Three months ago, before Britain descended into its “Game of Thrones”-esque madness, Theresa May delivered a speech on her country’s place in Europe — on sovereignty, prosperity and the dilemma of a midsize nation in an era of globalization. Unlike those campaigning for Britain to leave the European Union, she wielded real statistics, not fake ones.
In this article, Cohen discusses why China is legally bound by the UNCLOS arbitration tribunal’s ruling on the Philippines’ case against China on the South China Sea and the potential for the Philippines and China to renew bilateral negotiations in the ruling’s wake.
Reacting to the Brexit vote, critics question whether the UK deserves a UN Security Council seat. If the British do not deserve a seat, then the Russians certainly do not, Elliott Abrams writes in National Review.
The United Kingdom's vote to leave the EU demonstrates that rising populism in Europe and the United States are both driven by voters who feel alienated from the benefits of globalization, says CFR's Edward Alden.
In this special edition, CFR’s Director of Studies Jim Lindsay, Steven A. Tananbaum Senior Fellow Robert Kahn, and Paul A. Volcker Senior Fellow Sebastian Mallaby examine the implications of the Brexit vote.
Benn Steil’s June 24 op-ed on the PBS NewsHour Making$ense site, co-authored with Emma Smith, shows the strong relationship between consumer confidence and presidential elections going back to 1952. Current readings suggest an 80% chance of a Clinton victory, but the Brexit aftermath threatens to knock that down significantly.
I do not believe that foreigners contribute usefully by issuing strong opinions about how a country’s citizens, or those of a larger unit like the European Union, should decide when faced with an important political choice. Our insights, based on international experience, may sometimes be helpful; but there should never be any confusion about the asymmetry of roles.
The world is transfixed by Britain’s referendum Thursday over whether to stay in the European Union. Some of the most interested and anxious spectators of the “Brexit” debate are in the Baltic republics, where I recently spent a week meeting with political and military leaders as part of a delegation from the Jamestown Foundation.
For the first time since the start of Britain’s referendum fight over Europe, the polls predict “Brexit.” The four most recent national surveys put the “Leave” side ahead with margins of between one and 10 percentage points. Most people, including many disaffected Britons who want to shake up the system by backing a Brexit, understand that this would mean a political and economic shock. But they underestimate its severity.
“British citizens will be voting on June 23 on a question that will affect not just the future of Europe, but also the future of the United States, argues CFR President Richard N. Haass in the American Interest.”
An isolationist bent to British politics, what Sebastian Mallaby refers to as “little Englandism,” is not new to the British political tradition. While this perspective has long been counter-balanced by a Gladstonian internationalism, debates around Brexit have been conspicuously devoid of such idealism, speaking in a language that appeals only to pocketbooks rather than to common decency.
Learn more about CFR’s mission and its work over the past year in the 2016 Annual Report. The Annual Report spotlights new initiatives, high-profile events, and authoritative scholarship from CFR experts, and includes a message from CFR President Richard N. Haass. Read and download »