Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-zlj4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-26T19:37:56.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Brexit Dilemmas: Shaping Postwithdrawal Relations with a Leaving State

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2021

Get access

Abstract

How do voters want their governments to respond when another country unilaterally withdraws from an international institution? We distinguish between negotiation approaches that vary in the degree to which they accommodate the withdrawing state's demands and argue that negotiation preferences are shaped by two issues. The first is voters’ exposure to the costs and benefits of accommodation. This exposure varies across issues, and we argue that citizens will generally prefer non-accommodation on zero-sum issues, but support more accommodation on cooperation issues, where non-accommodation puts existing cooperation gains at risk. Second, withdrawal negotiations create precedents, and citizens should therefore be less willing to accommodate the more they are concerned about the ripple effects of accommodation on the institution's stability. These concerns also confront citizens with two types of dilemmas depending on how favorably they view the institution themselves. To test our argument, we use survey evidence and a conjoint experiment conducted in Germany and Spain during the Brexit negotiations. We find that respondents overall are more willing to accommodate the UK on cooperation issues than on zero-sum issues, but also find evidence that Euroskeptics and Europhiles confront different issue-specific dilemmas. Our paper contributes to a better understanding of the dynamics surrounding the challenges to multilateralism that have proliferated in recent years.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbott, Kenneth W., and Snidal, Duncan. 1998. Why States Act Through Formal International Organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution 42 (1):332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramson, Scott F., Koçak, Korhan, and Magazinnik, Asya. 2019. What Do We Learn About Voter Preferences from Conjoint Experiments? Unpublished manuscript. Available at <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/023a/24a7dfaddfce626d011596b187f26361ee86.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Bansak, Kirk, Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2021. Beyond the Breaking Point? Survey Satisficing in Conjoint Experiments. Political Science Research and Methods 9 (1):5371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bansak, Kirk, Hainmueller, Jens, and Hangartner, Dominik. 2016. How Economic, Humanitarian, and Religious Concerns Shape European Attitudes Toward Asylum Seekers. Science 354 (6309):217–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baum, Matthew A., and Potter, Philip B.K.. 2008. The Relationships Between Mass Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis. Annual Review of Political Science 11:3965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bearce, David H., and Jolliff Scott, Brandy J.. 2019. Popular Non-Support for International Organizations: How Extensive and What Does This Represent? Review of International Organizations 14 (2):187216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bischof, Daniel. 2017. New Graphic Schemes for Stata: Plotplain and Plottig. Stata Journal 17 (3):748–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caraway, Teri L., Rickard, Stephanie J., and Anner, Mark S.. 2012. International Negotiations and Domestic Politics: The Case of IMF Labor Market Conditionality. International Organization 66 (1):2761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castle, Matthew Adrian. 2019. Why Revise? Presenting a New Dataset on Renegotiations in the International Trade Regime. SSRN. <http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3425591>.CrossRef.>Google Scholar
Chaudoin, Stephen. 2016. How Contestation Moderates the Effects of International Institutions: The International Criminal Court and Kenya. Journal of Politics 78 (2):557–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Wen, Bart, Los, Philip, McCann, Raquel, Ortega-Argilés, Mark, Thissen, and Frank, van Oort. 2018. The Continental Divide? Economic Exposure to Brexit in Regions and Countries on Both Sides of the Channel. Papers in Regional Science 97 (1):2554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chopin, Thierry, and Lequesne, Christian. 2021. Disintegration Reversed: Brexit and the Cohesiveness of the EU27. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 29 (3):419–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Goodwin, Matthew, and Whiteley, Paul. 2017. Why Britain Voted for Brexit: An Individual-Level Analysis of the 2016 Referendum Vote. Parliamentary Affairs 70 (3):439–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, Ben, Nanou, Kyriaki, and Verney, Susannah. 2014. “We No Longer Love You, But We Don't Want To Leave You”: The Eurozone Crisis and Popular Euroscepticism in Greece. Journal of European Integration 36 (3):247–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coggins, Bridget. 2011. Friends in High Places: International Politics and the Emergence of States from Secessionism. International Organization 65 (3):433–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colantone, Italo, and Stanig, Piero. 2018. Global Competition and Brexit. American Political Science Review 112 (2):201–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bruyne, Charlotte, Fischhendler, Itay, and Haftel, Yoram Z.. 2020. Design and Change in Transboundary Freshwater Agreements. Climatic Change 162 (2):321–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vries, Catherine. 2017. Benchmarking Brexit: How the British Decision to Leave Shapes EU Public Opinion. Journal of Common Market Studies 55 (S1):3853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dellmuth, Lisa M., and Tallberg, Jonas. 2021. Elite Communication and the Popular Legitimacy of International Organizations. British Journal of Political Science 51 (3):1292–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, Mette. 2020. Death of International Organizations: The Organizational Ecology of Intergovernmental Organizations, 1815–2015. Review of International Organizations 15:339–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, Michael, Matthias, Busse, Mattia, Di Salvo, Daniel, Gros, and Jacques, Pelkmans. 2017. An Assessment of the Economic Impact of Brexit on the EU27: Study. Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy, European Parliament.Google Scholar
Flores-Macías, Gustavo A., and Sánchez-Talanquer, Mariano. 2019. The Political Economy of NAFTA/USMCA. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, Stephen N., Henderson, John A., and Theodoridis, Alexander G.. 2020. What Goes with Red and Blue? Mapping Partisan and Ideological Associations in the Minds of Voters. Political Behavior 42 (4):9851013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Matthew, Hix, Simon, and Pickup, Mark. 2020. For and Against Brexit: A Survey Experiment of the Impact of Campaign Effects on Public Attitudes Toward EU Membership. British Journal of Political Science 50 (2):481–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Matthew, and Milazzo, Caitlin. 2017. Taking Back Control? Investigating the Role of Immigration in the 2016 Vote for Brexit. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 19 (3):450–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Julia. 2018. Life, Death, or Zombie? The Vitality of International Organizations. International Studies Quarterly 62 (1):113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grynberg, Charlotte, Walter, Stefanie, and Wasserfallen, Fabio. 2020. Expectations, Vote Choice, and Opinion Stability Since the 2016 Brexit Referendum. European Union Politics 21 (2):255–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guisinger, Alexandra, and Saunders, Elizabeth N.. 2017. Mapping the Boundaries of Elite Cues: How Elites Shape Mass Opinion Across International Issues. International Studies Quarterly 61 (2):425–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haftel, Yoram Z., and Thompson, Alexander. 2018. When Do States Renegotiate Investment Agreements? The Impact of Arbitration. Review of International Organizations 13 (1):2548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagemann, Sara, Hobolt, Sara, and Wratil, Christopher. 2017. Government Responsiveness in the European Union: Evidence from Council Voting. Comparative Political Studies 50 (6):850–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Hangartner, Dominik, and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2015. Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments Against Real-World Behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (8):2395–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hainmueller, Jens, Hopkins, Daniel J., and Yamamoto, Teppei. 2014. Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments. Political Analysis 22 (1):130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfer, Laurence R. 2005. Exiting Treaties. Virginia Law Review 91(7): 15791648.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon. 2018. Brexit: Where Is the EU–UK Relationship Heading? Journal of Common Market Studies 56 (4):1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara. 2016. The Brexit Vote: A Divided Nation, a Divided Continent. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (9):1259–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, Liesbet, and Marks, Gary. 2009. A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39 (1):123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon, and König, Thomas. 2002. In View of Ratification: Governmental Preferences and Domestic Constraints at the Amsterdam Intergovernmental Conference. International Organization 56 (2):447–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huikuri, Tuuli-Anna. 2020. Keep, Terminate, or Renegotiate? Bargaining Power and Bilateral Investment Treaties. Manuscript, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Hutter, Swen, Grande, Edgar, and Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2016. Politicising Europe. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keohane, Robert. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kruck, Andreas, and Zangl, Bernhard. 2020. The Adjustment of International Institutions to Global Power Shifts: A Framework for Analysis. Global Policy 11 (S3):516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, Simon, and Manak, Inu. 2018. The Rise of Populist Nationalism and the Renegotiation of NAFTA. Journal of International Economic Law 21 (1):151–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipscy, Phillip Y. 2017. Renegotiating the World Order: Institutional Change in International Relations. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansfield, Edward D., and Mutz, Diana. 2009. Support for Free Trade: Self-Interest, Sociotropic Politics, and Out-Group Anxiety. International Organization 63 (2):425–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martini, Marco, and Walter, Stefanie. 2020. Learning from Precedent: How the British Brexit Experience Counteracts Populism Outside the UK. Paper presented at the 2020 meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Morse, Julia C., and Keohane, Robert O.. 2014. Contested Multilateralism. Review of International Organizations 9 (4):385412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Inglehart, Ronald. 2019. Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office for National Statistics. 2018. Dataset: Population of the UK by Country of Birth and Nationality.Google Scholar
Peinhardt, Clint, and Wellhausen, Rachel L.. 2016. Withdrawing from Investment Treaties but Protecting Investment. Global Policy 7 (4):571–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelc, Krzysztof J. 2013. Googling the WTO: What Search-Engine Data Tell Us About the Political Economy of Institutions. International Organization 67 (3):629–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pevehouse, Jon C.W. 2020. The COVID-19 Pandemic, International Cooperation, and Populism. International Organization 74 (S1):E191E212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitsoulis, Athanassios, and Schwuchow, Sören C.. 2017. Holding Out for a Better Deal: Brinkmanship in the Greek Bailout Negotiations. European Journal of Political Economy 48 (June):4053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Lindsay, Heath, Anthony, and Carl, Noah. 2018. Red Lines and Compromises: Mapping Underlying Complexities of Brexit Preferences. Political Quarterly 89 (2):280–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosendorff, B. Peter, and Milner, Helen V.. 2001. The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape. International Organization 55 (4):829–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Averell. 2021. After Defection: How Treaty Withdrawal Shapes Cooperation Among States. Manuscript, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Christina J. 2018. The Domestic Politics of International Cooperation. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Gerald, and Cederman, Lars-Erik. 1994. The Change of Tide in Political Cooperation: A Limited Information Model of European Integration. International Organization 48 (4):633–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sciarini, Pascal, Lanz, Simon, and Nai, Alessandro. 2015. Till Immigration Do Us Part? Public Opinion and the Dilemma Between Immigration Control and Bilateral Agreements. Swiss Political Science Review 21 (2):271–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, Beth. 2010. Treaty Compliance and Violation. Annual Review of Political Science 13:273–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snidal, Duncan. 1991. Relative Gains and the Pattern of International Cooperation. American Political Science Review 85 (3):701–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallberg, Jonas, and Zürn, Michael. 2019. The Legitimacy and Legitimation of International Organizations: Introduction and Framework. Review of International Organizations 14:581606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Alexander, Broude, Tomer, and Haftel, Yoram Z.. 2019. Once Bitten, Twice Shy? Investment Disputes, State Sovereignty, and Change in Treaty Design. International Organization 73 (4):859–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Weeks, Jessica L.P., and Yarhi-Milo, Keren. 2020. Public Opinion and Decisions About Military Force in Democracies. International Organization 74 (1):119–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeek, Bertjan, and Zaslove, Andrej. 2017. Populism and Foreign Policy. In The Oxford Handbook of Populism, edited by Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, Paul Taggart, Paulina Ochoa Espejo, and Pierre Ostiguy 384405. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2013. Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of International Courts. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 14 (2):411–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voeten, Erik. 2020. Populism and Backlashes Against International Courts. Perspectives on Politics 18 (2):407–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Borzyskowski, Inken, and Vabulas, Felicity. 2019. Hello, Goodbye: When Do States Withdraw from International Organizations? Review of International Organizations 14:335–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, Stefanie 2020. The Mass Politics of International Disintegration. Working Paper 105, Center for International and Comparative Studies, Zürich.Google Scholar
Walter, Stefanie. 2021a. “EU-27 Public Opinion on Brexit.” Journal of Common Market Studies 59 (3):569–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, Stefanie. 2021b. Brexit Domino? The Political Contagion Effects of Voter-Endorsed Withdrawals from International Institutions. Comparative Political Studies. doi:10.1177/0010414021997169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, Stefanie. 2021c. The Backlash Against Globalization. Annual Review of Political Science 24 (1):421–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, Stefanie, Dinas, Elias, Jurado, Ignacio, and Konstantinidis, Nikitas. 2018. Noncooperation by Popular Vote: Expectations, Foreign Intervention, and the Vote in the 2015 Greek Bailout Referendum. International Organization 72 (4):969–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wratil, Christopher. 2018. Modes of Government Responsiveness in the European Union: Evidence from Council Negotiation Positions. European Union Politics 19 (1):5274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Jurado Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: File

Jurado et al. supplementary material

Jurado et al. supplementary material

Download Jurado et al. supplementary material(File)
File 4 MB