• World
    • Africa
    • Asia Pacific
    • Central & South Asia
    • Europe
    • Latin America & Caribbean
    • Middle East & North Africa
    • North America
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
    • US Election
    • US politics
    • Joe Biden
    • Brexit
    • European Union
    • India
    • Arab world
  • Economics
    • Finance
    • Eurozone
    • International Trade
  • Business
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Startups
    • Technology
  • Culture
    • Entertainment
    • Music
    • Film
    • Books
    • Travel
  • Environment
    • Climate change
    • Smart cities
    • Green Economy
  • Global Change
    • Education
    • Refugee Crisis
    • International Aid
    • Human Rights
  • International Security
    • ISIS
    • War on Terror
    • North Korea
    • Nuclear Weapons
  • Science
    • Health
  • 360 °
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice
  • About
  • FO Store
Sections
  • World
  • Coronavirus
  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Sign Up
  • Login
  • Publish

Make Sense of the world

Unique insight from 2,000+ contributors in 80+ Countries

Close

The Road to Brexit and What it Would Mean

By Douglas Webber & INSEAD Knowledge • Mar 07, 2016
David Cameron

© Shutterstock

The implications of a Brexit—for the EU as well as the UK—are important and overwhelmingly negative.

The battle-lines have been drawn. Having “renegotiated” the terms of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union (EU), Prime Minister David Cameron has called a referendum on June 23 giving voters a say on whether the country should remain in or leave the EU.

With Cameron campaigning to stay in the EU—a position opposed by a large, perhaps majority, of his Conservative Party and most of the UK’s mass-circulation tabloid newspapers—the outcome is uncertain.

How did we get to Brexit?

The UK was a latecomer to the EU. The English Channel, that thin stretch of water, no more than 32 kilometers wide at its narrowest point, has enabled the country to avoid foreign invasion and occupation for almost 1,000 years. Historically, the UK steered clear of deep and permanent engagement on the European mainland, intervening primarily when, as in the cases of Napoleonic France and imperial and Nazi Germany, a single power threatened to achieve hegemonic control of continental Europe.

Following the Second World War, closely allied with the United States and at the hub of the (British) Commonwealth, the UK aspired to play a world role as an independent state. It initially stayed out of both the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), founded in 1950, and the European Economic Community (EEC), launched in 1957. By the time it changed its mind, for economic reasons, in the 1960s, French President Charles de Gaulle was in power and twice vetoed British entry.

When the UK finally entered the EU, after de Gaulle stepped down, in 1973, it remained an ambivalent member. A new Labour Party government renegotiated the UK’s accession terms in 1974-75 and called a popular referendum that produced a two-to-one majority in favor of staying in. The UK’s relations with the EU nonetheless remained fraught, as illustrated by the decade-long conflict over its contribution to the EU budget (resolved at an historic summit at Fontainebleau in 1984).

Following the end of the Cold War, as the rest of the EU began to forge closer political integration, the UK increasingly became a semi-detached member. It opted out of the euro, the (borderless) Schengen Area and—initially—the social policy provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. In 1992, the pound was unceremoniously ejected from the European Monetary System (EMS), which it had entered only in 1989—an event that the Conservative government of the time experienced as a brutal humiliation (such that the chancellor of the exchequer who supported EMS entry in the late 1980s, Nigel Lawson, has meanwhile become a leading advocate of Brexit).

The political drivers

In the last 25 years, euroskepticism changed political camps in the UK. While Labour, which had proposed to leave the EU in the early 1980s, became more “pro-European,” the Conservatives, who had overwhelmingly supported EU accession in the 1970s, grew increasingly hostile. Along with the rise of the fiercely “anti-European” UK Independence Party (UKIP), the growth of euroskepticism in the Conservative Party persuaded Cameron to pledge a (second) referendum on EU membership if his party won a majority at the 2015 General Election—which, against all expectations, he did.

The outcome of the referendum is currently very uncertain. Most polls point to a fairly narrow victory for staying in, but no more than half of British voters have made up their mind how they will vote; so the course of the campaign will determine the result. The fact that Cameron is still in the early stage of the new British Parliament, and that he and the other leaders of the “stay-in” camp are more popular and credible than their opponents in the Brexit camp, will work in his favor. Cameron and his allies can also anticipate useful support from business organizations and companies that will emphasize the likely negative impact of Brexit on the British economy and labor market.

The Brexit camp, for its part, will count on backing from most of the UK’s mass-circulation tabloid newspapers as well as UKIP and many Conservative Party activists. It will hope that events in the EU, such as a possible new crisis over Greece in the eurozone or a continuation or intensification of the refugee crisis, will further damage the European Union’s image in the UK and boost the support for Brexit.

What if…

The implications of Brexit are major. The UK would not fall off an economic cliff overnight. If it should occur, over the next two years or more, the British government would have to negotiate the terms of access of British-based firms to (the remainder of) the single EU market. However, given the imbalance of economic power between the two sides, these terms would almost certainly be less favorable than British firms currently enjoy. At the same time, the UK would also have to renegotiate the terms of access for British companies to non-EU markets. Firms would in any case face a prolonged period of uncertainty. Some would have an incentive to recalibrate their operations as between the UK and the rest of the EU.

INSEAD 3For the UK, the political implications of Brexit would likely be even more explosive than the economic. As a majority of Scots will almost certainly vote to remain in the EU, the Scottish National Party would insist on a fresh referendum on Scottish independence—which this time it would have a very good chance of winning. The UK would likely break up.

For the remainder of the EU, the fallout from Brexit could also be very damaging. In a world in which Europe’s demographic, economic, financial, military and diplomatic weight is already in decline, it would lose its second-most populous member, its second-largest economy and, measured by expenditure, its principal military power. Brexit would alarm the EU’s allies around the world, led by the US, which is unequivocal in its support for continued UK membership of the EU. But it would comfort the EU’s rivals, first and foremost Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

Brexit would also represent the hitherto most tangible manifestation of European disintegration.  It would strengthen the already strong and growing centrifugal tendencies in the EU and risk unleashing a chain-reaction that could culminate in other member states deciding to leave. At the end of this road, in the worst-case scenario, could lie the collapse of the euro, the fragmentation of the European market, a much weaker Europe in the world, and less peaceful international relations in Europe.

The stakes of the Brexit referendum are, in a word, immense.

*[This article was originally published by INSEAD Knowledge, a partner institution of Fair Observer. Copyright 2016 INSEAD Knowledge.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: 360b / Shutterstock.com


Fair Observer - World News, Politics, Economics, Business and CultureWe bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a sponsor.

Share Story
Categories360° Analysis, Blog, Europe, Politics TagsBrexit, David Cameron, European Union, United Kingdom
Join our network of more than 2,000 contributors to publish your perspective, share your story and shape the global conversation. Become a Fair Observer and help us make sense of the world.

READ MORE IN THIS 360° SERIES

How a British Court Ruling Could Delay Brexit Negotiations
By KnowledgeWharton • Nov 12, 2016
Can Brexit Be Achieved With Minimal Damage?
By KnowledgeWharton • Oct 17, 2016
Brexit and Populism’s Verbal Judo
By Eliot Assoudeh • Sep 08, 2016
Pulling the UK Out of Europe is No Easy Task
By John Bruton • Sep 01, 2016
EU Challenges in Post-Brexit Period
By John Bruton • Aug 17, 2016
Brexit Brings Revolution to Britain
By Christina Dykes • Jul 20, 2016
Brexit Blues Set In After EU Referendum
By Michael Julien • Jul 19, 2016
Brexit Talks Could Run Till 2020
By John Bruton • Jul 11, 2016
From Brexit in the UK to Austerity in Spain
By Conn Hallinan • Jul 10, 2016
Brexit Party Over, Hangover Sets In
By John Feffer • Jul 01, 2016
First Steps for Post-Brexit Government
By John Bruton • Jun 29, 2016
Tell Me Again How Racism Played No Part in Brexit
By Natalie Pitimson • Jun 29, 2016
Why Brexit and the Success of Trump Should Not Surprise You
By Yasmeen Sami Alamiri & Ryan J. Suto • Jun 27, 2016
Why the British Said No to Europe
By John Pilger • Jun 27, 2016
Turkey’s EU Dream is Dead on Arrival
By Nathaniel Handy • Jun 26, 2016
Brexit and Trump Are For Baby Boomers, Not Millennials
By Vasundhara Saravade • Jun 26, 2016
The UK-EU Separation: How Fast Does it Happen?
By Nicolas Veron • Jun 25, 2016
Does the Brexit Vote Mark the End of Internationalism?
By John Feffer • Jun 23, 2016
With Brexit, London Would Lose Business as a Global Financial Center
By Nicolas Veron • Jun 23, 2016
Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: Brexit
By Fair Observer • Jun 21, 2016
Britain Should Stay in the European Union
By John Bruton • Jun 20, 2016
The Human Factor in the Politics of Fear
By Anna Pivovarchuk • Jun 19, 2016
To Brexit or Not to Brexit?
By Anna Pivovarchuk • Jun 16, 2016
What if the UK Makes a Brexit?
By Fair Observer • Jun 11, 2016
As Brexit Approaches, Europe’s Left is Divided
By Conn Hallinan • May 31, 2016
The Fuss About the UK Government’s EU Referendum Booklet
By Michael Julien • Apr 22, 2016
The Question of Sovereignty in the EU Referendum
By Michael Julien • Apr 02, 2016
Why a Brexit Could Sink the EU
By KnowledgeWharton • Mar 26, 2016
UK Security Would Benefit From Brexit
By Bruce Newsome • Mar 15, 2016
UK Exit Affects All of European Union
By Maxime Larivé • Feb 24, 2016
Brexit is More Complicated Than You Think
By John Bruton • Jan 28, 2016

Post navigation

Previous PostPrevious The Cost of Escaping a Syrian Prison
Next PostNext Education Alone Cannot Eradicate Poverty
Subscribe
Register for $9.99 per month and become a member today.
Publish
Join our community of more than 2,500 contributors to publish your perspective, share your narrative and shape the global discourse.
Donate
We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your donation is tax-deductible.

Explore

  • About
  • Authors
  • FO Store
  • FAQs
  • Republish
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Contact

Regions

  • Africa
  • Asia Pacific
  • Central & South Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & Caribbean
  • Middle East & North Africa
  • North America

Topics

  • Politics
  • Economics
  • Business
  • Culture
  • Environment
  • Global Change
  • International Security
  • Science

Sections

  • 360°
  • The Interview
  • In-Depth
  • Insight
  • Quick Read
  • Video
  • Podcasts
  • Interactive
  • My Voice

Daily Dispatch


© Fair Observer All rights reserved
We Need Your Consent
We use cookies to give you the best possible experience. Learn more about how we use cookies or edit your cookie preferences. Privacy Policy. My Options I Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Edit Cookie Preferences

The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.

As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media.

 
Necessary
Always Enabled

These cookies essential for the website to function.

Analytics

These cookies track our website’s performance and also help us to continuously improve the experience we provide to you.

Performance
Uncategorized

This cookie consists of the word “yes” to enable us to remember your acceptance of the site cookie notification, and prevents it from displaying to you in future.

Preferences
Save & Accept