Kathryn Reyes

FS201

On the 23rd of June 2016, Britain shocked the global community with its decision to exit the
European Union as it stands out as one of the most unexpected and potentially far-reaching
developments for the future of the continent. Britain considered itself a world power and Europe
only one of its spheres of influence. The Brexit is particularly upsetting to a world that has
increasingly come to believe in the power of international institutions and is most likely believed
to be the defining issue of British politics. This campaign has not only illustrated the extent of
British resentment against the EU but the array of arguments used in the United Kingdom and in
the rest of Europe have also revealed the political complexity and the lack of economic debate
that typifies the relations among European countries in the context of the EU. Brexit is, therefore,
a topic in urgent need of theoretical analysis. We need to find a way to see through all the growth
in order to focus on those that are the most important. This is where theory plays an important
and necessary role.

Many students, to say nothing of decision makers or members of the general public looks at the
word “theory”. It can suggest abstract rather than practical thinking. Yet we all use theoretical
approaches and do so every day as a way of making sense of our world and our lives in it.
Theories can be tools we use to narrow down the chaos and complexities of life so we can focus
on what is the most important.

Theory can be applied to different aspects of Brexit. We could use theories to explain why the
British people voted as they did. Historians will use theories to explain Brexit in a longer-term
framework. There are two theoretical approaches we can use as a starting point to analyze Brexit:
realism and liberalism. These approaches have a history of being used to explain British foreign
policy. Each can be refined to become more understandable theoretical approaches.

Realists view international relations as defined by the distribution of power around the
international system. This approach includes an appreciation of the role decision-makers
outlooks and thinking play, but where a key element of the theory remains that decision makers,
and therefore their state, act in calculated, rational ways to maximize the national interest. 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. But focusing
on capabilities alone gets us only so far given overstretch can be a common enough development
for even the most powerful states.

Certainly, Britain wouldn’t want to give up the influence of Europe in its culture. The British
economy rests on selling advanced services to other countries, such finance, marketing, law,
architecture and design. These are cosmopolitan. Anything that makes Britain less European will
gradually weaken the heart of the nation’s economic strength, and its ability to export services
that other countries want to buy.

While the realist argument is largely based on power politics, which did not really factor into the
Brexit decision, realists have not been hesitant to acknowledge the significance of the force that
Brexit did ultimately embody: nationalism. Nationalism has two components: first, the idea that
people are divided into particular nations, based on things like a homeland, common culture,
shared values, and a shared past, and second, the idea that each nation should have its own
autonomous political state, with which it can make its own decisions and effectively enact its
own destiny. It is undeniable that nationalism is an extremely powerful force in the world today.
Despite a near consensus from economists that leaving the EU would be disastrous for the
British economy. Britons prioritized full control over their immigration laws and signature
double-decker buses; in short, their autonomy and culture.

In sum, Brexit has demonstrated that the power of nationalism must not be underestimated while
the power of international institutions must not be overestimated. Since the end of World War II,
the West has increasingly come to put its trust in international institutions, hoping to cultivate a
world in which globalization, interconnectedness, shared values, and a collective desire for peace
could preclude global conflict. These institutions withstood the rise and fall of the Soviet Union,
giving much further confidence in the indefinite stability of the liberal Western order. Yet Brexit
provides reason to suspect, as realists do, that this order is ultimately not sustainable: not only
did Britain walk out of the European Union with relative ease, but neither side in the Brexit
campaign even defended the European Union as a “meaningful or admirable institution.”
Meanwhile, in spite of predictions of economic calamity, nationalism prevailed. The prospect of
European integration had little appeal compared to the prospect of autonomy.
For liberals, whether you’re a Liberal Democrat or just liberally minded, Brexitis particularly
challenging. It could easily turn out to be an existential threat to the world we had thought was
being built.Liberalism has been the most enduring political philosophy of the modern era, and it
is not going away.As Locke explained, a state where power is exercised autocratically or
arbitrarily is a threat to such rights and must be averted by assorted checks and balances. Yet
implicit to Locke’s thesisand liberalism generally, is a fear that the people’s natural rights are
threatened not just by the wrong kind of state, but by the people themselves.

Given liberalism’s historic resolve to secure liberal outcomes irrespective of public opinion, the
nascent EU, with its implicit aim of mitigating national elections, was bound to attract liberal
interest. However, in Britain liberal ideas have seldom been restricted to Liberal parties; and the
idea that Europe could copper-fasten capitalism soon detained many Conservatives.Brexit has
shown us that the divide between Remain and Leave is not about social and economic
policy.Instead, the Brexit divide concerns the very rules of political engagement or, more
specifically, the extent to which they should be liberal rules.In liberal circles, Brexit has also
prompted a return to Mill’s concern about universal suffrage.

When defending their corner, liberals might remember that, while the tyranny of the majority can
be unpleasant, can be much more offensive to modern voters. Furthermore, at a time when trust
in elites is declining, and when ordinary people are increasingly vocal via social media, it is
anyhow unclear if the recurrent liberal dream, state-guaranteed capitalism and individualism is
really sustainable. If not, then far from being the end of history, liberalism could soon mark the
end of an historic conceit.

Generations of students will soon use Brexit as a case study in their various theoretical
discussions of European integration or disintegration. We could use theories to focus on the UK,
but that overlooks that Brexit is a two-way process that involves other member states to say
nothing of the numerous EU institutions and international players that will shape it. We can try
to use theories to predict what might happen during the process of Brexit, giving us pointers of
what to look for.
References:

Baldwin, R. (2018). Brexit Beckons: Thinking ahead by leading economist. Retrieved from:

https://voxeu.org/content/brexit-beckons-thinking-ahead-leading-economists

Clarke, H.,Goodwin, M., Whiteley, P. (2017). Brexit: Why Britain Voted to Leave the European

Union. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Cummings, D. (2017). Branching histories of the 2016 referendum and ‘the frogs before the

storm’. Retrieved from: https://dominiccummings.com/2017/01/09/on-the-referendum

21-branching-histories-of-the-2016-referendum-and-the-frogs-before-the-storm-2/

Hannan, D. (2017). What Next. London, England: Head of Zeus.

Mindus, Patricia. (2017). European Citizenship after Brexit. Basingstoke, United Kingdom:

Palgrave Macmillan

Obarch, S. (2019). Where next? How to cope with Brexit uncertainty. Retrieved from:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/jan/26/which-way-next-how-to-cope-with-the-
psychological-uncertainity-of-brexit

Partridge, A. (2019). On Brexit films, Brexit books and Brexit television. The Economist.

Retrieved from: https://www.economist.com

Smith, A. (2017). Autumn. Salem, Massachusetts: Salem House.