Did Brexit Help Ukraine?
As we move further and further into a post-Brexit landscape, various Brexiteers are trying to explain exactly what the benefits are.
A recent article by Larry Elliott in The Guardian argued that Brexit still offers economic opportunities to the country. That might be the case but those opportunities have come at a debilitating cost that means they are surely not worth it. As one response pointed out, before the referendum the £ was trading at $1.49/€1.31; now it sits at a lowly $1.17/€1.13 meaning that imports are much more expensive.
With the economic arguments failing more and more each day, proponents of Brexit are scrambling for other purported benefits. In that vein, Jacob Rees-Mogg today suggested that without Brexit, Ukraine would have been overrun by Russia.
That is clearly dubious but what about this principle of ‘sincere co-operation’ that would otherwise have apparently held the UK back?
Well the legal basis for that principle derives from Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union and states:
"Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the Treaties.
The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.
The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union's tasks and refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's objectives."
That is worded in very mild terms. The aim is to assist the Union, and each other, and not do anything that would preclude those objectives.
Furthermore it is much more about the internal affairs of the EU than actions on the international stage. A 2019 article by Peter Van Elsuwege at Ghent University suggests that when it comes to external relations, the case law is far less settled. Member states can mostly use their own initiative so long as it does not really deviate from the position of the EU.
This also lines up with Article 28 of the Treaty of Lisbon. A point that was highlighted by @EmporersNewC on Twitter:
So if Brexit had not happened, would our action in Ukraine really have been hampered?
I think this is hard to believe. In the immediate wake of the crisis Britain would have been able to respond quickly and effectively to assist Ukrainians because at that point there was not one, single decision taken by the EU. We saw this at the time as different countries within the EU offered differing levels of support. Then, as an EU position supporting Ukraine emerged, member states worked closely to co-ordinate an effective response. Indeed the UK has become part of this co-ordination since participating in the newly-founded European Political Community.
The UK’s brilliant response to the invasion of Ukraine is to be commended but it has not been affected by Brexit and it is disingenuous for the former Brexit Opportunities minister to suggest that. If Jacob Rees-Mogg wants to find an actual benefit to Brexit then he is going to have to look a bit harder.
This week on the podcast we looked at a claim that has its origins in Germany. The question is mostly governed by German law but the Supreme Court was asked about the circumstances where English and Welsh law can override.
Episode link: https://uklawweekly.com/2022-uksc-29/
Make a difference today,
Marcus