Can Theoretical Approaches Explain the Decision of the UK to Leave the European Union?

It is virtually essential scholars studying the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (a process that will be referred to as ‘Brexit’ throughout this essay) takes into account the core assumptions of theories, such as realism and constructivism, if they are to better grasp the complexity of the issue. Theoretical analysis can be employed to make sense of a state’s motivations for parting with an organisation, as well as its long-term aspirations and the ways in which a decision of this enormity will impact the global arena. However, as theories such as rational institutionalism firmly adopt the stance that institutions are internationally beneficial and necessary for cooperation, it is of little surprise that certain theories better explain the UK’s decision to abandon EU membership than others. This essay will thus analyse Brexit through the lens of realism, constructivism and rational institutionalism, contemplating the extent in which each theory provides sufficient explanation, and what areas are neglected.

According to the realist paradigm, the contribution of the UK to the EU is heavily dependent on the relative gains and maximum profits that can be acquired through participation and, as states think strategically about how to survive in the international arena, a termination of this relationship must stem from dissatisfaction of what the union has to offer. Realism proponent John Mearsheimer states “institutions are essentially arenas for acting out power relationships”, meaning states that retain high levels of power manoeuvre institutions in the direction of their domestic national interest, with the intention of maintaining or increasing their share of global power. In a Brexit context it is thus evident the benefits of EU membership, such as access to the free market, provision of workers’ rights (EWTD) and funding of impoverished areas (ESF), are outweighed by the disadvantages, which include a weekly fee of approx. £8.4billion/week and the less favourable terms of the Common Agricultural and Common Fisheries Policies. As countries are rational utility maximisers, departure (initiated out of self-interest) will supposedly strengthen prospects of sovereignty, independent control of immigration, trade and global decision-making, thus fortifying the UK’s position in the global arena. These moves are necessary in anarchic global conditions as the international system incites self-help and thus a persisting security competition that takes place under the shadow of war, making it crucial for states to prioritise power maximisation if they are to ensure their position in the global arena does not suffer. This is particularly relevant in the case of the EU, as a realist may also propose withdrawal from the union was necessary as no other main players hold membership. This, combined with the fact that the incentives to join the EU that existed in the Cold War era are no longer present, further suggest cooperation provides little benefit due to the less powerful nature of the member countries, and subsequently the minimal gains which they would provide.

However, whilst realism can be used as an explanatory tool for understanding the material costs of EU membership and why this would incline Britain to leave, the theory overlooks the influence of domestic opinion and national identity as its claims are heavily centralised around monetary and military power acquisition. Consequently, essential factors such as the impact of immigration and rise of nationalism are unaccounted for. The theory’s explanatory power is thus vast, but incomprehensive.

To fill in the gaps of the realist explanation of Brexit, constructivism can be employed to grasp an understanding of the implications of norms, strategic cultures and identities. These three factors are summarised by Aaron L. Friedberg, who argues they are created by the predominant explanations of a society’s shared history; “They are transmitted across generational lines by the process of education an acculturation.” Furthermore, Roger Brubaker and Frederick Cooper assert that identity is at the heart of socio-political decision making and can be understood as a key feature of collective and individual selfhood. It can thus be argued that a coherent EU identity is not feasible as a result of the member state’s diverse cultures and histories, prompting the UK to withdraw from the union in an attempt to reclaim British individualism in the global arena. The importance of this reassertion of individuality was alluded to by Prime Minister, Theresa May: “If you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere. You don’t understand what the word citizenship means.” Exacerbating this identity crisis, the free exchange of labour enforced by the EU also received an influx of domestic criticism, primarily from the right, as many Eurosceptics claimed British services such as the National Health Service were being exploited by immigrants i.e. health tourism. Politicians ability to utilise these concerns through slogans such as ‘take back control of our borders’ and posters depicting queues of refugees on the Croatia-Slovenia border, part of Europe’s passport free Schengen area, would have enthused a spirit of nationalism further. Therefore, through a constructivist lens, the UK’s decision to leave the EU took place as a result of the UK’s identity becoming blurred in the multicultural nature of the union. Combined with the EU immigration sanctions which generated a domestic nationalist consensus and the exploitation of these sentiments for political gain, Brexit is largely grounded in xenophobia, right-wing thought and national insecurity.

Just as constructivism accounts for the area’s realism ignores, realism accounts for the area’s constructivism ignores. The criticism can thus be made that constructivism overplays the importance of abstract thought and immaterial factors, such as self-perception and global reputations, and ignores vital components of decision making such as military and economic impact. Similar to realism, it’s explanatory capabilities are also confined. However, as previously alluded to, when these two theories are used in conjunction a substantiated explanation of why the UK left the EU materialises.

It is worth noting that not every theory in international relations can successfully explain decision making in the global arena, as indicated by rational institutionalism. According to this paradigm, international institutions such as the EU are created by states to overcome obstacles to mutually beneficial cooperation; these obstacles either relating to enforcement or distribution. As states act rationally and seek to accumulate maximum gains through acting out of self-interest, institutions aid states in reaping joint gains or avoiding joint losses. This, combined with the influence of interdependence and mutual vulnerabilities, means all states must trade in self-help strategies in the place of cooperative relationships within international institutions. In the context of Brexit, this major theory is thus of minimal use as its propositions serve better as explanations for why the UK should not have left the EU, as they indicate the withdrawal was irrational and to the detriment of the UK’s position in the global arena.

To conclude, it is evident no theory can explain Brexit in its entirety, largely due to the multi-faceted, labyrinthine nature of the decision and all it has evoked. Theories such as realism encapsulate the material motivations behind withdrawal but fail to gauge ideological implications, whilst constructivism perhaps puts too much emphasis on these ideological implications but neglects all that power-politics encompasses. It is thus paramount scholars studying this phenomenon employ multiple theories if they are to fully grasp the UK’s domestic and international explanations for leaving. Whilst rational institutionalism is a valuable theory, its pro-institution fundamentals refrain it from sufficiently explaining withdrawal from the EU. Consequently, its explanatory powers would serve better when applied to questions concerning why states join international institutions, and what benefits can be reaped from membership.