Analysis: Crisis with the fall of Liz Truss reminds us that Brexit is expensive and isolates the United Kingdom

by

The resignation of Liz Truss, this Thursday (20), was met with a mixture of dismay and resilience by the British – after all, it was already expected. The last four prime ministers abandoned the sinking ship. As well as belonging to the Conservative Party, they were all marked by their inability to redefine the UK’s identity in post-Brexit international relations.

Ignoring a context in which there is no longer room for large empires, conservatives have created chaos. After years of rule by Labor, the party consolidated its majority in the 2010 elections, with David Cameron as prime minister. Five years later, he resorted to nationalist and Eurosceptic speeches to please certain voters, pledging to call a referendum if he stayed in power. Victorious, he kept his promise.

In June 2016, 52% of voters chose to leave the European Union. The successful campaign was marked by sensationalist narratives, dissemination of fake news and xenophobic speeches, reliving with nostalgia the idea of ​​an empire. Cameron, who ironically had advocated remaining on the bloc, resigned when he realized the problem he had created.

Since then, there have been three new Conservative leaders, all reaffirming the discourse that a great power like the UK is better off alone. It is precisely this arrogance, disguised as self-confidence, that is the strong point of British foreign policy; the analysis error permeates the entire history of interactions between the country and the European Union.

In a historic speech at the University of Zurich in September 1946, Winston Churchill argued for the creation of “a kind of United States of Europe”, with the participation of France and Germany, but without the accession of the United Kingdom. In 1951, the Treaty of Paris created the embryo of the integration process, the European Coal and Steel Community, expanded to two more in 1957.

In the 1960s, the British applied for membership of the then European Community. Charles de Gaulle, the president of France at the time, objected, arguing that Britain would be a “Trojan horse”—history has shown him not to be wrong. Finally accepted into the bloc in 1973, the British did not seem convinced of the idea and in 1975 they held a first referendum on permanence; 67% of the population chose to stay.

Over the next four decades, participation in the EU was marked by attempts to curb certain agendas and seek selective participation as far as possible to “preserve its sovereignty”. For example, the UK was granted the right not to join a 1993 agreement and to preserve its currency. On the other hand, there was an undeniable reinforcement of commercial and economic interdependence and mutual gains in political projection.

In 2015, the year before the Brexit referendum, 44% of exports and 53% of imports of British goods and services had the European bloc as a market. More than 3 million jobs were linked to exports to the EU, also the biggest direct investor in the British financial market (48% of investments in 2014).

The bloc’s departure led to the revocation of access to the free market. A study by the European think tank Institute for Economic and Social Research estimated that the value of exports from London to Brussels are 16% lower than in a scenario without Brexit, while imports are down 20%. The result on the economy is clear.

Continuing to ignore the importance of the European market is to insist on the mistake. The solution lies precisely in prioritizing trade with the EU and striving to break down the barriers imposed by Brexit. There is also the need to define bilateral relations with Brussels, anchored in a temporary agreement and with many points of tension, such as the issue with Northern Ireland.

The loss of market extends to more than 41 trade agreements that the bloc has with around 70 countries. After Brexit, the United Kingdom made efforts to establish its own preferential agreements – today there are 33, many of them temporary and few covering the Europeans.

The less attractiveness has reverberated in the difficulty of concluding pacts with strategic partners, such as the USA. It is clear that it is not possible to return to the glorious past without embracing globalization and facing the contradictions of capitalism. There is no room for protectionism or nationalism, especially in an economy so inserted in the global market and highly dependent on foreign labor.

What is worrying is that conservatives continue to be inclined to reinforce this populist discourse.

It is important to emphasize that the United Kingdom has a prominent position in global decision-making processes, as a member of the G7, G20, IMF, World Bank, NATO and the UN Security Council. It remains, despite the crisis, one of the largest economies in the world. So, it’s a protagonist.

The point is that he now acts alone — which wouldn’t be bad in another context. Faced with the economic crisis and political instability, its reputation is compromised. In the absence of prospects for reversing this scenario, the costs of Brexit are rising.

By subjugating the importance of cooperation with continental Europe, the United Kingdom misses opportunities to expand its role in international relations. The perception of the mistake made becomes stronger. It was better to be badly accompanied than alone.

You May Also Like

Recommended for you