We Need to Talk About Brexit

Brexit has been presented as an opportunity for Britain to redefine and forge a new role in the world. Encapsulated by its mantra of ‘Global Britain’, this new role would make Britain ‘outward-looking’, reinvesting in relationships beyond Europe and championing the international rules-based system in the face of increasing Russian and Chinese assertiveness.

The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development, and Foreign Policy, published by the British government in March 2021, provides a blueprint for how exactly Britain will achieve its new global role, defining its “dynamic” approach to matters of defence, security, diplomatic and development. ‘Global Britain’ is, however, ambitious; rather than providing an opportunity for Britain’s role in the world, the reality is, Brexit threatens to undermine it.

Former UN Ambassador Sir Mark Lyall Grant rather positively argues that “there was never any reason why Brexit should damage Britain’s national security or influence in the world.”

Why? Because it possesses a unique set of assets that have made Britain a “soft-power superpower” able to influence global events – assets that pre-exist Britain’s decision to join the EEA in 1973. Britain’s membership to the UN Security Council, international organisations such as NATO and the Commonwealth, to smaller organisations such as the Nuclear Suppliers Group, have allowed Britain to play a leading role in shaping global issues. Moreover, Britain’s leading role in the G7 summit and COP 26 allowed it to restore its reputation globally, tackling global issues such as climate change.

Numerous post-Brexit policy decisions have resulted in Brexit damaging both Britain’s national security and global influence. The Integrated Review’s ambition to maintain Britain’s position as a “soft-power superpower” is difficult to reconcile with the reduction of the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5%, coinciding with a £4 billion increase to the defence budget. To make matters worse, Britain is the only G7 country reducing its aid spending, damaging its reputation, and challenging UK diplomatic ambitions to be a “force for good in the world”.

Membership to the EU allowed Britain to effectively “punch above its weight” – without the EU and its support, Britain will struggle to maintain the same level of global influence. So, the absence of any serious consideration of a structured EU-UK foreign policy and security cooperation in the Integrated Review is a serious shortcoming. Viewing the EU through the lens of NATO, Britain’s strategy is to prioritise individual alliances with states such as France and Germany. However, in a world dominated by the competing interests of the US and China and given that the EU has dialogue with key states on these security matters, Britain can hardly independently wield greater influence without the EU. Afterall, EU membership undoubtedly magnified Britain’s global capacities.

Britain’s image as a reliable, trustworthy and law-abiding state has significantly deteriorated and threatened its role in the world. The Integrated Review makes clear that despite the short-term reputational damage of Brexit, the opportunity for new trade agreements and a “tilt to the Indo Pacific” will restore its reputation and relevance on the international stage. The reality is, Britain is hardly anymore ‘global’ than it was under the EU. The majority of these “new” free trade agreements are continuations of deals that Britain was already afforded as an EU member state, albeit with a few minor adjustments.

Nevertheless, Brexiteers still see economic and political failure within the EU as justification to distance Britain further from Europe. But looking beyond Europe and prioritising a ‘tilt to the Indo-Pacific’ through The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is hardly going to resolve the numerous security challenges brought by Brexit. The significant risk of a revival of sectarian violence in Northern Ireland, largely due to Johnson’s attempts to scrap the Northern Ireland Protocol and UK-EU tensions have impeded Britain’s capacity to work with neighbouring states to collectively address international issues. In order for Brexit to provide a real opportunity to redefine Britain’s role in the world, it needs to look beyond fishing squabbles and recklessness over the Northern Ireland Protocol to form a constructive relationship with the EU.

The idea that an independent Britain can exert the same influence as it did when it was a member of the EU, whilst also acting as a reliable and relevant global actor is fantasy. Britain might be “unshackled from the corpse that is the EU”, but it cannot leave Europe. If Britain wants to forge a new global role, it will need to cooperate with like-minded, liberal democratic partners that can support its global interests. As it stands, there is a very real danger that Brexit, in contrast to the ‘Global Britain’ ambition, will reduce Britain’s global influence.