Dr Andrew Glencross grew up in the north of England and is a graduate of the University of Cambridge (BA Social and Political Studies and M.Phil. Historical Studies) as well as a former Joseph Hodges Choate Fellow at Harvard University from 2000-01. Andrew's PhD studies took him to Florence, where he completed his dissertation at the European University Institute under the masterful supervision of Friedrich Kratochwil. From 2008-10 Andrew had the great pleasure of being a lecturer in the International Relations Program at the University of Pennsylvania. He returned to Europe in Autumn 2010 to take up a lectureship at the University of Aberdeen, before moving to the University of Stirling in 2013. In January 2017 he began teaching at Aston University.
Andrew's research interests include European integration, especially the ongoing Brexit negotiations and issues to do with the Eurozone, as well as international relations theory. Those are subjects Andrew blogs on for outlets such as the Conversation or the LSE’s EUROPP. Prospective research students in those areas are welcome to drop him a line to discuss possible projects.
Andrew is a Senior Fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia and also an Associate Editor at ECPR Press.
Areas of Expertise (6)
Interantional Relations Theory
European University Institute: PhD, International Relations and Affairs 2007
University of Cambridge: MPhil, History 2002
Harvard University: Joseph Hodges Croates Fellow 2001
University of Cambridge: BA, Social and Political Sciences 2000
- Foreign Policy Research Institute : Senior Fellow
Media Appearances (6)
A no-deal Brexit could damage the UK's ability to cope with pandemics
Jakarta News online
As the UK-EU deal or no-deal drama limps on, most attention focuses on the economic consequences of a new trade relationship. But UK health security - in the sense of measures to prevent and mitigate health emergencies such as pandemics - is also very much at stake.
As coronavirus lockdown eases, Boris Johnson’s UK looks more isolated than ever
The Conversation online
The UK has often appeared out of step with the rest of Europe during the coronavirus crisis. Back in early February, prime minister Boris Johnson was breezily telling his compatriots to stay “confident and calm” in the face of a potential global pandemic.
The UK can still rejoin the EU
Al Jazeera online
Remaining in the European Union is no longer an option for the United Kingdom. Boris Johnson finally made Brexit happen by steering the EU Withdrawal Agreement Act through parliament on the back of his December electoral triumph. The rear-guard Remain campaign, which convulsed British politics for three years following the 2016 EU membership referendum, is no more.
Brexit news: What conditions will EU DEMAND from UK for Article 50 extension?
Dr Andrew Glencross, a senior political lecturer at Birmingham University, said there are two ways EU leaders can respond. Speaking to Express.co.uk exclusively, Dr Glencross explained: “For a short extension, the conditions would be to hold and win a third meaningful vote on the Withdrawal Agreement and, if the UK needs to go beyond 23 May to pass required withdrawal legislation, a pledge not to suddenly revoke Article 50.”...
UK to seek Brexit delay: what you need to know about the latest parliamentary vote
The House of Commons has voted to delay Brexit beyond March 29, sending Theresa May to Brussels to ask for more time. But MPs voted against a series of amendments that would have translated into more specific demands on timing...
Britain already disengaging from Europe as UK government pulls funding from unique European research institute
You may not have heard of it, but students from across Europe have been studying at The European University Institute (EUI) since 1976. Situated in the Tuscan hills overlooking Florence, the idyllic setting plays home to a unique institution dedicated to training PhD students and enhancing Europe’s research capacity in economics, history, law, and social sciences...
McCourt, D. M. & Glencross, A.
2019 Through the case of EU foreign and security policy we reconsider the concept of great power. According to common wisdom, the EU cannot be a great power, whatever the pronouncements of its top officials may be. We argue that ‘great power’ has been miscast in IR theory as a status rather than as a social role, and, consequently, that the EU can indeed be viewed as playing the great power role. Such a conceptual shift moves analytical attention away from questions of what the EU is ‘big’, ‘small’, ‘great’, and so on to what it is expected to do in international politics. We focus on the expectation that great powers engage in the management of the international system, assessing the EU as a great power manager in two senses: First, in the classical sense of ‘great power management’ of Hedley Bull which centers on great powers’ creation of regional spheres of influence and the maintenance of the general balance of power and second, in light of recent corrections to Bull’s approach by Alexander Astrov and others, who suggest great power management has changed toward a logic of governmentality, i.e. ‘conducting the conduct’ of lesser states.
Turner, E. O., Glencross, A., Bilcik, V. & Green, S. O.
2019 There are long-standing debates amongst scholars of European Union politics over the relative importance of member states and supranational institutions in determining what happens in the EU. This paper treats the case of ‘Brexit’ as a case study, considering the positions of the EU institutions, France, Germany and the V4, focusing particularly on dissociation issues, questions of migration, the customs union and trade, and the UK’s relationship to the single market during the first year of exit negotiations. It finds that while there are distinct national priorities, EU institutions have been able to synthesise these rather effectively into a common position which meets member states’ priorities as well as their own, confirming the claims of those who emphasise the ability of EU institutions to drive European integration and act on behalf of member states.
Glencross, A., Gray, C., Gursoy, Y., Rowe, C. S. & Szent-Iványi, B.
2019 This report emerged from a workshop in Brussels where Aston Centre for Europe staff presented research on the future of the UK’s bilateral relations after Brexit. The report itself examines the central policy challenges arising from the UK’s need to renew and rethink bilateral relations with key European countries after the UK has left the EU. The bilateral relationships selected for inclusion in this report reflect the variety of cross-cutting economic, security, and diplomatic concerns that characterize UK engagement with Europe after Brexit. UK relations with France, Germany, Spain, Turkey, and the Visegrad Four (V4; the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) are scrutinized to determine how far bilateralism is likely to address the first two policy challenges described above. The final chapter brings back in to focus the complicating factor of devolution, looking at how territorial governance arrangements elsewhere in Europe can provide lessons on conducting “paradiplomacy” with the EU.
2019 This article explores why there was no domino effect after Brexit and reflects on what this means for the health of European integration. It shows how the UK responded to the uncertainty surrounding the Article 50 talks by testing EU unity, prompting both sides to discuss a no-deal outcome. Evidence from Eurobarometer surveys demonstrates that attachment to the EU strengthened markedly during Brexit talks in the four countries considered most likely to flirt with leaving the EU. Hence Brexit changed the benchmarking process surrounding citizens’ evaluation of the prospects of getting a better deal outside the EU. Risk aversion thus explains the lack of a Brexit domino effect. However, the volatility of public opinion before and after the Article 50 talks, combined with the weaker increase in support over the EU as a whole, means there is no room for complacency over the future prospects of disintegration.
2019 This article analyses the genealogy of the expression ‘Love Europe, hate the EU’, which is taken as a spatio-cultural critique of the European Union that has important consequences for how European integration is contested. Closely associated with the Brexit movement, but also popular among other populist movements opposing the European Union, this catchphrase is analysed as the latest stage in the contestation over the political meaning of Europe. However, the article demonstrates that the desire to do away with a rules-based institutional order rests on a deliberately ahistorical reading of European inter-state relations following the rise of the sovereign state. What is overlooked is the way in which Europe was conceptualized by the end of the 18th century as a distinct political unit with its own peculiar dysfunctionality, namely, a naturally anti-hegemonic order that often resulted in violent conflict. The spatio-cultural critique of European Union institutionalization nonetheless expects that shared European interests and values can seamlessly recreate cooperation across sovereign states, an argument that culminated in the UK’s Brexit decision. Yet, as shown by the debate over the future of UK–European Union relations, this cultural and idealized understanding of Europe’s commonalities ignores the economic and political significance of borders and forgets the part played by the European Union in managing contested spaces. This emerging cleavage between institutional and cultural understandings of Europe suggests that European integration after Brexit needs to focus on demonstrating the value of institutionalized cooperation per se as much as on the cultural symbolism of supranationalism.