CSDP and the development of the ‘Global EU’: The progress of EU autonomy in the shadow of Brexit

1. Autonomy and its evolution into a substantive External Relations principle

Autonomy is a complex concept but one that is useful to understand the nature of the EU. In turn, it helps to understand the response of the EU to the Brexit process as one pushing back to promote and further protect the EU’s external identity. While the focus in Brexit terms has frequently been that of the general withdrawal from international organisations, it must be recognised that the complexity with the EU is all the more heightened because of its different nature. While the UK context may have maintained a focus on the importance of sovereignty in the domestic context, there is equally, at the EU level, a concern to ensure the maintenance of autonomy of the EU legal order. This concept of autonomy in terms of the existence of the EU as a distinct legal order and the consequent protection of this legal order has evolved as a substantial principle at the very foundations of the EU’s external action, considered by some to exist in a constitutional sense.⁵

In general terms autonomy focuses upon independence and delineation from all others. Autonomy of law generally, and autonomy of institutional legal orders specifically, requires far more precision and consideration. There is a focus on the need to identify a legal order as being self-referential in order for it to be considered autonomous. It must be remembered, however, that autonomy does exist in a sense of degree rather than in absolute terms, being referred to in terms of ‘layers’ of autonomy by some.⁶ Overall this begins to demonstrate the difficulty in determining autonomy. The central point of autonomy lies in being able to determine a distinct legal order. This is often discussed in terms of the extent of ‘institutional autonomy’,⁷ but a determination of this can also be difficult. From the perspective of international institutional law, there has been a focus on the concept of international legal personality in order to determine autonomy.⁸ This can be a limited view, however, as personality establishes nothing more than a capacity to act, whereas autonomy is much more than this in determining a legal order to exist in a self-referential manner.

While the CJEU’s case law is often discussed as being central to the development of autonomy, the later discussions in the case law have been highly distinct in their development of the concept as a negative one. In other words, the focus of the Court is about preventing external intervention and, more specifically, preventing external adjudication over EU norms and principles. In doing this, it takes a problematic absolutist approach to autonomy. It must be noted, however, that it was with the CJEU that the concept of autonomy really began, most prominently with the famous determination that the Union was a ‘new legal order of international law’, the latter three words being quickly dropped by the Court in favour of statements of the EU as a legal system for which Member States had limited their sovereign rights.⁹ This is the very early foundation of the principle of autonomy; it was one seeking to demarcate the EU from its Member States and establish it as a distinct actor. This initial statement, together with numerous other principles developed by the Court, such as supremacy and direct effect, for just two substantial examples, began to develop the self-referential nature of the EU. The determination of the EU as a self-referential legal order distinct from its Member States is highly instructive about the nature of EU normative provisions.

The approach by the CJEU was, after this early determination, naturally limited in focusing upon disputes and engagement with an external normative framework. It really became focused upon the negative concept of autonomy, through a determination that there would be no external review or adjudication of internal EU norms, thereby reinforcing quite a blunt approach to autonomy and one that is problematic in being so absolutist. This potential ‘threat … to the autonomy of the Community legal order’¹⁰ has been revisited in numerous cases¹¹ and has often been subject to criticism.¹² This is naturally limited when considering CSDP due to the lack of capacity for the Court to engage in any review in this area generally, together with the limited engagement with external normative frameworks; there is only so much that the CJEU is capable of engaging in.

Alongside this increasingly stringent and absolutist expression of autonomy by the CJEU, however, have been the internal institutional developments of the EU that have created and enabled the ‘self-referential’ legal order capable of acting externally. In other words, the institutional and policy approach within the EU has been one of positive autonomy; institutional developments from within the EU have developed and enabled the EU to engage as an effective international actor. It is this measured and gradual internal institutional development that has been crucial not just in terms of its internal legal order, but also in terms of the external projection of the EU as a distinct entity. Crucially, more recently significant developments have been seen in the field of CFSP generally, and CSDP specifically, that further develop the comprehensive nature of this internal legal order in a manner that enables it to make this external projection. With Security and Defence being fields where the EU acts in an obviously external manner and which have previously been keenly maintained as areas more strongly in the realms of Member State control, EU institutional progress is highly significant. While the CFSP could begin to claim institutionalisation with the development of the High Representative and the European External Action Service (EEAS), and through this effectively a Foreign Minister and Diplomatic Service, the more recent past has seen institutional development in the field of CSDP. The creation within the EEAS of the Crisis Management Planning Directorate (CMPD) was in order to improve coordination between various aspects of crisis management. The development of military operations already saw a role for an EU Military Committee (EUMC) and EU Military Staff (EUMS) but more recently, the civilian operations found their development in the Committee on Civilian Aspects of Crisis Management (CIVCOM) and the Civilian Planning and Conduct Capabilities Unit (CPCC). There is an overall role for the Political and Security Committee (PSC), which advises and engages with the Council. These various institutional developments in crisis management place control and authority over operations in EU entities, ensuring that action is seen more in the realms of the EU than the Member States. In addition to these institutional developments, the Court has also clearly stated that CFSP in broad terms is an integral part of the EU legal order and is consequently subject to the EU’s constitutional norms and values.¹³ In making this transition, actions in this field can be identified as being part of the EU and being subject to its norms and principles; crisis management operations are being created, operationalised, and regulated internally within the EU and subject to its norms and principles. This is a real manifestation of the concept of autonomy. The significant developments here show an ongoing growth in the capacity for external projection of the EU’s self-determined legal order.

These are developments that happened prior to Brexit and which have grown and evolved over time. The internal systems of the EU have sought gradually to achieve the creation and growth of institutional systems and frameworks so as to enable the increased action of the EU as a distinct external actor. This has been slow, but steady, in its development. It is a necessary aspect of the development of autonomy. With autonomy requiring the existence of independence and a distinct legal order as a self-referential concept, the internal development of distinctly ‘EU’ entities developing and implementing EU norms and principles is crucial in achieving this and moving beyond the blurred boundaries of action between the EU and its Member States. This concept of autonomy is a much more sedate and pragmatic one than that sought by the CJEU. Not only that, but it is also much more accepting of the concept of autonomy by degrees. This is a fundamental aspect of the concept, and one that is often overlooked by the overly stark approach of the Court. It is, furthermore, significant that both the positive and negative approaches to autonomy have been present within the EU as it has evolved as a global actor. While each have their limitations, in combination they have the capacity for autonomy to really develop with meaning.¹⁴

It is at this point, however, that the EU becomes caught in a tension, with these two approaches to autonomy not speaking to each other and working in combination but, rather, beginning to conflict. When developing internally and in a manner that enables the evolution and expansion of autonomy, the EU views autonomy as a pragmatic concept of degrees. This can clearly be seen in the differentiated approach taken to institutional development and to different policy areas within the EU. The CSDP is a particularly good example of the EU acting externally but the extent of this developing and evolving over time. The EU has continually recognised the need for engagement with other actors, including Member States, third states and international organisations, just as some examples. This has not impacted the capacity of the EU to act and for this action to be definitively EU action. When it comes to judicial determinations, and through this sometimes the attempt to implement these gradually developed policy choices, however, a much more stringent, and misguided, approach to autonomy is understood. Autonomy as an externally facing principle is seen as one that is necessary to preserve and protect this legal order.¹⁵ With this direction of autonomy, the criticism of the principle has developed further than that of being vague and ‘ill-defined’.¹⁶ These initial critiques are ones that could be said to be true of autonomy in the broadest sense. When considering the development of autonomy in the external relations of the EU, the Court is now maintaining a highly distinct and, in many ways, negative and internally facing approach to autonomy when faced with external relations. This can be seen with the consequences of CJEU rulings that serve to further hinder EU action globally.¹⁷ This difficulty with the interpretation of autonomy is a symptom of the continued attempts, and difficulty in those attempts, at the classification of the EU in some form.¹⁸ A continuation of this approach runs the risk of limiting the capacity of the EU to engage globally, rather than enabling it.

This article argues that in spite of a gradual evolution of the EU as an increasingly autonomous international actor, the EU’s response to the referendum result can be seen to have a negative approach to autonomy at its core. The decision of a Member State generally to leave provides what could be considered as an existential threat to the EU. While the timing of the release of the latest EU Global Strategy in June 2016 had been long planned prior to the referendum result, there were points within the strategy that showed a clear desire on the part of the EU to develop solidarity.¹⁹ The idea of pursuing a greater Global Europe and increased solidarity and, more particularly, the implementation of this, is naturally read in the light of the referendum result. With a determination that this decision should not be allowed to split the approach of Member States or enable a degree of contagion, the concern of the EU, from the outset, was the protection of its legal order.

This desire can be seen to have manifested in more concrete terms in two main ways since that starting point. The first of these is through the EU’s general approach to the negotiations. Autonomy has been one of the clear principles within any response of the EU to negotiations, as can be traced within the EU’s general negotiating guidelines, for example any ‘future partnership must include appropriate enforcement and dispute settlement mechanisms that do not affect the Union’s autonomy, in particular its decision-making procedures’.²⁰ In this broad sense, it is clear, and unsurprising, that the EU is taking the opportunity to demarcate and protect the integrity of the ‘distinct’ legal order which has been building for so many years.

The second way, which is much more pertinent to the present paper, is that the manifestation of autonomy can be seen in a much more pragmatic way, with a desire to push forward and see progress in the EU’s global identity, generally in foreign policy and specifically in the field of Security and Defence; if there is a greater degree of integration and a greater role for the EU in this field then there is a greater attempt to evolve and further protect the legal order. Since the referendum result the EU has shown significant foreign policy developments. While the referendum result may not have impacted the European Global Strategy (EUGS) itself, the result has arguably impacted its subsequent action plan on Security and Defence. There have been further developments since then with the operationalisation of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), and the creation of the European Defence Fund (EDF) and the Coordinated Annual Review on Defence (CARD). While these are not ‘creations’ in response to Brexit, it is argued that their operationalisation following so long since the creation of their possibility is, in itself, significant. It is argued that this shows that, as the UK has decided to leave, the EU has pushed forward in its integration. This is where the complexity arises and these conflicting aims, with simultaneous integration and disintegration, begin to shape the inevitable distinct nature of future relations between the UK and the EU.

2. Brexit and the ‘autonomy effect’ on CFSP

The EU institutions’ initial response to the UK referendum result in June 2016 showed clear concern about what this would mean. While the UK is not a founding Member State, it is a long-standing one that has had a significant role. When considering CFSP, it is important to recognise its different background and nature, as compared to other areas of integration. With its inception in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) in 1992, CFSP showed a new stage in the process of ever closer union. While this is a significant role, it has long been considered as ‘distinct’. With its maintenance of different legal instruments and processes,²¹ together with a highly restricted role for the Court of Justice,²² there is a degree of accuracy about this distinction. It must also be recognised, however, that over the years since its creation, there has been significant development and its intergovernmental nature has been increasingly analysed.²³ As CFSP has evolved, not only has it grown in its own capacity, but its interconnectedness with other areas has also increased, which begins to question its separation and distinct nature.²⁴ Furthermore, as the CJEU has had increasing opportunities to examine the relationship between the CFSP and other aspects of the legal order, its lack of jurisdiction cannot now be said to be as absolute as it was once perhaps viewed.²⁵ The nature of CFSP is, therefore, a complex one, but it is clear that it is a central part of an integrated EU legal order.

CSDP is an integral part of the CFSP.²⁶ It may only have relatively recent origins with the development of crisis management operations in the 2003 European Security Strategy (ESS), which followed the Saint-Malo summit in 1998,²⁷ but with the discussions on the concept of CSDP stretching back to European Political Cooperation (EPC), it has a developed history in the EU legal order.²⁸ This history, furthermore, underpins the concerns initially expressed regarding the potential withdrawal of the UK from the EU. The UK has been at the core of the inception of these areas. Furthermore, even with the variety of interpretations of the UK contributions, it is fairly widely accepted that the UK’s role, financially, practically and diplomatically, has previously been significant. The possibility of the exit of the UK from the EU as a whole, but also at the micro level of Security and Defence, could have been damaging to this policy area when considering the variety of roles that the UK has had in Security and Defence. The significance of the UK can be seen with the financial contributions of the UK, in addition to its domestic military capabilities in terms of it being one of only two EU Member States capable of deploying full-spectrum military capabilities,²⁹ and its international influence in terms of its UN Security Council seat and its long-standing diplomatic links around the world.³⁰

It is easy to overstate these concerns, however. While the UK had considerable political authority, in spite of its early role, this had always been tempered by concerns as to the expansion of foreign policy in the EU.³¹ The initial creation of the CFSP was centred around it being different to other areas of integration and the UK has long played a role in maintaining this in order to allay domestic concerns that further integration in the field of foreign policy may override national priorities.³² This ‘blocking’ role of the UK can be slightly overplayed as the UK has long been an active player in this area and has had a role, both generally in the field of CFSP, but also in terms of operationalising missions and operations under the remit of the CSDP. This is a role that has been a balancing act for the UK, however. With the perception that foreign policy integration may be met with disquiet at the domestic level, in spite of the UK’s demonstrable engagement in this area the UK has sometimes been reluctant to be an open voice calling for, or even enabling, further foreign policy integration.³³

In spite of these concerns, developments were already being seen prior to the referendum, with a degree of institutional development in crisis management with the creation of European structures. The increased developments of definitively EU entities within CFSP generally and then, more recently, more specifically in the command structures of crisis management operations, have been significant. There has been an overall move towards greater institutionalisation within this field, progressing it further away from the realms of actions that could be considered to be those of collective Member States. It remains a distinct area of EU action but progress has clearly been seen. The developments in this field, therefore, are moving definitively in the direction of a greater institutionalised global EU. This has been a gradual evolution since the very beginnings of CFSP, with the distinct approaches to action and EU systems showing a recognition of the flexible nature of attribution; the lower levels of integration and EU institutionalisation in this field have not prevented development nor consideration that action taken was that of the EU. As the EU further develops its internal institutional structures in Security and Defence, it increasingly develops a form of order to this area, with autonomy forming a necessary part of the discourse. This remains distinct from other aspects of its legal framework but it is increasingly a ‘European’ system of Security and Defence; autonomy then becomes more important. This development is a delicate one, however, and the post-referendum developments under the ambit of the Global Strategy have been significant in showing progress in this field for a greater degree of autonomy on the part of the EU.

3. The difficulties of an increasingly ‘Global EU’ with a strict autonomy construction at its core: The ongoing difficulties of Brexit for a future Security and Defence relationship?

In spite of the significant progress seen by the EU in the field of Security and Defence since the referendum result in June 2016, at the time of writing, the specific nature of the withdrawal or the future relationship remains unclear. From the outset, both parties considered that the only appropriate relationship in this field was one of close cooperation, with the UK phrasing this as a ‘new, deep and special partnership’⁶⁰ and the EU ‘stand[ing] ready to establish partnerships in areas unrelated to trade, in particular … security, defence and foreign policy’.⁶¹ In spite of this broad agreement, however, there remains a lack of certainty in this field. In fact, Security and Defence has received relatively little attention over the course of the negotiations, with much of the discussions on withdrawal focusing on citizens’ rights, the financial settlement and the Irish border, and much of the existing discussions on the future relationship surrounding commercial relations. When considering the course of the negotiations and the approach that has been taken in this field, this begins to demonstrate, furthermore, the complexities that are likely to arise in a future relationship.

In the lead-up to the official notification on 29 March 2017 that the UK intended to leave the European Union,⁶² a number of negotiating positions were set out by Theresa May as Prime Minister⁶³ and then further developed within a White Paper.⁶⁴ Although these lacked substantial and precise detail on the direction of Brexit and relationship sought by the UK, they were indicative of the approach that the UK would take to negotiations. The mantra of ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’⁶⁵ was one frequently expressed together with the intention that, whatever shape Brexit did take, it would not be one that maintained the current relationship but in a different form.⁶⁶ This determination that Brexit will mean a different relationship does give some indication that a new understanding would be needed of every area of the EU–UK relationship. The real difficulty is that, even at this late stage, we are not much closer to clarity and understanding on what that relationship might look like. The determination of this relationship is more about politics than it is about law. The result of that determination, however, could have significant legal consequences.

The proposition has been made that, in the event any treaty on the future relationship between the UK and the EU is concluded, this should not include CFSP–CSDP cooperation.⁶⁷ Rather than a clear determination, the current aim seems to be for flexibility to enable change.⁶⁸ While flexibility is a familiar concept within the EU to enable a variety of levels of Member State involvement, the difficulty when faced with the UK’s position is the complete lack of clarity in this regard.⁶⁹ It remains unclear as to any of the particular aims with regard to Security and Defence beyond ‘partnership’. Rather, the argument has been made that the post-Brexit landscape should be analysed before considering any fixed arrangements. In terms of the newer developments in PESCO, EDF and the European Defence Agency (EDA), any developments should be made on a case-by-case basis. A number of options are possible to facilitate engagement with CSDP operations. This could be viewed as sensible at a point where negotiations and development in relation to the future relationship have yet to really be developed. It leads to a great deal of uncertainty, however. When considering the potential future relationship that may evolve, it has to be questioned whether this would involve some of the newer developments that have been pursued in the expansion of a ‘Global Europe’ at a point when the UK is withdrawing.

The engagement of external states with foreign policy, broadly defined, has long been enabled and even encouraged by the EU. Candidate countries, European Economic Area (EEA) and European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries and those within the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) in Eastern Europe are invited to align with declarations on foreign policy once Member States have agreed these.⁷⁰ When considering the more specific area of crisis management, third-state involvement has long been accepted. There has been involvement from 45 non-EU countries in CSDP operations, whether through an ad hoc arrangement or through a Framework Participation Agreement (FPA). With any of this cooperation, however, third states can only align with a position once agreement has been reached between Member States, and contributions are only sought from non-Members once a plan is in place; they are excluded from decision making and formalities. This can be seen in any of the ad hoc arrangements or through the FPA. Irrespective of any formal arrangement between the UK and the EU, either in broad terms of the future relationship, or specifically in relation to Security and Defence, this would not affect the UK being engaged in ad hoc arrangements.

In the negotiations the UK has argued for a continued partnership with the EU. Unfortunately, there has continued to be a complete lack of clarity as to what shape or form such a partnership may take and, in particular, what is envisaged by the UK side in advocating for this. The current Political Declaration on the Future Relationship commits to ‘ambitious, close and lasting cooperation’⁷¹ in Security and Defence, with close cooperation in crisis management missions and operations. It seeks UK participation on a case-by-case basis through an FPA.⁷² The precise nature of this FPA is currently unclear. In spite of this desired close partnership, however, this is unlikely to come with some of the elements that have been mentioned as part of the UK aims. The UK has been arguing for a bespoke partnership that involves involvement within bodies such as the PSC and engagement with the Council. In spite of this claim and desire, this argument is without current precedent. Furthermore, these bodies are central decision-making elements and, as a third state, it would not be possible for the UK to be engaged with the decision-making processes. Not only would this be called into question with the relevant treaty provisions, but also the inclusion of a third state within core decision-making systems of the EU would be detrimental to the autonomy of the EU. One of the key aspects that has long been considered with autonomy is the development and maintenance of a self-referential legal order.⁷³ There is a long-held desire by the EU to protect against anything that may threaten this basic concept of autonomy, which can be traced back to the very origins of the EU.⁷⁴ Not only this, but if the stringent and absolute approach to autonomy is pursued then any development that may enable priority of an external legal order would be completely contrary to this. To have a third state exerting an influence over decision-making processes within the EU could easily be perceived as creating a crack within the strength of the EU legal order; there may be aspects of decisions being made, or influenced, from outside the EU. As a result, it is unlikely this would be contemplated. It would potentially raise questions as to the interactions of these legal orders and whether there might be too much engagement from an external normative framework. This sort of an approach is likely to result in strict boundaries on what will be permissible in this, likely, complex future relationship.

With the likelihood for Security and Defence appearing to be some sort of FPA but with the precise details still unclear, this is sufficient for consideration of some of the difficulties that this may pose. These difficulties arise because irrespective of the specific arrangements, this question of disentangling different legal orders is a complex one and it is one that is currently leading to a complex relationship between the EU and the UK post Brexit. With the EU in unchartered territory in disentangling a Member State from its legal order first of all, its difficult development with autonomy then begins to come to the fore. In negotiating for a future relationship, and one that both parties are seeking to pursue in a highly close fashion, the EU will be seeking to definitively remove the UK from its internal systems. To have the UK partially in the EU, or even enjoying some of the benefits of membership, begins to call into question the EU’s legal integrity and through this its autonomy. This simultaneous disentanglement and alignment is a highly complex task, however, and one which inevitably has the consequence of difficulties in the future relationship. With the UK moving from the internal to the external, furthermore, the EU has to begin considering this relationship in terms of an external one directed by the UK’s existence as a third state at the global level. Again, the stringent approach to autonomy will be a difficult one to take for the EU when engaging with a process of disentangling a newly external legal order from its systems. Seeking to ensure a clear demarcation between the EU legal orders and an external legal order that was previously a part of the EU framework is a complex task.

In pragmatic terms, there arise a number of issues. This approach will, first, affect the specifics of what is capable of being agreed upon in the final FPA. With the approach that there needs to be such clear demarcation from the side of the EU, combined with a UK approach seeking a very visible demarcation but alignment with the EU, it is difficult to see how much meaningful alignment will be capable of being agreed upon. Second, this will cause further complexity in the field of international responsibility and addressing the question of accountability when wrongs occur, either during the course of collective action with which the UK is involved, or wrongs between the EU and the UK. The question of determining whether action lies with the EU or with its Member States is already a complex one, but one that has been increasingly considered over recent years. If, in future, action involving the UK comes into question, this complex relationship will provide further questions in this regard. It will also raise the long-problematic question of possible external jurisdiction over the EU as the UK seeks to be removed from the jurisdiction of the CJEU. While the current withdrawal agreement and Political Declaration on the Future Relationship refer to the Joint Committee, this is clearly not settled enough nor yet is it a long-term solution. The stricter each side is in maintaining its positions, the more complex any determination of future dispute settlement will become.

In general terms, the UK will be treated in the same way as any other third state, barring any distinct agreements to the contrary. The UK will be outside of commitments to a common defence union. It may contribute to missions or operations but it will not be a part of the process that decides whether any action will be launched and what the remit of that action may be. It may contribute to the budget but without being a part of the process to determine the overall budget. The involvement of third states with PESCO is also currently unclear. The possibility exists for it but the particular format this might take remains unclear. The Council Decision on the matter extends as far as requiring arrangements to ‘respect the procedures and the decision-making autonomy of the Union’.⁷⁵ This shows us the priorities of the EU: maintain the integrity of the legal order and continue its progression. This position may be one that is not be entirely palatable to the current desires of the UK, but claims that the EU will provide such a substantial exception for the UK fail to consider the desire of the EU to maintain its autonomy and that aim as being a primary one for the EU. It may well be feasible to envisage some slight movement and some form of individualised relationship emerging, but the aims as currently set out simply are not feasible.

4. Conclusion

The consequences of the UK referendum result in June 2016 have been far reaching. Even with the early statements that sought alignment and agreement in the field of Security and Defence, this has been a field where the consequences have stretched far and which are continuing to emerge now. The most significant consequence thus far has been the expansion and consolidation of the EU in the field of Security and Defence. Initial concerns surrounding the damage that might be caused by the exit of the UK have, thus far, proved entirely unfounded. If anything, Brexit has triggered greater development in this field than has been seen in a number of years.

Rather than the potential undermining and limiting of the EU in this area as a result of the withdrawal of one of its largest Member States, the autonomy backlash has been significant. Brexit has thus far proved to be a trigger in favour of greater development in Security and Defence and has prompted the sort of alignment and integration in this field that previously had been slow to emerge. When faced with the risks of undermining the EU project, Member States have reinvigorated the EU in this field and the EU has developed in policy fields that previously lay dormant with concerns that they would not find a way towards being operationalised. While the EU is still dependent on Member States, particularly in the field of foreign and security policy, the volume with which Member States have committed to this and enabled the greater development of the EU is significant.

The EU is developing in Security and Defence and these developments are more than just piecemeal policy areas; there is a push towards an integrated and considered approach to this. The moves seen by the EU since the publication of the Global Strategy in 2016 have begun to develop the aims set out in Article 24(1) TEU much more substantially. The remit of the EU in foreign policy as set out in this paper is vast, with CFSP covering ‘all areas of foreign policy and all questions relating to the Union’s security, including the progressive framing of a common defence policy that might lead to a common defence’. As the EU begins its real push towards a ‘Global EU’, it begins to move into a position where it could possibly pursue this.

The real area for consideration, however, is one that currently remains highly unclear and uncertain: what comes next. While Brexit has been a positive trigger to enable progress, this is progress that will sit at the core of a complex and limited concept of autonomy in the EU. As long as there is the pursuit of a concept of autonomy that seeks to demarcate the EU from other legal orders rather than engage and interact with them, determining the global nature of the EU will be a complex task. When this is considered within the task of simultaneously disintegrating a Member State and then reintegrating it, to a certain extent, in terms of a future relationship, this becomes all the more complex.