Negotiating as One Europe or several?

The variable geometry of the EU’s approach to Brexit

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

There are long-standing debates amongst scholars of European Union politics over the relative importance of member states and supranational institutions in determining what happens in the EU. This paper treats the case of ‘Brexit’ as a case study, considering the positions of the EU institutions, France, Germany and the V4, focusing particularly on dissociation issues, questions of migration, the customs union and trade, and the UK’s relationship to the single market during the first year of exit negotiations. It finds that while there are distinct national priorities, EU institutions have been able to synthesise these rather effectively into a common position which meets member states’ priorities as well as their own, confirming the claims of those who emphasise the ability of EU institutions to drive European integration and act on behalf of member states.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)226-241
Number of pages16
JournalContemporary Social Science
Volume14
Issue number2
Early online date11 Jul 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 3 Apr 2019

Fingerprint

EU
mathematics
customs union
European integration
France
migration
politics
Geometry
market
ability
Exit
Germany
European Union
European Integration
Dissociation

Bibliographical note

© 2018 Academy of Social Sciences. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsoc21.

Funding: This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency (Agentúra na Podporu Výskumu a Vývoja) [grant no. APVV-16-0062]. The seminar held in Berlin was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council’s (ESRC) Britain in a Changing Europe Programme and that in Bratislava by the Aston Centre for Europe [grant no. ES/M000796/1].

Keywords

  • Brexit
  • European Union
  • France
  • Germany
  • Visegrad Group

Cite this

@article{5d8645b7673a45368ae85ee9fbeaf902,
title = "Negotiating as One Europe or several?: The variable geometry of the EU’s approach to Brexit",
abstract = "There are long-standing debates amongst scholars of European Union politics over the relative importance of member states and supranational institutions in determining what happens in the EU. This paper treats the case of ‘Brexit’ as a case study, considering the positions of the EU institutions, France, Germany and the V4, focusing particularly on dissociation issues, questions of migration, the customs union and trade, and the UK’s relationship to the single market during the first year of exit negotiations. It finds that while there are distinct national priorities, EU institutions have been able to synthesise these rather effectively into a common position which meets member states’ priorities as well as their own, confirming the claims of those who emphasise the ability of EU institutions to drive European integration and act on behalf of member states.",
keywords = "Brexit, European Union, France, Germany, Visegrad Group",
author = "Turner, {Edward O} and Andrew Glencross and Vladimir Bilcik and Green, {Simon O}",
note = "{\circledC} 2018 Academy of Social Sciences. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsoc21. Funding: This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency (Agent{\'u}ra na Podporu V{\'y}skumu a V{\'y}voja) [grant no. APVV-16-0062]. The seminar held in Berlin was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council’s (ESRC) Britain in a Changing Europe Programme and that in Bratislava by the Aston Centre for Europe [grant no. ES/M000796/1].",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1080/21582041.2018.1492145",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "226--241",
number = "2",

}

Negotiating as One Europe or several? The variable geometry of the EU’s approach to Brexit. / Turner, Edward O; Glencross, Andrew; Bilcik, Vladimir; Green, Simon O.

In: Contemporary Social Science, Vol. 14, No. 2, 03.04.2019, p. 226-241.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Negotiating as One Europe or several?

T2 - The variable geometry of the EU’s approach to Brexit

AU - Turner, Edward O

AU - Glencross, Andrew

AU - Bilcik, Vladimir

AU - Green, Simon O

N1 - © 2018 Academy of Social Sciences. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsoc21. Funding: This work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency (Agentúra na Podporu Výskumu a Vývoja) [grant no. APVV-16-0062]. The seminar held in Berlin was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council’s (ESRC) Britain in a Changing Europe Programme and that in Bratislava by the Aston Centre for Europe [grant no. ES/M000796/1].

PY - 2019/4/3

Y1 - 2019/4/3

N2 - There are long-standing debates amongst scholars of European Union politics over the relative importance of member states and supranational institutions in determining what happens in the EU. This paper treats the case of ‘Brexit’ as a case study, considering the positions of the EU institutions, France, Germany and the V4, focusing particularly on dissociation issues, questions of migration, the customs union and trade, and the UK’s relationship to the single market during the first year of exit negotiations. It finds that while there are distinct national priorities, EU institutions have been able to synthesise these rather effectively into a common position which meets member states’ priorities as well as their own, confirming the claims of those who emphasise the ability of EU institutions to drive European integration and act on behalf of member states.

AB - There are long-standing debates amongst scholars of European Union politics over the relative importance of member states and supranational institutions in determining what happens in the EU. This paper treats the case of ‘Brexit’ as a case study, considering the positions of the EU institutions, France, Germany and the V4, focusing particularly on dissociation issues, questions of migration, the customs union and trade, and the UK’s relationship to the single market during the first year of exit negotiations. It finds that while there are distinct national priorities, EU institutions have been able to synthesise these rather effectively into a common position which meets member states’ priorities as well as their own, confirming the claims of those who emphasise the ability of EU institutions to drive European integration and act on behalf of member states.

KW - Brexit

KW - European Union

KW - France

KW - Germany

KW - Visegrad Group

UR - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21582041.2018.1492145

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049787998&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/21582041.2018.1492145

DO - 10.1080/21582041.2018.1492145

M3 - Article

VL - 14

SP - 226

EP - 241

IS - 2

ER -