17 July 2017

Politics: Brexit's toll on foreign policy: Losing our reputation day after day

Whether through arrogance or incompetence, the UK government is trashing Britain's reputation by the day. That's not good for business - and it's certainly not good for influence, writes Jonathan Lis.

[...]There are three elements at play here: first, and most fixable, is the state of Britain's Foreign Office under Boris Johnson. (It is fixable by replacing him with someone serious and credible.) Second, the infrastructure of the EU's foreign and security policy. Third, and hardest to repair, Britain's global stature as a result of the referendum and subsequent political chaos. In all three cases, Britain is - as a certain president of ill-repute might say - losing badly.

Johnson was, as usual, playing the constructive statesman last week when he told the Commons that the EU could "go whistle" for its money in the Brexit negotiations - a scenario which would guarantee a no-deal outcome and full-scale dismantling of the economy. Perhaps the reason that EU negotiator Michel Barnier professed not to hear a whistle is that Britain is already whistling in the wind. [...]

While Johnson has unquestionably damaged Britain's reputation and the reach of its foreign policy, it is as nothing to Brexit's institutional ramifications - specifically, withdrawing from the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), which govern the EU's foreign policy coordination, and are only open to member states. Perhaps that was best illustrated a few days ago by the remarks of one of Johnson's predecessors, William Hague, to a House of Lords committee. Hague highlighted the value of cooperation with the EU on foreign affairs, and the dangers of fragmentation. He was duly praised for his apparently realistic evaluation of Britain's power and influence. But even he was seriously optimistic - for example in his suggestion that Britain could retain permanent membership of the EU's Political and Security Committee (PSC). [...]

The conundrum of the PSC is much like Brexit itself. It benefits the UK to coordinate and promote shared interests with 27 other countries, including key world powers, and it benefits the EU to use British resources, clout and expertise while doing so. But when you ask PSC ambassadors and officials whether we could, as Hague suggests, remain permanent members or even permanent observers, the answer is almost a universal no. The PSC is one of the benefits of a members-only club. If you want to access the benefits, you take on the  responsibilities as well. Such is the basis for EU cohesion. It is unthinkable that Britain could abandon the pesky European Court of Justice (ECJ), financial contributions and freedom of movement, but stay in the PSC as though nothing had happened. [...]

Another truth then about Brexit: the EU, like Britain, is prepared to suffer its consequences. Its pain will be significant, but not mortal. Britain, which inflicted that pain, will feel it worse.

Full article on Politics

© Politics.HU