A Short History of Brexit

Introduction

Brexit has become one of the most divisive and contentious issues in modern British history. The decision to leave the European Union has split families, regions, and political parties, leaving the United Kingdom more disunited than ever before. To understand how Britain arrived at this critical juncture, we need to examine the long and complex relationship between the UK and Europe.

In "A Short History of Brexit," historian Kevin O'Rourke provides a comprehensive overview of Britain's involvement with European integration, from the aftermath of World War II to the present day. Written for a general audience rather than policy experts, the book explains in clear language the key events and factors that led to the 2016 referendum and the tumultuous negotiations that followed.

This summary will explore the main themes and insights from O'Rourke's book, providing a crash course in the history of Brexit and illuminating how past events continue to shape Britain's uncertain future.

The Roots of British Ambivalence Toward Europe

To understand Brexit, we must first examine Britain's historically ambivalent attitude toward European integration. This ambivalence has deep roots, stretching back to the early days of the European project in the 1950s.

The European Coal and Steel Community

In 1951, six European countries - Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy, and West Germany - took the first step toward greater integration by forming the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). This organization pooled coal and steel production among member states, placing it under the control of a supranational authority.

While the British government generally supported cooperation with European neighbors, it was wary of the ECSC for several reasons:

1. The Labour government feared the ECSC would interfere with coal and steel imports from the British Empire.
2. Labour had recently nationalized the coal industry at great expense and was reluctant to cede control to an external body.
3. There was a general dislike of supranational institutions that could override national sovereignty.

As a result, the UK chose not to join the ECSC. This decision set two important precedents:

1. It established closer European integration through supranational institutions as the preferred model for the continent.
2. It began a pattern of British marginalization in the process of European integration.

The Legacy of Empire

Britain's imperial history played a crucial role in shaping its stance toward European integration. After World War II, the UK began the process of decolonization, granting independence to many of its former colonies. However, trade ties with these newly independent nations remained strong through the Commonwealth, a group of equal and independent countries with historical links to Britain.

This created a dilemma for British policymakers. On one hand, they recognized the growing importance of European markets. On the other, they wanted to maintain preferential trade relationships with Commonwealth countries. This tension would complicate Britain's relationship with Europe for decades to come.

The Treaty of Rome and the European Economic Community

In 1957, the six ECSC countries signed the Treaty of Rome, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC). The EEC created a customs union among member states, eliminating tariffs between them and imposing common external tariffs on other countries.

Once again, Britain found itself on the outside looking in. The UK had pushed for a free trade area that would allow members to set their own external tariffs, which would have allowed it to maintain preferential treatment for Commonwealth imports. When this proposal was rejected, Britain declined to join the EEC.

This decision highlighted the ongoing struggle of British policymakers to balance their desire for European trade with their commitment to the Commonwealth. It also further marginalized Britain's influence in shaping the future of European integration.

Britain's Alternative: The European Free Trade Association

Recognizing the potential economic costs of exclusion from the EEC, British officials began working on an alternative plan. In 1960, the UK spearheaded the creation of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which included Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland.

The EFTA was designed to be more aligned with British interests:

1. It focused on free trade in industrial goods only, avoiding the agricultural sector where Commonwealth preferences were most important.
2. It was based on intergovernmental cooperation rather than supranational authority, preserving national sovereignty.
3. It allowed members to set their own external tariffs, maintaining flexibility in trade policy.

However, the EFTA had several limitations:

1. It excluded the largest economies in Europe (France, West Germany, and Italy), which were part of the EEC.
2. It did not address the issue of agricultural trade, which was important to many European countries.
3. It was seen by some as an attempt to undermine the political unity of the EEC.

Despite these drawbacks, the EFTA did provide Britain with some economic benefits and a degree of influence in European affairs. However, it soon became clear that this arrangement was not sufficient to secure Britain's long-term economic interests.

Britain's First EEC Application

By 1961, the limitations of the EFTA had become apparent to British policymakers. Several factors prompted a reassessment of Britain's European strategy:

1. The UK traded far more with EEC countries than with EFTA members, facing ongoing tariffs on these important markets.
2. Trade with the Commonwealth was becoming less significant as newly independent countries developed their own industries.
3. The EEC was experiencing rapid economic growth, making access to its markets even more crucial.

In a surprising move, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan announced in 1961 that Britain would apply for EEC membership. This decision shocked many in Europe and represented a significant shift in British policy.

However, the application faced immediate obstacles. French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain's entry in 1963, citing several concerns:

1. He feared British membership would diminish France's influence within the EEC.
2. He suspected the UK would act as a "Trojan horse" for American interests in Europe.
3. He doubted Britain's commitment to European integration, given its history of ambivalence.

This rejection was a significant setback for British efforts to join the European project. It also highlighted the ongoing tensions between national interests and the goals of European integration.

The Second Application and Eventual Membership

Undeterred by the initial rejection, Britain made a second application to join the EEC in 1967 under Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson. Once again, de Gaulle vetoed the application, reiterating his earlier concerns about British membership.

However, the political landscape in Europe was changing. De Gaulle's leadership in France was weakening, and there was growing support for British membership among other EEC countries. When de Gaulle resigned in 1969, the path was cleared for renewed negotiations.

In 1970, Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath began fresh talks with the EEC. After extensive negotiations, Britain finally joined the European Economic Community on January 1, 1973, along with Ireland and Denmark.

This moment marked a significant turning point in British history. For the first time, the UK was fully committed to the process of European integration. However, the timing of Britain's entry would prove challenging, as economic headwinds were on the horizon.

Economic Challenges and the Rise of Thatcherism

Britain's entry into the EEC coincided with a global economic downturn. The 1973 oil crisis and subsequent recession hit the UK particularly hard, exposing structural weaknesses in the British economy. By 1976, Britain was forced to seek an emergency loan from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a humiliating experience for a country that had once been a global economic powerhouse.

These economic difficulties set the stage for the rise of Margaret Thatcher, who became Prime Minister in 1979. Thatcher promised to revitalize the British economy through free-market reforms and a reduction in state intervention. Her approach would have significant implications for Britain's relationship with Europe.

Thatcher and the Single Market

Initially, Thatcher was a strong proponent of European economic integration, particularly the creation of a single market. She saw this as an opportunity to break down trade barriers and unleash the power of free-market competition across Europe.

In 1985, Thatcher's government played a key role in developing a white paper that identified three main barriers to European trade:

1. Physical barriers: Customs posts and inspections at borders, which slowed down the movement of goods.
2. Technical barriers: Differing regulations and standards between countries, which made it difficult for businesses to operate across borders.
3. Fiscal barriers: Varying tax rates and systems, which complicated cross-border transactions.

This white paper formed the basis for the creation of the European Single Market, which was largely completed by 1993. The Single Market represented a significant deepening of European integration, as it required harmonization of regulations and standards across member states.

Thatcher's Growing Euroskepticism

Despite her initial enthusiasm for the Single Market, Thatcher became increasingly skeptical of European integration during her time in office. Several factors contributed to this shift:

1. She was concerned about the growing power of European institutions, particularly the European Commission.
2. She opposed plans for a single European currency, which she saw as a threat to national sovereignty.
3. She was wary of closer political integration, fearing it would lead to a "European super-state."

Thatcher's famous "Bruges Speech" in 1988 articulated many of these concerns and marked a turning point in her relationship with Europe. In this speech, she warned against excessive centralization and argued for a more intergovernmental approach to European cooperation.

As Thatcher's rhetoric became more anti-European, she found herself increasingly at odds with many in her own party. This growing divide over Europe within the Conservative Party would have long-lasting consequences for British politics.

The Major Years and the Maastricht Treaty

John Major succeeded Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister in 1990, inheriting a Conservative Party deeply divided over Europe. Major attempted to chart a middle course, supporting continued European integration while seeking to protect British interests and sovereignty.

The defining European issue of Major's premiership was the Maastricht Treaty, signed in 1992. This treaty transformed the European Economic Community into the European Union, creating a more politically integrated organization with common foreign and security policies.

Major negotiated opt-outs for Britain on two key aspects of the treaty:

1. The single currency (which would become the euro)
2. The "social chapter" dealing with workers' rights and social policy

These opt-outs allowed Major to secure parliamentary approval for the treaty, but they also reinforced Britain's reputation as a reluctant European partner. The debates over Maastricht further exacerbated divisions within the Conservative Party, with a group of Euroskeptic MPs emerging as a powerful faction.

New Labour and Europe

The election of Tony Blair's New Labour government in 1997 brought a more pro-European approach to British policy. Blair sought to put Britain "at the heart of Europe" and repair relationships that had been strained under previous Conservative governments.

Key aspects of Blair's European policy included:

1. Signing up to the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty
2. Pursuing closer cooperation on defense and security issues
3. Generally adopting a more constructive tone in European negotiations

However, Blair stopped short of fully embracing all aspects of European integration. Most notably, he maintained Britain's opt-out from the euro, despite initially suggesting that Britain would join the single currency if economic conditions were right.

Blair's government also faced challenges related to EU enlargement. When the EU expanded to include several Eastern European countries in 2004, the UK was one of only three existing member states (along with Ireland and Sweden) to allow unrestricted immigration from these new member states. This decision led to higher-than-expected levels of immigration, which would later become a contentious political issue.

The Road to the Referendum

The events leading up to the 2016 Brexit referendum were shaped by a complex interplay of domestic and international factors. Several key developments set the stage for this momentous decision:

The Rise of UKIP

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), led by Nigel Farage, gained significant support in the years leading up to the referendum. UKIP's anti-EU, anti-immigration message resonated with a segment of the British public that felt left behind by globalization and concerned about the pace of social change.

Conservative Party Divisions

The long-standing divisions within the Conservative Party over Europe continued to deepen. Prime Minister David Cameron, who took office in 2010, faced increasing pressure from Euroskeptic MPs to take a harder line on EU issues.

The Eurozone Crisis

The global financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent Eurozone debt crisis highlighted the challenges of monetary union and raised questions about the EU's economic governance. While the UK was not part of the Eurozone, these crises fueled skepticism about European integration more broadly.

Immigration Concerns

The high levels of EU immigration, particularly following the 2004 enlargement, became a major political issue. Concerns about the impact on public services, housing, and wages were amplified by tabloid media coverage and populist politicians.

Cameron's Renegotiation and Referendum Promise

In an attempt to manage these pressures, David Cameron promised in 2013 to renegotiate Britain's relationship with the EU and then hold an in-out referendum if the Conservatives won the 2015 general election.

After winning a surprise majority in 2015, Cameron began negotiations with the EU. He secured some concessions, including:

1. An "emergency brake" on in-work benefits for EU migrants
2. The ability to reduce child benefit payments for children living outside the UK
3. An explicit statement that the UK was not committed to "ever closer union"

However, these concessions fell short of the fundamental changes many Euroskeptics had hoped for, particularly regarding the free movement of people.

The Referendum Campaign

The official referendum campaign began in April 2016, with the vote scheduled for June 23. The campaign was characterized by intense debate, controversial claims, and deep divisions within British society.

The Remain Campaign

The official "Britain Stronger in Europe" campaign, supported by the government, most of the Labour Party, and business leaders, focused on the economic benefits of EU membership. Key arguments included:

1. Access to the Single Market was crucial for British jobs and prosperity
2. The UK had more influence inside the EU than it would have outside
3. Leaving would be a "leap in the dark" with uncertain consequences

The Leave Campaign

The Leave side was split between two main groups: "Vote Leave" (the official campaign) and "Leave.EU" (supported by UKIP). Their key messages included:

1. The UK could "take back control" of its laws, borders, and money
2. EU membership fees could be redirected to fund the National Health Service
3. Britain could negotiate better trade deals outside the EU

The Leave campaign's slogan "Take Back Control" proved particularly effective, tapping into a desire for greater national sovereignty and concerns about immigration.

Controversial Claims and Misinformation

Both sides were accused of making exaggerated or misleading claims during the campaign. The most notorious was the Leave campaign's assertion that the UK sent £350 million per week to the EU, which could be spent on the NHS instead. This figure was widely criticized as misleading, as it did not account for the UK's rebate or EU spending in Britain.

The Role of Immigration

Immigration emerged as a central issue in the campaign, with Leave supporters arguing that EU free movement rules had led to unsustainable levels of immigration. The Remain side struggled to address these concerns effectively, often focusing on the economic benefits of immigration rather than engaging with cultural anxieties.

The Referendum Result and Immediate Aftermath

On June 23, 2016, the British public voted to leave the European Union by a margin of 51.9% to 48.1%. The result came as a shock to many, including financial markets and political leaders who had expected a Remain victory.

Key aspects of the result included:

1. A stark divide between urban and rural areas, with cities generally voting Remain and towns and countryside voting Leave
2. Age differences, with younger voters overwhelmingly supporting Remain and older voters backing Leave
3. Regional variations, with Scotland and Northern Ireland voting Remain, while England and Wales voted Leave

The immediate aftermath of the vote saw significant political and economic turmoil:

1. Prime Minister David Cameron resigned the morning after the referendum
2. The value of the pound fell sharply against other currencies
3. The opposition Labour Party fell into internal conflict over its leadership and Brexit strategy

Theresa May's Premiership and Brexit Negotiations

Following David Cameron's resignation, Theresa May became Prime Minister in July 2016. May, who had supported Remain during the referendum, famously declared that "Brexit means Brexit" and set about negotiating Britain's withdrawal from the EU.

Article 50 and the Lancaster House Speech

In March 2017, May formally triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, starting a two-year countdown to Britain's exit from the EU. In her Lancaster House speech in January 2017, she set out her vision for Brexit, which included:

1. Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union
2. Ending free movement of people
3. Seeking a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU

This approach became known as a "hard Brexit," as it prioritized control over immigration and the ability to strike independent trade deals over maintaining close economic ties with the EU.

The 2017 General Election

In an attempt to strengthen her negotiating position, May called a snap general election in June 2017. However, this backfired spectacularly, with the Conservatives losing their majority in Parliament. May was forced to form a minority government supported by the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland.

This weakened position made it more difficult for May to pursue her preferred Brexit strategy, as she now had to balance the demands of hard-line Brexiteers in her party with the need to maintain DUP support.

The Irish Border Issue

One of the most challenging aspects of the Brexit negotiations proved to be the question of the Irish border. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which brought peace to Northern Ireland, had been predicated on both the UK and Ireland being EU members, allowing for an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Brexit threatened to disrupt this arrangement, potentially requiring a "hard border" with customs checks. This was seen as unacceptable by both the Irish government and many in Northern Ireland, who feared it could undermine the peace process.

The solution proposed by the EU was the "backstop" - a mechanism to ensure that, if no other solution could be found, Northern Ireland would remain aligned with EU regulations to avoid a hard border. However, this proved deeply controversial with Brexit supporters and the DUP, who saw it as potentially separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK.

The Chequers Plan and Its Aftermath

In July 2018, May presented her cabinet with the "Chequers plan," named after the Prime Minister's country residence where it was agreed. This plan proposed:

1. A "common rulebook" for goods, aligning UK regulations with the EU
2. A "facilitated customs arrangement" to avoid a hard border in Ireland
3. An end to free movement of people

The plan was an attempt to strike a balance between maintaining close economic ties with the EU and delivering on the promises of the Leave campaign. However, it satisfied neither side of the Brexit debate:

1. Hard-line Brexiteers saw it as too soft, leading to the resignations of Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson
2. The EU rejected key aspects of the plan as "cherry-picking" the benefits of membership without the obligations

Despite these setbacks, May pressed ahead with negotiations based on the Chequers framework.

The Withdrawal Agreement and Parliamentary Deadlock

In November 2018, after months of intense negotiations, the UK and EU agreed on a draft Withdrawal Agreement. This 585-page document covered the terms of Britain's exit from the EU, including:

1. A transition period until December 2020 (extendable once) during which the UK would remain in the Single Market and Customs Union
2. A financial settlement of around £39 billion
3. Protections for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU
4. The controversial "backstop" arrangement for the Irish border

Alongside the Withdrawal Agreement, a shorter Political Declaration set out the framework for the future UK-EU relationship.

Parliamentary Rejection

When May presented the deal to Parliament, it faced fierce opposition from all sides:

1. Hard-line Brexiteers felt it kept the UK too closely tied to EU rules, particularly through the backstop
2. The DUP opposed the backstop's implications for Northern Ireland
3. The Labour opposition argued the deal did not meet their tests for protecting jobs and workers' rights
4. Pro-EU MPs from all parties felt the deal was worse than remaining in the EU

In January 2019, Parliament rejected the deal by a historic margin of 230 votes - the largest defeat for a government in modern British history. May's deal was rejected two more times in subsequent months, creating a political deadlock.

Extension of Article 50

As the original March 29, 2019 deadline for leaving the EU approached with no agreement in place, May was forced to request an extension to Article 50. The EU granted two extensions, first to April 12 and then to October 31, 2019.

These extensions provided more time for negotiations but also increased uncertainty and frustration among both Leave and Remain supporters.

Theresa May's Resignation and Boris Johnson's Premiership

After failing to get her deal through Parliament and facing growing criticism from within her own party, Theresa May announced her resignation as Conservative leader and Prime Minister in May 2019. She officially stepped down in July, triggering a leadership contest in the Conservative Party.

Boris Johnson, the former Mayor of London and a leading figure in the Leave campaign, won the leadership contest and became Prime Minister. Johnson promised to deliver Brexit by October 31, "do or die," setting the stage for a confrontation with Parliament and the EU.

Prorogation of Parliament and Supreme Court Ruling

In a controversial move, Johnson announced plans to prorogue (suspend) Parliament for five weeks in September and October 2019. This was widely seen as an attempt to limit Parliament's ability to block a no-deal Brexit.

However, this decision was challenged in the courts. In a landmark ruling, the UK Supreme Court unanimously declared the prorogation unlawful, forcing Parliament to reconvene.

The Revised Withdrawal Agreement

Despite his "do or die" rhetoric, Johnson was legally obliged by Parliament to request another extension to Article 50, which the EU granted until January 31, 2020.

In October 2019, Johnson negotiated a revised Withdrawal Agreement with the EU. The main changes were to the Northern Ireland protocol, replacing the backstop with a new arrangement that would keep Northern Ireland aligned with some EU rules while remaining part of the UK customs territory.

The 2019 General Election

Frustrated by his inability to pass the new deal through Parliament, Johnson called for a general election, which was held on December 12, 2019. The Conservatives campaigned on a promise to "Get Brexit Done," while Labour proposed renegotiating the deal and holding a second referendum.

The result was a decisive victory for the Conservatives, who won an 80-seat majority. This paved the way for Johnson to pass his Withdrawal Agreement through Parliament, which he did in January 2020.

The UK's Departure and Future Challenges

On January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom officially left the European Union, entering a transition period scheduled to last until December 31, 2020. During this period, the UK remained part of the Single Market and Customs Union while negotiations on the future relationship continued.

The Future Relationship Negotiations

The negotiations on the future UK-EU relationship proved challenging, with key areas of disagreement including:

1. The level playing field provisions required by the EU to ensure fair competition
2. Fishing rights in UK waters
3. The governance of any future agreement, including dispute resolution mechanisms

The COVID-19 pandemic added further complications, limiting face-to-face negotiations and diverting political attention.

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement

Despite the challenges and time pressure, the UK and EU reached a Trade and Cooperation Agreement on December 24, 2020, just days before the end of the transition period. Key aspects of the agreement included:

1. Zero tariffs and quotas on goods trade, subject to rules of origin requirements
2. Reduced market access for services compared to EU membership
3. An end to free movement of people, with new immigration systems on both sides
4. Continued cooperation on security and law enforcement, but with reduced UK access to EU databases
5. A governance structure for managing the agreement, including binding dispute resolution mechanisms

While the agreement avoided the disruption of a "no-deal" scenario, it still represented a significant change in UK-EU relations, with new barriers to trade and cooperation in many areas.

Conclusion: The Ongoing Impact of Brexit

The story of Brexit is far from over. The UK's departure from the EU marks the beginning of a new chapter in British history, with many challenges and uncertainties ahead:

1. Economic Impact: The full economic consequences of Brexit will take years to unfold, as businesses adapt to new trading arrangements and regulatory divergence.

2. Constitutional Questions: Brexit has reignited debates about Scottish independence and the status of Northern Ireland, potentially reshaping the United Kingdom itself.

3. International Role: The UK must redefine its place on the global stage, balancing its relationships with the EU, the United States, and other international partners.

4. Domestic Politics: The divisions exposed by Brexit continue to shape British politics, with ongoing debates about the country's future direction.

5. EU-UK Relations: Both sides will need to navigate a new relationship, managing areas of cooperation and potential conflict.

Kevin O'Rourke's "A Short History of Brexit" provides crucial context for understanding these ongoing challenges. By tracing the long history of Britain's complex relationship with European integration, the book illuminates the deep-rooted factors that led to Brexit and continue to shape its aftermath.

As Britain embarks on its post-EU future, the lessons of this history remain relevant. The tensions between sovereignty and economic integration, the pull of historical ties versus future opportunities, and the balance between national identity and international cooperation will continue to define British politics and society for years to come.

Understanding this history is essential not just for making sense of Brexit, but for navigating the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. As Britain charts its new course, the insights provided by O'Rourke's book offer valuable perspective on how the past continues to shape the present and future of UK-EU relations.