Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Politics and Geopolitics / Present and future of Europe / Articles
A British exit from the European Union as a factor of geopolitical transformation of the United Europe
Material posted: Publication date: 29-10-2016

United Kingdom (full name – United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland) is an island country in Western Europe, established on 1 January 1801. The country's name comes from the English Great Britain. Britain – the ethnonym of the tribe of the Britons. Motto: "Dieu et mon droit" "(Gods my right)", the national anthem: "God Save the Queen/King".

The UK is among the leading countries in the world, plays an important role in the work of the EU, UN and NATO, is one of the first places in the world in terms of GNP. In this regard, military experts on foreign countries, it is important to analyze and assess the current socio-political processes in a country such as the UK, to objectively study and understand economic, social, political, ideological and military processes, to make informed practical insights and evaluation in order to achieve its objectives.

England has always stood alone in Europe. Over the centuries, her cult of independence of political thinking had no equal in Europe, and not by accident "Magna Carta", 1215, (Magna Carta Libertatum), the legal tool that does not have at that time unique appeared in the British Isles. Individualism, pragmatism and ability to modifications, co-exist with the traditional, has always been the Foundation of a political construction of England and they remain today.

One of the differences between the Anglo-Saxon mentality from continental is greater mobility, willingness to embrace change and abandon the status quo. The idea of a United Europe had long impressed the British, but, like many ideas, in the end, has outlived its usefulness. Accordingly, instead of continuing to stagnate, to complain about economic, social difficulties, to regret the money invested in the pan-European cause, Britain announced its withdrawal from the European Union (EU).

A referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, known within the UK as a referendum on the EU (English. EU referendum) was held in the UK and Gibraltar on 23 June 2016.

The referendum was able to take part citizens of the UK, Ireland and Commonwealth countries who are legally present on the territory of the Kingdom as well as British citizens living abroad for more than 15 years. Unlike General elections, the voting was also attended by members of the house of lords, and the citizens of the Commonwealth residing
in Gibraltar. In the regions of the UK voting results differed: residents of Scotland and Northern Ireland voted predominantly against the release, and representatives of England, not counting capital, and Wales voted for[1].

 

A British exit from the European Union was the main political goal of the conservative opposition and some individuals (nationalists and eurosceptics) in the UK. During the referendum in 2016 for a British exit from the European Union spoke 51.9% of voters, respectively, for the continuation of EU membership made 48.1 percent of the voters.

 

Actuality of this work caused in the first place, an objective analysis of the possible geopolitical changes and the consequences of Brexit for EU and UK. Second, the study of the results of the referendum on the UK exit from the EU. Thirdly, the need for objective determination of the socio-political and economic reasons that led the country to this result.

The withdrawal of Britain from the EU have no evidence of decline or crisis, and transformation of the European Union and the transition of Europe in the new geopolitical format.

Objective reasons for a referendum on the UK exit from the European Union

The European Union is a Union of European countries, unique international education, combining the characteristics of the international organizations and States. All the countries
in the EU, although they are independent, but obey the same rules: they apply the same rules of training, medical care, pension, judicial system, laws of the European Union operate in all EU countries. In 2013, after the accession of Croatia to the European Union includes 28 countries.

In addition to the General political line, single space the visa-free regime of crossing the state borders, and share a single currency – the Euro. For 2016, 19 of the 28 countries adopted the Euro their national currency.

The EU economy consists of the economies of all member countries. The EU represents the interests of each member of the world community and decides all disputed issues. Each
member state contributes its share in total GDP share. The States that have brought the most revenue, it's France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK.

 

The GDP share of the countries-participants of EU

Thus, using a standardized system of laws applicable in all countries of the Union, was sozdannoi market that guarantees the free movement of people, goods, capital and services, including the abolition of passport control within the Schengen area.

UK in many reasons have always occupied a special role in the European Union. This is probably mainly due to the mentality of the British, which was based on the geographical location. Britain is a huge island, which belongs to Europe, and on the other hand – no. This is caused by the special “island psychology” inhabitants of Britain.

For the UK the idea is to abandon part of their sovereignty and transfer it to the supranational level became very difficult decision.

Peak power the UK peaked in the nineteenth century. However, by the beginning of the First world war it lost its economic dominance. A strong influence on its policies had the Second world war. Britain emerged from the war as the undisputed winner, along with the United States and the Soviet Union, unlike, for example, from Germany, kataraktes the status of the vanquished. Thus, the peoples of Germany and other European States emerged from the war with an awareness of the evils of nationalism and the willingness to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the sake of peace, and the people of great Britain, by contrast, proudly treated his victorious government and sought to strengthen his position in the world. The British ruling circles still saw their country as a world power and tried to maintain its exclusive position[2].

The main foreign policy objective was to establish a "special relationship" with the United States and the preservation of the British Commonwealth of Nations. This required, first, to maintain full freedom of action, which was not supposed to be no political commitments for future integrated Europe. Secondly, it was necessary to preserve the system of Imperial preference England with the countries of the Commonwealth. In this regard, during the negotiations on the establishment of a broad integration groupings – the European free trade area (esst), Britain put forward its own plan, the main provisions of which were set out in the Memorandum of February 17, 1957 above all, it sought to preserve both the principle of its foreign policy. She also insisted on preserving the integrity of its agricultural sector, living through grants from the Treasury, which allowed English users to purchase food at prices close to the world. However, this plan was not accepted by the other negotiating parties, as provided for more favorable position of great Britain in comparison with other countries[3].

In 1957 Britain did not sign the Rome Treaty, the basic document of the European economic community (EEC) on the elimination of all obstacles to the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. In January 1960, Britain created its integrated grouping without the participation of major European countries: EFTA (European free trade Association), which, in addition to Britain, entered Austria, Switzerland, Portugal and all Scandinavian countries. Subsequently to the ruling circles of great Britain comes the realization that the economic potential of the country does not correspond to the status of a global power. Sharply intensified the process of colonizatio, it became obvious that the future of foreign trade orientation towards the countries of the Commonwealth has no prospects. British industry began to feel its dependence on kontinentalniy Europe. Therefore, 31 July 1961, Prime Minister of UK, Harold Macmillan declared intention of the UK to apply for entry into the EEC on terms acceptable to London, August 10, it was sent to Brussels. But Charles de Gaulle was against UK entry in the EU, so the application was rejected. On 1 January 1973, after France and Germany formed a new government, Britain, along with Ireland and Denmark was adopted in the EEC[4].

Britain joined the EEC with defined privileges. So, the country joined the largest integration projects of the EU – to the Euro zone and to the Schengen agreements providing for the abolition of visa controls at their common borders, thereby trying to preserve the elements of political and economic independence. Britain pursued a more selective immigration policy than France and other EU members.

Despite all the benefits, talking about the UK out of the EU was in 1973, from the moment when the country joined the Association. The referendum of June 23 is not the first similar vote was held in June 1975, then defeated the supporters of the EU, who scored 67.2 percent of the vote.

The accession did not cause approval in the country, labour and the conservatives introduced the public to this move as "forced" if Britain did not join the Union, it would have lost its position in Europe. British leaders have consistently stressed that the country has more important foreign policy task than to participate in integration. Thus, from the beginning of being in the EU Britain acted as a "reluctant partner". A quarter of a century it had not put forward any major initiative that would contribute to the development of integration. On the contrary, it whenever partners have made such initiatives, "put a spoke in the wheel". This position naturally led to sharp disagreements with other European countries in the preparation of the Maastricht Treaty. The British government insisted on the adoption of the Protocol, which would allow the UK not to participate in the third stage of integration – establishment of economic and monetary Union (EMU). The ratification of the Maastricht Treaty provoked a sharp political struggle in the British Parliament: there were more than 600 amendments to the bill proposed by the government.

A change of policy in relation to the EU occurred during the tenure of Prime Minister Tony Blair. His goal was to show that the UK is a strong partner in the development of integration. The main efforts were focused on developing a new economic strategy of the EU, the establishment of the European Central Bank and the election of its President, the early start of the functioning of Europol, negotiations with the candidate countries.

At the present stage between the EU and the UK, there are many contradictions. Antiintegration the mood of the British associated with the historical past of the country and the relationship with the European Union.

Speaking about the historical past of the country, one of the groups of people who voted “for” the referendum was retired conservatives who want to keep England in the United Kingdom, which it was before entering the EU, with its own unique culture, customs
and traditions. In their opinion, Britain is losing its authenticity, and to radically change something, even if it is the country's exit from the EU.

Speaking about contradictions with the EU, the main points of the requirements of the British government: the economy – sovereignty – migration. The principle of supranational control over the economy, finances and laws many in the UK are not satisfied. The government is often urged to deregulate the European economy, to limit the extension of the single market and to give member countries the ability to block the action of the Brussels directives.

In addition, in the United Kingdom a big impact traditionally are supporters of transatlantic cooperation: the UK in the field of law, traditions and principles of business more in common with the US than with Europe. There are a large number of supporters necessary, the orientation of the development of the British economy in the United States. The British economy and business cycles are unique and different from European, they are more coincide with the us, and in a number of areas of great Britain with the United States at the moment remain the closer. UK is a state, based on the development of private property, a traditional market relations, freedom, market, entrepreneurship, competition. But the EU (especially France and Germany) are the States with the socialist potential, regulation, regulation, bureaucracy. This is something that is the antithesis of traditional conservative capitalist values.

One of the main trebovanije was the need to recognize that the Euro is not the common currency of the EU, in order not to infringe upon the interests of non-Eurozone countries. The presence of the majority of member countries of the EU's single currency unit – Euro weak spot of the European Union. The common currency is extremely disadvantageous for countries that are economically less developed. Less competitive countries are forced to continuously increase the external debt because they do not operate the mechanisms of regulating the balance of payments. A country that has its currency by devaluation could increase the competitiveness of its exports and restrict imports. But, for example, Greece, which adopted the Euro, such methods are not. It turns out that while Germany builds up a positive balance in their balance of payments, Greece and many other Eurozone members with less competitive economies, are forced to increase their debts. They have to impose austerity, including budget, but then these less developed countries begin to rapidly lose qualified professionals to save on science, education
and health. And thus in the conditions of free movement of labor even more lose their competitiveness.

One of the main arguments of supporters of Brexit was the British contribution to the EU budget is one of the largest, now it is about 11 billion euros a year (they pay more only Germany, France and Italy). Many believe that EU membership costs the country too expensive.

UK residents are also not satisfied with the common agricultural policy, which does have damage to the economy of the United Kingdom, as it leads to higher food prices and inefficient use of natural resources.

The EU failed to unify fiscal policy, budgetary policy, financial policy as a whole. Accordingly, voznikayuschaya controlled the movement of money and capital depending on which country spends the kind of policy. Capital goes to where the broader markets, higher incomes, more highly skilled and highly paid workers, where more added value is created, that is, in the same Germany, France and a few small but highly developed countries of the EU. But it is also tearing of the EU and creates inequality in different countries. It turns out that is created within the EU periphery, represented mostly, except for Greece and other southern European countries, post-Soviet and post-socialist States (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Baltic countries etc.). This periphery as it is necessary to include the expense of the EU. The problem is that the political and economic model of the EU is imperfect. This system reflects the interests of the most developed countries-EU members, primarily Germany and restricts less-developed countries of the EU.

Differences emerged in the political sphere. Particularly, they touched upon the decision-making mechanism. As for sovereignty, the political leadership of great Britain insisted on the possibility to limit the activities of pan-European laws and regulations by veto. The Prime Minister sought to achieve the introduction of the so-called red card, which will allow national parliaments to veto EU laws. However, French President françois Hollande opposed the desire of the Kingdom to such a right, explaining his position that "a country not member of the Eurozone, cannot have a veto on laws that affect its members."

At the moment in question, will leave the UK the EU by referendum, the decisive role was played not by economic factors, but political. Despite the fact that the original referendum was initiated on the basis of purely economic motives: China was considered unprofitable and too expensive for myself being in the EU. It is known that the most authoritative British Prime Minister of recent decades, Margaret Thatcher was initially opposed to the introduction of Britain in the EU. She stood up and followed her and other leaders of the British government that Britain has occupied a certain position in the EU has not abandoned the national currency and not adopted the Euro. By and large, Britain was never a full member of the European Union and has always had large fluctuations even at the level of membership. Britain has for many years led a spirited discussion with the governing bodies of the EU about their contributions to the funds of the European Union. But, nevertheless, a significant part of Britons still want to leave the EU. And this was for political reasons.

The main stumbling block between the EU and Velikobritaniya social policy. This contradiction has provoked the proposal of David Cameron on the referendum who, during his campaign for Prime Minister of the country promised to achieve for Britain the new conditions of membership in the Alliance to continue to raise the question of whether membership of the Kingdom in the EU.

Part of the process of European integration is the development by member States of the EU common immigration policy. The problem is that traditionally, immigration policy is the responsibility of the national government and linked to security and national sovereignty. General immigration regime is to harmonize goals, objectives, priorities and scope of immigration policy of the participating countries[5].

Until recently, the supporters of European integration have managed to prevail over their opponents, the main argument was the contribution of immigrants to the economy. In particular, immigrants
from Eastern Europe in the period from 2001 to 2011, paid taxes to the British budget of 7.9 billion dollars more than received from it[6]. But the data from special studies conducted by the Eurobarometer in 2006 showed that the issue of immigration made in the UK. The main reason is the competition from immigrants for jobs, state services, social housing, education or health. Moreover, according to respondents, addressed this problem at the national level. This creates a contradiction with international commitments and requirements of the public[7].

In 2012 David Cameron, speaking at the annual conference of the Confederation of British industry (The Confederation of British Industry, CBI), said about the need for immigration control and that he is considering the introduction of "quotas" or "limits" on entry into the country from other European countries. From the EU perspective, such a policy is unacceptable, the UK is obliged to adhere to the common European immigration policy. In this respect, between great Britain and Germany began to increase the conflict. Berlin has taken a tough stance. In particular, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly said it will not compromise on the issue of free movement, which she considers one of the fundamental principles of European integration. Moreover, she made it clear that they are ready to undesirable consequences, namely the UK out of the EU if British Prime Minister will impose restrictions on freedom of movement[8].

However, the UK cannot accept the principle of EU freedom of movement of labour. This principle has shown its negative sides amid immigration crisis: in 2015 according to Eurostat came to Europe 1.25 million refugees, more than two times higher than the level of 2014 (562,68 thousand). And these are official statistics – that is, the figures for those who received refugee status.

In turn, the requirement to provide migrants the benefits and greatly complicated the extradition process and strengthen the position of supporters of "Brexit". Thus, labor law, EU don't like London because of the lack of flexibility and excessive focus on numerous social benefits.

Despite the fact that prior to the referendum, Cameron has held talks with the European Union, which Britain managed to negotiate a number of "bonuses": Brussels agreed to implement reforms in the field of economy, competitiveness, strengthening of the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and immigration, the majority voted for a British exit from the EU.

The choice of the country "for" out of the EU is explained by the fact that the EU no longer represents a strong and successful Association. The European Union was once seen as promising in the geopolitical, socio-economic and cultural aspects of the organization. However, at this stage, the EU is experiencing a systemic crisis. Ongoing for many years, the financial crisis, economic decline and spiritual crisis, the destruction of moral values, the growth of radical sentiments in society are not random.

At the core of the collapse of the greater Europe project is precisely the uncertainty of the policy pursued by the West for many years. Experts say that the collision of the EU crisis, European politicians are unable to objectively and constructively relate to the current situation.
Despite the fact that the EU has achieved a major economic and technological success, against this background of progress, the crisis in the spiritual sphere of society is deepening. This trend, along with all spheres of social consciousness, manifested in political consciousness. So, if among young people increase such mental state as parasitism, depression because of unemployment, radicalism, intolerance of other cultures, among politicians brighter appear Islamophobic tendencies. And instead look for solutions to problems inside, in official circles there is a growing tendency to look for the enemy in the side.

Attempts to accuse other countries in the trumped-up issues. The EU, under various pretexts, tries to intervene in their internal Affairs, while hiding behind the beautiful phrases such as democracy and human rights. This organization is exacerbating internal problems instead of solve them.

Thus, the UK is very beneficial to leave the EU, because it never joined the European monetary system and the Schengen area. Today she is a powerful international financial centre. And tomorrow she could become a country that will be the separate Atlantic Autonomous civilization.

The UK has a huge area of the member-countries of the Commonwealth where, in fact, the Queen is the head of these countries: Canada, Australia, strong position of great Britain in India, not to mention the fact that it controls the area of banking offshore, including the virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Barbados and others. More and more members of the UK government's focus to go its own geopolitical and geo-economic way.

The main reasons of leaving the UK
from the European Union can be identified:

  • the reluctance of Britain to subsidise the weaker economies, to contain other States, entire Nations;
  • social policy of the EU in relation to migrants and the principle of
    on the freedom of movement of labour;
  • economic differences on a number of issues; the principle of supranational control over the economy, Finance, law;
  • EU agricultural policy;
  • employment law, focused on social benefits;
  • the growing instability in the world; the discontent of the population by the decision of the question in the sphere of security;
  • the systemic crisis of the European Union: the financial crisis, economic decline and spiritual crisis, the destruction of moral values, the growth of radical sentiments in society.

Possible geopolitical changes and the implications of Britain's withdrawal from the European Union

The European Union has never been homogeneous economically, politically and culturally. In recent years, this heterogeneity increase.

Acute MiGration crisis that followed the debt crisis of the Eurozone, has led to a sharp decline of solidarity within the EU. Migrants are once again experiencing European Union strength: illicit entry into the EU in violation of national legislation and Schengen rules, the violation of the Dublin criteria. Almost all of these questions and the leadership of the EU has gone on about migrants and expressed willingness to change the current immigration rules. In this society
government agencies in most European countries are completely unprepared for the integration of migrants. A continuation of the indecisive policy of the European authorities seriously undermines the effectiveness of the current European legal system, as well as the very idea of European integration.

The current model of the EU is far from perfect.

The EU needs a major upgrade, or is he going to be in a state of crisis and have a tendency to decay.

In the EU there is a very cumbersome and complex system of decision-making, when all countries have to take important decisions by consensus. And it becomes increasingly difficult to do with the expansion of the European Union. The system is extremely bureaucratic and inefficient to manage. The vote of the United Kingdom transformerait configuration of forces in Europe and calls into question the whole future of the European Union in its current form. Association, is considered the most attractive integration project, including the former Soviet Union, where everyone wants to go and where nobody wants to go out, lost the image of political dreams of people.

The referendum caused a great resonance in society, there are two diametrically opposed groups. Both groups use a variety of media resources. There are plenty of illustrations of both supporters and opponents of a British exit from the EU.

A British exit from the EU will have in the future positive and negative consequences both for the country and for the European Union.

From the point of view of foreign policy, the UK will lose influence in Brussels, Paris, Berlin. The British government has always seen the EU is an important tool for its foreign policy objectives. After the referendum, the UK will lose this resource.

On the other hand, an EU without the UK will become weaker in the sense that Europe in the UN security Council will remain present to one in France. For the UK Brexit is irrelevant in this respect, Britain will also remain a key member of NATO and the UN Security Council, and that is incredibly important, nuclear power.

EU Brexit may become less active on the world stage. For example, without the UK the EU will be less likely to use sanctions as a tool of pressure on countries such as Russia. The UK has always been one of the most active supporters of the use of EU sanctions as instruments of influence on the unwanted country. So, after the annexation of Crimea Prime Minister David Cameron has determined that Russia should pay for this action. His support of sanctions against Russia has played an important role in convincing other member States that they must incur some economic costs to exert pressure on Russia. Besides, due to the release of the UK the EU's position in Asia already weakened by the Eurozone crisis, will be weakened further. It may be so that due to the release of the UK ASEAN countries will no longer see the EU model of regional political integration. In addition, the loss of the second largest economy in the EU will reduce the negotiation position of the EU on the free trade negotiations with countries such as Japan
and India.

It is obvious that the British withdrawal will increase the predominant influence of Germany in the EU. At the same time it might increase suspicions in member States against the growth of German hegemony. Brexit will exacerbate the "German problem" in European Union. Without Britain, one part of the EU, led by Germany might move towards political Union, while others will try to obtain a special status within the EU. But the main steps towards integration of the Eurozone is extremely unlikely to the French and German elections in 2017.

Chain reaction for the EU, according to some experts, the withdrawal from the second largest economy may cause a Domino effect and the collapse of the European Union. In the Old world, strengthened euroskeptic sentiment amid immigration crisis. Brexitможет to cause a chain reaction among the other members of the EU. So, the leader of the French National front marine Le Pen has already called for a similar referendum in France. She said that a successful vote for Brexit in the UK will be like the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. Eurosceptics across the EU will gain hope that they can win.

A similar statement was made by the leader of the extreme right of the Dutch "Party for freedom" Geert Wilders: "We want to be responsible for our own country, our money, our borders, our immigration policy".

A bad signal was given by the Switzerland, which withdrew the application for EU membership. In Spain, the EU support has weakened by 16 % and now amounts to 47 %.

The danger for Britain in the event of withdrawal from the EU will be the likelihood that Scotland will hold another referendum on secession from the United Kingdom. The last time the proponents of independence lost only 10%. Then the key argument for saving in the UK was that Scotland leaving the United Kingdom could not be accepted in the EU as an independent country.

Together with Scotland the United Kingdom has a population of approximately comparable with the French and the economy was a little larger than France, so the UK is the third largest country in Europe after Germany and Russia. Without Scotland the power of great Britain would greatly diminish. Together with part of the population of Scotland would deprive the UK of significant oil reserves, and will be able to deny the United Kingdom the ability to use multiple naval bases throughout the country. Losing nearly six million residents of Scotland and $300 billion of GDP, the UK will take place between France and Germany, descending indicators
the mark between France and Italy.

There are fears that a Brexit will give strength Catalonia, seeking to secede from Spain – especially if the cause of Scotland will require to hold a new referendum on secession.

Thus, the output of the EU can, on the one hand, to rouse the nationalist passions in the EU. On the other hand, this step can lead to the fact that the geopolitical influence of London is significantly weakened, and the country will lose territory and economic potential, deprived of mechanisms for the protection of their interests. The United Kingdom will not be able to use the influence that he will remain as freely as before, and the centre of power will shift
from the UK towards France and Germany.

With regard to domestic policy, supporters believe that leaving the EU will only strengthen democracy, as the Parliament becomes entirely sovereign. Britain also will not apply the European laws and regulations.

On the other hand, UK residents will no longer apply the European legislation in the social sectors and on labor protection. British citizens will lose the advantage of free movement and residence in Europe.

According to official statistics, currently in the UK working 942 thousand Eastern Europeans, including Romanians and Bulgarians, as well as 791 thousand Western Europeans. The proportion of workers from non-European countries is 2.93 million people.

The proponents of EU membership argue that, despite certain difficulties associated with the allocation of housing and provision of public services in General immigration from EU countries has had a positive effect on the economy of Britain. Agitators for Brexit claim that immigration numbers should be dramatically reduced and the only way in is to regain control over the borders and to set their own immigration rules.

Brexit would allow the government to regain control over the labor legislation and the national health system. Also, reducing immigration should theoretically mean more jobs for the people left in the country, but, on the other hand, labor shortages can have a negative impact on the growth of the British economy.

The same can be said about the levels of salaries: their growth is likely in the event of Brexit may be beneficial to employees, but not to the companies-employers. The protective policy of Britain can lead to the fact that the country will not get the brightest and most talented citizens of the EU,
and employers will have to choose from a narrower range of candidates. Of course, this will have negative consequences for the economy of Britain.

Supporters wychodzacy that in the absence of EU bureaucracy and its countless rules small and medium enterprises will begin to flourish, which will lead to employment growth because they are smaller than other firms trading with other EU countries.

Opponents of release say that millions of jobs will be lost as multinational companies transferred production to other countries of the European Union. In particular it will affect the automotive industry, which is almost all owned by foreign companies.

The financial sector employs 2.1 million Britons, also fears the possible consequences of the withdrawal of Britain from the EU, as the success of a society is based on the free access to the European market, and the loss of such access carries with it very serious risks.

C a political point of view, one of the first results of the referendum was the resignation of the British Commissioner of Baron hill on 25 June 2016. On Tuesday evening 28 June in the framework of the summit of the European Council met in Brussels for a symbolic descent of the British flag in front of the European Commission.

Discouraged by the outcome of the referendum David Cameron has decided to leave the post of leader of the ruling party and head of the Cabinet of Ministers. July 11, won the Minister of internal Affairs Theresa may, which is already the morning of 13 July started formirovaniye government. It was immediately created two special Ministry out of the EU and international trade. Foreign Minister unexpectedly for many has become the main supporter of Breccia in the ranks of the party Boris Johnson. Thus, the conservatives remained in power, so that by December 2018, to finalize the withdrawal from the "United Europe".

From the point of view of economy, to be a member of the European Union was a huge boon for the UK, given that the EU is a single trading space, because the products sold within it, are exempt from import and export duties. The EU is the main trading partner of the UK, which accounts for 52% of British exports of goods and services. Full exit from the EU will result in trade barriers. This means, for example, that British-built cars will overlap rate of 15%, and on cars imported from Europe, 10%.

When leaving the EU the UK will have to re-develop trade agreements with EU States and other countries. However, supporters of vicodinwellbutrin from the EU say that the European Union as the market is not so important for Britain, as it was before, and that the continuing Eurozone crisis will only strengthen this trend.

Economist Roger Bootle argues that even if the UK will not be able to conclude with Brussels the free trade agreement, it will not be a tragedy, as a result, Britain will be in the same position as the United States, India, China and Japan which have almost no problems exporting their products to the EU.

UK can with the help of the WTO to conclude bilateral trade agreements with countries with rapidly growing economies, e.g. China, Singapore, Brazil and India, as well as with Russia. A lot will depend on what agreements the UK will be able to sign with the EU and other countries. There are many options to preserve trade relations with the EU.

The Norwegian option: UK withdraws from the EU and joined the European economic area, which will provide her access to the European single market, with the exception of the financial sector of the economy. It would also free Britain from the EU rules in the fields of agriculture, fisheries, law and internal Affairs.

The Swiss option: UK will follow the example of Switzerland, which is not included neither in the EU nor in the EEA, and enters into separate contracts with Brussels over every sector of the economy.

Turkish version: UK may join the customs Union with the EU, which will provide the industry free access to the European market, but the financial sector, such access won't get.

The UK also may try to conclude a comprehensive agreement on free trade with the EU on the Swiss model, but with guarantees of access of the financial sector to the European market, as well as a certain degree of control over the formulation and enforcement of common trading rules.

Britain can completely severing its ties with the EU, and to rely on WTO rules.

In the worst scenario considered by the analytical centre of Open Europe, in the event of Brexit the UK economy could lose by 2030, 2.2% of total GDP. However, according to their own projections, under the best scenario the GDP of Britain, on the contrary, will grow by 1.6% if the Kingdom will be able to conclude agreements on free trade and effective deregulation of the economy.

Thus, on the one hand, in the long term in the case of the EU, London could lose its value to the world financial center. On the other hand, on the contrary, becoming fully independent from the requirements of the EU, Britain could become one of the largest economic powers like Singapore.

Speaking about macroeconomic policy in Europe, an important role can play a Brexit from the point of view of energy policy, further strengthening of German influence in this area. Britain opposed the efforts of the European Commission to intervene in national energy policy goals of energy security of the European Union. Therefore, without UK EU can adopt a more centralized system of regulation of a common energy market.

UK himself was a pioneer of the separation of energy transmission from production, thereby increasing competition and reducing the price of energy. This system has been adopted for the EU regulation of the energy market of the European Union and the policy of energy security. Germany, by contrast, sought to ensure security of supply through subsidies for renewable energy through long-term contracts, including with Russia. The result of a Brexit in the energy sector could be further restrictions on the use of coal in combination with a more centralized system of redirecting flows of energy, including gas, to countries where they are needed. Here is clearly seen the desire of Germany to increase its control over the sphere of General energy of the European Union.

In particular, Germany is seeking to create a gas hub on its territory.

Directed by Berlin, the EU could try to improve the security of gas supplies, but not at the expense of diversification from Russian gas, and due to the increase in imports from Russia, including through the proposed pipeline Nord stream (Nord Stream) – 2 to create in the system large volumes of gas that will allow to pump their member States affected by technical or political problems with the supply. Through this scheme, the influence of Germany in the EU will increase.

With regard to defence policy, opinions were divided regarding the possible consequences of Brexit in matters of security. Supporters of withdrawal from the EU believe that an open border means and "open door" for terrorists. And because the closures will allow better control of the flow of immigrants to the UK.

However, opponents of the release, including some senior military officials believe that, on the contrary, the European Union is an essential element of security, especially in times of instability in the middle East, allowing members to freely share information about passengers and the criminals.

Security policy of the UK outside the EU is likely to shift towards NATO. But, on the other hand, and the security policy of the EU without the UK needs to shift towards NATO. Common security policy and defence of the EU was established in 1999 only after Britain and France found a way to connect the EU's participation in the defense with the recognition of the role of NATO. The French are enthusiastic in the prospects of the EU, and Britain then supported the NATO's top priority.

Without the UK the other 27 member States would better promote the common defense policy of the European Union. On the background of aggravation of various crises and contradictions in the EU understand that in such situation it is necessary to be guided by own national interests, not the interests of the United States. Comes the understanding that further NATO expansion would inevitably lead to the emergence of new and deepen existing dividing lines in Europe, increasing the fragmentation of the space of European security, further complicate relations between Russia and the EU (e.g. NATO enlargement, the admission of Ukraine and Serbia in Alliance). At the same time, it is obvious that NATO forces will not be able to stop the flow of refugees nor contribute to the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, because it is meant for open military confrontation with the Soviet Union and was never prepared to repel such threats.

Consequently, the countries of the European Union in terms of the ineffectiveness of the NATO in favour of the creation of a single evroarmii, it is possible to create a military-political bloc, not similar in structure to NATO. UK informed not only criticized, but also promised to veto any proposals regarding the creation of a "euroarmy". It said the British defence Secretary Michael Fallon claimed that there is no possibility of creating a European army. In principle, this negative British approach to innovation in defense policy, the EU is no surprise: London is almost always, he was conductor of Washington's foreign policy.

At this time, an informal meeting for the discussion of the proposals of France and Germany will take place in Bratislava, but without the participation of Britain, so the conditions for the implementation of old ideas about a European army were favorable.

The heads of military departments of Germany and France have developed new proposals to improve activities in the field of defence policy of the European Union and sent them the head of EU diplomacy. The action plan is accompanied by a letter in which the defence Ministers of the two countries expressed confidence that the EU will support a strong initiative in the field of protection of European citizens and their values. Proposals related to the establishment of the joint headquarters of the operations of the European Union, the overall satellite system and the exchange of logistical and military medical resources.

The question arises, why Europe needs its own armed forces when the safety of its citizens is securely protected by NATO troops. In addition, the EU has its own military unit - rapid reaction force, numbering about 60 thousand people, ready to confront the threats from outside.

First, Europe is seriously considering the restoration of its prestige, because now, according to many analysts, she is just an American "vassal", which pays private security in conflicts that are creating United States beyond the Atlantic. The presence of a private army would allow Western countries to conduct operations themselves, to take responsibility for them and to choose allies outside of the European Union, including the former Soviet Union.

Second, not all countries in the European Union are members of NATO. Among them, 6 countries: Sweden, Finland, Austria, Ireland, Cyprus and Malta. Under the agreement, EU - NATO "Partnership for peace", all these countries can also count on the military support of the Alliance. But in relation to block these States try to remain neutral.

Third, from an economic point of view, the creation of a common army in Europe will significantly reduce military spending. Experts have estimated that savings will amount to about €120 million. On belief of officials, in the case of Union armies would be allocated more rationally, a single army will become more efficient.

Thus, after Brexit, the EU loses one of its most capable military powers of Europe and one of the few EU countries that spend 2% of their GDP on defense. Opportunities to project its power and strategic assets will be sorely missed Europe. It is possible that Brexit could encourage member States of the EU to increase funding for the project of a common European defence. However, on the other hand, the desire to create a defence structure outside of NATO have reduced the EU will decrease because of the risk of duplication and inefficient spending, preferring to save.

Now the EU is actively working towards the application of single market rules to the European defence industry, in order to limit duplication of defence programmes and research, as well as to increase competition and encourage innovation. In the event of Brexit supporters of competition in the defense industry will be smaller, and France – a supporter of protectionism of its defense industry will get a greater impact.

NATO did not support a British exit from the EU. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO needs a strong Britain in a strong Europe. According to the politician, now the Alliance had faced "unprecedented security challenges, terrorism, instability and unpredictability. Fragmented Europe will only exacerbate these problems." Of particular concern to NATO is the fact that after Brexit disrupted the established system of communications between Washington and the EU, within the EU and within NATO.

So, of course, a British exit from the EU could, on the one hand positive, on the other hand, in a negative way impact both on Britain and the Soviet Union. London is threatened by the reduction authority in Europe. The question arises about 1.4 million Britons living in other European countries, since they lose the right to free movement in the EU and about 2.5 million citizens of the member countries of the EU living in the UK. Exacerbated economic issue. Currently, more than half of British foreign trade is with EU countries[11]. For the EU a British exit could jeopardize the whole European project and lead to the exit of other countries whose populations are also not sympathetic to integration.

Conclusion

June 23, 2016 in the UK, a referendum was held, which decided the question whether to stay the United Kingdom in the European Union or out of it. The most narrowly voted to secede from the European Union. This event is called “Brexit”.

At the start of the disintegration of the EU overlapped by several factors, from economic to social, in addition, there was a question of identity. That is why the process of disintegration of the EU in its current form can be considered inevitable.

The UK has always had a special place in the European Union. This is even with the geographical position of the country, which is separated from the mainland and the big island. For Britain conceptually unacceptable that the EU builds a Federal principle, as a Federal superstate. It deprives Britain of her traditional faith in the British identity, and British sovereignty. Britain cannot be a purely European country, because it is not a continental government. Also for many years in the UK and EU there is a contradiction for a large number of questions in different areas.

The main objective reasons of a British exit from the European Union can be identified:

  • the reluctance of Britain to subsidise the weaker economies, to contain other States, entire Nations;
  • social policy of the EU in relation to migrants and the principle of free movement of labour;
  • economic differences on a number of issues; the principle of supranational control over the economy, Finance, law;
  • EU agricultural policy;
  • employment law, focused on social benefits;
  • the growing instability in the world; the discontent of the population by the decision of the question in the sphere of security;
  • the systemic crisis of the European Union: the financial crisis, economic decline and spiritual crisis, the destruction of moral values, the growth of radical sentiments in society.

The results of the referendum for many in the United Kingdom and the world as a serious challenge. In this regard, the UK will inevitably face a number of challenges. First, there is serious uncertainty regarding how to further relations with the European Union how to implement the output. Never happened, and the procedure output is complex and not regulated. Secondly, the referendum showed an obvious vulnerability and the need for modernization of the British constitutional and political system. Existing state institutions and mechanisms of governance that evolved over the centuries, to date, clearly not. Britain is a country of representative democracy and the referendum is an institution of direct democracy. The fact that it began to resort more frequently than ever, shows that traditional institutions increasingly fail and the British political elite is trying to find some alternative sources of decision-making.

The European Union is also a huge challenge and a shocking precedent. Even before the referendum, many leaders of the countries said that the example of Britain and the outcome of the referendum will be a landmark that, perhaps, a number of other EU countries will think, if not about the referendum, then at least about how to bargain for specific conditions for example the UK. A list of such countries is quite wide. From the point of view of influence on the processes of globalization is a huge blow to the reputation of the European Union, which has long been considered an exemplary form of the integration processes. This is an important signal in the direction that the EU should actively intensify the processes of its modernization — from the development of some strategic goals and objectives to the reform of existing institutions and bodies.

British exit from European Union would also mean an economic reorientation. In terms of the economy, the UK has always insisted on holding rather liberal and open policy. Whether without the UK the EU countries to resist protectionist aspirations is a serious matter. EU membership also implies the existence of a single market. This form of integration involving the free movement of goods, works and services, capital, and labour resources. A British exit from the EU suggests for the country's loss of such privileges, the increase of customs duties, taxes. In some cases you will have to create a special podvedomi from scratch, because the country will have to sign a new trade agreement with the 27 countries of the European Union. There is also the option of finding a new agreement with the EU as a whole, but at each point in the structure of trade turnover.

The results and consequences of the referendum are different. Everything will depend on diplomatic moves in the UK, the decisions of the EU and member countries of the Eurozone. But the vote was conducted, advocates for withdrawal from the EU won. Now only time will tell where this all will lead.

Links

  1. A British exit from the European Union website. URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Выход_Великобритании_из_Европейского_союза (date accessed: 09.10.2016)
  2. Shemyatenkov V. G. European integration. – M., 2003.
  3. Shishkov Yu. V. Common market: hopes and reality. – M., 1972.
  4. Shemyatenkov V. G. Quovadis Europa: European Union on the eve of a historic choice // Europe. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. – M., 2002.
  5. Saparov A. E. Immigration policy of great Britain: the legacy of the past – challenges for the future // Problem analysis and state government planning. – 2010. – No. 6.
  6. Koksharov A. Aggravation of the island syndrome // Expert. – 17.11.2014. – No. 47.
  7. Saparov A. E. Immigration policy of great Britain: the legacy of the past – challenges for the future // Problem analysis and state government planning. – 2010. – No. 6.
  8. Dejevsky M. Angela Merkel Has Exposed David Cameron's Gravest Failing as a Politician // The Guardian. – November 3, 2014.
  9. What consequences threaten the withdrawal of Britain from the EU?: site. URL:http://www.bbc.com/russian/uk/2016/02/160217_britain_and_eu_brexit_debate (date accessed: 13.10.2016)
  10. Koksharov A. Aggravation of the island syndrome // Expert. – 17.11.2014. – No. 47

 

The list of sources

  1. Ganiev T. A., Shur, V. G., Onishchuk S. M. Special studies. The factor analysis. The electronic textbook. M. WU, 2016.
  2. Sakantsev A. E., Onishchuk S. M., Burmistrov A. A. Special studies. Electronic textbook. M. WU, 2016.
  3. Ganiev T. A., Sabantsev A. E., Burmistrov A. A. Special studies. United Kingdom of great Britain and Northern Ireland. M. WU, 2016.
  4. Shemyatenkov V. G. European integration. – M., 2003.
  5. Shishkov Yu. V. Common market: hopes and reality. – M., 1972.
  6. Shemyatenkov V. G. Quovadis Europa: European Union on the eve of a historic choice // Europe. Yesterday, today and tomorrow. – M., 2002.
  7. Saparov A. E. Immigration policy of great Britain: the legacy of the past – challenges for the future // Problem analysis and state government planning. – 2010. – No. 6.
  8. Koksharov A. Aggravation of the island syndrome // Expert. – 17.11.2014. – No. 47.
  9. Saparov A. E. Immigration policy of great Britain: the legacy of the past – challenges for the future // Problem analysis and state government planning. – 2010. – No. 6.
  10. Dejevsky M. Angela Merkel Has Exposed David Cameron's Gravest Failing as a Politician // The Guardian. – November 3, 2014.
  11. Koksharov A. Aggravation of the island syndrome // Expert. – 17.11.2014. – No. 47.

Ksenia Vasilyeva


RELATED MATERIALS: Politics and Geopolitics
Возрастное ограничение