Defence and security after Brexit: Understanding the possible implications of the UK's decision to leave the EU -- Overview Report

Black, James; Hall, Alexandra; Cox, Kate; Kepe, Marta; Silfversten, Erik

doi:10.7249/rr1786.1

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both sides stand to lose from British withdrawal. Britain is one of only two EU countries able to deploy close to full-spectrum military capabilities, representing one quarter of the Union’s total defence capabilities (Black et al, 2017), and has been the fourth largest contributor to the EU budget (Herszenhorn and Ariès, 2017). The EU also loses one of its two member states with permanent seats on the UN Security Council (UNSC) (Dee and Smith, 2017: 529–530) as well as the benefits of the UK’s considerable diplomatic networks, including the Anglo-American ‘special relationship’ (Chalmers, 2017: 1; Oliver and Williams, 2016: 547; Rees, 2017: 561).…”

Section: Integration Theory After Brexitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Understanding the pattern of integration/disintegration and differentiation/harmonisation in foreign affairs is thus key to understanding EU/UK security relations after Brexit. And yet, within the (considerable) literature on the topic, there is no consensus on how the security domain will evolve (for example, Biscop, 2016; Black et al, 2017; Blagden, 2017; Dunn and Webber, 2016; Hadfield, 2018; Kienzle and Hallams, 2016; Koenig, 2016; Whitman, 2016a, 2016b).…”

Section: Integration Theory After Brexitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From Britain’s perspective, important achievements of European coordination have included European Economic Community (EEC) unity over the British invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982, the imposition of sanctions on Russia in 2014, and the Iran nuclear deal of 2015 (Freedman, 2016). The absence of the ‘institutional glue’ provided by Britain’s EU membership will increase the effort required to bolster political relations, as will the UK’s declining credibility as a regional partner (Besch and Black, 2016: 64; Black et al, 2017: 3; Chalmers, 2017). Should Brexit lead to a weakening of the British economy, as many have suggested, the UK will face increasing incentives to collaborate on defence procurement projects, given the significant benefits from economies of scale in this sector (Hartley, 2003).…”

Section: Integration Theory After Brexitmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the seeming absence of a workable arrangement for the UK’s participation as a third country, the option of working primarily through NATO is often mooted as an alternative. This is understandable, since NATO has been the pre-eminent provider of European security, helping to cushion the effects of Brexit in security and defence, and prevent a ‘cliff edge’ scenario (Black et al, 2017: 3; Heisbourg, 2016: 13). Since the EUGS recognises NATO as the primary framework for collective defence, and since the UK has traditionally sought to strengthen ties between the pact and EU security initiatives, it is safe to assume that much future EU–British cooperation will take place through the Alliance.…”

Section: Ways Forward For Post-brexit European Security: Csdp+ Natomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Post-Brexit EU/UK security cooperation: NATO, CSDP+, or ‘French connection’?

Martill

Sus

2018

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to understand the EU/UK security relationship after Brexit and the institutional form(s) it may take. Taking stock of the literature on the consequences of Brexit for European foreign affairs, this article employs a question-driven approach to examine uncertainties regarding the future EU/UK security relationship. These questions relate in particular to the United Kingdom’s commitment to European security after Brexit, the nature of post-Brexit developments within the Union, and the European Union’s willingness to afford the United Kingdom a substantial role after withdrawal. This article examines each of these questions in turn, before considering the viability of three frequently mooted institutional arrangements post-Brexit: UK participation in the CSDP as a third country; increased engagement with NATO that becomes the main platform for cooperation between the United Kingdom and the European Union; and the enhancement of bilateral ties between the United Kingdom and key European allies – especially France.

show abstract

Section: Integration Theory After Brexitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Integration Theory After Brexitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Integration Theory After Brexitmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Ways Forward For Post-brexit European Security: Csdp+ Natomentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Post-Brexit EU/UK security cooperation: NATO, CSDP+, or ‘French connection’?

Martill

Sus

2018

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An operational membership of agencies including Europol and Eurojust, the maintenance of Joint Investigation Teams, as well as access to key databases like SIS II and ECRIS, and even the continued use of the EAW, could likely be negotiated without much difficulty (Bond et al 2016). Equally, cooperation at the EU-level regarding anti-terrorism strategies, data-sharing and other issues is likely to be strongly supported by both sides, although the differing perspectives of Member States on data-sharing itself has yet to produce a clear 'European' position (Black et al 2017). More complex will be the daily challenges of border control, given the toxic nature of this issue before and after the referendum.…”

Section: The Area Of Freedom Security and Justice (Afsj)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Brexit and Beyond

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For our families -British and European alike vii AcknowledgementsThis book would never have seen the light of day without the assistance, support and advice offered to us by our colleagues and friends at UCL and UCL Press.Our colleagues at the UCL European Institute offered help and advice from the moment we started working on the project. In particular we would like to thank Claudia Sternberg, Christine Reh, Piet Eeckhout and Richard Bellamy, who were instrumental in drumming up support for the project within the European Studies community, and whose efforts ensured the final product would be comprehensive in its coverage of the discipline. We are also much indebted to Oliver Patel for his tireless administrative and intellectual support, both on the book itself and on the various other projects the writing of the volume foisted upon him. We would also like to thank the members of the European Institute's Advisory Board, who followed the book's progress with much interest and encouraged us that there was substantial demand for such a volume in the policy world. The Chair of the Board, Sir John Birch, is particularly deserving of our gratitude for his longstanding commitment to the work of the European Institute, his keen interest in the volume and his helpful insights on its content and audience.The book has benefited immensely from the helpful staff at UCL Press. We are grateful in particular to Tim Mathews, who first floated the idea of a book on Brexit, and to our editor, Chris Penfold, who has advised on and overseen the process from start to finish. We would also like to thank the two anonymous referees appointed by UCL Press, whose constructive and detailed comments helped us to structure the volume and finesse the arguments therein. Above all, however, we are grateful to all of our contributing authors, who have lent their expertise and their intellect to this project and whose timely and insightful contributions are the very essence of this book. Finally, AcknowlEdgEMEntS viii we would like to thank our families -to whom we have dedicated this book -for their support and patience over the many months whilst we brought the project together. Chris Bickerton is a Reader in Modern European Politics at CambridgeUniversity, and a Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge. Gráinne de Búrca is the Florence Ellinwood Allen Professor of Law and Faculty Director at the Hauser Global Law School, and Director of the Jean Monnet Center for International and Regional Economic Law andJustice, at New York University. Michelle Cini is Professor of European Politics and Head of the School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies at the University of Bristol.Deirdre Curtin is Professor of EU Law at the European University Institute in Florence. Helen Drake is Professor of French and European Studies andDirector of the Academy of Diplomacy and International Governance, Loughborough University London.Piet Eeckhout is Professor of EU Law, Dean of the Faculty of Laws, and Academic Director of the European Institute, at...

show abstract

Through the Looking Glass: Brexit, Defence and Security Through the Lens of Gender

Barrow

2019

Gender and Queer Perspectives on Brexit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Defence and security after Brexit: Understanding the possible implications of the UK's decision to leave the EU -- Overview Report

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

Post-Brexit EU/UK security cooperation: NATO, CSDP+, or ‘French connection’?

Post-Brexit EU/UK security cooperation: NATO, CSDP+, or ‘French connection’?

Brexit and Beyond

Through the Looking Glass: Brexit, Defence and Security Through the Lens of Gender

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About