Suchergebnisse

Brexit is likely to herald fundamental changes in the operation, scope and practice of EU development policy, due to the UK's key role in leading and defining the geographical and sectoral remit of policy, and through its provision of large-scale funding. Through a focus on the EU's relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States, this article explores these potential impacts. It highlights the importance of the timing of Brexit in relation to the contemporaneous renegotiation of EU–ACP relations and the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework and argues that the focus on static impacts of Brexit, in terms of removing the UK from the 'EU equation', overlooks the broader dynamics of political economy in which it is situated. Through the analysis of the anticipatory adjustments and discursive dynamics in EU development policy that articulate the pursuit of material interests, the article helps understand both the dynamics of Brexit and the broader transformations in which it is located.

Brexit is likely to herald fundamental changes in the operation, scope and practice of EU development policy, due to the UK's key role in leading and defining the geographical and sectoral remit of policy, and through its provision of large-scale funding. Through a focus on the EU's relations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group of States, this article explores these potential impacts. It highlights the importance of the timing of Brexit in relation to the contemporaneous renegotiation of EU–ACP relations and the EU's Multiannual Financial Framework and argues that the focus on static impacts of Brexit, in terms of removing the UK from the 'EU equation', overlooks the broader dynamics of political economy in which it is situated. Through the analysis of the anticipatory adjustments and discursive dynamics in EU development policy that articulate the pursuit of material interests, the article helps understand both the dynamics of Brexit and the broader transformations in which it is located.

AbstractDebates about Brexit draw on powerful discursive mechanisms that have important implications for the UK–Africa, Caribbean and Pacific aid relationship. Some of these narratives can be characterized in the following ways: first, that Brexit is an opportunity to recreate a Global Britain after a period of EU membership that saw the UK neglect its former partners, particularly the Commonwealth. Second, the costs of EU membership are profligate and these funds could be better utilized by the national government. Third the Brexit 'divorce bill' is a penalty exacted by the EU for the UK's decision to leave. This article explores these claims via the EU‐ACP relationship, and proposes three counter arguments. First, the discourse of 'neglect' overlooks the external relationships the UK has maintained through EU membership. Second, these relationships have provided 'value for money' for the UK. Third, these contributions represent a significant proportion of the Brexit 'divorce bill' and are on‐going financial commitments that the UK was central in establishing. The article then reviews the potential impact of Brexit on UK aid, arguing that rather than reinvigorating Global Britain Brexit threatens to undermine the UK's position in global development, current levels of aid and longstanding commitments to eradicate poverty.

ABSTRACTWest African elites have successfully argued for an Economic Partnership Agreement Development Programme (EPADP) as part of free trade negotiations with the European Commission. ECOWAS officials state that the EPADP is necessary to realise the 'development dimension' of trade. In particular, they have (re)articulated Europe's own narratives relating to Aid for Trade and private sector development – insisting that the European Commission delivers on its promises. Accordingly, European negotiators have conceded the principle of the EPADP, stating that around €6·5 billion will be delivered. This article, however, examines the likely (in)capacity of the EPADP to meaningfully marry trade and development in the context of premature liberalisation under Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Crucially, it argues that West Africanextraversionin terms of EPADP resources may entrench predatory elites while locking-in ECOWAS states into inequitable trade structures that re-embed poverty in the region.