On Thursday the 23rd of June, a
referendum will be held on whether Britain should remain a part of the European
Union. This referendum will not only be one of the most significant events in
British history, but also in Europe - James Rosanwo examines the key knock on effects of a potential vote in favour of Britain's exit.
The result of this impending vote could shape the future of the United Kingdom, as Scotland
and Northern Ireland are heavily invested in Britain’s membership of the EU and
will no doubt bring their own membership of the UK into question. The departure of a heavyweight member would certainly have negative effects on it’s
the European Union’s dwindling economic stability.
The referendum was called after Mr Cameron
completed his supposed renegotiation of Britain’s stance in the EU at the European
Summit in Brussels, where he claims he has won concessions on behalf of Great
Britain. However, many doubt it may do little to sway the result of the
referendum in his favour. Soon after the announcement, many government
ministers stated their intention to either back Mr Cameron’s campaign to remain
in the EU or do the opposite, with high profile MPs, the likes of justice
secretary Michael Gove and London mayor Boris Johnson, boldly reinforcing their
discontent with remaining an EU member, pledging their allegiance to the “out”
campaign.
The question of Britain's membership of the EU has created a rift between key figures in the Conservative Party. |
At the start of the year, the chances of
“Brexit” seemed unlikely. However, recent events such as the European migration
crisis and the incessant euro decline, seems to have many Britons favouring an
exit. Whether, however, this is a good enough reason to opt for total economic
uncertainty instead is debatable.
Mr Cameron has confirmed that if the
British people decide to leave the EU, the UK would apply for withdrawal under
Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty. Article 50 states that the EU countries’ would
negotiate a new agreement with the withdrawing nation over a period of 2 years.
It also specifies that the withdrawing state cannot participate in these
discussions, so in essence the terms of the deal are established only By the
EU. Hence it will be a process that will most likely not be quick or pleasant;
neither will it yield results that would be favourable to Britain. One thing guaranteed
is that the EU will be desperate to show that a decision to leave will not have
a painless outcome.
Many opposed to remaining in the EU still
maintain that Britain is being hindered by Europe, believing that as a country free from the EU it would have an
open Economy that would continue to trade with Europe and the rest of the world.
Many have offered the Swiss and Norwegian models as potential solutions:
The
Swiss Model: Britain would emulate Switzerland and
would negotiate trade treaties sector by sector.
The
Norwegian Model: Britain leaves the EU but joins
the European Economic Area, giving it access to the single market, with the
exception of financial services but exempting it from EU rules on agriculture,
fisheries and home affairs.
In practice, however, these models would be
very difficult to implement. At the bare minimum, the EU would only allow
access to the single market in return for obedience to rules Eurosceptics are
so eager to escape, meaning they would still most likely demand free movement
of people and big payments to its budget before permitting access to the
market. Nonetheless, to these “Brexit” campaigners these hardships would be
worth it, if it meant regaining independence from Europe and British
sovereignty.
Yet again, this supposed liberation is not as advantageous as it
seems. In essence, Britain would be trading a greater power for a lesser one;
in exchange for their newfound independence it would be relinquishing its ability
to have any real influence in global issues. What is even more alarming is
the threat posed to the EU and the West as a whole. Both Britain and the
European Union would be significantly weaker, and less of an ally as separate
entities. The strength of the EU is crucial to the West’s duty of maintaining global
stability, an ordeal which is becoming more and more challenging given the ever
persistent issues involving Russia, Syria, and North Africa etc. There’s no
surprise why Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would have no objection to
‘Brexit’, whereas America’s president Barack Obama has already urged the
British people to vote to remain in the European Union.
Britain's exit from the EU could further empower the already dominant Germany. |
Germany’s dominance in the EU would also monumentally
increase, making them even more of an influence not just in Europe but on a global scale. Britain, on the other hand, would be on the sidelines outside the EU, free from but still in fact constrained by many rules it would have no role in formulating. We would be an independent Britain,
still dependent on Europe.
The immediate effect of a vote in favour of 'Brexit' could also be devastating in further ways.
Prolonged uncertainty over the UK’s new relationship with the EU would discourage
investment, particularly foreign direct investment given Britain’s status as
the financial capital of the world and the effects of these fears are already
being identified; for instance, the recent fall of the value of the pound.
Above all, one question remains: will Britons
be enticed by the illusion of a sovereign and liberal Britain, or will they see
reason in the idea that there will always be safety in numbers? One thing is
certain however, If the UK separates from the European Union, the decline of
the pound will be the least of their worries.