Voters in the United Kingdom will be making an extraordinarily consequential choice on June 23, when they vote on whether or not to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which allows member states to exit the European Union. This action is without precedent, save the exit of Greenland from the European Economic Community in 1985.
The impact of leaving the EU is, of course, the issue up for debate between the two campaigns in Britain. However, the arguments of Euroskeptics, those who advocate withdrawal, are based on ideas of greater national autonomy, despite Britain being largely free of many burdens of membership.
It’s in Britain’s own best interest to remain. With that said, the special status negotiated by British Prime Minister David Cameron sets a poor precedent for European nations at a time when nationalism is on the rise in Europe.
Britain joined the European integration process late when it joined the EEC in 1973 and has always kept one foot out the door. Initially, Britain remained separate to preserve its particularly close relationship with the United States, its successor as global hegemon.
But soon, the exceptional economic growth of EEC member states, which surpassed that of the failed British attempt to lead a European Free Trade Area, attracted Harold Macmillan, the United Kingdom’s then-prime minister.
Britain attempted to join in both 1963 and 1967 but was rebuked by French President Charles de Gaulle, who observed “deep-seated hostility” toward European projects on the part of Britain, the BBC reported. As integration deepened on the continent, Britain secured opt-outs in order to retain the autonomy it felt was essential to its sovereignty.
As a result of its cautious integration, Britain is already largely autonomous relative to many of its European peers. It doesn’t partake in the Schengen Agreement, which allows for free movement within the EU, and it is not a part of the currency union.
Furthermore, Cameron recently negotiated special status for Britain, should it choose to stay, the BBC reported. The deal includes limiting the United Kingdom’s financial obligation to migrant EU workers’ benefits, a mechanism for member states to block EU legislation and an allowance to opt out of the “ever-closer union” commitment, enshrined in European treaties since the Treaty of Rome in 1957.
Despite these significant allowances, Euroskeptics still push for complete detachment. Such a move would disastrously impact Britain’s economy.
Consider that leading up to the referendum, the British Pound Sterling has already declined precipitously in value, reaching a seven-year low, according to a Thursday article in The New York Times. London-based banking corporation HSBC predicts that the confirmation of an exit will cause the pound to lose up to one-fifth of its value, the Times reported.
In the period following a vote to leave — Article 50 designates a two-year negotiation period with terms largely dictated by Brussels — investors would likely be hesitant to invest in a transitional Britain. Nearly 45 percent of British exports went to the EU countries in 2014, according to the United Kingdom’s Office for National Statistics. It’s hard to imagine that Britain’s trade won’t suffer from leaving the union.
Furthermore, the EU is party to numerous free trade agreements that benefit Britain. The British would be left to renegotiate all of these agreements independently. Despite being the world’s fifth-largest economy, the leverage offered by negotiating with the other 28 member states, which collectively have a larger economy than the United States, is unparalleled.
Not to mention, even if they were able to reestablish these agreements independently, negotiations would drag on for years before deals could be concluded.
Those who support leaving rant about excessive control from Brussels, but they should consider the example of Norway. Norway is not an EU member, but it trades with Europe as a member of the European Economic Area.
As a result, Norway is obliged to follow EU single-market regulations without having a say in them and pays dues to Europe equivalent to 90 percent of what the British currently pay per capita, according to The Economist.
Additionally, those who complain about payments to the EU, like former Conservative Member of Parliament Louise Mensch, argue that payments exceed recent austerity measures taken by Parliament, and that savings would help relieve debt. That argument fails to account for the fact that the loss of trade noted above, even if only temporary, would wreck havoc upon Britain’s budget.
From the European side of the equation, it seems retaining the British would create a poor precedent for future integration. By negotiating special status and opting out of an “ever-closer union,” Britain empowers the nationalists rising across Europe who are fueled by the refugee crisis and the recent terror in Paris to resist European unity.
A clean break, while not ideal, would avoid a situation where special status negotiations become a viable option for EU members dealing with the rise of the Euroskeptics.
Should Britain leave, it will be handicapped by a bad economy and severely diminished negotiating clout and receive little in return, with the exception of nominal sovereignty.
Also, they could lose Scotland.