Britain’s exit from the European Union has become one of the most influential events in modern history. It causes various reactions and announces significant changes in international politics. Judging by external signs, the government planned a referendum on Britain’s exit from the EU for a long time, and it focused on a specific result – on the withdrawal from the European Union. The abandonment of one of the parties from the EU may affect political movements at the global level.
Constructivism, Realism, and Neoliberalism
To understand the phenomenon of Brexit and its impact on worldwide politics, researchers consider Britain’s exit from the European Union by implementing the use of several theories of international relations. However, methods of international relations may be applicable in various aspects. For example, different approaches may determine the impact of a phenomenon on global politics, or assess the influence of Brexit in the long run.
Brexit in Terms of Constructivism
The theory of constructivism usually criticizes realism and liberalism, since it believes that the most valuable thing for the country is not the market or national security, but the correct definition of the role in the political arena. Firstly, constructivists claim that the meaning that they attribute to the objects of interest determines the performance of states. These objects can be rated by the state as friendly, hostile, or neutral. Secondly, these politicians are sure that the international system operates based on rules and institutions that were jointly designed by the actors themselves.
From constructivism, it is essential to determine the identity of the state. Oliver (2017) claims that “for constructivists, any understanding of Brexit will require an explanation of how the UK and the remaining EU’s construct their identities and how these play out vis-à-vis each other” (para. 7). According to the constructivists, Britain, after leaving the European Union, will have to determine its new political role. The country can base its new policy on the phenomenon of parliamentary sovereignty, which exists in the UK historically. Moreover, the European Union will also have to self-identify its political role in the global arena; for example, the union can continue to encourage the establishment of open borders and mutual assistance of states.
Brexit in Terms of Realism
Realists believe that the significance and influence of the state are determined by the availability of the necessary financial or material resources, and the central participants in international relations are sovereign states with the amount of power required. At the same time, states are rationally acting entities representing a local union of citizens and adhering to the only official international course. In political realism, state rationality is higher than ethics, and political realists are not confused by the inconsistency of such a position with universal moral ideals. In their opinion, only through the efforts of the most significant and most potent participants in international relations, international stability, and world order can be preserved or violated.
According to political realism, international politics are conflicting and potentially confrontational. Oliver (2017) marks that “the power that Britain or the EU has in Brexit is therefore shaped by structural factors such as material capabilities, wealth or military power and how decision-makers use them” (para. 6). For example, after Brexit, Britain and the EU remain in unequal economic conditions. The EU economy is larger and more developed, as it is based on the participation of many states with an individual budget. Nevertheless, militaristic strength and connection with NATO give Britain a military advantage over the EU, whose army and mechanical power are at a lower level. However, states can avoid confrontation in all areas by defining the goals and development paths of states reasonably.
Brexit and Neoliberalism
Even though Brexit has positive sides as a political phenomenon, it is contradicting for many neoliberalism’s propositions. Neoliberals proceed from the requirement of maximum freedom of activity of an individual in the fields of politics, economics, and private life. Economic neoliberalism is based on preventing government interference in the economy and postulating open competition as the most effective financial mechanism that ensures, through free-market pricing, the regulation of economic processes, the growth of public welfare, and the achievement of social justice. Neoliberalists recognize the need for government intervention in the economic sphere, which includes budget and progressive taxation.
Although politicians preserve several neoliberalist positions, Brexit has contributed to the advancement of opponents of this political course. As a result of leaving the EU, some fundamental theses of liberalism and neoliberalism were violated. Firstly, pluralistic democracy was infringed, since when deciding to leave the EU, the preponderance of votes was insignificant, which indicates that the interests of all population groups in the political sphere were not taken into account. Openness in decision-making was outraged since politicians formed several settlements without citizens’ opinions. Secondly, the ideology of global economic openness was violated because, with Brexit, Britain loses its economic advantages in free trade.
Consequences of Brexit
Britain’s exit from the European Union cannot go without consequences since the country has been in this association for more than forty years and has acquired close economic, cultural, and social ties with EU countries. Brexit can lead to financial problems in the states with which it collaborated. Withdrawal of Britain may develop a distrust of the European Union as an organization in states that consider leaving the EU, and strengthen migration difficulties with economically underdeveloped countries.
The Effect of Brexit on the EU
The consequences of Britain’s exit from the European Union for the EU itself will be ambiguous. The long history of Brexit, of course, may play the role of a negative example. In other states, where there is a discussion of leaving the EU, governments will now examine risks and benefits several times before actually leaving the union. At the same time, Brexit hit the image of the European Union as an organization that is capable of effectively solving the problems of its member states. Moreover, Britain’s exit has inflicted rather severe damage to the European Union. It may be more significant for individual states of the European Union than for the organization as a whole since the economy of numerous EU states is tied to trade and financial cooperation with Britain.
The most apparent consequence of Brexit is the collapse of the ideology of the constant and steady development of integration. Instead of a continuous, irreversible, a priori beneficial integration all for all, the European Union becomes an organization that has no messianic purpose, which is forced to prove its usefulness. The EU systemic crisis will inevitably entail a profound transformation of the institutional and political structure of the EU (Jacobs, 2018). After Brexit, there will be only two options remain among the possible.
Firstly, it is possible that this will lead to a partial deconstruction of the European Union. This suggestion is based on the thesis that European integration has gone too far for all members. According to this logic, the central achievement of the European Union is a single market. A pragmatic approach to integration, which should replace attempts to repair the finally collapsed Eurozone or achieve an unattainable political union, is returning to the primary theses of the association. The likelihood of such a development is rather low.
The second way for states remained is a flexible EU integration. Over the past 20 years, flexibility has transformed from a transitional phenomenon into a permanent and formalized mechanism, and its elements are presented in several significant activity areas of the EU (Jacobs, 2018). The withdrawal of Great Britain can substantially accelerate the establishment of a coherent center of the European Union. First, the country, which has traditionally opposed the integration aspirations of the German-French tandem, is leaving. Secondly, Great Britain, which relied on unique relations with Washington, undermined Germany’s leadership by the very fact of its presence in the EU. Thirdly, in all economic and political parameters, the Eurozone is becoming the dominant group within the EU. Despite fragmentation on the one hand and accelerated integration on the other hand, neither unite the European Union into one state, nor a complete disintegration cycle is foreseen in the visible future.
The Balance of Power among the EU Members
Nowadays, the Eurozone has a high chance of transforming into a stable core, which will set the vector for the development of the European Union. The center states will make decisions regardless of the views of the remaining EU states. Of course, this core will not be homogeneous, and the nascent elements of control structures are already visible in it. The main control loop will remain within the German-French axis, which will either stay in its modern form or modify into the triangle of Germany – France – Italy. Today, the central split within the EU is a division between north and south. In the triangle of large EU countries, Germany expresses the interests of the north, Italy – the south, and France occupies an intermediate position. The second control loop is the founding countries of the EU that are the triangle plus Benelux. The colossal experience of cooperation, the symbolic aura of the founding countries, and a similar vision of the strategic direction of the European Union’s development are more than sufficient basis for in-depth cooperation. At the same time, the participation of Benelux countries will allow countering critical comments regarding the directory and conspiracy of large countries.
Furthermore, modern researchers believe that the cultural foundation of social integration is fundamental for a successful integration project. After the abandonment of Great Britain, the periphery of the European Union is most likely will transform into second-class countries, the province (Chryssogelos, 2016). EU surface countries run the risk of getting a second-class label. In the process of strengthening the core, their status will increasingly approach the situation of Norway or Switzerland. These countries are not EU members, and they have limited ability to influence decision-making. Still, they are forced to comply with numerous of the EU laws to maintain participation in the single domestic market and the Schengen area.
The Distribution of Power in the Current World Order
In conclusion, speaking about the role of the European Union and Britain in the international arena, it may be stated that there are several development scenarios. The UK will finally take its place between Europe and the USA, since Great Britain is an ally of the United States, but maintains ties with the EU. An intermediate position between these participants in international relations may be possible. The European Union, in turn, can temporarily increase its importance in international relations, while Britain goes through a crisis after leaving the EU (Toly, 2016). Thus, the most reasonable option is the separation of zones of influence between the United States, Britain, the European Union, and other countries on an equal level.
References
Chryssogelos, A. (2016). How Brexit will affect the balance of power in the European Parliament.The London School of Economics, 1–3. Web.
Jacobs, F. B. (2018). The EU after Brexit. Springer.
Leruth, B., Gänzle, S., & Trondal, J. (2019). Differentiated integration and disintegration in the EU after Brexit: Risks versus opportunities. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 57(6), 1383–1394.
Toly, N. (2016). Brexit, global cities, and the future of world order. Globalizations, 14(1), 142–149.
Oliver, T. (2017). Theory and Brexit: Can theoretical approaches help us understand Brexit? The London School of Economics, 1–3. Web.