No abstract

Since the formal leaving of the United Kingdom from the European Union on January 31, 2020, much discussion has focused on the consequences for British foreign policy. Predictions broadly fit into two outcomes: internationalism, echoed in the “global Britain” mantra, and isolationism, with a Britain struggling to be heard on the world stage. As British foreign and trade policies are being shaped by a desire to seek out new friends, and reaffirm contacts with old ones, the United Arab Emirates, a Gulf Cooperation Council country with a palpable set of linkages to the UK, will be impacted. Military, diplomatic and economic ties are robust, but the UAE’s position, particularly in light of its rising-power regional status, requires investigation. With some believing British influence will be stymied by its non-EU status, and with a UAE that has reversed its traditional nonintervention status to become more regionally resurgent, what would this mean for future UK–UAE relations? This article seeks to provide an early snapshot of the post-Brexit relationship between the two.

New medievalism or neo-medievalism challenges the authority and capacity of the state. This weakening or hollowing out of the state has implications most notably for security. This is because a host of actors compete against and adulterate the state's monopoly on violence. Identities are also impacted by neo-medievalism, with multiple, crosscutting and transnational networks of belonging all becoming more prevalent. However, a neglected area within the literature are the impacts on national identity: the perceived sense of belonging to a nation based on shared culture, memories or institutions. National identity is seen as becoming increasingly obsolete due to the myriad of state challengers. This paper instead argues that neo-medieval security considerations are themselves shaping national identity in different ways. This is addressed by examining the impacts of three such developments: the changing nature of warfare, the increasing role of nonstate actors and the prevalence of transnational organizations.

No abstract

This article utilizes role theory to examine UK MPs' conceptions of the roles of the UK and the EU. Employing the House of Commons debates on the notification of withdrawal from the EU in early 2017, or the Brexit bill, this study outlines the multiple roles each actor possesses according to British parliamentarians. Organized according to the positions of whether the politicians supported leave and remain, rather than on how they voted, the findings are organized into role contestations based on three faultlines. The first is a clash between global and regional UK roles revealing identity‐based discord over the post‐Brexit vision of its international relations. The second is popular versus parliamentary invocations of national sovereignty which echo the struggle between pluralist and elite configurations of sovereignty and democracy. The last is whether the EU functions as a materialist realist‐bound power or an ideational norm‐creating power. Related Articles Cerami, Alfio. 2011. “Social Mechanisms in the Establishment of the European Economic and Monetary Union.” Politics & Policy 39(3): 345–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00294.x. Igwe, Paul Agu, Chinedu Ochinanwata, and Nnamdi O. Madichie. 2021. “The ‘Isms’ of Regional Integration: What Do Underlying Interstate Preferences Hold for the ECOWAS Union? Politics & Policy 49(2): 280–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12396. Pompl, Solange, and Sergiu Gherghina. 2019. “Messages and Familiar Faces: Crowdfunding in the 2017 U.K. Electoral Campaign.” Politics & Policy 47(3): 436–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12301.