[fblike]
Since 2013, the European Union (EU) has been worried about the outcome of a referendum on Great Britain’s EU membership. A member of the EU since 1973, Great Britain has often stood for a different set of ideas than its EU counterparts, preferring economic liberalism and less financial regulation than EU bureaucrats in Brussels and rival heads of state in Paris and Berlin. One of Prime Minister David Cameron’s promises upon winning the British parliamentary elections last year was to hold a referendum on Britain’s EU membership. This was interpreted as a sop to Conservative voters that bolted the party for the far-right United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which is fiercely anti-EU. Although a date for the referendum has not been set, Cameron is hoping that he can secure concessions from the EU on immigrant welfare benefits and economic regulations that he can in turn sell to British voters to make an exit from the EU – termed a “Brexit” – unthinkable. Considering the fact that Britain’s exit from the EU would rob the organization of more than 10% of its population and more than 15% of its economic power and the fact that recent polls show support for a “Brexit” rising, extempers need to consider how they should approach “Brexit”-style questions in the coming months as their likelihood of being asked at tournaments should increase.
This topic brief will breakdown the reasons that anti-EU forces in Great Britain favor an exit from the European Union (EU), discuss the arguments made by pro-EU forces for why Great Britain should remain in the body, and then analyze the chances that British voters will choose to depart from the EU by the end of this year (if not next year).
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
Arguments for Leaving the EU
Several headwinds are helping eurosceptics – the name given to those in Europe that oppose the growth of the European Union (EU) and/or their nation’s participation in the body – in Great Britain and elsewhere. The Greek debt crisis and economic problems in Portugal, Spain, and Italy have given opponents of the euro an opportunity to argue that allowing the European Central Bank (ECB) to dictate the monetary policy of an entire continent is a bad idea. Great Britain rejected joining the euro and negotiated an opt-out of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty that setup the idea of a common currency zone. Although former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair once favored joining the euro, his Conservative opponents successfully rallied nationalist sentiment against the idea and Britain ended up keeping the pound sterling. Noting that the ECB’s monetary policy has proven ineffective at solving some of the continent’s disparities among wealthy and poorer nations, each of which require different monetary strategies, eurosceptics in London, which can often be found in the Conservative Party or the far-right United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), believe that their opposition to the euro was well-founded. The arrival of more than a million migrants from the Middle East and Africa over the past year has also emboldened anti-EU forces in Great Britain and elsewhere. One of the principles of the EU was the free movement of peoples across national borders. This Schengen Area, first established in 1985, gradually abolished border checks and harmonized visa rules. The arrival of new migrants has complicated this process, though, as many are coming through Eastern Europe and heading for the richer nations of the EU such as Great Britain, France, Germany, and the Scandinavian countries. In response, nations such as Sweden and Denmark are moving to reimpose border controls to slow the passage of migrants.
And even before the latest controversy over migrants from the Middle East, eurosceptics in Great Britain opposed the EU because of how freedom of movement rules could undermine the wages of British laborers. When Eastern European nations were welcomed into the EU in 2004, British commentators warned that Eastern European immigrants (especially Polish immigrants) would flood into Britain and steal British jobs. In fact, Reuters explained on December 16 that since 2004 data shows that more migrants have come to Britain from Poland than any other EU member state (three million EU migrants are estimated to live in Britain). A larger criticism against Polish and other Eastern European migrants is that these migrants are trying to abuse the British welfare system. According to critics, migrants are moving to richer EU nations such as Britain and immediately staking claims to relief benefits without actually working. This behavior is called “welfare tourism.” The Reuters article previously cited mentions that a British government estimate found that more than 235,000 people that migrated from other EU member states to Britain were seeking benefits. However, the data does not necessarily show that abuses are going on as defenders of migrants claim that they are finding employment and actually contributing greatly to the British economy. Extempers can make the same parallel between complaints about welfare abuse in Great Britain with the alleged abuses of the American welfare system by illegal immigrants. In both cases there is a dispute by economists about whether such immigrants should be able to access social services. On the one hand, defenders of national borders argue that immigrants are “leeching” off of their host nations and not paying into the system, while defenders of immigrants argue that they actually contribute more in taxes than the amount of benefits that they receive.
Nevertheless, the changing demographic profile of Great Britain and anxieties about a loss of control of borders and culture is fueling a backlash against the EU. To fend off the UKIP in last year’s parliamentary elections, Cameron promised to hold a referendum on Britain’s EU membership by 2017. Cameron is hoping that he can get the EU to make concessions to Britain to help him sell British voters on the idea of staying in the body, the most important of which is imposing limits on the work benefits that immigrants can receive. The UK Telegraph writes on January 10 that Cameron began suggesting in November 2014 that migrants should not be able to access in-work benefits from the British welfare system for the first four years of their residence and that if they fail to find a job after six months of arriving that they should be deported. Although critics have blasted this policy idea as heartless, it has acquired the support of a sizable number of British voters and the sympathies of leaders of other European heads of state, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Even the heads of Central and Eastern European nations such as Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia favor making concessions to Great Britain on the welfare issue, although it should be noted that there is growing eurosceptic sentiment in these nations. However, the problem with the British proposal is that it violates EU rules. Reuters explains in a separate article on January 7 that restricting welfare benefits would discriminate “on grounds of nationality among EU citizens” and would be illegal. The only way for the British proposal to pass would be through a reform of EU treaties, but Der Spiegel writes on January 5 that this process can take years and Cameron does not have that kind of time.
Another argument that is made by those favoring Great Britain’s exit from the EU is that the body is undemocratic and that a push towards an EU “super state” threatens British freedom. In the last decade, EU leaders have called for the possible establishment of an EU army or a more powerful fiscal union that would take away several fiscal powers from EU members, or at least those using the euro. Doing the latter would supposedly avoid threats to the currency union from prolific spending nations such as Greece and avoid future debt crises. Since Britain does not use the euro, it is very concerned that this will put it at a disadvantage in the future relative to other EU members that might enjoy greater economic benefits. It also fears that it will continually be called upon to bailout fiscally irresponsible members such as Greece and in fact, Cameron was outraged last summer when it was revealed that some of Britain’s budget contributions to the EU (contributions that are said to average more than £50 million a day) might be going toward another Greek bailout. Furthermore, although the EU has a parliament that features representatives from its various members these elections typically produce low turnout and the European Commission, the executive body of the EU, is not directly elected by voters despite the fact that it holds much of the body’s power over regulations, treaties, and legislation for other member states (although a commissioner represents each member state they are nominated by their nation’s leadership). Critics argue that this makes the European Commission an elitist institution that is aloof from the concerns of millions of Europeans.
And then there is the issue of difference between Great Britain and other EU members. The Christian Science Monitor notes on January 10 that Great Britain has always tended to be different than other members of the EU. It has long favored more liberal economic policies, closer ties with the United States (while France and Germany have long favored counterbalancing America’s leadership in the world), and is more open to using force to resolve international problems (a possible byproduct of Britain not being invaded for nearly 1,000 years). If the EU were to grow stronger and attempt to make Great Britain a mere “state” in a body of equals (e.g. just like one of America’s fifty states) it might prove difficult for the British public to accept. After all, it was only centuries ago that Britain was “the empire on which the sun never set.” Thus, nationalist arguments are at the core of opposition to further British participation in the EU.
Arguments for Great Britain Staying in the EU
Despite several differences of opinion on migrants and the creation of a more powerful EU (otherwise known as “the United States of Europe” idea) there are several forces in Britain that support staying within the EU. The most powerful argument that can be made for any extemp speeches that wish to give a pro-EU position is economic. First, economists argue that the EU has significant bargaining power because it represents the interests of twenty-eight member states. The Guardian writes on January 5 that this is crucial when trying to sign free trade agreements with Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the United States and was deemed as critical for the EU to get concessions in a recent free trade deal with Canada. The UK Telegraph adds on December 29 that the EU is in the midst of negotiating the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United States, a deal that could have more than £10 billion in benefits for the British economy. Although champions of leaving the EU argue that it would give greater flexibility to Great Britain when reaching free trade deals, pro-EU forces say that Britain would not have significant bargaining power to make deals that are this good. And this makes more sense when one realizes that Britain has not had to broker a major trade deal since the 1970s. For example, the BBC notes on January 5 that Britain would find it hard to find people to negotiate trade deals since it has not employed trade negotiators since 1973. Leaving the EU would mandate that Britain would have to secure a free trade deal with the EU on its own terms, but it is unclear what this accord would look like and how it would benefit Britain. A second economic argument is that London’s position as a major European financial capital could be hurt. London is one of the EU’s few global financial centers, but this position is owed to the fact that investors like Britain’s liberal economic policies and prefer to use Britain as a hub for their investments in the rest of the European continent. There are worrying signs that a “Brexit” could damage London’s financial industry, with The Financial Times of London reporting on January 10 that the sterling corporate bond market has not opened for the first time since 2013 due to companies putting British investments on hold until the status of Britain’s EU membership is decided. The UK Telegraph points out that 46% of investments in the British economy come from the EU, with Britain being the number one destination of foreign direct investment among EU member states. Abandoning the EU, though, might cause these investments to shift elsewhere, perhaps to areas of the continent such as Frankfurt, Germany. And finally, there is the argument that Britain benefits by being able to sell its goods to a common market that has standardized rules. The UK Telegraph explains that is very logical to suggest that British companies find it easier to sell goods to a continent that follows similar regulations than trying to meet twenty-seven different sets of rules, which is what Britain faced prior to the creation of the EU. The Financial Times of London writes on January 10 that this might be why 47% of British businesses favor staying in the EU versus 41% that wish to leave, although extempers should note that polls are showing that small businesses share greater anti-EU sentiment than larger businesses, possibly due to the fact that the costs of complying with EU regulations and bureaucracy are more difficult for them to meet. The Financial Times also explains that small businesses believe that they are disadvantaged by not being able to employ an army of lobbyists to champion their views in Brussels. Still, the focus of British business at this time is geared more towards finding ways to reform the EU (which is what Cameron is doing now) as opposed to jettisoning Britain from the body.
A “Brexit” could revive the prospect of Scottish independence, something that British politicians successfully resisted two years ago. The Scotsman writes on January 10 that if the EU referendum produces a “Brexit,” Scottish nationalists may revive their bid for independence. This is not a fanciful scenario because polls currently show that Scottish voters favor staying in the EU by a much wider margin than their counterparts in England. If the “Brexit” were to pass by a slim margin, carried by the votes of England over Scotland, it is very likely that the Scottish National Party (SNP) would demand independence, arguing that the outcome of the EU referendum showed that the interests of Scotland and other members of the British body politic were no longer compatible. The one question that would loom over these proceedings is if the British government would legalize another Scottish independence referendum. If they did not, such a vote would be illegal (and this is the same situation that Spain is facing between its national authorities and Catolonia). During the last Scottish referendum, the Scottish government was taking steps to prepare an application for EU membership on its own, something that it would probably wish to pursue if Britain withdrew from the EU. Therefore, those wishing to preserve the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom are hoping that the EU referendum fails because they do not want Scotland to secede.
There are some additional arguments that can be made for Britain remaining in the EU. Domestically, Britain would lose some of its funding for its university system and local areas. The UK Telegraph notes that Britain is set to receive £7 billion in aid from the EU’s Horizon 2020 fund that seeks to bolster European learning in science. Also, the EU will allocate £8 billion in aid in the coming years to Cornwall, Wales, the Scottish Highlands, Northern Ireland, and Northern England for economic development projects. By abandoning the EU, Britain would lose this funding, although eurosceptics brush off this criticism by noting that Britain could fund some of these projects internally by avoiding its costly EU membership dues. When it comes to how a “Brexit” would shape the EU, analysts do not paint a favorable picture, with The Guardian writing that the EU would become weaker relative to Russia. Britain has been a significant supporter of sanctions against Russia over its seizure of Crimea even as support for those sanctions is weakening on the continent. Britain has also favored the creation of a common EU energy policy that would wean nations in Western and Central Europe away from Russian natural gas and a British exit from the EU could remove a force that has tempered some of the EU’s economic regulations in the past. Thus, a “Brexit” could weaken the EU’s international position and one could make the case that the EU needs Britain as much as Britain needs the EU.
The Chances of a “Brexit”
When Cameron first announced that a referendum would be held many scoffed at the idea, thinking that it had very little chance of success. However, polls are showing that a vote might be closer than expected and the one problem of holding a vote on anything is that it is unpredictable. For example, imagine that there is another significant migrant surge into Britain or that there is a Colonge-type attack on British women in the week before the poll is held. That could lead to a sudden nationalist surge that could produce a “Brexit.” The Christian Science Monitor writes that exit forces currently lead, albeit narrowly, 42% to 41%, but 17% of British voters are still undecided. Support for Britain leaving the EU without securing immigration reforms or Cameron’s welfare restrictions rises to 45% where support for staying in the EU drops to 40%, which illustrates how vital it is for EU leaders such as Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to give into some of Cameron’s demands. In a worrying sign for Europhiles, anti-EU forces have outmaneuvered pro-EU forces thus far. Der Spiegel explains that anti-EU forces have been very aggressive in rallying support online, attracting 320,000 Facebook likes and 39,000 Twitter followers. One of the problems of the pro-EU forces is that they are recycling arguments over the need for free trade, common regulations, and European stability that voters have heard for decades so the anti-EU forces have the appeal of presenting a vision that is new and fresh.
It appears that the decision that British voters will make might hinge on whether the EU grants Cameron the concessions that he wants. While it is unlikely that the EU will give Cameron the full extent of his demands, there are some moderate concessions that could be made. The Economist explains on December 18 that the EU Commission has proposed the idea of an “emergency break” where Britain would not have to accept a specific number of migrants once immigration into Britain reached a certain level. This would mirror a decision made years ago that allowed Austria to stop German students from coming into their country to attend their universities. Also, the idea has been floated of denying migrants access to benefits for one year instead of four and that might be enough to satisfy a majority of British voters. Even if the EU did give Cameron everything he wanted, they would not necessarily have to go through a full treaty process to give Britain the exceptions it desires. For example, Der Spiegel notes that in 1992 Denmark was given some exceptions on EU defense policy and currency union plans and these were not put into EU treaties for several years. This would set a precedent of Britain being given exceptions now and then having those codified in EU accords later, thereby avoiding a time consuming process that Cameron can ill-afford if he wishes to keep Britain in the body.
Extempers should be aware of how a “Brexit” would play out if British voters decided to leave the EU. According to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, Cameron would write a letter to the President of the European Council and notify them of Britain’s desire to leave. Negotiators would be appointed by both sides to form a withdrawal treaty and this treaty would then be ratified by the European Parliament and the British Parliament. This process has been followed once before when Greenland negotiated its exit from the EU in 1982, with negotiations taking three years to complete. One of the big questions is how the time frame of the negotiations could be affected by a change in governments. For example, what would happen if during that time frame a new government was elected that wished to hold a new referendum to reverse the “Brexit” or wished to override the will of voters? It is also unclear whether Cameron will still be prime minister after the referendum as The Spectator writes on January 10 that if British voters decide to leave the EU that Cameron will need to resign since it would be a vote of no confidence from the British people in his pro-EU position.
British voters will likely head to the polls this fall to decide the future of their nation’s relationship with the EU. As of right now the vote can be considered a tossup, with a “Brexit” vote more likely if Cameron cannot secure concessions for Britain at the next meeting of the European Council in a few weeks. Therefore, the fate of Britain’s membership may depend more on the reactions of other European governments instead of domestic factors, thereby forcing German Chancellor Angela Merkel to justify her status as Europe’s most powerful power broker.