Federico Fabbrini: "After Brexit, abandoning the EU cannot be of anyone's interest"

What have been the consequences of Brexit in the UK and the EU so far?

After six years, I think it is fair to say that the biggest costs were for the United Kingdom. Its economy has suffered, the country has lost a great amount of International influence, it has become less attractive for many migrants from Spain or Italy who used to go there... And Brexit has unleashed several centrifugal pressures in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In contrast, the EU managed the process very well, both by the institutions and by the member states. The EU negotiated a withdrawal agreement that protected the financial, political and institutional interests; then negotiated a trade and cooperation agreement that was along the wishes of the UK, but also protected the internal EU market. I think it is clear to see, after this process, that it is of no one’s interest to leave the EU. Brexit has served as a negative example.

You recently wrote in The Irish Times: “We need London to return to being a boring capital”. Is political instability in the UK one of Brexit’s effects?

Absolutely. Brexit left a legacy of profound divisions within the main political parties, both the conservative and labour parties were divided on Brexit. The conservatives eventually became a party of Brexit, but in reality there are free trade enthusiasts like Liz Truss, who wanted Brexit to make the UK similar to Singapore, and people supporting anti-globalisation who defended Brexit as a means agianst capitalism, globalisation, migration, etc. And these two visions are in conflict with each other, making it so difficult for the UK government to function properly and I expect that to continue in the next few months.

Are there many former Brexiters that are ashamed of having voted out and are now becoming new Remainers?

We are seeing a change in the public opinion: there is a growing number of voters who would now reconsider their decision and vote to remain. This can be explained by the fact that the consequences of Brexit are now becoming visible. During the last two years, the government could cover this by blaming Covid-19 for some of the disruption caused by Brexit, but now the UK has the highest inflation among the G7 nations, permanent strikes, lack of a workforce... Those are all caused by Brexit and public opinion is changing.

Has Brexit contributed to more communication with Northern Ireland and the Republic?

Yes, absolutely. Before Brexit there was no discussion of a possible reunification of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreements, signed 25 years ago, had settled the matter and gave way to a peace process, postponing reunification for the indefinite future, but now with Brexit the debate is back and over the past few years, the prospect of a referendum for Northern Ireland to join Ireland have increased.

Is the population of the Republic of Ireland in favour of reunification, in general terms?

For the Republic of Ireland, I think the dynamics are more complicated. There is a cultural support, but also economic concerns of the cost that unification would have. The experience with the protocol [Protocol of Ireland and Northern Ireland] has revealed that Northern Ireland is very divided. What is interesting is that European institutions have agreed that if there is a referendum and Northern Ireland joins Ireland, it will automatically form part of the EU. It is like the model used for the reunification of Germany, it would be used again 30 years later.

Brexit seems to have strengthened the feeling of independence in Scotland as well.

Yes, very much. A new referendum could be a way for Scotland to return to the EU. The main challenge of course is for a new possible referendum to be legal; that is a pre-condition to then reapply for membership to the EU. Members of the EU, including Spain, could be open to admitting Scotland to the EU, but the process for independence is very important to guarantee it legitimacy and re-entry.

Alt-right political forces exploit anti-European feelings in many countries of the EU, mostly in Eastern Europe. Has Brexit had any effect on these anti-European feelings?

As I said earlier, the negative experience of Brexit has forced many Eurosceptics to change their approach. In 2015 and 2016, there was a fear that Brexit would lead to a domino effect, with Nexit in the Netherlands, Frexit in France, Italexit in Italy. But the example of Brexit showed that that would be suicide. So what we see, is that these parties want to change their strategy and change the EU from the inside, holing it out, changing its values, such as for example in Hungary with Viktor Orbán... And that is a very dangerous strategy and a big threat for the EU, perhaps even greater than Brexit itself.

What if, for example, Marine Le Pen finally becomes the president of France in 2027?

That would be a big challenge for the European Union, even the party, the National Rally, has changed its position and no longer want to leave the EU, they want to transform it from the inside. The idea is to transform the European Union into a confederation entirely controlled by governments, with little power for supra-national institutions. Orbán and other leaders have proposed to basically close the European Parliament, with no direct elections of members of European Parliament, but rather have an assembly with members of the national parliament as it was in the 1950s.

What do you think about the role of EU institutions in the Ukrainian crisis?

The war in Ukraine is a conflict on a scale we haven't seen in Europe since 1945, it is a huge challenge. The EU reacted strongly and in a united way, but it is also clear that many things do not work. We have limited financial resources and our defense capabilities are limited; we are totally dependent on the US. We lack this foreign policy strategy and united approach to the rest of the world.

Is it a matter of transferring sovereignity from the states to the EU?

Yes, it is a problem of competences and governance mechanisms. The decisions on foreign affairs are taken unanimously by all 27 members, which means that Victor Orbán, a good friend of Vladimir Putin, can delay or dilute the decisions of the European Union, and it is also a problem of resources, the EU does not have a budget for military capacity. All those things are ok if you live in a world with no enemies, but it does not work if your neighbour has nuclear weapons and is running an aggressive war.

How will the Ukrainian crisis affect the future of the EU? Are new memberships (Albania, Serbia, North Macedonia, etc.) becoming more difficult?

In fact, the EU has promised membership to Ukraine, but that will not happen any time soon, we cannot bring in a member who is at war with Russia. However, the way Ukraine has reactivated this process of enlargement, which is positive in terms of market and consolidation, can also be very dangerous for the cohesion of the European Union if the enlargement is not accompanied by a reform of the EU itself. Having the EU with 30 or 40 members, with the same rules we have today, would not work.