Brexit Essay

Introduction
The Schuman Declaration of May 9, 1950, was the impetus for the idea of a union, even though
the European Union officially became a union after the 1993 Maastricht Treaty, also known as
the Treaty of European Union. A proclamation founded on Jean Monnet's suggestion The
European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Atomic Energy Community
(EURATOM), and the most important European Economic Community (EEC) were created as a
result of combining the coal and steel resources of European states, primarily France and
Germany, but infinitely as these suggestions were practically implemented by Robert Schuman,
a French foreign minister at the time who needed a way out of the war via empowerment of
France.
Brexit, short for "British exit," refers to the United Kingdom's decision to leave the European
Union (EU). This historic event, initiated by a referendum held on June 23, 2016, had significant
political, economic, and social implications, not only for the UK but also for the EU and the
global community.
Although the UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC), the precursor to the EU, in
1973 and over the years, the UK had a complex relationship with the EU, marked by debates
over sovereignty, immigration, currency and regulatory issues. In response to growing
Euroscepticism, Prime Minister David Cameron promised a referendum on EU membership
during the 2015 general election campaign which he upheld. As Fedreich Niche said
“Democracy is anarchy of majority” thus a referendum, held on June 23, 2016, saw 51.9% of
voters choosing to leave the EU, while remaining minority voted to remain. The outcome
revealed deep divisions within the UK, with England and Wales largely voting to leave, while
Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. After that Prime Minister Cameron resigned,
and Theresa May became the new Prime Minister. R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the
European Union (2017): This case, heard by the UK Supreme Court, concerned whether the UK
government could trigger Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) to begin the Brexit
process without parliamentary approval. The Supreme Court ruled that parliamentary approval
was required, leading to the passing of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act
2017. In March 2017, the UK formally triggered Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union
(TFEU), beginning the process of withdrawal from the EU. This initiated a two-year negotiation
period, during which the UK and EU negotiated the terms of the withdrawal agreement.
Relevant Case law and Philosophers
Government professor Vernon Bogdanor of King's College London contended that the UK was
entitled by the constitution to exit the EU and that the start of Article 50 was an essential stage
in the process.
Anand Menon, a professor of European politics and foreign affairs at King's College London,
expressed criticism, claiming that the UK had not sufficiently prepared for the negotiations and
that the EU and the UK will suffer long-term implications from the UK's decision to invoke
Article 50.
In Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017), the UK Supreme Court
decided, using case law and judicial observations, that an Act of Parliament was necessary to
trigger Article 50 since it represented a fundamental alteration to the country's constitutional
structures. The Court further stated that before Parliament decides whether to start the
process, it must be informed of the ramifications of Article 50, which would automatically result
in the removal of several rights inherited from the EU.
The Case of R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was one of the key
cases that shaped the Brexit decision. The issue concerned a legal challenge to the
government's choice to start the EU exit process without first receiving parliamentary
permission by activating Article 50. The UK Supreme Court considered the case and decided
that the government could not start Article 50 without first getting it approved by parliament.
Issues between UK & EU:

The UK felt that the EU was encroaching on its sovereignty and ability to make its own laws, threatening
its national identity and independence. Eurozone was another thorn in the relationship as UK opted out
of joining the eurozone, creating tensions with EU members that had adopted the euro, and leading to
concerns about the UK's commitment to the EU project. Moreover, financially the UK was a net
contributor to the EU budget, leading to debates about the fairness of contributions and how funds were
being spent, as UK grievances was more on spending of EU budget on countries not contributing much.
UK has always been hard on immigration and welcoming new immigrant thus being a welfare state puts
a lot of burden on citizens. Thus, UK had concerns about freedom of movement within the EU, leading to
debates about immigration and the ability to control borders. UK being a small country and does not
have much agricultural strength thus UK had issues with the EU's Common Agricultural Policy, which it
saw as unfair and benefiting other member states more than the UK. Being surrounding by a lot of water
bodies UK fisheries are a problem which is also evident from the case of Factortame so UK had
disagreements with the EU's fisheries policy, which it saw as detrimental to the UK's fishing industry. A
dualist system consisting of monarchy and democracy at the same time UK had issues with the level of
regulation imposed by the EU, which it saw as unnecessary and stifling to business growth. UK also had
concerns about the EU's Human Rights legislation, leading to debates about the balance between
individual rights and state sovereignty. A country although victorious but suffered greatly in World War 2
thus dementalized colonies so its worth and richness both got a big hit and somehow this made UK more
sensitive towards defense and security especially with the role of NATO and creation of European Army.
UK always hold the notion “King can do no wrong” than how a currency without its own cultural epitome
can become official currency thus UK refused to join the Eurozone, which created tension with EU
members that had adopted the euro. As felt that its parliamentary sovereignty is violated with the
creation of European Parliament and the European Commission, which it believed threatened national
sovereignty. List is not exhaustive but highlights some of the core issues which UK faced while being a
part of EU.
Negotiations between the UK and the EU

Negotiations between the UK and the EU were complex and contentious, focusing on key issues
such as the future UK-EU relationship, the Irish border, citizens' rights, and the financial
settlement. The negotiations resulted in the Withdrawal Agreement, which was approved by
the UK and EU in November 2018. Despite reaching a Withdrawal Agreement, the UK
Parliament faced deadlock over its approval. Prime Minister May's proposed deal was rejected
three times by Parliament, leading to her resignation in July 2019. Thus, three prime ministers
resigned while dealing with this arduous task of leaving EU. "Get Brexit Done" Campaign of
Boris Johnson in which he renegotiated aspects of the Withdrawal Agreement, particularly the
contentious Irish backstop, and secured a new deal with the EU. Finally, comes the day which is
termed as ‘Brexit Day’ when UK officially left the EU on January 31, 2020. However, a transition
period until December 31, 2020, was agreed upon to allow time for further negotiations on the
future UK-EU relationship.
Brexit continues to have far-reaching effects on various aspects of life in the UK and the EU,
including trade, immigration, regulatory alignment, and foreign policy. Issues such as trade
disruptions, border checks, and regulatory divergence remain areas of concern for both the UK
and the EU. Brexit represents a historic and transformative event that has reshaped the political
and economic landscape of the UK and Europe, with its long-term implications yet to be fully
realized.
The inclusion of Article 50 in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and its subsequent invocation
during the Brexit process have raised important questions about the nature of the European
Union (EU). Article 50 outlines the procedure for a member state to withdraw from the EU,
indicating that the EU is not a state but rather an international organization. This distinction
between statehood and international organization status has significant implications for the
structure, sovereignty, and functioning of the EU.
Firstly, Article 50 itself underscores the EU's nature as an international organization rather than
a state. The provision allows a member state to notify the European Council of its intention to
withdraw from the EU, triggering a negotiation process for the terms of withdrawal and the
future relationship between the withdrawing state and the EU. This negotiation process, which
is conducted between the withdrawing state and the remaining member states, resembles
international treaty negotiations rather than domestic legal proceedings.
Furthermore, Article 50 emphasizes that joining the EU is entirely choice and consensual. EU
member states voluntarily join and stay in the EU, unlike nations inside a federation or union.
The notion of state sovereignty inside the EU framework is emphasized by a member state's
power to unilaterally initiate the exit process. In contrast, a federal state may have restricted or
no secession rights for its member states.
The Brexit process serves as another evidence of the EU's standing as a global institution. After
the UK announced its intention to leave the EU in March 2017, the two sides engaged in nearly
four years of negotiations that resulted in the signing of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement
and the Withdrawal Agreement. Rather of acting as a sovereign state engaging with another
state, the EU represented the interests of its member states collectively during these
negotiations as a supranational body.
Furthermore, the political and legal difficulties encountered during the Brexit process brought
to light the boundaries of the EU's power and sovereignty. The challenges of separating the UK
from the EU legal system were highlighted by concerns over matters including the border
between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the rights of EU nationals residing in the
UK, and the authority of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The requirement that these issues
be resolved via dialogue and compromise upheld the EU's standing as an international body
governed by international law.
Furthermore, the EU's status as a legal order apart from national legal systems was reinforced
by the ECJ's interpretation of EU law during the Brexit process. Decisions made by the ECJ
regarding issues like the revocability of Article 50 notifications and the legality of the UK's
unilateral revocation of its notification highlighted the supremacy of EU law and the role of the
ECJ as the ultimate arbiter of EU legal disputes. However, these rulings also demonstrated that
the EU's legal authority is derived from the consent of its member states and is subject to the
principles of international law.
Furthermore, it is abundantly evident from the Brexit process and the presence of Article 50 in
the TEU that the EU is an international organization rather than a state. The EU's standing as a
distinct legal and political body is highlighted by the voluntary nature of EU membership, the
consensual withdrawal process specified in Article 50, the discussions and legal hurdles faced
during Brexit, and more. Even if the EU has institutions, a common currency, and a legal system
similar to that of a state, its essence as an international organization is nonetheless different
from that of a sovereign state.
Nation Sovereignty over EU
The process of Brexit itself serves as a reminder that the EU is an international law-based
organization. A member state may legally leave the EU by citing Article 50 of the Treaty on
European Union (TEU). In line with international treaty law, this article lays out a formal process
for a member state to inform the EU of its intention to leave and to negotiate the terms of its
withdrawal with the remaining member states. Similar to international diplomacy rather than
domestic legal proceedings, the negotiation and agreement process is characterized by
diplomatic discussions and compromises, as evidenced by the Brexit process.
The Brexit process brought to light the boundaries of EU power and the relative importance of
national sovereignty in several domains. For instance, concerns over national sovereignty and
territorial integrity were raised by the Irish border issue and the rights of EU residents residing
in the UK. Both the EU and the UK recognized the need to respect each other's sovereignty
while working toward workable solutions, thus these concerns required serious thought and
negotiation.
Additionally, the role of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in interpreting EU law during the
Brexit process underscored the EU's status as an organization based on international law. The
ECJ's judgments on matters such as the revocability of Article 50 notifications and the legality of
the UK's unilateral revocation of its notification were based on the treaties and established legal
principles. These rulings demonstrated that EU law derives its authority from the consent of
member states and is subject to the principles of international law.
In conclusion, the Brexit process serves as further evidence that the EU is an organization based
on international law, and member states retain their sovereignty. The negotiation and
agreement process, the recognition of national sovereignty in key areas, and the role of the ECJ
all highlight the EU's status as a unique legal and political entity. While the EU possesses certain
characteristics of a federal state, such as a legal order and supranational institutions, its
fundamental nature as an organization of sovereign states is unmistakable.
B. Importance of Brexit in European and global contexts
Brexit challenges the vision of European integration, which has been a cornerstone of European
politics since World War II. It raises questions about the future of the EU project and the
cohesion of the remaining member states. The UK's departure from the EU affects the European
economy. It disrupts trade relationships, supply chains, and financial markets, leading to
economic uncertainties for both the UK and EU member states. Brexit impacts security and
defense cooperation within Europe. The UK has been a significant contributor to EU security
initiatives, including intelligence sharing and defense capabilities. Its departure weakens these
efforts and raises questions about future cooperation.
Brexit highlights political divisions within Europe. It exposes tensions between pro-EU and
Eurosceptic forces in member states, leading to debates over sovereignty, nationalism, and the
role of supranational institutions. Brexit triggers discussions about EU reform. It prompts
debates on issues such as democratic accountability, subsidiarity, and the balance between
national sovereignty and EU integration.
Brexit has global economic repercussions. It affects international trade, investment flows, and
financial markets, contributing to global economic uncertainties. Countries outside the EU,
including major trading partners like the US and China, are affected by changes in the UK-EU
relationship. It also alters trade dynamics and negotiations worldwide. The UK seeks to establish
new trade agreements with countries around the world, impacting existing trade arrangements
and global trade patterns. Moreover, Brexit influences geopolitical dynamics. It reshapes the
balance of power within Europe and affects alliances and partnerships globally. It may lead to
changes in UK-US relations, NATO dynamics, and UK's role in international organizations. In a
broader impact Brexit reflects trends in global politics, including the rise of populism,
nationalism, and anti-globalization sentiments. It challenges the idea of an interconnected
world and raises questions about the future of globalization.
Brexit raises core concerns about the future of multilateralism. It challenges the effectiveness of
international institutions and cooperation, highlighting the complexities of addressing global
challenges through collective action.
No Brexit Alternatives
Remaining in the EU while negotiating better conditions of membership was one course of
action the UK could have taken in place of Brexit. This alternative is also known as "soft Brexit"
or "Brexit in name only."
The authors of a scholarly paper titled "The Brexit Paradox: A Soft Brexit Within the EU," which
was published in the Journal of Common Market Studies, contend that a soft Brexit option
might have been a good substitute for either total withdrawal or full membership. They propose
that in order to maintain access to the EU single market and other membership benefits, the UK
might have negotiated a revision of its membership conditions, such as choosing to withdraw
from particular EU institutions or policies. The article's overall thesis is that a soft Brexit option
might have been a better option than a full exit from the EU, allowing the UK to address some
of the issues that sparked the Brexit vote while still keeping tight ties with the EU.
The United Kingdom has the option to stay in the European Union and endeavor to resolve its
issues inside its confines. A feasible approach would be to become a member of the European
Economic Area (EEA), which consists of Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein in addition to EU
members. In addition to having more control over immigration, this would have allowed the UK
to continue having access to the EU single market. Furthermore, the UK and the EU need to
have worked out a unique arrangement with the EU akin to Switzerland's, which allows access
to the single market while retaining its independence on matters like immigration and
regulations. Another workable option was the Turkey model, which would have permitted the
free flow of products and allowed the UK to negotiate its own trade deals.