This week may be remembered for the launch of Britain’s post-Brexit life.
The United Kingdom officially left the European Union five years ago. Since then, uncertainty and lingering bad feeling have largely kept Britain and the EU at arm’s length politically.
That was never likely to continue for long. The two are too deeply intertwined. The real question was how the relationship should evolve. An agreement announced Monday begins to answer that question, with promises to work more closely on key trade issues and defense.
Why We Wrote This
A story focused on
With both the United Kingdom and the European Union seeking security amid global economic and geopolitical shifts, a thawing of relations seems natural. But how far can they roll back their testy Brexit divorce – and do they want to?
For Britain, the agreement comes with a realization. Forty-five years in the EU were not enough to make the nation feel sufficiently European. For the foreseeable future, Britain’s path lies outside the EU. Yet five years outside the EU were enough to show that Brexit did not deliver the benefits its proponents had promised. Public opinion polls show a clear majority of Britons want stronger ties with the continent.
Monday saw the first substantial step to figure out what this future might look like. Already there are clues about what lies ahead. The one certainty is that the dance will be awkward, not always satisfying to either side, yet essential to the prosperity and security of both.
“Monday’s summit does signal a new page in the relationship,” says Georgina Wright, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund in Paris.
The deal is no blockbuster. Among other things, it eases food regulations and promises to make it easier for young people to move between Britain and the EU, though it offers few details on how they will do so.
Even so, the deal involved political pain. Many in Britain are upset at a provision that allows European fishing operations to continue to have access to British waters for another 12 years. It’s a reminder of the challenges ahead.
Yet the limited gains are noteworthy.
“Considering both sides only really started talking three to four months ago, the progress is actually quite significant,” says Ms. Wright. “It’s a blueprint for future cooperation.”
This new openness comes in large part from the British people. A survey of British polls shows that 56% of the populace is now in favor of rejoining the EU. That is unlikely, with British politicians loath to fight such a traumatic and complicated battle yet again. The terms of rejoining could also be higher.
But the shift in public opinion speaks to disenchantment about the promises of Brexit. The biggest change is among those who feel Brexit has put Britain at an economic disadvantage, says John Curtice, a senior research fellow at the National Centre for Social Research.
Departure from the EU has not made Britain into the powerful free agent that Brexiteers had predicted, striking its own trade deals on dramatically better terms. A recent deal with India proved the principle but offers relatively small economic impact.
Meanwhile, British firms now face a raft of regulations to do business in the EU. For example, reports suggest some food exports are spoiling as they are stopped at the EU border.
This means finding some middle space between “in” and “out.” And that begins with an honest appraisal of what Britain needs from Europe.
For many nations on the continent, the need for the EU is visceral. It acts as a bulwark against near-constant wars between France and Germany, against patterns of dictatorship in southern Europe, and against encroaching Russian influence in the east. These countries are therefore willing to accept significant sacrifices to be members.
That mindset never developed in Britain. “The failure of the European project in the U.K. is that we never thought we were European,” says Mr. Curtice.
For Britain, the relationship “is far more transactional,” says Iain Begg, a professional research fellow at the London School of Economics.
One likely outcome is that Britain becomes something akin to Switzerland – not in the EU, but tightly bound to it by numerous smaller-bore deals like this week’s, which include new commitments on defense.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has already been pushing Britain and Europe closer together. Last October, Britain and Germany announced a “historic” accord to work together on security in the Baltic Sea and North Atlantic, as well to jointly develop long-range missiles. This week, further agreements on defense between the EU and Britain were the “biggest prize” of the deal, adds Professor Begg.
The EU is determined not to let Britain “cherry pick” – enjoying the benefits of membership without being a member. But cooperation on defense reveals a potentially different dynamic.
“Yes, there is a danger of circumventing what is agreed within the EU,” says Aylin Matlé, a senior fellow at the German Council on Foreign Relations. “But if the agreements bolster the defense posture of NATO and the Europeans, that’s quite a good development.”
She adds: “In an ideal world, the agreements add another layer of robustness.”
