On March 29, 2019, the U.K. will formally leave the European Union. ‘Brexit day’ is legally binding, regardless of whether or not the U.K. and the E.U. are able to agree on the terms of their future relationship before this date.
With Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit negotiation plans sparking ire among both E.U. officials and British Euroskeptic politicians, the most likely outcome is that the U.K. will be forced to withdraw on March 29 without a deal with the E.U. Fears about the allegedly ‘horrific’ impact of leaving under uncertain terms are rising in the U.K. How did we get here, and what would a ‘no deal’ Brexit actually entail?
The E.U.’s intransigence to Brexit has always made the prospect of a deal agreeable to both parties highly unlikely. In the two years following the Brexit referendum of 2016, E.U. officials have consistently threatened Britain with financial and political instability. In their eyes, Brexit must be harsh and punishing in order to effectively deter replicas across Europe. In a bid to avoid this, Theresa May released ‘soft’ Brexit negotiation proposals in July, causing outrage among Brexiteers seeking a ‘hard’ exit from the E.U. Under her plans, the U.K. would remain under the control of E.U. regulatory agencies and some levels of E.U. judicial authority.
While this was not unforeseen from the pragmatic prime minister, key cabinet ministers David Davis and Boris Johnson were expected to harden the government’s approach and demand greater independence for Britain. With these two figures now out of the government, the group of Brexiteers who publicly disapprove of May’s plans is both large and influential. The overt desire of some, such as rising political star Jacob Rees-Mogg, to thwart May’s plans, along with the E.U.’s own disdain towards the proposals, means that they are all but dead.
Some Brexiteers actively seek a ‘no deal’ Brexit as the only viable alternative to May’s proposals. Under such an arrangement, the U.K. and the E.U.’s relationship would fall to the terms of the World Trade Organization, of which they are both members. Like other nations, the U.K. would have to subscribe to E.U. regulations when trading with it, but would be free to forge trade deals outside of the E.U.’s influence when it comes to all other parties. Some argue that a ‘no deal’ Brexit would offer the best economic opportunities for the U.K., making much-desired free trade deals with nations such as the United States achievable.
Nonetheless, scaremongering surrounding the potentially damaging short-term effects of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit is rife, even among Conservative Party politicians. A ‘no deal’ Brexit would be ‘absolutely catastrophic’, according to prominent Tory Remain-voter Dominic Grieve.
Due to the lack of an immediate customs arrangement between the U.K. and the E.U., after March 29 necessities like food and medicine could become depleted. Frantic scare stories are printed daily in the British press about empty supermarket shelves and food left to rot at British borders, including warnings that the U.K. could be facing ‘famine.’ Politically, the country seems incredibly divided. Pleas for a second referendum, in dispute of 2016’s 52-48 percent result, are only getting stronger among some Remain voters who are determined to prevent Brexit before 2019 approaches.
Brexit is an unparalleled opportunity for Britain to grow on a global scale, striking free trade deals and developing its leadership outside of the undemocratic authority of the E.U. A ‘no deal’ Brexit would offer Britain the most straightforward long-term path towards these goals. Yet at home, the risk of short-term political and financial turmoil is high. Ultimately, the reality is that any outcome other than a ‘no deal’ withdrawal now seems unlikely. The British government should focus on preparing a clear contingency plan and uniting the nation away from alarmist rhetoric before the March 2019 date arrives.
Tamara Berens is an undergraduate student in the department of War Studies at King’s College London.
