Anand Menon: "Any future relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU implies sacrifices"

LondonAnand Menon (1965) is Professor of International Relations and European Politics at King's College London. Before the Brexit referendum, in 2015, he launched the think tankUK in a Changing Europe. Since then, he himself as director and others of his collaborators have produced thousands of pages on the impact of the decision that the British made on June 23, 2016, next Tuesday will be a decade. His approach is simple: he doesn't say what to think, he just presents the effects of Brexit.

A decade later, has anything changed in the Brexit debate?

— The central dilemma is exactly the same: the trade-off between political autonomy and access to the community market. It is a legitimate option to say that political autonomy is preferred over broad access to the European market. What was always dishonest was to say that both could be had at the same time: leaving the single market and that the economy would prosper outside of it.

After the turbulent periods of Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Liz Truss in British government, with Rishi Sunak and especially Keir Starmer, has a certain rationality arrived in London's relationship with Brussels?

— The thing is that imagining any future relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU implies sacrifices. The United Kingdom has managed to place itself in a position where all plausible alternatives are problematic. There is no easy option. Either we stay where we are, and accept the significant economic costs that this entails, or we seek a relationship with the European Union that reduces these costs and make some kind of sacrifice: either a significant cession of autonomy, which would be the single market option, or an extraordinarily difficult political debate for a decade if we opt to rejoin the Union. This is the menu, there is no other, and whatever you choose will make you feel a little bad.

Will we see the United Kingdom in the European Union again?

— I am 60 years old. I am optimistic and aspire to reach 90. But I find it very difficult to imagine that the United Kingdom has returned to the European Union before I have turned them.

If you were Prime Minister, would you opt to tell the British that they need to return to the EU?

— The process is long and requires short-term political sacrifices in exchange for long-term benefits. And this is precisely the kind of politics that our leaders seem increasingly incapable of doing. Even once the decision was made, the process would be politically very difficult. On the one hand, it could be argued that the United Kingdom remains aligned with many European standards. Despite this, the EU would scrutinize our regulations and our system of government very closely for a long time, and would carefully consider when, if ever, it would allow us to rejoin. Among other things, because there is a queue of countries aspiring to join the Union, and deciding whether the United Kingdom should enter before Ukraine could become a first-rate political issue. And there is another element, too: public opinion could change during the process.

Wouldn't Brussels make it a bit difficult, given the specific weight of the United Kingdom?

— What I will say —and it is perhaps the only reason why I think it would be magnificent to submit a request for readmission— is that the French would almost certainly have to hold a referendum to decide if they let us back into the EU. It would be the best referendum in world history, extraordinarily fun to watch. For this reason alone, if for no other, I'm starting to lean towards thinking it's the most entertaining option.

Have the British changed their minds in these ten years?

— In theory, yes. Since the end of 2022, there has been a clear and constant majority of voters in favor of rejoining the EU. On average, in this year's polls, 60% are in favor of rejoining, while 40% would opt to remain outside. In any case, the relationship between Brexit and public opinion is strange. The things that drive it have not necessarily anything to do with Brexit. The biggest change we have observed in polls on the perception that Brexit was a mistake —or on support for eventual rejoining the EU— occurred after Liz Truss's mini-budget [2022]. And this, obviously, had nothing to do with Brexit. This reinforces the idea that people often observe the general state of the country and, if things are not going very well, the belief emerges that suggests that "the grass is greener on the other side". We should also bear in mind what is probably the strangest fact of current British politics: the majority of Conservative voters are now in favor of rejoining the Union because the party has lost a large part of its most pro-Brexit voters, who have moved to Nigel Farage's Reform Party.

Is the rise of populism one of the most problematic political impacts of Brexit?

— Brexit caused a profound political realignment. British politics today is divided into two major blocs. On the one hand, there is a progressive and pro-European bloc made up of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, and the Welsh and Scottish nationalists. On the other, there is a conservative and Eurosceptic bloc comprising the Reform Party, the Conservatives, and Restore Britain. What we observe today is that voters tend to change their vote within their bloc, rather than moving from one bloc to another. This is especially true for England. Brexit continues to cast a long shadow.

Was it a fiction to think about the idea of Global Britain and believe that London could replace trade with the EU with free trade agreements with countries as distant as Australia, Japan, or others?

— Sooner. After all, we are in Europe. The United Kingdom does not have the option to row to Asia simply because the economy grows more there. Our main trading partner is the EU, whether its economy is doing well or badly. Trade is extraordinarily conditioned by geography. All those arguments according to which future growth is in Asia are true. But we are in Europe. I remember that until approximately 2012 the United Kingdom traded more with Ireland than with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa combined. And this was not because Ireland had a larger economy or because it registered higher growth rates. It was because the Republic of Ireland is next door.

The EU is not perfect, however. Did this give the 'Brexiters' wings?

— In a certain sense, Brexit supporters are partly right: Europe regulates badly. It tends to over-regulate, to make entrepreneurship difficult, and is ineffective at promoting and unleashing the potential of future industries. Europe struggles because it is a half-finished confederation, where power is divided between Brussels and the member states, making it very difficult to act strategically in almost any area.

Nor in defense, now so invoked.

— I have heard several European officials say in recent weeks that, basically, what the United Kingdom would want is a single market for goods with the EU and a single market for services with the United States. It is the argument according to which the United Kingdom would act as a Trojan horse for American interests in Europe. To the extent that British regulatory divergence hinders cooperation with Europe, the European response will be: "You must change your rules. You cannot get closer to the United States in terms of services and at the same time expect close cooperation with us." This is the clear regulatory divergence of the British government in relation to the Union. The issue becomes particularly interesting when this is combined with security. If in two or three years the United Kingdom wants to cooperate more closely with the Union in matters of defense, it is perfectly plausible that Brussels will respond: "Our defense industry is now based on artificial intelligence, and we cannot work with you if your regulations are different from ours."