This blog is hosted on Ideas on EuropeIdeas on Europe Avatar

Global Europe at Kent

Investigating the role of Europe in the world


‘Brexit’s Implications for the EU’s relations with international organisations’ by Nele Ewers-Peters

While it now appears that British Prime Minister Theresa May and her government will opt for a hard exit, the exact consequences remain unclear and it is relevant to think a step further. Since Theresa May’s announcement to go with the so-called hard Brexit, both the British government and the European Union will need to reconsider relations with international organisations. The United Kingdom plays a vital part in the EU’s interorganisational relations, most importantly in foreign, security and defence issues.

Despite its ongoing aversions to further EU integration in the realm of security and defence policy, the UK has played an important role as a driver with signing the bilateral Franco-British agreement in St. Malo in 1998. Also, thanks to its long-lasting partnership with the United States, it has often served as a bridge over the Atlantic. It also maintains close trade relations with Asian countries, especially with Commonwealth countries such as India and Malaysia, but also with China, because of the regions’ increasing economic importance.


The gains and losses of Brexit for both the EU and the UK

Prior to the UK’s EU referendum and the subsequent decision to leave the Union, the British government has strengthened its bilateral relations with international organisations such as ASEAN and WTO. However, with Brexit not only will the UK’s relations with international organisations change, but so will also international agreements of the EU. While the UK government will have to re-negotiate economic agreements with the EU’s Free Trade Partners (e.g. Canada and EFTA countries), it will also have to re-negotiate its status within the WTO. Being outside the EU, the UK will no longer benefit from the special rules for trading blocs under WTO regulations.[1]

On the other hand, there is no need to re-negotiate international agreements and Brexit will not affect negatively the Union in this sense. Yet, the EU will have to miss out on a significant security partner and the most important defence capabilities. As a member state, the UK has contributed vitally to military operations under the framework of the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy. With Brexit the EU will loose the Franco-British driver and motor[2] since the capabilities of these two member states account for 40%.

On a positive note, the EU will also loose a veto player with Brexit. This might enable the EU to finalise its security and defence project. In the weeks after the referendum outcome, renewed ideas of an EU army emerged. Brexit might open new avenues and opportunities for the EU, such as stronger EU defence as proposed by Germany and France[3].


Implications for the EU-NATO relationship

Yet, the implications of Brexit for the EU’s interorganisational relations with crucial partners, such as NATO, will not be this positive. As outlined by former Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer[4], Brexit was sad news for both security actors, and will hurt the EU-NATO relationship. As a bridge and advocate of EU-NATO cooperation, this relationship needs to be re-considered. The UK is amongst a few states that have achieved a 2% defence spending. Additionally, it possesses nuclear assets, a large military force and, above all, the motivation to conduct military crisis management operations.

The future EU-UK relationship will be important for shaping EU-NATO cooperation since the UK has not only contributed to the organisational structure of CSDP and has served ever since as a bridge between these two organisations. Whether the UK will be an integrated, associated or detached partner[5] will affect interorganisational relations. It is suggested that Brexit can lead to three possible scenarios for the EU-NATO relationship: (1) The UK continues to contribute to CSDP operations through a special agreement that would allow to further strengthen the EU-NATO relationship. In this case, the UK would also need a special status with the EU, i.e. a EU+1 partnership which would enable the UK to participate in CSDP operations. (2) The UK withdraws completely and the EU lacks financial contributions to CSDP and becomes more reliant on NATO through Berlin Plus. Accordingly, the UK would be more autonomous, but the EU-NATO relationship would suffer more asymmetry. (3) The UK withdraws completely and EU member states are able to compensate for the financial loss and establish stronger capabilities including EU OHQ. This would contribute to the EU’s autonomisation as well as to a more equal and symmetric EU-NATO relationship.


Implications for the EU’s interorganisational relations

While Brexit would have a detrimental effect on the EU-NATO relationship, this will not be the case as such with the EU’s interorganisational relations with organisations such as WTO and the UN. In the case of WTO, the EU will still be considered a trading bloc, and thus benefit from WTO’s specific regulations in regard to tariffs for international trade. In the case of the UN, some member states, e.g. Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland, would favour a permanent EU seat in the Security Council. In addition, due to the Franco-British Lancaster House Agreement, the UK government will continue to cooperate with at least France in matters of security and defence, which can then be related back to the EU and its interorganisational interaction with the UN.


The extent of Brexit’s implications for the EU-UK relationship and for the EU’s interorganisational relations with international organisations such as NATO, will hopefully be determined in the upcoming months. The decision by Theresa May and her government to opt for a hard Brexit have important effects on the future of the EU’s interorganisational relations and the strength (or weakness) of European security. With a strong British engagement, the EU might be better off due to the UK’s capabilities, but without a close relationship, new avenues might be open for the EU to finally strengthen and expand its security and defence policy – the question of how exactly this will happen remains.


Recent Articles

‘The European Union has lost its creativity: We need a new vision of Europe’ by Igor Merheim-Eyre

Published on by and | No Comments

In 2002 Romano Prodi, then-president of the European Commission, anticipated the EU to become a ‘real global player’, capturing an era when the European Union (EU) was determined to achieve ‘sustainable stability and security’ within the EU, and, ‘from Morocco to Russia and the Black Sea’. So what happened to these aspirations? Today, the EU […]

“Turkish and Azerbaijani foreign policy strategies of resistance to the EU”, by Eske van Gils

Published on by and | No Comments
mfa gov tr

Turkey has, for unfortunate reasons, been covered extensively in the news over the past weeks. There appears to be consensus in Europe that neither political coups, nor subsequent mass repression, are acceptable. Moreover, the crackdown after 15th July is only the last item on a long list of measures taken over the past years which […]

Why the EU needs the UK – A Security Perspective, by Nele Marianne Ewers-Peters

Published on by and | No Comments

Most of the current discussions on the possible ‘Brexit’ — the United Kingdom leaving the European Union — are concerned with issues of the Eurozone and its economic implications, the ongoing migration and refugee crisis, and the potential economic, political and social consequences for the UK in case of leaving the EU. What has been […]

The return of the awkward partner? The new Polish government’s old foreign policy, by Łukasz A. Janulewicz

Published on by and | No Comments

The first week in office of the new Polish government seems to indicate that the worst concerns about the country’s potential ‘Orbanisation’ might even have been overly optimistic. Despite initial commentaries cautioning against alarmism the new government has so far managed to make Poles wake up to drastic political manoeuvres on an almost daily basis. […]

Hollande invokes EU solidarity while avoiding political and legal pitfalls, writes Igor Merheim-Eyre

Published on by and | No Comments

Hollande’s choice to invoke Article 42.7 of the Lisbon Treaty is unusual, not least because of the novelty in making use of the Article. The choice, however, is rather deliberate. Firstly, President Hollande was no doubt presented with the possibility to invoke Article 222 of the Lisbon Treaty. This is the so-called ‘solidarity clause’ which, […]

“The psephology of deceit: Europe’s (in)action at the upcoming Azerbaijani elections”, by Eske van Gils

Published on by and | No Comments

Nothing new under the Azeri sun? There is! Earlier this autumn we have seen elections taking place in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine (25th Oct). Soon it will be Azerbaijan’s turn to go to the ballot box for a new Parliament. On 1 November, the 125 seats in the Parliament will be re-allocated or re-confirmed. Of […]

The real European Games have only just begun: Finding the right approach on Azerbaijani prisoners of conscience. By Eske van Gils

Published on by and | No Comments

The real European Games have only just begun: Finding the right approach on Azerbaijani prisoners of conscience. By Eske van Gils   Last June, Baku hosted the first European Games with much grandeur. Azerbaijan spent great amounts on the Games (dubbed by locals as ‘the Games for Europeans’) and wanted to put the country positively […]

Subscribe to a fortnightly email featuring posts from Ideas on Europe hosted blogs

UACES and Ideas on Europe do not take responsibility for opinions expressed in articles on blogs hosted on Ideas on Europe. All opinions are those of the contributing authors.