The Franco-German Rivalry in the Post-Brexit European Union.

• Author: Ozdemir, Cagatay

Introduction

On January 31, 2020, a member state left the European Union (EU) for the first time in its history. Many unprecedented crises--Eurozone problem, a sovereign debt crisis, the increase in populist movements, etc.--have called into question the foundations of European integration. However, the Brexit referendum was a turning point in the EU's history and raised serious doubts about the future sustainability of the EU integration. European integration is beyond economic and trade cooperation and can be considered as being derived from a political union. Hence, the formation of "an ever-closer union" was regarded as the basis of the integration process since the establishment of the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957. (1)

The UK's exit from the EU prompted a debate on the likelihood of differentiated integration within the Union. Differentiated integration has been a long-standing concept and discussed in different ways in the existing literature. Although a common definition does not exist in the general literature, it is mainly considered as an institutional response to the incremental heterogeneity of member state preferences. (2) Majone argues that "an important lesson [from the crisis] concerns the limits of the one-size-fits-all approach to integration" and emphasizes that "the level of socioeconomic heterogeneity in the enlarged Union." (3) He also states that "if countries have significantly different needs and hence different national priorities, the policies that maximize aggregate welfare ought to be different rather than harmonized." (4) In this regard, Brexit has resulted in a renewed interest in the principle of differentiated integration and its possible outcomes for the European project.

As a result of Brexit, the EU slogan of "ever closer union" clearly took a major hit. (5) Brexit means a loss of size, momentum, reach, and stability, and contests the understanding that "working together makes Europeans stronger." (6) According to some commenters, many British people who voted to leave considered the EU a sinking ship that needed to be abandoned. (7) In addition, for some scholars, the absence of the UK's influence in Brussels may test the EU's existing commitment to fiscal responsibility, free trade, and enlargement-issues traditionally supported by the UK. (8)

Since the first years of its conception, the EU has witnessed rivalries among its members. The conflict between French and German positions regarding economic policies already existed in 1980s. When the disputes regarding the first unsuccessful attempt to establish an Economic and Monetary Union in Europe were present, Germany and France disagreed over the way of introducing a single currency. (9) While the French government advocated for immediate monetary integration, Germany believed that monetary integration could be achieved if there was a high-level economic convergence among participants. After a strong German surplus position emerged in the late 1980s, Paris supported a system of asserting political control of the economy or "economic governance." (10) As a counter, Germany argued for an independent-minded central bank without political interference. (11)

However, prior to Brexit, the conflicting positions of France and Germany in terms of economic policies had been balanced by the inclusion of the UK. Balancing role of the UK was persistent from the beginning of its membership. While the UK had wanted to join the EEC, Britain's commonwealth ties and close relations with the United States prevented it from joining the Community. Britain's application was vetoed by the French President in 1963 and in 1967. (12) However, the conditions changed for France when Germany experienced a rapid economic recovery in the late 1960s and pursued an active policy towards the East. Since the European balance of power was shifting in favor of West Germany, France shifted its position and accepted British accession to the EEC as a counterweight to West Germany. Hence, the UK became a member in 1973.

The lack of a leader has emerged as grounds to question the legitimacy of the Union on an international scale. Now, amid uncertainty regarding the future of the EU considering Brexit, the power struggle between Germany and France has also come to light. This article aims to analyze how the power dynamics within the EU will be affected by the exit of the UK and to scrutinize the implications of the leadership scenarios of the Union in the future.

Accordingly, for the post-Brexit period, this article explores three possible scenarios for the future of the EU: French leadership, German leadership, and Franco-German partnership. The first section will discuss the UK's significant role in foreign and security policy making and the general consequences of its departure from the Union for EU policies and politics. The second and third sections will respectively analyze the scenarios of French and German leadership in post-Brexit Europe together with their political positions. The fourth section will scrutinize the possibility of Franco-German partnership after Brexit by analyzing whether Brexit creates a power vacuum in the EU. The last section offers concluding remarks that strive to forecast what is in store regarding the political legitimacy of the EU in the future.

Brexit's Repercussions for the EU Policies and Politics

Historically, the UK has played a significant role in the creation of the EU's foreign and security policy, balancing France and Germany. Prior to the UK's membership in the EEC, existing member states had only introduced European Political Cooperation (EPC) regarding foreign policy, which gained effectiveness after the UK joined. (13) The EEC was not an actor in defence area after the failure of establishing a European Defence Community (EDC) in 1954. Member states considered NATO as their common defence organization. (14)

The December 1998 Anglo-French summit in Saint-Malo is considered to be the beginning of the European defence project. (15) Then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and the French President Jacques Chirac agreed to improve greater EU defence capabilities, and the 'Saint-Malo Process' can be considered a significant step toward the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the EU.

Similar to Saint-Malo, another initiative achieved through Franco-British cooperation within the framework of the CSDP occurred at the Le Touquet Summit in 2003. France and the UK invoked European governments to increase their defence spending in order to narrow the equipment gap between EU member states. Paris and London also asked for the establishment of a new EU defence agency with the aim of encouraging member states to enhance their military capabilities.

Another significant development in European foreign and security policy happened in 2003 under British leadership when the UK played a crucial role by suggesting "structured cooperation," i.e., a coalition of militarily developed countries, as a principle of EU defence policy.

The leadership of the UK was also apparent at the 2003 Berlin Summit where French, British, and German leaders accepted that "the European Union should be endowed with a joint capacity to plan and conduct operations without recourse to NATO resources and capabilities." (16) At this summit, the cooperation of the big three enhanced the EU's defence policy; all were aware that any plans regarding defence were essentially meaningless without the UK. (17)

Accordingly, Brexit will have an impact on European foreign policy, considering that the EU loses a significant global security player. According to the House of Lords EU Committee, the UK's contribution to the CSDP has been limited to just 2.3% of the personnel engaged in EU missions. (18) However, the UK was one of the few member states with 'full-spectrum' military capabilities and is one of only six NATO member states fulfilling its goal of spending 2% of its gross domestic product on defence. (19) Thus, Brexit will obviously result in a reduction of Europe's security and defence capability. The UK has contributed considerable financial support to EU missions. According to a House of Commons Briefing Paper in 2016, the UK shared 14.8% of eligible common costs in EU military operations. (20) As stated by the Foreign Office to a European Union Committee report in February 2016, London provided nearly 16% of the CFSP budget for civilian missions. (21) The UK is an important contributor of personnel to EU missions. According to 2012 statistics, it provided 4.19% of total mission personnel from EU member states. (22) In addition, as it is seen in Table 1 below, the UK had a significant role in providing spending, equipment and expertise to EU missions and operations. In this regard, the UK's withdrawal will weaken EU missions. (23)

The UK has also been a net contributor to the EU budget. Its economy is bigger than that of 18 member countries (including Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Czech Republic, Romania, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, Slovak Republic, Luxembourg, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus and Malta) combined. (25) In this regard, the UK's departure dramatically affects the EU's economy. Britain's departure from the Union leaves a 75-billion Euro deficit in the bloc's finances. (26)

Moreover, Brexit will have an effect on the relationship between the member states in the Eurozone as well as those outside it. As a result of the UK's departure, the member states outside the Eurozone will lose a key coalition partner, and they may be relegated to second-class status following a deeper integration. (27) Hence, it will make non-Eurozone member states like Poland, Sweden and Denmark more vulnerable.

According to Article 2 of the EU Treaty, the Union is established on the basis of fundamental values of respect for democracy, the rule of law and human rights. (28)...