Introduction
Due to the profound benefits of the integration process during this time, Britain was threatened with withdrawal from the European Union. Moreover, the idea of a self-determined future project was enshrined in the views of many people in the United Kingdom. Therefore, Brexit should be considered a natural consequence of relevant subjective and objective reasons resulting from the evolutionary development of European-British politics. The referendum on the United Kingdom’s continued membership in the European Union demonstrated Britain’s commitment to rejecting EU membership. At the same time, Brexit called into question the conceptual value of the idea of European integration. Such doubts have spread to a considerable number of EU member states (Somai, 2021). Brexit itself was a strong indication of the profound socio-political and economic crisis that has engulfed virtually all areas of EU life in recent years. Indeed, Brexit represents the most relevant anti-integration event in the political history of the European Union, and it may provide an impetus to disintegration processes within the EU.
Changes are occurring in the development of modern society, signaling that the status quo is no longer satisfactory to parties to trade and international political agreements. A referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU, called Brexit, was held in the United Kingdom and Gibraltar on June 23, 2016. It is crucial to highlight that 51.9% of citizens voted in favor of leaving the European Union compared to 48.1%, with an equal turnout of 72% of the total number of voters (Somai, 2021, p. 36). The attention of geopolitics today is focused on the consequences of Britain’s exit from the European Union. This is because the results of the June 2016 referendum in the UK, which caused the majority of the population to vote to leave the EU, not only shook the British themselves but also received a global resonance.
The outcomes of the British referendum are natural in the context of the crisis within the EU and the systemic international crisis worldwide. The United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU captured markets and policymakers suddenly. Brexit carries economic and political disintegration implications not only for the United Kingdom and its EU partners but also for the future of European integration as a whole. Nowadays, Brexit is almost the most discussed topic in the world community, and in the UK, there are continuing unresolved conflicts between political forces.
Hence, the theme of Brexit is highly relevant because it analyzes the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the study aims to establish the political and economic impact of Britain’s exit from the EU on both of them. It is significant to emphasize that there is a gap in the academic literature on the mutual consequences of this process and its implications for further developing the relationship between the EU and the UK.
In this way, the following questions need to be answered:
- What is Brexit?
- Why did the UK leave the EU?
- How will Brexit affect the EU and the UK?
- Why did the UK prime minister decide to rejoin the EU?
Considering the continuation of the process of gradual withdrawal of Britain from the EU, it is crucial to outline European British relations in the future. Accordingly, the objectives of the research are to:
- Provide a definition of Brexit and the reasons for its occurrence
- Present the causes of the UK’s exit from the EU
- To establish the economic and political implications for the EU
- To ascertain the economic and political effects on the UK
- To explore the UK leadership’s further decisions to return to the EU
Therefore, the research will first discuss the meaning of the term Brexit and the historical retrospective of Britain’s involvement with the EU. It is then appropriate to present the reasons that prompted the referendum and the question of withdrawal from the EU. This should be followed by assessing the reciprocal consequences of Brexit for the UK and the EU in the political and economic dimensions. Hence, the thesis aims to examine the actual consequences of Brexit.
Literature Review
It is essential to note that the Library of Congress Legal (n.d.) establishes a chronology of events from 1956 to 2021. The source is valuable from the point of view of tracing the basic stages of Britain’s exit from the EU. Accordingly, the Library of Congress Legal (n.d.) can be used to provide a timeline of the UK’s entry and exit from the European Union. Evans & Menon (2017) also provide a description of Brexit and explain its history in enhancements. Moreover, the authors evaluate the UK policies that led to the proposed exit from the EU. Significantly, Somai (2021) explores the main reasons for Britain’s exit from the EU. The author also traces the historical course of Britain’s accession and functioning as part of the EU. This provides the principal factors that influenced the 2016 referendum. Clarke et al. (2017) complement Somai’s (2021) research and focuses on the underlying historical phases and difficulties that affected the UK as a member of the EU. Thus, these two studies establish all the historical background and new reasons for Brexit.
Her Majesty’s Government (2022) explores the benefits that Britannia gained after leaving the EU. Among the principal ones are the control of democracy, its own waters, and the budget. Apparently, it is argued this favors citizens in Britain in the areas of medicine and education. The European Commission (n.d.) examines the multifaceted impact of Brexit on the economic situation in the EU and the UK. The source argues that the absence of a single market and customs union created barriers to trade that needed to be resolved by separate agreements. This is confirmed by Thissen et al. (2020) and indicates that the effects of Brexit will have a heterogeneous impact on the competitive position of companies in both the UK and Europe. The UK’s exit from the EU will affect economic geography and fragment competition between sectors and regions. Thissen et al. (2020) conclude that companies’ vulnerabilities through Brexit are more typical for the UK region than for the rest of the EU countries.
Kierzenkowski et al. (2016) also support the view that membership in the European Union has contributed to Britain’s economic prosperity. The authors argue that Brexit will negatively shock the UK economy and affect all members. The authors’ primary arguments are based on the fact that there has been an increase in GDP tax and immigration but a decrease in technological progress. Ries et al. (2017) also emphasize that the negative economic consequences of Brexit concern the UK more than the EU. Their reasons are based on the fact that, in the short term, the UK will not be capable of achieving open trade and investment with the EU. However, the authors argue that using WTO rules for trade is also not a workable mechanism for the UK. This is because it would reduce future GDP, the same result emphasized by Kierzenkowski et al. (2016). Nonetheless, Tetlow & Stojanovic (2018) believe that the UK will benefit economically in the long run. They provide the argument that the UK will be able to enter into new trade agreements without negotiation with EU members. Accordingly, this will enhance the number of trading partners for the UK. Moreover, in the long run, the UK will be free to enter trade agreements with EU states.
In contrast to other authors, Hayes et al. (2021) are already investigating the impact of temporary free trade agreements. They argue that it would help to secure a free trade area. At the same time, Hayes et al. (2021) discuss the political implications of the UK leaving the EU. They explore negotiations between the EU and the UK for gradual political and economic reintegration. Vaitilingam (2021) examines the implications for the UK and EU economies through 2030. The author establishes that experts are divided on the economic consequences the UK and the EU will receive. This is because the expert surveys confirmed that the EU, until 2030, will receive more negative impacts. Pettifor (2017) focuses on the main political consequences of Britain’s exit from the EU. The author explores mainstream opinion in society during the referendum and argues that Brexit is a form of lockdown in British society. Accordingly, this process is two ways for the British government to pursue an independent policy that will contribute to the future economic development of the EU.
It is crucial to highlight that Koller et al. (2019) will assess the initial implications of the referendum in the EU and the UK. They also monitor politicians’ statements regarding Brexit reversals and possible postponements of subsequent stages of reintegration. Bulmer & Quaglia (2018) also explore the negotiations between the EU and the UK in order to mitigate the effects on both. They also explore the debate between politicians on the formation of separate EU and UK policies. Therefore, this research assists in establishing the validity of the choices made during the referendum.
Methodology
The research design is a combination of requirements concerning the collection and analysis of data necessary to achieve the research objectives. It is important to emphasize that the research on the political and economic effects of Brexit on the European Union and the United Kingdom is based on secondary research. Thus, existing data, such as books or scholarly articles, are used to answer the questions posed. However, secondary research is also used to validate the information from studies further and create a stronger overall design. Indeed, the most fundamental benefit is its cost-effectiveness. Primary data collection is the most expensive phase of the study. When working with secondary data, it is possible to save not only money but also time and human resources significantly by referring to the array already collected. Furthermore, using secondary data is often the only way to conduct large-scale comparisons and study global trends in time and space. This is a kind of guarantee of the reliability and validity of the data provided by the data collection service.
It is significant that the data obtained in the process of secondary research should undergo the procedure of processing, generalization, and interpretation. At the same time in, the study focus on three areas, which are: ordering, generalization, and analysis. Descriptive methods are used to process the information in the study. This enables the description of the problem and establishes the cause-and-effect relationships. Accordingly, this research design is appropriate to demonstrate the impact of Brexit on the political and economic situation of the EU and the UK. Nevertheless, a limitation of the study is the lack of primary data collection required to analyze the situation in the UK and the EU.
The Definition of Brexit and the Roots of its Occurrence
In recent years, the concept of Brexit has played a considerable role in the life of Western Europe. It occupies an essential place in the world picture of the British, determining their worldview, assessment of the current political situation, and attitude toward the future fate of the country (Library of Congress Legal, n.d.). It is significant to mention that the vocabulary of Brexit was formed by analogy with Grexit, the intention of Greece to leave the European Union. Linguists are not quite sure which phrase was the basis for the new word British exit or Britain’s exit. The author of the word Brexit is Peter Wilding, who used it on the “Blog Activ” blog on May 15, 2012, more than four years before the referendum (Evans & Menon, 2017, p. 65). An alternative lexeme to Brexit was Brexit, which appeared in some publications in August 2012. However, the word Brexit was adopted by the language community, although it did not spread until three years later.
Peter Wilding later became the head of the British Influence Research Center and actively participated in the movement against Britain’s exit from the European Union. In this way, Brexit is Britain’s exit from the European Union. On June 23, 2016, British citizens voted by a small majority in a referendum to leave the European Union (Evans & Menon, 2017, p. 65). From this moment, the formal process of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’s exit from the European Union started.
By this point, however, the question of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU had been high on the agenda of the British government for years. Historically, Britain has always remained an exception among European countries: it did not join the EU until 16 years after its creation in 1972 (Evans & Menon, 2017, p. 69). Neither has Britain joined the single currency nor the common visa regime. The British commitment to sovereignty is strong enough that, as early as 1972, voices were heard predicting Britain’s imminent exit from the EU. In the 1960s, with the collapse of the colonial empire, the European direction became more important to Britain than relations with overseas territories (Library of Congress Legal, n.d., para 3). Membership in the Common Economic Space, and later in the EU, was a forced measure for the absence of an alternative.
The United Kingdom did gain a strong position in the integration grouping but became a partner in it, requiring special conditions. There was a constant fierce border and intra-party struggle on the “European question” in Britain from 1973 to the present day, with no consensus on European integration (Somai, 2021, p. 29). The course of government depended on the party in power, the predominant influence of Eurosceptics or Eurooptimists at the time, the influence of interest groups, and the media. The Eurosceptics were concerned about the loss of state sovereignty and identity and dissatisfied with the EU social model in the spirit of social democracy.
Eurooptimists considered the continent’s self-isolation destructive for the country. The logic of integration led to a deepening not only of economic cooperation but also of political cooperation. This prompted an explosion of Euroskepticism in Britain during the economic crisis of 2008-2009, the eurozone conflict, and the migration challenge (Somai, 2021, p. 28). Against this background, Prime Minister Cameron was obliged to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU. The referendum results on Britain’s participation in the EU demonstrated a split society, with just slightly more than half of British people voting in favor of leaving the EU (Somai, 2021). The country was divided along social, age, and regional lines.
It was not only the socially vulnerable who voted for Brexit but also the wealthy. As a result of globalization, the former are worried about immigration, and the latter about shifting economic power to the East. The political consequences of Brexit are serious. Scotland, who voted for the EU, aims to hold a new independence referendum; Northern Ireland is concerned about closing the border with Ireland (Somai, 2021). In the political theater, the effort between Eurosceptics and Eurooptimists has not ceased, causing a change of leader and an exacerbation of the crisis in the Labor Party.
The Reasons for Britain’s Leaving the EU
The UK’s decision to leave the European Union revealed a number of economic and political aspects. It is significant to mention that the first cause of the referendum was the reaction of protest against the free flow of migrants, mainly from Eastern Europe. Only in 2015 was net migration to the UK at a record high of 336,000 people (Somai, 2021, p. 30). More than half of them arrived from the European Union. Refugees from the Middle East and North Africa, which recently flooded the European continent, constituted only a small part of the flow of migrants to Great Britain. They have never been a danger to the British population. Nevertheless, this provoked a wave of discontent, which led to a protest vote.
Most British citizens did not share the current practice of paying refugees and reducing jobs because of the increase in the number of migrants. In recent years, such methods have been common in the EU and have led to the migration crisis (Clarke et al., 2017). Thus, severe disagreements between Britain and the EU have arisen over uncontrolled and controlled migration. Since the tunnel’s opening under La Mancha, there have been enormous opportunities for migration. The volume of illegal migration forced Britain and France to agree as early as 2015 to jointly patrol the city of Calais, through which criminal gangs transport illegals through the Eurotunnel to Great Britain (Clarke et al., 2017). The economic factor is no less a fundamental reason for Brexit.
The people of Britain have repeatedly opposed the constant injections into the EU economy and the active financing of the new EU member states from their budgets. EU member states’ contributions to the union’s budget are not equal. For many years, the United Kingdom, as one of the most developed countries of the European Union, has been paying significant contributions without receiving any tangible benefit from it (Clarke et al., 2017). This is precisely the kind of change that has gained popularity among many citizens of Great Britain. Among the reasons for Britain’s withdrawal from the EU should also be highlighted the claims of Great Britain to take, if not the leading, then one of the first places in the community (Clarke et al., 2017). In such a case, Brexit supporters believe it will be possible to conduct its own tax policy, particularly to determine the value-added tax rates.
Another argument for the separation from the European Union is the decline in the competitiveness of British companies in the European market in recent years. For example, the role of German businesses, which already control some industries, is increasing (Somai, 2021). Production assets are systematically withdrawn from the UK, which is why the British are willing to protect their market even at the cost of breaking with Europe. There is also the political argument that many British citizens want to decide their fate and do not trust the European bureaucracy, which Germany strongly influences (Somai, 2021). Countless laws and regulations have become barriers to business development, and the adoption of the most crucial decisions within the EU requires lengthy approvals from all members.
Another reason that influenced the choice of British citizens during the referendum was the relationship between the eurozone and the rest of the EU. London, which retained its own currency, demanded veto power over monetary decisions made in the euro (Somai, 2021). Secondly, a guarantee that measures to establish a fiscal union would not be imposed on countries outside the eurozone. Moreover, thirdly, a guarantee that London will not be obliged to provide emergency financial assistance to eurozone countries. Britain was willing to introduce the principle of multicurrency in the EU. If Brussels agreed to this demand, it would mean admitting that it is impossible to achieve the unification of all EU member states in the eurozone (Somai, 2021). Therefore, the British government’s demand was not met; accordingly, the British wanted to manage their funds. Hence, the main reasons for Brexit are the problem of reconciling national and supranational interests in the EU, leading to an increase in unemployment and a deterioration of living standards.
The Implications of Brexit for the United Kingdom
Britain and the European Union have finally agreed on how they will continue to live after the nuclear monarchy’s high-profile divorce from the planet’s most significant political and economic union. Brexit is a political project, which is why its supporters initially considered the economic damage to be an acceptable price for complete independence from the EU (Ries et al., 2017). It is essential to mention that the coronavirus pandemic has made adjustments, the British treasury revenues have decreased, and expenditures and debts have increased. This reflected the authorities’ desire to test the economists’ consensus theory that a chaotic separation from the EU without a trade agreement would cost Britain considerable money. Indeed, even with a minimal trade agreement, the signatures from Brexit would exceed 100 billion pounds a year (Ries et al., 2017, papra 5). Nevertheless, the main advantage of this treaty is not in saving money but in the fact that both Britain and the EU managed to prevent a trade war.
Since Britain’s exit from the European Union, the question of the advantages and drawbacks of this legal fact remains rather ambiguous. This is because a limited amount of time has elapsed for proper conclusions to be drawn. As mentioned above, both sides’ benefits and shortcomings of the agreement may differ considerably (Ries et al., 2017). Moreover, the gains and losses of such an exit are, to some extent, subjective. However, there are those whose existence cannot be denied and who have already managed to prove themselves to a certain extent.
The United Kingdom, which initiated this withdrawal, would have to be aware that, although it is an unprecedented step in the international arena. In this way, it can demonstrate its independence, but the flip side of this manifestation is certain negative consequences. Among them is the drop in demand for foreign exchange and financial services, as the lion’s share was composed of representatives of EU member states (Ries et al., 2017). Meanwhile, there was a displacement of both financial institutions and various businesses from Britain to the EU. Since considering the new terms of trade and the preferential market, it would be more profitable to return to the majority.
It is essential to mention that the EU, as a trading platform for Britain, has ceased to be freely available. In turn, it accounts for about 45% of British exports, and in addition to Brexit itself, the situation is exacerbated by COVID-19 (Kierzenkowski et al., 2016, para 1). Accordingly, there have been large queues at the borders between Britain and the EU, which significantly slows down the flow of trade, not to mention perishable goods and the sale of which in the EU is becoming unprofitable. In addition, the inflation rate in 2021 reached 3-3.2% for the first time since March 2012. Furthermore, the British pound dropped from $1.48 on the day of the referendum to $1.36 the next day (Kierzenkowski et al., 2016, para 1). Indeed, the pound did fall the day after the referendum and is still 15% lower against the dollar and 10% lower against the euro. Meanwhile, the overall growth of the economy in 2016 was 1.8% (Kierzenkowski et al., 2016, para 2). Ambiguity also concerns the U.K. energy market, as Brexit has isolated the U.K. from the center of European energy policy decision-making.
Moreover, in the political dimension, there has been an increase in support for Scotland and for Northern Ireland joining the Republic of Ireland, which is a member of the EU. At the same time, a referendum on independence in 2014 opened the way for Scottish voters to join the Republic of Ireland as a member of the European Union (Thissen et al., 2020). However, the 2014 independence referendum paved the way for Scottish nationalists to promote the issue in society and support at least greater autonomy for the Scottish people (Thissen et al., 2020). The Brexit referendum was an occasion for them to discuss the neglect of Scotland’s interests and vision for the development of society. Furthermore, the new rules imposed on Northern Ireland and its inseparable connection to the EU reinforce sentiments of deprivation and neglect from London.
Even when discussing the possible consequences of Brexit, it was clear that the closure of banks and bankruptcy of companies could lead to unemployment. However, its scale is still difficult to estimate; some experts are already discussing the possible loss of millions of jobs (Thissen et al., 2020). The question of employment of British citizens depends, in particular, on foreign companies. This is because some of them have curtailed their branches within Great Britain. However, Germany is projected to have a labor shortage of 3 million qualified workers by 2030 (Thissen et al., 2020). These jobs will not be as readily available to British workers after Brexit. Another negative consequence is that it is harder for employers to find highly trained candidates for certain positions. One reason is that EU-born workers left the U.K. and their numbers dropped by 95% in 2017 (European Commission, n.d., para 4). Employers in low- and medium-skilled occupations have been most affected.
Nevertheless, there cannot be only negative conclusions, which is why certain positive developments expected for Britain should also be highlighted. First, Britain has been empowered to determine its vector of development and policy, considering British principles and interests, without the influence of “supranational Brussels” (Her Majesty’s Government, 2022). In addition, there is now an exaltation and elevation of its own culture, values, and achievements. Indeed, while Britain was part of the EU, it suffered from an influx of different currents and attitudes that undermined Britain’s inviolable history and achievements. Brexit has positively facilitated trade and economic relations between Britain and third countries, allowing them to determine their terms of trade. However, many of them have agreements directly with the EU, which is why they are not sure about the sustainability of such connections (Her Majesty’s Government, 2022). Certainly, the non-payment of annual payments to the EU amounting to about 13 billion pounds sterling. This enables funds to be accumulated within Britain and allocated internally.
The Effects of Brexit on the EU
As for the European Union itself, the situation is becoming increasingly ambiguous. On the one hand, the Community can demonstrate to the whole world that this course of events will not be a positive development for the member state that left the Union (Pettifor, 2017). On the other hand, it is impossible not to note that the EU is experiencing certain negative consequences of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU. These include the change in the status of the British market from internal to external, which accounts for about 20% of all EU exports (Tetlow & Stojanovic, 2018, p. 2). This is even more than to the U.S. or Canada and more convenient, and now the terms of trade will become more complicated. At the same time, one of Europe’s most crucial financial institutions is lost, which, on the one hand, will leave finances in the EU (Pettifor, 2017). Conversely, it will prevent the implementation of effective investment policies by European investors and the member states.
Moreover, Brexit caused the level of the EU economy to fall in line with its indicators, which were formed earlier. Accordingly, there has been a decrease in the global GDP – to 20%, exports – to 30%, and population – to 6% (Vaitilingam, 2021, para 3). Furthermore, Brexit has reduced the competition between the European stock market and the European banking system, given Britain’s conservative and fundamental approach to banking risk compared to other member states. The loss of British participation in financing European Union institutions and agencies is a negative consequence.
Indeed, according to the founding treaties and statutes, the state’s financial participation in the functioning of the European Union depends on its population and economic potential, which would significantly reduce the volume of contributions to the EU. Thus, with the United Kingdom’s withdrawal, the European Union lost the second economy of the Union; the EU budget remains one of the most significant net contributors (Vaitilingam, 2021). The severing of economic connections with Great Britain is reflected in the EU countries and their businesses similarly.
In addition, Britain’s non-membership in the EU changes the balance of power in the Union. This reduces the influence of supporters of liberal approaches to the economy. Consequently, Germany has lost a powerful ally in the fight against protectionist EU countries, and the Nordic countries and the Netherlands have lost a champion for their innovative aspirations within the EU (Vaitilingam, 2021). The United Kingdom’s traditional political and trade allies will find themselves in a difficult position. Moreover, negotiations over the Transatlantic Partnership for Trade and Investment are unclear. Britain was one of the most interesting countries in the EU in signing it (Vaitilingam, 2021). Therefore, now the already complicated negotiations have practically collapsed.
It should be emphasized that, in the political dimension, a dangerous precedent of Brexit exists for the European Union’s continued existence. It is harmful to the EU as an alliance of states in which new members try to join to cooperate (Hayes et al., 2021). Furthermore, Brexit resulted from voting against globalization, negatively affecting the cohesion of all other EU member states. For the EU, the UK’s exit primarily means weakening the EU’s position as the most powerful political association in the world, losing an essential player at the negotiating table, a crucial player in world decision-making (Hayes et al., 2021). In the short term, the EU received a period of turbulence and some political weakening due to the uncertainty of the future arrangement, although a period of stabilization has now started.
Nevertheless, it is essential to mention that the withdrawal of a country from the Union, especially a country as large and crucial as Great Britain, is an unprecedented phenomenon that would bring image and reputation losses to the EU. On the other hand, the majority of EU residents still strongly support the Union. In a Pew Research Center poll of 10 European countries, nearly 75 percent say the EU promotes peace, and 55 percent believe it sustains prosperity (Hayes et al., 2021, para 5). However, European Union citizens believe that its role in the international arena is diminishing with Britain’s exit.
The advantages of Brexit for the EU than for Britain itself are more complex to formulate, but they are present. The most important achievement of the Community in this aspect is the formation of its policies and direction of development without considering the Kingdom’s own opinion (Hayes et al., 2021). It has often prevented essential and positive decisions from being made in the understanding of the EU. Thus, under these conditions, Berlin can lobby for the implementation of steps that the UK has prevented. That is the development of a common European migration policy, the creation of a single EU army, and greater integration of the budgets of EU member states (Hayes et al., 2021). The EU’s position in international negotiations is now more consolidated and unified. Over time, this will enable the EU to revise many previous agreements concluded with the special position of the United Kingdom, making them more beneficial for continental Europeans.
Hence, it can be argued that Britain requires the European Union no less than the EU needs London. For the latter, maintaining close relations means preserving its status worldwide and alleviating the crisis associated with Brexit (Hayes et al., 2021). However, for the EU, this bond implies maintaining a place in world politics and sustainability in the economy. This is because it is not about another Eastern European country that will spend years adjusting and adopting European values to bring it to the middle level of unification (Hayes et al., 2021). For its part, in any case, the UK is one of the largest economies in the world.
Further Decisions of the United Kingdom Leadership
Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon promised that this part of Britain would rejoin the European Union in the near future. Against the background of the growing number of Scottish supporters of separation from the United Kingdom, this scenario does not seem so unrealistic. At the same time, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke (Bulmer & Quaglia, 2018). In particular, during the discussion on the future of the European Union, the politician recalled the importance of this alliance for each country.
The former British Prime Minister stressed that the goal of Europe’s existence is to be a powerful player in this century. America, China, and India will be the three global giants, and small countries will have to unite to compete with them (Koller et al., 2019). Moreover, Tony Blair suggested that the EU is experiencing bad times, but the situation will improve in five years. The Eurozone is in crisis, but the man predicted the future. In 5 years, the European Union will prosper, and the UK will reverse its decision on Brexit (Koller et al., 2019). Tony Blair also mentioned that people support Britain’s exit from the EU and will fight to change the decision and a second referendum. This is because the politician is sure that Britain and Europe are mutually beneficial to each other. These facts demonstrate that there are views in the society of the United Kingdom on rejoining the EU and the wrongness of Brexit.
It is important to emphasize that the discussion of the agreement between Britain and the EU provoked much criticism. Euroskeptics were displeased with the fact that the deal contained extremely disadvantageous conditions for the country. In particular, the United Kingdom would not be able to influence the EU policy but would be obliged to obey all its laws (Bulmer & Quaglia, 2018). Eurooptimists opposed the document simply because they did not want Britain to leave the Community.
In this way, it further disintegrated Britain’s political circle. According to the survey, only 13% of the British are willing to call the terms a good outcome, while almost half (49%) consider the conditions adopted by London to be a failure. Another 23% gave a neutral assessment of the documents, and 15% did not have a clear position (Koller et al., 2019, p. 23). The majority of UK respondents were in favor of Britain retaining its status as a member of the European Union. This is evidenced by the results of a public opinion poll conducted by the BMG Research Center. Such a position of British citizens was formed because of the influence of the negative consequences of Brexit on their financial situation.
Therefore, the possibility of a new referendum is not excluded either. Not only the head of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, was in favor of a second vote (Koller et al., 2019). May herself had mentioned such a scenario in the event of a failed agreement with the EU. According to political analysts, it is difficult to predict the outcome, but the likelihood of Brexit cancellation is relatively high. According to opinion polls, the advantage now belongs to those who prefer to remain in the Union (Koller et al., 2019). The current situation worries citizens, and many of those who voted for the exit have changed their position, having understood the implications of this.
In addition, there is the hypothetical question of whether the EU will allow the UK to remain part of the Union. Indeed, more than once, there have been statements that a return is impossible, although everything will depend on the position of Germany and France as the main locomotives of the European Union (Bulmer & Quaglia, 2018). It is also significant to mention that for the EU, remaining in the Union will be a problem since it will strengthen the position of Euroskeptics, who will pursue progressively weaker policies and be less coherent with Brussels.
Conclusion
Therefore, Brexit, on the one hand, is a reflection of traditional British Euroskepticism and, on the other hand, demonstrates the attitude of citizens toward their government. In essence, Brexit is a public demand for more democratization, the return of state sovereignty, and a desire to pay attention to its internal problems. As for the consequences of the EU itself, Brexit has been evidence of a significant economic and socio-political crisis that has engulfed almost all spheres of life in recent years. This raises doubts about the expediency and value of integration processes in Europe.
Disintegration slogans have recently become widespread, detrimental to the member states’ solidarity and willingness to take concerted political actions. The most significant threat to the EU is that Brexit may provoke similar disintegration processes in other European countries. In addition, the United Kingdom contributes a considerable amount to the European budget; after the UK leaves the EU, additional funds must be raised from member states to ensure that the association is financed correctly. However, it is worth noting the positive consequences that the EU can hold. Specifically, there is now the possibility of a common European migration policy, the creation of a single EU army, and improved integration of the budgets of EU member states.
Nevertheless, due to Brexit, the United Kingdom also felt the negative consequences and the reduction of imports of goods, capital, and labor due to the exit from the single European market. In addition, the influence of the Brexit procedure is noticeably reflected in the pound sterling exchange rate, which has declined. It should also be noted that due to the UK’s disconnection, there are many difficulties with non-EU trading partners. Moreover, Brexit provoked parts of the United Kingdom to hold a new referendum and separate from the UK. However, now the British can independently determine the distribution of funds, their culture, immigration, and other policies. Accordingly, Brexit has negative and positive implications for the EU and the UK.
References
Bulmer, S., & Quaglia, L. (2018). The politics and economics of Brexit. Journal of European Public Policy, 25(8), 1089-1098. Web.
Clarke, H. D., Goodwin, M., Goodwin, M. J., & Whiteley, P. (2017). Brexit. Cambridge University Press.
European Commission. (n.d.). Consequences of Brexit. Web.
Evans, G., & Menon, A. (2017). Brexit and British politics. John Wiley & Sons.
Hayes, A., Gordon, S., & Williams, P. (2021). Brexit meaning and impact: The truth about the UK leaving the EU. Investopedia. Web.
Her Majesty’s Government. (2022). The benefits of Brexit: How the UK is taking advantage of leaving the EU. HH Associates Ltd.
Kierzenkowski, R., Pain, N., Rusticelli, E., & Zwart, S. (2016). The economic consequences of Brexit: A taxing decision. Web.
Koller, V., Kopf, S., & Miglbauer, M. (2019). Discourses of Brexit. Routledge.
Library of Congress Legal. (n.d.). Brexit: sources of information. Web.
Pettifor, A. (2017). Brexit and its consequences. Globalizations, 14(1), 127-132. Web.
Ries, C. P., Hafner, M., Smith, T. D., Burwell, F. G., Egel, D., Han, E., & Shatz, H. J. (2017). After Brexit: Alternate forms of Brexit and their implications for the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States. RAND Corporation Santa Monica United States.
Somai, M. (2021). Deep causes behind Brexit. Romanian Journal of European Affairs, 21, 25-38.
Tetlow, G., & Stojanovic, A. (2018). Understanding the economic impact of Brexit. Institute for Government, 2-76. Web.
Thissen, M., van Oort, F., McCann, P., Ortega-Argilés, R., & Husby, T. (2020). The implications of Brexit for UK and EU regional competitiveness. Economic Geography, 96(5), 397-421. Web.
Vaitilingam, R. (2021). After Brexit: The impacts on the UK and EU economies by 2030. LSE Business Review. Web.