On June 23, 2016, the citizens on the United Kingdom (Great Britain) which includes the nations of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland were asked to decide whether or not the kingdom should end its membership in the European Union (UE). The referendum, which was popularly known as the “British Exit” or “Brexit” for short, had been put on the ballot by Prime Minister David Cameron shortly after the 2015 elections which saw Cameron’s conservative Tory Party win an outright majority of seats in the British Parliament (Economist). One of Cameron’s campaign pledges was to generally limit Great Britain’s further integration into the EU, and if possible reclaim other powers, such as controls on immigration and the free flow of people, that the kingdom had forfeited as a result of joining the EU. Cameron’s decision reflected the traditional differences of opinions that existed between Great Britain and continental Europe. One that was centered on a historic British belief that they were exceptional from other Europeans.
Since the establishment of the EU in 1957, then known as the European Economic Community (EEC), Great Britain, has always been skeptical of the usefulness of its stated reason for existence, namely to facilitate the economic, political, and social integration of Europe to form a sort of united states of European nations (Taub). To be sure, Great Britain did not join the EU until 1973. Moreover, two years later in 1975, British skepticism of it place in the EU lead to the first Brexit referendum. Despite the overwhelming vote in that referendum to remain in the EU, a significant portion of the British population, nevertheless, continued to advocate for a British exit. Moreover, even in voting to remain, Great Britain never integrated as fully into the EU as other members. For instance, while other members replaced the use of their traditional currencies with the “euro”, Great Britain continued to use its historic currency, the pound.
Over the last decade, the voices who opposed to Great Britain’s membership in the EU, popularly known as the “Euro-sceptics” increasingly found support. In addition to the Euro-sceptics argument that membership diminishes Great Britain’s national sovereignty and is unambiguously undemocratic, the reasons for their increasing support are twofold. First, since the 2007-2008 global economic crisis, the EU has suffered disproportionately. Many argue that one of the reason for this is the EU use of the euro as the bad effects in one country, such as Spain or Greece, creates a bad situation in all countries and requires other countries, such as Germany to intervene and provide assistance. While Great Britain does not use the euro, the economic chaos in the EU has nevertheless increased fears that Great Britain will ultimately feel its effects, especially if it increases its economic integration into the union. In addition, the fact that Great Britain must contribute some funds and resources into the EU, necessarily means that the British are in some ways already involved in the chaos. Second, as one of the most developed and prosperous nations in the EU, Great Britain has always been an attractive destination for other Europeans especially those seeking a better life. Moreover, emigration to Great Britain was made easier with EU rules that allow the free flow of member nation’s citizens. Over the past few years, however, immigration to Great Britain has spiked as a result of the economic downturn, as well as, ongoing civil wars in the Middle East. The Euro-skeptics has used this situation to argue that if Great Britain does not leave he EU, it will eventually be overtaken by immigrants.
In such a political and social environment, Cameron thought that is was the right time, just as in 1975, to reevaluate the public’s willingness to remain or leave. Cameron campaigned to remain in the EU. His, and others in the “remain camp’s” arguments focus on a few broad areas. First. That remaining in the EU is vital to Great Britain’s economic prosperity. Under this argument, leaving the EU will have disastrous effects on a broad range of sectors. To be sure, as Europe’s financial capital, the financial sector would suffer as companies and investment move to the continent without any financial incentive to stay in Great Britain. In addition, since a large portion of British trade goes to the EU, leaving will necessarily result in a return of barriers that will harm British businesses exporting to the EU. Second, leaving will decrease Great Britain’s international clout, and military capabilities at a time when both are needed to confront the ever-present threat of terrorism and well as the re-emerging threat of Russia. Third, leaving will not solve the immigration issue. As long as Great Britain remains prosperous, people will immigrate or attempt to immigrate to the kingdom. Moreover, by leaving the EU, Great Britain loses its power to “work from the inside” on immigration policies that are more suitable to its particular situation.
On June 24, 2016, the results of the Brexit referendum were announced: 58 percent or roughly 17.5 million people voted to leave and 48 percent or about 16.1 million people voted to remain (Wheeler and Hunt). While many experts had predicted a close result, few predicted that the leave vote would win the day. The repercussions of the vote to leave were immediate. By noon, Cameron announced that he would resign, which set off a scramble for the next leader of the Tories. In the opposition Labour Party, the shadow cabinet of Labour leader James Corbyn resigned stating that Corbyn had not done enough to support the remain vote. Nicola Sturgoen, the leader of the Scottish National Party, which had overwhelming voted to remain, scheduled talks with the EU to see if it could remain without England. More important, Sturgeon announced that it would reconsider having a referendum on whether Scotland should, itself, leave the United Kingdom. Financially, the British stock market crashed and the value of the pound plummeted.
In the aftermath, not many people are sure what will happen next. The next steps are to first find a replacement for Cameron. Once that is done, Great Britain and the EU will begin talks on how best to disengage all the ties that bound the two entities together for over 40 years.
Works Cited
Economist. “A tragic split.” The Economist, 24 Jun. 2016. Web. <http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21701265-how-minimise-damage-britains-senseless-self-inflicted-blow-tragic-split>
Taub, Amanda. “Brexit explained: 7 questions about what it means and why it matters.” New York Times, 20 Jun. 2016. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/world/europe/brexit-britain-eu-explained.html>
Wheeler, Brian, and Alex Hunt. “The UK’s EU referendum: All you need to know.” BBC, 24 Jun. 2016. Web. <http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887>
