CFEP Personal views vol. 2 – Brexit

Brexit – Asymmetries and unforeseeable consequences for the European Union

On June 23rd the British electorate will make one of the most momentous decisions about their own fate. When British Prime Minister David Cameron promised an unprecedented British referendum on EU membership in January 2013, it sparked a renewed debate on the UK’s future in Europe. Upon his re-election this May, Cameron stressed that he would live up to his pledge. A vote for ‘Brexit’ and the commencement of withdrawal negotiations would rapidly lead to change regarding both the status of UK representatives and nationals in Brussels and the EU’s policy agenda. One country’s exit from the EU could “liberate” disintegrating forces and gradually break down the entire European project. And this scenario does not seem to be impossible.

CFEP firmly supports the idea that Britain is stronger in the EU. We believe that if UK pulls out it might turn out to be the biggest mistake in recent European history, it would weaken Europe and it would diminish Britain. UK should stay in the EU helping it overcoming its internal issues and current turmoil. In the event of a ‘Brexit’, the EU would lose one of its largest and most important members.

Britain has long been seen as the European Union’s “awkward partner”.  It is the only EU member to have renegotiated its membership and held a referendum on the specific question of staying in or leaving the EU – twice, considering always its exceptions from a number of opt-out EU policies and also the “ever closer union”, which means it will effectively be able to opt-out of future treaty changes.

Which of the Bremain or ‘Brexit’ scenarios the Brits themselves find most tempting, will only be revealed after the EU referendum. Until June 23, however, everything remains in theoretical analysis level, while – if ‘Brexit’ scenario becomes true – it will be the first time that the EU may be confronted with such a situation. The remain campaign say “you can’t divorce and keep the benefits of marriage”, but was the EU ever seen as a marriage for the UK?

 

 

 

Prof. Danuta Hübner MEP|Group of the European People’s Party, Chair of Committee on Constitutional Affairs (Poland)

The choice the UK citizens are facing on the 23rd June will have historic implications. It is not an easy decision. It is not a simple decision. It is not a temporary decision. It is a decision that will be taken for a generation at least and  will change the course of history not only for United Kingdom but also for the whole European Union and obviously impact its institutional landscape.

However if the people of the United Kingdom decide to leave the EU, we will respect that choice. That choice might obviously lead to the redistribution of power, coalitions and oppositions within the European bodies. The absence of one of the three largest and more powerful Member States of the Union   is likely to  weaken the European Council. It might reshape the geopolitics of the European Union and maybe even the world. We will miss the UK and I must admit that, without British contributions, it might be more difficult to design European policies fit to the challenges of XXI century. With the UK gone, the EU will lose the important element of the pressure needed to maintain the long-term appetite to reform.

It will also diminish the geographical reach of the EU. In the era of globalization we tend to neglect this “physical “aspect of political influence, but it nonetheless is perceived as one of the important indicators of global influence by more traditional powers like China, India, Russia or the US, for that matter.

The EU, in the wake of UK Referendum, would have to sort out, faster than it ever anticipated – whether to accelerate the integration in the framework of multispeed future, or to revert to nationally-based politics as a key political reference.

Both options are less than optimal. In the first case, the Euro area will strengthen its ‘core’ cooperation, with non-Euro countries pushed away toward the periphery. And the second option will encourage the already growing populist movements in Europe by giving them  kind  of “legitimacy” that they did not have until know. They will emerge from the shadows and claim the mantle of the defenders of democracy, fighting the “oligarchy” of Brussels and its connections with the colluding national governments.

UK leaving the EU would also make the EU’s boat lurch sharply toward one side of the European conversation, especially in the context of the common market liberalisation. The deal that was achieved between the UK and the EU by Prime Minister Cameron had a potential to reform the Union and increase its capacity to meet the challenges ahead. The 27 member states, the Commission and the Parliament spared no effort to design jointly with the UK a package that responded to the UK’s concerns. It was a well-balanced compromise, negotiated on the basis of commonly accepted rules and providing for a win-win resolution of the most critical issues, even the most contentious ones.

Without the “blast’ of the UK’s expectations of liberal reform, the member countries and the institutions can adopt more openly the centralized paradigm of acting, also out of fear of progressive fragmentation of the Union.

We also have to remember that in case the UK decides to leave the EU, it will not be a one-off event. It would involve a prolonged period of uncertainty and negotiations of a new relationship. UK has always been much involved in various fields of the EU’s activity: trade, research, military affairs, security policy, and of course financial services. In all those areas, negotiating new terms of engagement will very much resemble extracting the healthy tooth, which procedure, in addition to being quite painful, is absolutely uncalled for.

The European Union does not have a great appetite for being a dentist tasked with this job. The UK should also not be so willing to become a patient in this unwieldy and unnecessary surgery.

Thus, the rational question is: why do it at all? Let us stick together.

 

David McAllister MEP| Group of the European People’s Party, Chair of the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with the United States (Germany)

‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’ This will be decided on 23 June. The outcome of the referendum vote is unpredictable. The British in-or-out-referendum on 23 June has become one of the key questions for Europe’s future. It will be a crucial moment for the future of our Union. The world is rapidly changing, and the UK needs to change with it to remain relevant, so do the other Member States and so does the European Union. It seems obvious to me, that, for Britain to remain influential on the world stage, it needs Europe in total.

But let’s be honest: Europe also needs the United Kingdom, so that the European Union sticks to its liberal roots and the Commission to its role as a problem-solver, and less a problem-maker. I am more than aware of Europe’s significant shortcomings. As a convinced Pro-European I am even deeply worried about the state of the Union. Europe is in urgent need of reform again. But the worst way to reform Europe, is not to participate in the reform process.

Eurosceptics will now say: but we don’t won’t to reform the EU, we want to get out of it! Well, it is not as easy as it sounds. Because even in a post-Brexit Britain, if the UK wanted to retain full access to the single European market, it would have to stick with most of the accompanying rules. Indeed, there are alternatives, five in total, reaching from the “Brasilian” to the “Swiss” – model. But there is no doubt, even from the Eurosceptic side, that and I quote The Economist –  “most of the alternatives to full membership are unattainable, unattractive, or both”.

British trade with EU countries has risen rapidly since 1973, even though – as the European economy has slowed – its share of the total is declining. The EU now takes over 51 percent of British exports of goods, and close to 45 percent if services are added in. So, whether Britain is in or out, the EU will remain a key partner. Therefore Britain would have to rebuild the institutional, economic and financial relations with the EU and the euro area almost from scratch.

Polling results and bookmakers ciphers are going up and down depending on how you ask – internet or phone- and on who is asking. Recent surveys were showing slightly more support for leaving the EU after the Remain campaign was ahead within the last weeks. In any case, the stakes are high! Until referendum day it’s going to be whirlwind days and I sincerely hope that the British will reach the conclusion that it is best for them and their country to stay in the EU. Because I am convinced that it would be better for them – and for us, the whole European Union.

So, let’s make the EU better together, let’s reform it to the better – together, not apart. Without Britain the European Union would be a very different one. Surely not a better one.

 

Jo Leinen MEP| S&D, Chair of the Delegation for relations with the People’s Republic of China, (Germany) |President of European Movement International (EMI)

Brexit – And then? – An optimistic view

Only charlatans would claim that they can predict with certainty what will happen, if the British voters decide on 23 June to turn their backs towards the European Union and go separate ways. The UK-referendum would not be the end point, but the beginning of a long process with an unpredictable outcome. Art.50 of the Treaty on European Union sets out the procedural framework for the withdrawal of a Member State. Within two years an agreement shall be concluded, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, at the same time taking account of the framework for the future relationship of the leaving State with the Union. This period can be extended by a unanimous decision of the European Council. While the procedure is clear, there is no precedent and no playbook how the future relationship should indeed be framed, and what effects the Brexit would have on the remaining Member States and the future of European integration.

Some fear the worst, should the UK, which is the second largest economy and the financial centre of the EU with a top-notch diplomatic corps and military, decide to end its engagement in European integration. In the light of the difficult political climate, with the Union facing major political and economic challenges, with right-wing forces gaining ground all over the continent, and with some Member States’ governments spurring doubts if they indeed still would subscribe to the values and rules enshrined in the Treaties all Member States once have agreed to, they expect the withdrawal of the UK to cause a domino effect eventually leading to the collapse of  the European Union. Indeed, anti-Europeans in various countries are already chafing at the bit to exploit a Brexit-vote for their cause.

Others, including myself, have a more optimistic view. While I am obviously hoping that the UK will continue its EU-membership and, together with the other Member States, work for a more successful European Union, I do not think that the Brexit, as undesirable it might be, necessarily has to constitute the “beginning of the end”. It can as well serve as a catalyst and open a window of opportunity. Undoubtedly, the UK leaving the Union would facilitate a major debate about sense and nonsense of European integration in general and in its current form in particular. Faced with the risk of disintegration, the old blame-game could finally end. Too long have the achievements of European integration, from free movement to non-discrimination, been taken for granted, while “Brussels” has repeatedly been used as a scapegoat, as if it was a foreign occupying power and not the sum of its constituent parts.

I am convinced that an open pan-European debate on the future of Europe with the involvement of all national Parliaments and governments, representatives from the European institutions, and civil-society, could not only preserve the EU, but make it more efficient and more democratic. Therefore a Convention under Article 48 TEU should be convened to improve the legal and institutional framework of the EU to better reflect today’s’ reality. If, on the other hand, the debate is left to the anti-Europeans and conducted in a fragmented way within the national context, we indeed risk losing what generations have built in almost 70 years of European integration.

At a Convention arrangements could be found to cater for both, those Member States unwilling to go beyond the status quo and primarily interested in the single market, and those, especially the members of the Eurozone, being determined to integrate further. For example such a formalization of a two-tier Europe could lead to the introduction of a new form of “membership light” or “associated membership”. Already in 2013 a comprehensive proposal in this regard has been published by the Spinelli-Group, an association of pro-European MEPs from the main political groups in the European Parliament, founded in 2012 as a reaction to the growing intergouvernmentalism in response to the financial crisis.

Instead of granting opt-outs and maintaining the illusion of a homogenous European Union, such a solution would be more honest, taking account of different visions of European integration. It could help to overcome the current stalemate and would offer a clear choice to Member States, if they want to be part of a developing political Union, which is equipped with the necessary tools and instruments to deliver a better outcome for the citizens, or if they want to merely participate in the common market.

 

Costas Mavrides MEP| Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament (Cyprus)

Cyprus will be negatively affected by a possible Brexit due to its economic ties with the United Kingdom through commercial transactions, tourism and Cypriots using the UK for university studies and as an employment place, currently benefiting from the EU rules. In the short term horizon, the  sterling pound will be depreciate towards the Euro zone currency, making the all Cyprus products more expensive e.g. more expensive touristic package for UK people considering Cyprus as their destination, as well as other Cypriot goods in comparison other destinations and products not being  evaluated in Euro, such as Turkey.

In general, a Brexit is expected to increase the uncertainty and bureaucracy, from trade of goods to the traveling of people with more restrictions and controls that in long term will constitute a deterrent factor in enhancing the commercial relations. Specifically, such restrictions will reduce the mobility of students, workers, capital and goods. The complex and time-consuming passport control process would have a  negative impact on the tourist sector. A considerable number of students that study in the UK as well as employees and professionals or people trying to find a job in England will also negatively influenced as there will be extra restrictions in their choice to stay and work. Finally, for patients who visit the UK for hospitalization or other treatment, there will be restrictions in their accessibility to hospital and most likely an increase in their costs expenses.

Especially, the investment field and free movement of fund capital between the UK and the EU including Cyprus, will be impacted at some level. In conclusion, a possible Brexit will increase the insecurity and uncertainty as it may influence other member states to consider an exit from the Union.

 

Dr Sajjad Karim Conservative MEP|ECR, Chair of the Delegation to the EU-Armenia and EU-Azerbaijan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and the EU-Georgia Parliamentary Association Committee (UK)

The Referendum campaign has been long and tiring, shrouded in truth and non-truths. It is understandable that people are both confused and bored by this, so I would like to make things very clear through simple facts, because make no doubt about it, this really is the biggest political decision of our lifetimes. To have made the wrong decision because of a quagmire of misinformation would be doing a disservice to our country that we call Great Britain.

What seems to be a key determining factor in many Leave voters is immigration. In the UK, Immigration is a sole policy area of the British Government – it has nothing to do with the EU. As it happens, EU-wide immigration rules do not apply to the UK. In fact, we choose on a case-by-case basis, whether or not to adopt EU rules on immigration, visa and asylum policies. Nor is Britain part of the Schengen Area, meaning that people from countries that are in it cannot just come and go as they please, like Vote Leave & Farage argues. We have the final say on who comes into our country. We have control of our borders. It is as simple as that. EU immigrants are the one section of our population who are net contributors to the UK, giving more than they take back to the NHS or Welfare.

Why would we want to stop them coming to our country when they are helping it to thrive economically?

Turkey’s soon-to-be EU membership couldn’t be further from the truth. The UK has a veto on Turkish membership of the EU, as do all other 27 Member States. Turkey have been trying to join the EU since 1987 and since then their record on human rights and civil liberties has deteriorated rapidly under President Erdoğan. You can bet your bottom dollar that European leaders would not allow Erdoğan’s Turkey EU membership so effortlessly.

The Single Market – those three words should be enough to keep anyone from Voting Leave. The EU is the world’s biggest single market and we only guarantee free access to it as a member of the European Union.

The benefits we receive economically from being part of it are enormous. To through this away would be madness. We are not part of the Eurozone and we have no intention of doing so. And in any case, this would require another referendum to do so. The UK has so many exceptions like this already, but we never seem to hear about them. An opt out of the Eurozone, an opt out of the Schengen Area, opt-outs from the area of freedom, security and justice – the list goes on.

We have always been given the streamlined option for Europe when pushed for it and will continue to do so, just like Margaret Thatcher did when she got the UK rebate.

 

Andrew Lewer MBE MEP|ECR Co-ordinator for CULT & REGI Committees (UK) |Conservative Spokesman for Culture, Education and Regional Development

The result of the EU Referendum in the UK is on a knife edge. It would be a brave person or a fool who would predict the result with any confidence. What has emerged from the national debate has been: How differently people in the UK view the EU from many in other Member States, seeing it chiefly as a transactional relationship, rather than some sort of lofty project towards a “united” Europe. How little understood was the relationship between the EU Institutions; although the “Westminster bubble” has tended to only concern itself with the EU Council, there is now a much greater level of awareness that the EU Commission is not just a version of the Civil Service, that the EU Parliament is not any longer a toothless talking shop and the ECJ is the supreme court of the EU and above all national Supreme Courts.

The UK so-called “renegotiation” was a missed opportunity for a wider reform of the EU for the benefit of all Member States, rather than just some opt-outs for the UK. The fact that such modest demands were further watered down by Heads of Government and risk yet further dilution by the European Parliament (and being overturned by the ECJ) simply demonstrates that the appetite for desperately needed reform of the EU is not there and has led many to conclude that the risks of remaining outweigh the risks of leaving. Perhaps more than any other issue, what is seen as intransigence in the UK by the EU over the issue of freedom of movement, may well determine the result.

 

Sylvie Goulard MEP| Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (France) | Steering Committee of Spinelli Group

As we enter the final days of campaigning before the referendum in the UK about its membership of the EU the polls remain close. At the time of writing the margins between Remain and Leave are narrow, and the percentage of undecided voters is falling.

The polls show a clear strong majority of young people voting to stay in the EU. A YouGov poll for the Sunday Times, 12 June, shows that 64% of 18-24 year olds questioned would vote to Remain, with 28% voting to Leave. In contrast these figures are dramatically inverted for the 65+ where 32% are in favour of Remain and 58% in favour of Leave. The outcome of this referendum will affect Europe’s young the most, they are the future of Europe, and yet their voice may well not be clearly heard in the result, especially as the UK government decided not to allow 16-18 year olds to vote in this historic referendum.

Irrespective of the outcome announced on 24 June, Europe is at a crossroads and urgent action is needed. Let this be our wake up call. Heads of state or government need to embrace their responsibilities concerning the prosperity of Europe’s citizens, to come up with solutions to the challenges and risks related to global warming, to provide economic growth and investment. These challenges can best be faced as a Union of more than 500 million citizens. Global warming does not stop at national borders, the EU provides the largest single trading market in the world, which facilitates economic growth by removing barriers to trade and harmonising rules. However, at this stage the project is incomplete.

Politicians need to explain the reality of life in a globalised world in the 21st century to their citizens, not sell fairy tales of a return to “the good old days” of the isolated nation state, when wars ripped this continent apart. They need to focus on the interests of the European people, not on their next re-election. The euro is an established global currency but the project is far from complete. A political union now needs to be established to accompany the monetary and economic union, and what this entails needs to be clearly and honestly explained to Europe’s citizens.

Democratic accountability needs to be increased in the EU, in order for citizens to be able to control decisions which concern them. Again here, courage is needed from Europe’s politicians to ensure that an accountable and efficient system is created, which requires democratic control and accountability to be ensured at the level where the decisions are taken or implemented – with national parliaments scrutinising national governments and exercising the responsibilities expected of them, and the European Parliament scrutinising decisions taken at the European level. What is needed is for Europe’s politicians to act for the common good, and to pool sovereignty (with the appropriate checks and balances in place) where necessary. It is time to return to the vision of the founding fathers of the Union and to complete their work, rather than spouting empty words claiming to further the European project while ensuring that all potential for development and growth is tightly restricted.

Europe’s citizens are not sick of the EU, they are tired of the current ersatz which is being sold to them. It is Europe’s young people, the Erasmus generations, who can make this happen, by demanding the changes needed to make their futures better, and by playing the active role required of them in public life.

 

Marianna Georgallis | Young Brit working in Brussels

Economics and immigration are the two buzzwords around which the EU referendum debate is being played. It is either the Brexiteers ‘all the immigrants taking British jobs’, or the Remain camp’s apocalyptic economic predictions if we leave the EU. Yet from the perspective of a young British European, there is more to be said on what the EU brings to our lives – and what is at stake if we vote to leave this Thursday. For me, the referendum on UK membership of the European Union is about rights, equality and opportunities.

Human rights might not seem tangible and real in our everyday lives. But they are not lofty statements gathering dust in old institutions – our rights are experienced everyday – and are there to ensure everyone has the same chance at life, the same opportunities, and are treated equally, no matter what. The European Union is built on respect of human rights and the rule of law. This impacts every single European. In the workplace, it is EU legislation protecting our rights that allows every worker to get paid holiday leave, every person to work in an environment free from harassment, every parent to have paid maternity or paternity leave.

For me, this means that Europe is not just a market place. Neither is it just about moving across borders freely. The European Union is about people. It’s about protecting people at every stage in their life – and making sure we all have equal opportunities, no matter our ethnicity, our gender, our sexuality, our age. And the opportunities young Europeans have are enormous. The experiences I’ve had in my life have been in large part thanks to Britain being in the EU; I have friends from all over the world because of Erasmus that allowed me to study for a year in another EU country. I’ve explored places other than my hometown with cheap air fares and without the hassle and cost of applying for Visas, I’ve worked in another EU country, I’ve gone into my first job knowing that I cannot be forced to work over a certain amount of hours or that if I choose to have a family, I will have paid time off to spend with my child.

This is all at risk if the UK votes to leave the EU next Thursday. It is not surprising therefore, that young people are more likely to vote remain, because it is young people and the generations following ours that have the most to lose from ‘Brexit’. Opportunities that we have had in our lifetime may not exist for our younger siblings, let alone our children. And that for me is one huge leap backwards, for the individual, for Britain and for Europe that we must avoid.