The economic and political partnership known as the European Union was established following World War II in order to foster cooperation among European nations. Today, the EU is made up of 28 member countries which all share in various economic agreements regarding their relationships with one another. The political union was established with the goal of not only promoting trade in order to reduce the likelihood for war to break out once more within Europe, but also to establish a basis by which the member nations could work with one another in order to increase their overall prosperity. The current model of the EU is essentially in the form of a single unified market, with various goods and people being able to freely move across national borders. This, in some sense, has resulted in a single unified economic state that acts towards a common goal. The EU has its own currency, parliament, and set of standards and laws by which the members are expected to act. Various concerns including the environment, transportation, and human rights are all addressed by the doctrines of membership and this has resulted in questions of sovereignty and autonomy in relation to the member states and those that belong to these nations. Throughout the history of the EU, these questions have led a variety of nations to consider the ramifications of their membership. In the past, the citizens of nations have challenged the overall authority and legitimacy of their membership in the agreement. Austerity measures directed at Greece, for example, resulted in calls for a vote on whether or not they should leave. While they ultimately decided to remain within the EU, this brought to light the question of whether membership was actually beneficial for a country or if the success of some nations were being stifled in order to prop up others. These concerns began to grow in the UK until, in 2015, Prime Minister David Cameron announced that there would be a referendum putting forth the question of whether or not they should remain within the EU. The ultimate decision of the UK people to leave the EU presents the question of whether or not this is actually the correct path for the country to take. There are a variety of concerns that should be addressed. There are a variety of economic, political, and social issues that should be considered in relation to this question. These issues present major concerns for the UK should they decide to move forward with their exit from the European Union. In assessing the relationship that the UK has developed over the few decades as a member state, it seems to be the case that the UK should stay in the EU.
Questions of finance were one of the major considerations when the people of Great Britain voted to leave the European Union. One of the major considerations that was adopted when the country decided to leave the EU was the upfront conts of membership fees that were being charged and whether or not these fees could actually be considered to be beneficial for the country as a whole. This presented a variety of people who opposed the idea of membership to present the argument that the nation was being charged costly membership fees when the net worth of the fees were not paying off for the public. In this sense, it is difficult to determine whether or not the long-term benefits of membership, such as an increased capacity to trade and invest, would actually pay off and be worth the short-term cost that was required. However, considering the aspects of investment in relation to membership in the union, many argue that it is worth it to be a part of the union. “Counting the cost of regulation is only one part of the necessary judgement - there are also benefits of regulation to consider” (Harvey & Hubbard 2016, pp. 6). The financial success of England has led it to question whether or not it is worth it for them to belong as members of the EU. However, many also argue that without their membership and without them being considered to be an important gateway for investment into the EU they will likely lose a great deal of investment opportunities in the long run. This would be detrimental to their economy overall. These aspects of trade demonstrate the need to consider the various challenges that Britain will face moving forward in their relationship with the EU. In leaving, it would be difficult for trade agreements that had previously been in place to remain active due to the restrictions that would be imposed because of non-membership. These aspects are essential to consider when determining the financial future of the UK. While upfront costs and fees may be costly in some respects, the opportunities that they provide and the increased access demonstrate why the UK should consider remaining a member of the EU. Currently, members of the EU are able to benefit from a variety of international trade deals that the EU has made and in leaving they would no longer be able to maintain them. This would make it difficult for the UK to establish “trade agreements with non-EU countries with whom the EU has already signed copious agreements” (Minford 2016, pp. 1). They would have to renegotiate a great deal of their trade decisions with other countries upon leaving the union. While the UK would be free to independently negotiate new trades, it would also lose a great deal of leverage as it would be in a more vulnerable position. It seems evident that there would be a variety of economic consequences of them rescinding their membership in the European Union.
Questions of sovereignty and independence are also important to consider when assessing the decision for the UK to leave the EU. One of the major issues that many had with their membership in the EU was that it naturally called for a variety of sovereign rights to be given to the larger political context of Europe. Many supporters of leaving argued that the continued membership was an impediment to the democratic processes of the UK. They disliked that the EU was given so much control over the affairs of the citizens of the member nations. The institutions that are created by the doctrines of the European Union take away the capacity of people within those nations to make sovereign decisions for themselves. However, it is also evident that leaving the EU would take away a great deal of influence that the nation already has. Within the increasingly globalized world the establishment of the EU had given them greater leverage for negotiating on the international stage. In this sense, leaving would only serve to limit the amount of control that the nation has over international affairs. This would make it more difficult for them to act in diplomatic ways or to establish treaties and agreements with other nations. Many have therefore argued that “Britain could be undermining its chance to lead Europe” (Oliver 2016, pp. 2). A variety of political issues on the international stage demonstrate the need to reconsider the question of membership. The influx of refugees, for instance, has been a profound burden for the European Union. The need for the nations within the agreement to work with one another in order to effectively deal with the influx of unregistered people moving across international borders has caused a great deal of concern in relation to the idea of security and economic capacity. Research suggest that it can be beneficial “if countries share a border, if countries share a common currency, legal barriers, transport for goods, travel for (many) services, search and other transaction costs for both goods and services” (Ottaviano, Pessoa, & Sampson 2014, pp. 6). Not only have nations such as the UK questioned the capacity for the influx of people to be dealt with in relation to the resources that nations have to support them, but also in relation to the threat of terrorist activities. Terrorism presents a basic form of opposition to the notion of free trade and open borders. When borders are open for movement it makes it more difficult for enemies of the EU to plan and implement attacks. For this reason, many have called for the right to make their own decisions regarding the way that they deal with refugees and terrorism. However, it is also evident that presenting a united front on such issues is important. If the nations of the EU were to work together in order to deal with such problems rather than questioning how each action benefits them individually they would be able to deal with these problems in a more considerable way. The UK should not consider leaving due to their desire to restrict movement across borders in an effort to reduce terrorism. This is exactly why terrorists commit such actions.
It is also important to consider the impact that such a decision might have on society as a whole. There are a variety of concerns for people as individuals that should be addressed when assessing the decision to leave. Due to the complex relationship between trade, investment, and open borders on the amount of jobs available to people, the underlying values of the EU seem to present more opportunity for those that belong within the EU. Jobs were a primary concern for people when considering leaving. Many argued that the membership resulted in a loss of jobs at home in favor in increased jobs throughout Europe. “Withdrawal would create enormous legal headaches for EU companies and individuals currently in Britain, and for British ones elsewhere in the EU” (Piris 2016, pp. 2). The need to attract skilled workers and to keep them in the UK rather than emigrating to an EU nation for better pay would likely result in higher wages for those that remain within the UK. While this would be good for the workers, it would also be bad for business, which could result in having a strong impact on the stability of the economy. The ability for people to move freely between member nations has always been considered to be a major advantage of membership. This has resulted in increased opportunity for people in many nations. EU immigration is good for the public fi nances, as immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in public spending” (Aho 2014, pp. 13). The inability to make strong and lasting relations with those countries could result in reduced capacity for people in the UK to negotiate strong jobs and roles within the region. This would serve to further reduce the level of influence that the UK has on the international stage. These potential issues seem to greatly outweigh the benefits of leaving. Reduced capacity to trade would likely hinder the individual success of people living in the UK and challenge the growth of the nation as a whole moving forward.
The arguments for the UK leaving the EU are primarily based on economic, political, and social concerns. These concerns demonstrate the variety of complex relationships that have been built into the establishment of the EU. In assessing the various outcomes of membership, it seems evident that teh UK would be better off remaining within the EU. Not only would people have increased access to jobs and opportunity, but the nation as a whole would be in a better position to negotiate trade agreements and international partnerships. The implications of membership present the need to adopt a more comprehensive solution for the concerns of those who wish to leave. In looking at the underlying factors associated with membership, it seems that the UK should stay in the EU.
Reference List
Aho, E 2014, ‘The economic Consequences of leaving the EU The final report of the CER commission
on the UK and the EU single market’, Centre for European Reform, pp. 1-96.
Harvey, D & Hubbard, C 2016, ‘Why Brexit?’, Centre for Rural Economy Discussion Paper Series
No. 35, pp. 1-10.
Minford, P 2016, ‘Understanding UK trade agreements with the EU and other countries’, Cardiff
Economics Working Papers, No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Oliver, T 2016, ‘A European Union Without the United Kingdom: The Geopolitics of a British Exit from
the EU’, LSE Ideas, Strategic Update 16.1.
Ottaviano, G, Pessoa, JP, & Sampson, T 2014, ‘The Costs and Benefits of Leaving the EU’, Centre
for Economic Performance, Publication 16, pp. 1-15.
Piris, JC 2016, If the UK votes to leave The seven alternatives to EU membership’, Centre for
European Reform, pp. 1-14.
