Given the complex and evolving nature of the EU as a sui generis organisation, the EU does not quite fit into a traditional IR model. Thus, we are often forced to use one or more models to simplify and explain certain aspects of the EU’s organisational mechanism. However, one model does not fully explain every aspect. Hence, Brexit and the influences between the UK and the EU may be explained in the Realist model or the Functionalist model, but with some conflicting interpretations.
On the one hand, realism builds upon a fundamental premise that every state acts to maximise its interest. In the anarchical international sphere, the state is the highest authority of sovereignty. Hence, the most powerful state in a given international scope has the most leverage in obtaining what it desires. Traditionally, this had been achieved through hard power or military use in war, as evidenced through WWI and WWII. In the post-war era, soft power has been used more widely in an attempt to avoid war. Moreover, most notably, European countries have grown to rely on their market power and even normative power to accomplish their way in international society. In this realist perspective, the main ways in which countries interact with one another is essentially through power contestation and coercion.
Brexit is an interesting case where the UK citizens have decided that the UK should have its way in the global world through the dominant political infrastructure in place. Standing under the motto ‘Make Britain Great Again’, those who called for Brexit intended that the UK take all of its sovereignty back from the EU. They believed that the UK would be able to sign trade deals independently, freely engage in military and security policies without regarding the EU framework. They believed that the UK could become a tremendous economic power again, particularly by rebuilding its relationship with the US in ways they thought impossible under the EU umbrella. Most importantly, the UK populist agenda called for stronger migration regulations, believing that people’s free movement under the EU regime undermined the UK economy with cheap labour flowing from the continent into the country. Thus, it made perfect sense to part ways with the EU, in the realist view.
On the other hand, functionalism aptly explains the main flow of progress made in the EU. In the functionalist view, states focus more on issues that commonly affect multiple states, and they seek cooperation to address those issues. It fundamentally differs from realism because the critical motivator is not self-interest but common interest. In other words, realism describes how states seek to maximise their interest. Functionalism describes how states seek to maximise interests that are common to a group of states. In real-world situations, states practice functionalism in different areas within communities of varying sizes and characteristics. For instance, the WTO regime is functionalism in trade with over 160 participating states. The ECSC, likewise, began with six founding European states in the area of coal and steel production. The ECSC gradually evolved to include more members and exercise its competences in broader areas and become the EU.
Although functionalism may not fully explain the way the EU functions today, the functionalist perspective can explain Brexit’s trajectory. Concerning the relationship between the UK and the EU, it should be recalled that the UK joined the EU because of the EU’s market attractiveness. Because of its close tie with the US and some North European countries, the UK initially tried to stay out of the EU (EEC). However, as the EU’s economic growth and the benefits of the internal market began to progress significantly, the UK decided to join the EU. This move could indeed be interpreted as a realist act of maximising the UK’s self-interest. Simultaneously, this can be explained in the functionalist view, that more significant economic benefits could only be achieved by joining the European Single Market where all participating states recognise the common need and work toward it together. In this view, Brexit could be seen as Britain’s response to a European failure, in the sense that the EU failed to implement the functionalist goal of maintaining a healthy economy as a whole. Likewise, the growing sentiments of migration from outside the EU and ever-increasing incidents of terrorist attacks within the EU territory contributed to the view that the EU was not delivering on the CFSP and migration policy. For Brexiters, it made sense that the UK moved away from the EU so that the UK could implement those policies better on its own, even if it meant reduced cooperation with other European countries.
Interestingly, when examining the current series of events, both realist and functionalist views can explain what would happen in the future. These two views are just different ways of looking at the same thing. One rather obvious result of Brexit is that, since Brexit, the UK has not been so effective in signing trade agreements with other entities worldwide, including the EU. Again, Brexiters envisioned that their autonomy from the EU would allow them to take things back in control (realist view). However, many of today’s issues, including climate change, are not easily solved by one country alone (functionalist view). On the continental side, some speculate that the EU may become more effective in its policies because the UK’s departure would make the EU member states more homogenous. Some experts have also suggested that countries like Denmark may adopt the euro currency soon since the significant economic power without the euro currency has already left the EU.
The Pragmatic Globalist 
Leave a comment