On March 29, Prime Minister Theresa May will trigger Article 50 and initiate the United Kingdom’s official withdrawal from the European Union. Once EU officials receive notice of the UK’s intention to leave, the two parties will be able to formally negotiate the terms under which it will leave, and how it will interact with the union going forward. Much has been made about the likelihood that EU negotiators will be keen to make an example of the United Kingdom so as to send a message to other member states who may be eyeing an exit. However, if Theresa May’s political history is anything to go by, a comprehensive split with the European Union will suit her government just fine.

Following the referendum, there was much debate over whether May’s government ought to pursue a “soft Brexit,” which would have allowed Britain to stay in the Common Market, or sever all existing ties with the European Economic Area and undertake a “hard Brexit.” Polls released the day before May’s speech on her plan to leave the EU showed that more Britons supported either remaining in the European Union or at least the Common Market. May ultimately committed to a “hard Brexit,” claiming that remaining within the single market “would, for all intents and purposes, mean not leaving the EU at all.”

Controlling immigration has long been the priority for the former Home Secretary, which is a key factor in why she was elevated from her position to prime minister in the wake of a referendum result that was largely motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment. In the run up to the referendum, May backed the Remain campaign but her support was unenthusiastic; she rarely spoke in favor of EU membership. On a rare occasion May did speak, she still expressed her distaste for freedom of movement. During her time as home secretary, May put forward a number of hardline immigration policies that were criticized by many as being overtly harmful to immigrants and their families.

Considering May’s feelings on immigration, it is no surprise she opted to pursue a “hard Brexit” plan that would allow Britain to have absolute control over immigration policy. Wishing to avoid a domino-like collapse of the union, EU negotiators would have likely rejected a plan that allowed the UK to remain within the Common Market. However, considering that a “soft Brexit” would have carried provisions for the freedom of movement of people, it is unlikely May would have gone for these terms anyway.

Relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union are likely somewhat tense. Once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations begin, both sides will be trying to score political points. May’s government will hope to convince the British public and the world that the United Kingdom would be better off outside of the EU. The EU will be aiming to stem the tide of euro-skepticism by demonstrating value of EU membership and the cost that exiting the union incurs.

While the two parties have distinct goals, their plans for achieving their respective objectives appear to be largely the same: pursue a definitive break. In her speech announcing a “hard Brexit,” May declared that she would not be bullied by the EU claiming that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.” In October, President François Hollande said that “there must be a price” for leaving the EU and that Britain cannot expect to “to enjoy supposed benefits [of EU membership] without downsides.”

Both the UK and the EU have drawn lines in the sand. As of now, a “hard Brexit” appears to be the mutually agreeable course of action, but only time will tell whether both, neither, or just one of the parties were well advised in pursuing such a conclusive break.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The UK and EU Both Seem to Want a “Hard Brexit,” but for Different Reasons appeared first on Law Street.

The desire to move away from liberal economic policies toward more protectionism partly drove the Brexit vote. However, a successful protectionist push to leave the European Union could very well now result in an entrenchment of economic liberalism in the United Kingdom.

Over the past several decades economic liberalism and neoliberalism became standard economic policy throughout the developed world. Free markets, free trade, and privatization of assets were valued above all other policy. As liberalism globalized, free trade agreements such as NAFTA and economic unions like the EU were formed. However, protectionist movements on both the right and left have formed in response to this economic standard and have quickly gained traction. Just as the U.S. saw Donald Trump’s and Bernie Sanders’ protectionist platforms gain huge momentum, the British shocked the world by opting to leave the liberalist EU, with many “leave” voters crying out for more protectionist economic policy.

The “leave” vote shook the center-right government to its core, prompting the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron. However, the same pro-free-trade and pro-liberalism Conservative Party that was in power before the referendum remains in power today. Therefore, Prime Minister Theresa May’s economically liberal Conservative Party is charged with engineering the leave process. In spite of the fact that a protectionist movement established in part the mandate to begin the leave campaign, it is unlikely that May’s government will pick up the protectionist torch and reject liberal economic policy.

On Tuesday, May announced that the UK would commit to a “hard Brexit.” Under this plan, the UK would undergo a total uncoupling with EU economic infrastructure. Headlines of plans to sever ties with the EU would have pleased many protectionist “leave” voters who view the EU as an exemplar of liberalism and globalization. Yet, when considering May’s clearly stated devotion to liberal economics, it is unlikely that “hard Brexit” will produce the protectionist policy outcomes many leave voters would have hoped for.

The Sunday before May committed to “hard Brexit,” Chancellor of the Exchequer Phillip Hammond stated that the UK would do “whatever” in order to keep the economy afloat following “Brexit.” He said that under “hard Brexit,” they would have to “change [the economic] model to regain competitiveness.” Supporters and critics alike took this to mean that economic policy under “hard Brexit” would see deregulation reign supreme.

May’s speech to the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Thursday all but confirmed these assumptions of future liberal policy. The Prime Minister outlined her intention to develop a British economy at the forefront of liberal economic policy. Though she posed some criticisms of globalization, May was far more critical of Donald Trump and other populist movements’ protectionist ideologies. May capped off her speech to the congregation of world leaders and financial actors by declaring that Britain would become “a forceful advocate for business, free markets and free trade.”

While many in the “leave” camp hoped to move Britain away from liberalism, May has responded with a plan that satisfies her ideological devotion to liberalism. Many opposed to the EU found the organization to be one that epitomized liberal globalization. Though many in the Conservative Party might have wanted to “remain,” it seems they are taking the “leave” vote as an opportunity to advance liberalism. No longer shackled by outside economic regulatory powers like the European Central Bank (ECB), the Conservative Party feels free to act in accordance with its ideology.

The decision to leave the European Union transformed most every aspect of Britain’s political and economic life. However, the referendum did not change the fact that a political party faithful to liberal economics was in power. Though it is not exactly clear how May’s vision will take shape, the developments over the past week have set the stage for a British economic model grounded on highly liberal economic policy. Economic protectionists who voted “leave” are unlikely to see their hopes for future economic economic policy actualized. In fact, those who hoped for protectionist economic policies may see a Britain committed to liberalism like never before.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will May’s Hard Brexit Live up to Voters’ Expectations? appeared first on Law Street.