As mentioned before, one of the most prominent aspects of the integration process was that it was an elite-driven project. The Community was a place for bureaucrats, and they were responsible for developing policies that are affecting millions of European citizens. Their duties, responsibilities, and areas they work on have significantly increased over the years, and the bureaucratic system became too complex for ordinary people to understand (Cini & Borragán, 2010). Exclusion of citizens from this process in which decisions are taken affect their daily lives became a problem.

The most important institution in which a citizen has a say is the European Parliament. Nevertheless, as the European Union institutions are very complex and do not have a history of including citizens in decision makings, European citizens have little or no idea what their representative does in the Parliament, nor they have the capability to reject what is being done in the European Union. Moreover, this undemocratic practice leads people to not vote for the parliament elections. To address this democracy deficit, Lisbon Treaty focused on increasing the powers, functions, and abilities of the Parliament and brought it to an equal position with the Council in deciding what the Union does over forty new fields along with the ability to elect the head of the Commission, executive body of the Union.

These increases in the power of the Parliament have also brought its problems. Deciding in the Union is a very long and complicated process. Creating a draft, making amendments, preparing proposals, first and second readings are some of those lengthy and laborious processes of decision-making. Adding a very political institution like the Parliament to this process makes the decision-making even more complicated and longer. Negotiation between the parties, building alliances, convincing other parties, meeting in different parts of Europe, and negotiating with the Council adds up to the inefficiency of the process. Turning back to the question, “Was sacrificing efficiency for democracy worth it?” it can be said that the Union faces a dilemma. Allowing citizens to take part in the governance process makes creating policies that are beneficial for citizens harder but preserves its status as an institution that upholds democratic values. On the other hand, it also allows citizens to create their own proposals if they reach one million signatures or object to the policies through their representatives.

I believe that democratization is a step that the Union cannot overlook. If the Union pursues ever more integration, it needs to do it with the consent of the people; it governs even if it pays the price with the inefficiency. If the Union chooses to ignore the voices of almost half a billion people by preserving the governance only for the elites who are paid by European citizens, the European Union would not be safe from internal crises. While keeping the experts at the heart of the Union is a must, it also necessary to include the voices of the ordinary people in decision-making processes. The European Union is not known for its efficiency and fast decisions, so sacrificing some of it for hearing people out would not be a gross loss. On the contrary, it would benefit the Union as it opens the way for an ordinary citizen to be interested in the European Union politics making the Union a more accessible organization rather than a closed box which citizens do not know what they are paying taxes for.

In summary, the role of the European Parliament in the Union is a unique one as it allows ordinary citizens to take part in the governance of the Union. Increasing its powers, functions, and authorities with the Lisbon Treaty has come with some advantages and disadvantages. While giving ordinary people more say in the governance, drawing their interests, and making them learn about what they are paying for, it also resulted in a decrease in efficiency and effectiveness as it complicated the decision-making process. Despite the disadvantages, the democratization of the European Union is a crucial step in the Union’s history. Governing almost half a billion people without hearing their opinions is a direct invitation to disasters and crises. By giving the Parliament more power, the European Union sacrifices some efficiency to achieve stability in the future.

References

• Cini, M., & Borragán, N. P. (2010). European Union Politics. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

The post-Brexit era aims of Great Britain’s foreign policy revolves around “Global Britain.” The definition of “Global Britain” and what it constitutes remains vague and requires a more straightforward explanation. The term “Global Britain” is mostly used for Britain’s adjustments to global politics after the Brexit and resembles the longing of Britain’s good old days when she dominated the world(Foreign Affairs Committee, 2018). As the United Kingdom decided to exit the European Union to achieve more independence in her policymaking, this topic has been on both Theresa May and Boris Johnson governments’ agendas.

For Theresa May government Brexit meant that Britain was not turning herself away from the world; on the contrary, it symbolizes the moment when Britain will become truly “Global Britain.” In her speech on 17 January 2017, she argued that “United Kingdom’s place in the European Union came at the expense of our global ties, and of a bolder embrace of free trade with the wider world. Our political traditions are different. Unlike other European countries, we have no written constitution, but the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty is the basis of our unwritten constitutional settlement. (The Government’s Negotiating Objectives for Exiting the EU, n.d.)” She also argues that the UK trade has stagnated since joining the EU, which is why Britain should now focus more on global trade, including countries like the United States, China, Brazil, the Gulf States, Australia, New Zealand, and India. She drew a very optimistic future for Britain in this speech.

Boris Johnson’s government does not differ from Theresa May’s government regarding “Global Britain.” Johnson’s speeches at both Chatham House on 2 December 2016 and Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 19 April 2018 shows that he has similar ideas with Theresa May. In the Chatham House speech, he repeats May’s statement that Brexit does not mean that Britain is turning inwards; on the opposite, it means that Britain is now more outward-looking, engaging, and more open to new agreements. He also claimed that people around the world are expecting an engagement from Britain and looking for British leadership(Beyond Brexit, n.d.).

In Johnson’s view of “Global Britain,” Britain has a responsibility to contribute to the global stability, maintain good relations established with Europe but not under the roof of the European Union now, take an active role in combatting terrorism with NATO and the EU as one of the few countries who manage to spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense and 20 percent of their defense budget on new equipment(Beyond Brexit, n.d.).

He also points out that “Global Britain” is not limited to Europe; it expands to the other parts of the world, most notably East Asia and China. Free trade, in that sense, is crucial for Britain. As mentioned in the House of Commons report, Britain could act as a “hub” for international trade. Johnson is willing to accept that the international order needs to change and supports enlarging the Security Council’s permanent membership to other global powers, including India. In parallel to this policy, Britain has joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, capitalized primarily by China, as one of the few earliest countries to participate.

Could ‘Global Britain’ policy will be a good compensation for the weakening EU pillar in British foreign policy?

To be a good compensation, first, there is a need for a clear definition of the “Global Britain” and a roadmap for how to do it. It is highly disputed that what does “Global Britain” mean and how does it differ from earlier policies. The ambiguity of the term expands the scope of aims so much that it creates doubt about its success chances. Which area will be the focus point, and how long is it going to take to get results from the policy? What are the strategies and resources? Are there any backup plans if things do not go in a predicted way (like Covid-19), if so, what are they? If Britain aims to be truly global, then under which framework could earlier policies be explained? These are some of the questions that are waiting for answers.

According to Theresa May’s speech, the “Global Britain” has focused on four primary areas, namely: free trade agreement with the EU, trade agreements with countries other than the EU members, maintain the global soft power and combatting crime and terrorism (“The Real Meaning of ‘Global Britain,'” 2019). These four areas resemble the post-world war II era of British foreign policy in the sense of Atlanticism and close relations with the Commonwealth. The “Global Britain” policy, in this sense, is an escape from the constraints of the Brussel.

Considering the current Covid-19 situation the world faces, it would not be hard to say that the aims of “Global Britain” are facing difficulties. Nevertheless, Covid-19 is not the sole cause of the problems. In his “Five Foreign Policy Questions for the UK’s Next Prime Minister,” article Thomas Raines shows some discrepancies in the British foreign policy. He claims that Britain is both supporting the UN-led Yemen peace process and selling guns to Saudi Arabia, restricting migration which is crucial for services trade while having ambitious trade policies, and creates problems for issuing visas while claiming to give importance to soft power(Five Foreign Policy Questions for the UK’s Next Prime Minister, 2019). “Global Britain” has coincided with the era that the globalization has stalled.

On the economic side, leaving the EU puts Britain in a vulnerable position against China. As China is expanding its influence over many parts of the world, Britain poses no exception. Both parties are open to trade agreements but having a greater economy puts China in an advantageous position. Increasing Chinese influence in Britain could also affect Britain’s relations with the United States. 5G problem showed that Britain is more open to pressures now compared to the time when she was in the EU. Also, on the diplomacy and defense issues, there is a budget problem. As Britain wants to open to the world more and contribute to global stability, she would require greater resources to do that. Having high aims and facing budget cuts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office do not go well together. Britain should first decide what does she want clearly.

Leaving the EU, which provided free trade with countries that Britain does the vast majority of her trades, does not seem logical. On top of that, geographical proximity is a price decreasing feature which Britain could not have if she focuses on BRICS countries which are far further than Europe and mostly follow protectionist trade policies(Now Is the Worst Time for “global Britain” | Centre for European Reform, n.d.). Britain’s desperateness for a trade deal puts her in a very exploitable position. The most reliable partner, the US, has also tried to benefit from this situation. Trump administration official told the BBC that, if the UK wanted a good trade deal, it had better “realign [its] foreign policy away from Brussels” and dump the Iran nuclear deal which he also imposed on Germany and France(Britain Voted for Independence, but It Has Achieved Isolation, n.d.).

            In conclusion, while Britain’s move to achieve “Global Britain” sounds optimistic and positive, despite not having a clear definition, the reality shows a different picture than those ambitious aims. Trying to achieve “independence” in a global world has been a costly act for Britain. Abandoning the old relations with the EU to establish a new one and expanding the trade agreements to many countries worldwide came in a challenging time for Britain as Covid-19 affected all countries’ economies. While it allows Britain to open up new economic relations with other parts of the world, it requires her to abandon free trade privileges within the EU and put Britain in a vulnerable position. So, while having its benefits, it would not be a good compensation for weakening the EU pillar in British foreign policy.

References

• Beyond Brexit: A Global Britain. (n.d.). GOV.UK. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/beyond-brexit-a-global-britain
• Britain voted for independence, but it has achieved isolation. (n.d.). ECFR. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://ecfr.eu/article/commentary_britain_voted_for_independence_but_it_has_achieved_isolation/
• Five Foreign Policy Questions for the UK’s Next Prime Minister. (2019, June 18). Chatham House. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2019/06/five-foreign-policy-questions-uks-next-prime-minister
• Foreign Affairs Committee, H. of C. (2018). Global Britain—Sixth Report of Session 2017-19. House of Commons. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmfaff/780/780.pdf
• Now is the worst time for “global Britain” | Centre for European Reform. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.cer.eu/insights/now-worst-time-global-britain
• The government’s negotiating objectives for exiting the EU: PM speech. (n.d.). GOV.UK. Retrieved November 1, 2020, from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-governments-negotiating-objectives-for-exiting-the-eu-pm-speech
• The real meaning of ‘Global Britain’: A Great Escape from the EU. (2019, April 5). EUROPP. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2019/04/05/the-real-meaning-of-global-britain-a-great-escape-from-the-eu/