiculous: It would leave the U.K. bound by EU rules but with no say in them.
What’s happening: Before March 29, May will have one or two more attempts to revive her withdrawal agreement, which has twice been voted down by large majorities. She hopes that the no-deal brigade will crack, convinced that leaving Europe trumps all other causes.
- If an extended deadline is sought, the pressure would shift to groups 3 and 4, but it’s far from clear they can agree on the fundamental choice: whether to uphold or challenge the sanctity of the 2016 referendum result.
- There is a narrow chance May could untie the knot herself, perhaps through a proposal from two Labour MPs to subject the withdrawal agreement to a “confirmatory vote”: If approved by the electorate, it would come into effect, perhaps one month after the public vote. If rejected, it would keep the U.K. in the EU.
What to watch: It’s still unclear if the EU will grant an extension — and, if it does, for how long and on what terms. And a second referendum would take months to organize, raising questions around whether the U.K. would participate in European Parliamentary elections later this year.
Be smart: Whatever fate Brexit meets, Britain’s reputation for competent, pragmatic political stability — built up over centuries — is being trashed. It will take years, perhaps decades, to restore.
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
- Lithuania’s Potash Dilemma Raises Questions About Sanctions’ EffectivenessCommentary
What should happen when sanctions designed to weaken the Belarusian regime end up enriching and strengthening the Kremlin?
Denis Kishinevsky
- Is There Really a Threat From China and Russia in Greenland?Commentary
The supposed threats from China and Russia pose far less of a danger to both Greenland and the Arctic than the prospect of an unscrupulous takeover of the island.
Andrei Dagaev
- Ukrainian Villages Are a Bigger Prize for Putin Than a Deal With TrumpCommentary
Western negotiators often believe territory is just a bargaining chip when it comes to peace in Ukraine, but Putin is obsessed with empire-building.
Andrey Pertsev
- Has Trump the Destroyer Eclipsed Putin the Destroyer?Commentary
Unexpectedly, Trump’s America appears to have replaced Putin’s Russia’s as the world’s biggest disruptor.
Alexander Baunov
- Belarus at the Border: The Limits of ReengagementCommentary
The future of the Belarus track will depend less on Minsk’s intentions than on whether the EU can move beyond symbolic unity and adopt a strategic approach toward a neighbor central to Europe’s security architecture. Without a more active EU role, these processes will unfold under conditions set entirely by Minsk and Moscow.
Balázs Jarábik
