Geopolitics and Diplomacy Mitrofan Andreea Alexandra

REI, MMIB 26.03.2020

Brexit: differentiated disintegration in the European Union

The aim of this article is to present, from a theoretical perspective, the differentiated
disintegration theory. The author uses this theory in order to explain the Brexit’s case, as well as
the demand and supply forces that have contributed to the result of Brexit in 2020. Brexit’s case
study is relevant for the future of the European Union and for the new situations that may arise
when potential new member state opt for differentiated accession.

In the first part of the article, the author states that differentiated integration explains demand for
disintegration. The United Kingdom was already differently integrated within the EU, as
compared to other states. Thus, Brexit resulted from “a mix of integration effects (immigration)
challenging self-determination, the rise of a Eurosceptic party, and the availability of
referendums” (Schimmelfennig, 2018).

Theoretical aspects:

European integration has 4 dimensions: uniformity/differentiation, and integration/disintegration.

Integration refers to “an increase – and disintegration to a reduction – in the centralization level,
policy scope, and membership of the EU” (Schimmelfennig, 2018). If the degrees of integration
or differentiation apply equally to all states, then integration and disintegration are uniform.

Differentiated integration is a process of unequal integration growth (Schimmelfennig, 2018).

This implies that the “level, scope, or membership of EU increase overall” (Schimmelfennig,
2018), but there are individual states that do not fully participate either by negotiating some
limits of integration, from the very beginning, either by choosing the opt-out options. Denmark is
an example of a member state who has decided to opt-out from the Euro currency.

On the other side of the scale, there is differentiated disintegration. It is a process of “unequal
reduction in the level, scope, or membership of the EU” (Schimmelfennig, 2018). This means
that one or several member states, that have initially agreed to a certain degree of integration
(either uniform or differentiated integration), are re-negotiating in order to obtain individual
exceptions from the membership within the EU. Re-negotiating in the case of differentiated
integrations implies that only one state, UK in this case, would benefit from some changes in the
initial EU agreement. Through Brexit, “the British government does not seek to cut ties with the
EU entirely but wishes to maintain a free-trade area and privileged market access in specific
sectors” (Schimmelfennig, 2018). UK representatives understand their dependence on the EU,
thus their negotiating power is somehow limited, according to the author.

1
Geopolitics and Diplomacy Mitrofan Andreea Alexandra
REI, MMIB 26.03.2020

Source: (Schimmelfennig, 2018)

The theory also distinguishes between internal or external differentiation. While internal
differentiation means differentiation among member states of the EU, external differentiation
refers to the selective 5 participation of non-members in the EU’s integrated policies (as in the
European Economic Area).

Why differentiated integration?

The main purpose of differentiated integration is that of greater expansion of the EU and
“’deepening’ the progressive delegation of state competencies to the EU” (Schimmelfennig,
2018). Demand for such integration is “most likely to arise if the European Union expands its
policy scope” (Schimmelfennig, 2018) core state powers such as police, justice, currency or
public administration. Moreover, it is most likely to arise in countries with “exclusive national
identities” (Schimmelfennig, 2018), where desire for sovereignty is higher, and in the wealthier
countries that may fear redistribution of resources or undermining of governance capabilities.

For example, Denmark and the UK “became the champions of differentiated integration”
(Schimmelfennig, 2018). Both countries “did not join the Schengen free-travel regime and
secured opt-outs from the euro, the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty, the Charter of
Fundamental Rights as well as from parts of the Justice and Home Affairs” (Schimmelfennig,
2018). The UK obtained these opt-outs because of having strong institutional bargaining power.
This bargaining power decreases once the integration has been accomplished, thus disintegration
becomes less likely to occur in the conditions desired by the UK.

The United Kingdom has always had a certain degree of differentiated integration, where defense
of national sovereignty was secured. What followed was the UK’s desire for differentiated
disintegration, so as to revise the status quo while securing some of the advantages of being part
of EU. Amongst the factors explaining this shift from differentiated integration to differentiated

2
Geopolitics and Diplomacy Mitrofan Andreea Alexandra
REI, MMIB 26.03.2020

disintegration, postfuncitonalism proposes the following factors: “the depth of integration,

exclusive national identity, the rise of Eurosceptic parties and referendums on the EU”
(Schimmelfennig, 2018). An increase in these factors can “explain disintegration rather than
simply resistance to more integration” (Schimmelfennig, 2018), as in the case of Brexit.

From simply negotiating differentiating disintegration, due to insufficient bargaining power and
because of the UK’s referendum, the negotiations shifted - during the second stage of the
negotiations - towards withdrawal from the EU and towards “selective integration as a non-
member state (moving from internal to external differentiated disintegration)” (Schimmelfennig,
2018).

Final thoughts

There are several types of integration and disintegration a member (or non-member) state can
address during negotiations with the EU. According to postfunctionalism, differentiated
disintegration is explained by “a split between elites and masses, identity-driven behaviour, and
– potentially – weakly informed citizens getting a say through referendums” (Schimmelfennig,
2018). This demand forces are inconsistent with the supply conditions during negotiations
because states moderate their demands during negotiations. Strong demand for disintegration
means “weak institutional and material international bargaining position”, when the
“economically rational, and fully informed actors are therefore likely to refrain from
disintegration in the first place – or make only moderate demands”.

This article helped me better understand the Brexit’s situation and the forces that have
contributed to this. Moreover, clear consequences of history, geography, politics and public
communication revealed me why it is important to understand each aspect within a story, and
how apparently simple ideas can significantly reshape the world as we know it. This article also
enhanced my knowledge about the possible path a future disintegration of an EU or EEA
member could take, as in the example of Switzerland considering a differentiated treatment
within EEA (as presented in the second part of the article).

References:

Schimmelfennig, F., 2018. Brexit: differentiated disintegration in the European Union. Journal
of European public policy, 25(8), pp.1154-1173. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Frank_Schimmelfennig/publication/324762365_Brexit_diff
erentiated_disintegration_in_the_European_Union/links/5ae45f9baca272ba507eb3bf/Brexit-
differentiated-disintegration-in-the-European-Union.pdf [Accessed online at 05.03.2020]