Bound by gravity or living in a ‘Post Geography Trading World’? Expert knowledge and affective spatial imaginaries in the construction of the UK’s post-Brexit trade policy

A key battle has been fought within the UK cabinet on the direction of post-Brexit trade policy. The opposing sides have favoured either continued alignment or a ‘hard’ break with the European Union’s (EU’s) regulatory and customs regime, in the latter case to allow the UK to pursue an independent and ambitious trade policy agenda. Contrary to much commentary on ‘post-truth’ politics, both sides have relied on rival forms of expertise to support their claims. I argue for the need to not only re-emphasise the malleability and political nature of expert knowledge, but also appreciate its emotional bases. The Treasury has led the charge in favour of a softer Brexit by drawing on econometric (‘gravity’) models that emphasise the economic costs of looser association with the EU. In contrast to this attempt at technocratic legitimation, the specific legal expertise drawn upon by cabinet advocates of ‘hard’ Brexit has appealed to an emotive political economy of bringing the UK, and its (in this imaginary) overly regulated economy, closer to its ‘kith and kin’ in the Anglosphere, deepening the UK ‘national business model’. I conclude by calling for more explicitly emotive and values-based argumentation in the public debate on the UK’s future trade policy to improve the quality of democratic deliberation

Despite lofty rhetoric about development, the EU has cut preferential trading rules with emerging economies for commercial reasons

The EU’s Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) is intended to allow the EU to offer favourable trading rules such as lower tariffs to developing countries. Gabriel Siles-Brugge writes on a recent reform which places greater restrictions on the types of exports which are eligible for this system. He argues that while the reform has been justified by the EU as a development policy on the grounds that it refocuses help toward the least developed nations, rather than emerging economies such as China and India; the real motivation is that it aids the EU’s commercial interests. In particular, by specifically targeting the exports of emerging economies, the reform improves the leverage of the EU in negotiations with these countries over future free trade agreements

Regulatory chill? Why TTIP could inhibit governments from regulating in the public interest

On 10 June a key debate in the European Parliament on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was suspended. As Gabriel Siles-Brügge and Nicolette Butler write, much of the criticism of TTIP has focused on its impact on public healthcare systems and the role of ‘corporate tribunals’. They argue that this overlooks one of TTIP’s central purposes: a series of provisions that could make it more difficult for governments to regulate in the public interest for the sake of promoting regulatory convergence between the EU and the US

The potential benefits of a US-EU free trade deal for both sides may be much smaller than we have been led to believe

On Monday the latest round of talks on the EU-US free trade agreement got underway. Gabriel Siles-Brügge and Ferdi De Ville challenge the proclaimed benefits of this much-vaunted deal. Rather than represent ‘the cheapest stimulus package you can imagine’, they argue the deal is a distraction that is unlikely to significantly boost growth

Brexit may make EU trade policy more progressive

The conventional wisdom amongst many commentators has been that Brexit will render EU trade policy more protectionist, as the Union will be losing one of its more liberal member states. Ferdi De Ville and Gabriel Siles-Brügge argue that this is not necessarily the case. Instead, they highlight how the EU could render its trade policies more progressive by insisting on more stringent ‘level playing field’ provisions with other trade partners, as they are doing now with the UK

The Impact of Brexit on EU Policies

While the result of the UK’s referendum on membership of the EU has been the subject of considerable scholarly interest, relatively little has been written on the impact of Brexit on the EU. Where academics have addressed the issue, they have tended to either see Brexit through the lens of European '(dis)integration' theory or focused on its 'static' effects, assessing the impact of removing the UK from the EU’s policymaking machinery based on its past behaviour. This editorial sets out the overarching rationale of this thematic issue and introduces some key analytical elements drawn on by the individual contributions. Given that Brexit has so far not set in train major EU disintegration, the focus is on the detailed impact of the UK's exit across specific policy areas and on problematising the notion that it necessarily implies a more socially progressive turn in EU policies. Our starting point is the fundamental uncertainty surrounding the future EU-UK relationship, and the process of arriving there. This points to the importance of focusing on the 'dynamic' impacts of Brexit, namely adjustment in the behaviour of EU actors, including in anticipation of Brexit, and the discursive struggle in the EU over how to frame Brexit. Policy change may also occur as a result of small, 'iterative' changes even where actors do not actively adjust their behaviour but simply interact in new ways in the UK's absence. Several of the issue's contributions also reflect on the UK's role as a 'pivotal outlier'. The editorial concludes by reflecting on how we analyse the unfolding Brexit process and on what broader insights this thematic issue might offer the study of EU politics

As liberal Britain leaves, will the EU become more protectionist?

Not necessarily. The EU could actually render its trade policies more progressive, write Ferdi De Ville and Gabriel Siles-Brügg

The REF’s focus on linear and direct impact is problematic and silences certain types of research

In the last Research Excellence Framework (REF), the new element of research impact was understood in very linear and direct terms. Aoileann Ní Mhurchú, Laura McLeod, Stephanie Collins and Gabriel Siles-Brügge consider how accepted definitions of impact may have had the effect of silencing certain types of research. Research and impact should be seen as a two-way street, where academics engage with their research subjects as part of a process of co-production. Moreover, impact must be thought of as a collective endeavour that captures the broader social and cultural benefits of academic work. The Stern Review recommendations are to be welcomed but whether and how they are adopted remains to be seen