- 7236

Norway, compared with many Western European countries, gained independence quite late. We received a constitution in 1814, before that we lived in union with Denmark for 400 years, and then until 1905 Norway was in union with Sweden.

Hitler's Germany and the occupation of Norway deeply wounded Norwegian society. The fear of Germany was strong among many Norwegians. The war led to the strengthening of the National Romantic movements and the feeling that we must preserve our national identity. This is not the conclusion reached by most countries on the continent. Due to the war, Norway's focus was on the UK and the US. Not only security policy and NATO membership are the results of our enthusiastic attitude towards the States. Modern America also attracts us.

Together with Denmark, Great Britain and Ireland, Norway applied for EU membership as early as 1961. This first attempt to join the EU was abruptly stopped by French President De Gaulle in 1963. He vetoed the UK's accession to the EU, and therefore negotiations with three other countries who applied, were not carried out.

In 1962 the Minister of Health, Carl Evang, declared that the situation was more dangerous than in 1940; "because EU membership means eternal occupation." Ten years later, he reiterated that what we are now facing is largely based on the German dream of "Lebensraum"**.

The head of the Center Party, Per Borten, was quite loyal to Norway's EU membership in the 60s, but later his attitude became much more skeptical. It was because of the EU affair that he had to leave the post of Prime Minister in 1971. The head of the Workers' Party Trygve Brattli took over his post and led Norway through negotiations with the EU. He had to endure a severe fall in popularity, which was shown by the 1972 elections. In this photograph, Prime Minister Brattley signs an agreement with the EU in 1972. To the left of Brattley is Foreign Minister Cappelen, to the right is Ambassador Sommerfeld.

While the EU case disappeared from the political agenda, the Right Party took the lead in government in the 1980s. Kore Willock in 1981 constituted a government composed only of members of the Right Party. Throughout all post-war years The right was the most ardent supporter of Norway's accession to NATO and the EU.

The 1980s saw the beginning of a long process during which the Workers' Party (Ap) changed its mind several times and became more and more friendly towards the EU. Jagland's generation, at that time active members of the RM (Workers' Youth - the youth organization of the Workers' Party), who opposed the EU, eventually became ardent supporters of the Union.

In the early 1990s, the EU and EFTA countries agreed on the need to negotiate an EEC treaty. Norway was not allowed to finish negotiations before Sweden's accession to the EU. Thus, for Prime Minister Gro Harlem Bruntland, the issue of Norway's accession to the EU became urgent earlier than expected. In the 1990s, the fear of Germany significantly weakened. The reason for this was not only the distance in time, but also the fact that the "Norwegian" Willy Brand became the Minister of Foreign Affairs and later Chancellor of Germany. However, the fear of Germany still occupied an important place in the arguments of the opponents of EU accession.

In 1994, opponents of EU accession were concerned primarily with agriculture. Many were under the impression that it was the farmers who were opposed to joining the EU, although opponents of the EU were also strong among the elite, especially in university circles.

The point of view of the Labor Party

Today Norway is ruled by the Workers' Party. The Workers' Party is a minority government, therefore it depends in every case on the support of the entire Storting. In his New Year's speech, Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg emphasizes the following: “The future of Europe is the future of Norway. Europe is uncertain, we are uncertain. Peace in Europe, peace with us.” This clearly shows the direction of the government and the Labor Party:

The Workers' Party and the supporters of EU accession are based on the fact that:

• We must secure influence in matters that affect us.
• We face common problems that need to be addressed by all together. No country can deal with them alone. In order to provide us with the standard of living and the values ​​that we want to preserve, international cooperation is necessary.
• The EU is very different from the EU most Norwegians voted against in 1994.
• Eastward expansion and the EMU's economic monetary union create problems for Norwegian exports.
• The EU defense and defense policy ensures security and reduces the threat of armed conflicts and humanitarian disasters.
• Cooperation in the field of police and jurisprudence will allow us to best counter organized crime throughout Europe.
• The further development of the EU - after the Mastrich and Amsterdam treaties - to a large extent began to focus not on management, but on the process of cooperation, for example, a common policy regarding information technology, employment and the EMU. These areas are not discussed in the EEC.
• Closer cooperation between Russia and the EU also affects the state of affairs of our country in this area, for example, cooperation in the regions of the Barents and Baltic Seas. We would like to have a better understanding on the part of the EU regarding the issues that we face with regard to Russia, for example, in environmental issues, the fishing industry, resource management, as well as nuclear safety issues.

Percentage of parties in the Norwegian Parliament Storting.

In the illustration we see the percentage of political parties in Sturting. The Workers' Party and the Right are the parties that support Norway's accession to the EU. The Progress Party used to be positive about joining the EU, but has recently moved into the anti-EU camp. Thus, today in Norway, two parties are in favor of joining the European Union and five parties are against it. The Workers' Party and the Right rank according to the polls public opinion February this year 50.7%. Both parties want to apply for EU membership, as they are convinced of the support of the majority. The EU is in a very positive mood, and the EU leadership promises a speedy consideration of the application.

Information about the Europa (EB) movement in Norway - www.europahuset.no

It is not only the Workers' Party and the Right that seek to join the EU. The Europe movement is making every effort to achieve an active attitude towards the EU and Europe. The Europe movement believes that only EU membership can provide Norway with full responsibility for what is happening in Europe, and will also allow it to influence the future of both Europe and the country itself. The goal of the movement is a new referendum in the next parliamentary period, that is, in 2005. The organization has 8,000 members spread across 17 organizations in each filk, as well as numerous local organizations. The head of the movement is Gunnar Bulstad. The Europa Movement publishes the brochure Europa Magazine three times a year.

Information about opponents of EU accession - www.neitileu.no

The organization "No to the European Union" was founded in 1990. The purpose of the organization is to prevent Norway from joining the EU. No to the European Union has local organizations in most communes. The head of the organization is Sigbjorn Gjeldsvik. The organization consists of 25,000 people. The organization publishes the magazine No to the European Union.

Some arguments of the opponents of joining the EU.

1. Yes to people's government!

The fight against the EU is a fight for people's governance. We want to solve daily problems ourselves and build our future. If we join the EU, we will have to accept that EU laws will matter more than the Constitution and other Norwegian laws. The EU is moving towards becoming a federation, a superstate. On many, many issues are established general rules regardless of differences in culture, language, climate, economy and political traditions. The member states of the EU are more and more subordinate to the transnational bodies of the Union. Thus, power is removed from those who are affected by its decisions, that is, from the people.

2. The EU will get the right to manage fish resources.

EU membership will mean that Norway will not be able to decide for itself how to manage fish resources. The EU will set quotas. Between 1994 and 1999, fish exports from Norway grew from 21.5 billion to more than 30 billion crowns. Norway has become the largest seafood exporter in the world. The gloomy predictions of EU accession supporters have not come true. The main world problem is not the lack of a market, but the lack of fish. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, FAO, 9 of the world's 16 marine fisheries have been devastated. One third of the two hundred most important fish species are on the verge of extinction. Whoever has fish in the future will undoubtedly find someone to sell it to. The problem is to ensure the reasonable use of the resource.

3. Sale of gas.

The implementation of the gas market directive means that Norway can no longer sell EU gas under long-term contracts and at fixed prices. The competition of gas suppliers to the EU internal market must be preserved, this will lead to the fact that buyers will buy gas where it will be cheaper. The Norwegian Gas Industry Commission will not be able to ensure the export of Norwegian gas. Today, the share of Norwegian gas imports to the EU is 10%. A decrease in the price of gas by just one era would mean a loss of 500 million kroons per year. The most optimistic buyers say that prices will fall by 10 era. Russia's share in EU gas imports is 25%. Russia is not a member of the EU internal market and can force the EU to accept higher prices.

4. Can we afford to give up the land that gives us food?

The land use policy of the European Union does not take into account the fact that natural conditions for farming are not the same in all countries of the European Union. The EU is proposing a program of intensive and industrial farming that will lead to land depletion, increased pollution, poor livestock health and an increased risk of epidemics. Membership in the EU will lead to a significant deterioration in the state of agriculture in Norway. At the same time, we are losing control over food production.

5. Deterioration of livestock health.

The health status of livestock in Norway is quite good. Small livestock farms distributed throughout the country, the absence of the need for intensive animal husbandry reduces stress and animal diseases. In addition, such a policy allows you to control the spread of contagious diseases. By destroying borders between countries, as the EU wants, we are depriving ourselves of the most important weapon in the fight against epidemics.

6. Unemployment

Over the past 20 years, the unemployment rate in the EU countries has been at the level of 8-11%. In France, every 4 young specialists under 24 remained unemployed, in Spain and Italy - every third. Persistently high unemployment scares Norwegian voters.

7. The EU does not give any guarantees on the issue of ecology.

The EU has no guarantees on the issue of ecology. The main focus of the European Union is on economic growth, but the issue of recycling remains open. Norway must be given full freedom of trade in order to be able to promote ideas for improving the environmental situation. This is not possible for Norway, a member of the EU. As a member of the EU, Norway will have to align its policies with general provisions European Union policy. The most obvious progress in the field of ecology is seen in the work of such international forums like the Vienna Convention and the UN Convention. Norway should have a voice in them.

8. Yes to solidarity.

9. Cancellation of the EEC agreement.

The No to the European Union movement believes that the EEC treaty should be abolished. Norway is unable to keep it. The contract must be canceled within a year.

Recent developments in the EU.

Treatise in Nice.

The treatise in Nice was published on the night of Monday, December 11, after the longest summit meeting in the history of the EU. It was planned that the meeting would last two days, but only on the fifth day the countries were able to reach a compromise. In the EU with its 27 member states, 257 out of 345 votes in the Council of Ministers are considered a qualified majority, which is 74%. In addition, at least 2/3 of the EU member states must support the bill.

In addition, the majority group of countries must represent at least 62% of the total EU population. 91 votes are required for the bill not to pass. This means that three large and one small country can block any bill. Germany is not satisfied with the results of the treatise at Nice. The population of Germany is 20 million more than the population of France, but Germany has not received more representatives in the Council of Ministers. In the European Commission, all 5 large European countries must be represented by one commissioner so that, as a result of the enlargement, the commission includes one representative from each country. But in any case, this will lead to the fact that small countries will lose their influence.

In case of joining the EU, Norway will receive 7 out of 352 votes in the Council of Ministers, which is 2%. Obviously, the country will not have its own representative in the European Commission, since there is a limit of 27 countries for membership. One can imagine what will happen if several small countries are represented by one commissioner, who will have to defend the interests of all of them.

Ban on the import of goods from the EU.

In connection with the emergence of an epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease and other diseases of cattle in European countries, Norway introduced a ban on the import of meat and dairy products from the EU countries. The EU does not show due understanding in this matter. Norway has also introduced a ban on the import of pasteurized dairy products. Following an agreement between veterinarians on mutual security, Norway has the right to suspend imports if the situation appears to be a threat to life or health. Now there is a lot of talk about the fact that the EU is preparing retaliatory measures. The EU has the right to stop the export of fish from Norway if it considers it insufficiently justified. Such sanctions have never been used by the EU before.

Sweden is the chairman of the EU.

2 weeks ago in Sweden in Stockholm it was like a pre-summit. Over the next six months, Sweden will host 1,700 meetings of various formats within the EU. The main attention will be paid to the three "E": enlargement (expansion), environment (ecology), employment (employment). The newspaper "Aftenposten" claims that there are all prerequisites for a new crisis to break out during the meeting in Gothenburg. Swedish Prime Minister Goran Persson hopes that the EU presidency will draw Swedish attention to the Union. The Norwegian movement "No to the European Union" claims that the Swedes were EU supporters for only 5 days - two days before the vote and three days after.

In addition, Sweden will try to draw EU attention to the northern region and to relations with Russia. Putin took part in the preliminary summit meeting in Stockholm along with the heads of government and EU countries. A meeting between the EU and Russia will be held in Moscow in May this year. EU enlargement is task number 1. Sweden wants to resume work with the Baltic region, according to Goran Persson. He considers this area the most promising for the EU for the next 20 years.

UK - EU: history of relations

Origins and first steps

After the end of the Second World War, on the wave of integration, which was based on the ideas of peaceful coexistence, the states of Western Europe began to unite in unions in the early 1950s. Despite taking a leading role in the creation of the Council of Europe in 1949, Britain did not immediately join the process of economic integration.

The first steps in this direction were taken already in the early 1970s, during the “first wave” of the expansion of the European Economic Community, which at that time included only 6 states (France, Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries). The UK joined the EEC in 1973 along with Ireland and Denmark.

At the time of joining the EEC, the British economy was one of the weakest in Western Europe, well behind the growth rates of France, Germany or Italy. It is interesting that previous attempts to join the EEC in the 1960s were blocked by the French authorities: French President Charles de Gaulle twice vetoed accession to the Community of "foggy Albion" out of fear of too close a historical alliance of the British with the United States, on the one hand, and with Commonwealth countries (legacy british empire), with another.

"Euroscepticism"

Almost from the moment of joining the EEC, the voices of euroskeptics sounded inside the UK. Back in 1974, Lord Denning, who held one of the highest positions in the kingdom's judicial system, stated: “If we look deeper into our relations with Europe, then the [Rome] treaty is comparable to a powerful sea tide: it penetrates all rivers and rises upstream. And it can no longer be contained.”

In the wake of fears of a too abrupt loss of sovereignty, just two years after joining the EEC, in June 1975, the government organizes the first referendum on the country's participation in the "common Europe". Despite the speculative statements of politicians about the loss of state sovereignty, the broad masses of the population are more concerned about combating unemployment and maintaining the price level: the stability of these two elements in the public mind is associated with a common economic space. European integration at the time of the referendum was supported by many politicians, including the rising "star" of conservatism Margaret Thatcher. As a result of the vote, two-thirds of the population supported the Europe project.

“Return our money!”

In 1984, at a meeting in Fontainebleau, France, Thatcher expressed a different point of view: Great Britain is not happy with the amount of assistance it receives from the EU in exchange for annual contributions. According to the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU, French farmers have traditionally benefited from the redistribution of financial resources, first of all. The British feel unfairly “ripped off”, and as a result, a decision is made to return 66% of the annual payments to the British treasury. This agreement has remained in force more than 30 years after the meeting in Fontainebleau.

Creation of a “common market”

European integration continued throughout the 1980s, and this process created the economic basis for the subsequent enlargement of the EU after the collapse of the eastern socialist bloc. The liberal policy of Margaret Thatcher in the mid-80s is combined with the ideas of a single market and the absence of trade barriers within the EU. But already in the early 1990s, there was growing dissatisfaction with the Single European Act (EEA) signed in 1986, which created the basis for the implementation of the idea of ​​a “common market” since 1992. Subsequently, already in the early 2000s, Baroness Thatcher herself would declare that she regretted signing the EEA treaty as a serious political mistake.

Doubts and torments of power

In 1988, speaking at a meeting in Bruges, Belgium, Thatcher made a statement that was remembered by the British: “We did not agree to remove our national borders in order to see the creation of the same borders at the European level, while the European super-state commands from Brussels.”

A staunch liberal politician, Thatcher viewed European dominance primarily as a threat to a unified socialist state. The speech in Bruges, in fact, served as the fuse for the subsequent growth of Euroscepticism in the UK, up to the present day. But Thatcher's former foreign adviser, Charles Powell, believes that the speech was not directed against the very idea of ​​a common Europe. The British prime minister had his own vision, different from the one in Brussels. After all, she also owns the words that the future of Britain is not on the outskirts of a united Europe, but as part of a pan-European family.

In 1990, relations with Europe actually split the Conservative Party - this intra-party trend continues to this day.

French politician Jacques Delors, who headed the European Commission for ten years (1985-1995), became one of the initiators new wave European integration. In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, which marked the beginning of the European Union in its modern form. The federalization of Europe, the single European currency and centralized fiscal policy did not suit the Thatcher government. At the same time, due to her sharp rejection of the idea of ​​​​European integration, in November 1990, Thatcher's loyal ally in the party, Deputy Prime Minister Jeffrey Howe, resigned in protest. This resignation as a result led to the departure from the political scene and Margaret Thatcher herself only a month later.

Single European currency

Just before leaving politics, Thatcher, who opposed Britain's participation in the Single European Currency, nevertheless signs the agreement on the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (EMEC), which marked the beginning of the euro.

In 1992, Britain is experiencing a “black Wednesday”, when speculation in the foreign exchange market led to the fall of the pound, and the government of John Major, unable to support the national currency, was forced to withdraw from the EMBC.

The Maastricht Treaty, which entered into force in 1993, expanded the political powers of Brussels: foreign policy, security, justice and domestic policy were added to them. At the same time, the agreement introduces the so-called “principle of subsidiarity”, which allows solving many issues at the local, national level. British Euroskeptics view this part of the treaty as "a spoon of honey in a barrel of tar."

From Thatcherism to Blairism: New Trends

The era of the Conservatives is being replaced by the arrival of Tony Blair, whom many in Britain associate with the ideas European integration. In the year of his premiership, steps were taken towards Lisbon Treaty, which was conceived for the reform and modernization of the European Union. Blair actively advocated for the expansion of the European Union at the expense of a dozen new countries admitted to the bloc in the mid-2000s. At the same time, towards the end of his tenure at the head of the British cabinet, Tony Blair was already announcing that he would overcome the "dragon of European federalism."

The foreign policy of the Blair cabinet has brought discord into the chorus of European politicians. Having found a common language with the Bush administration, Britain took a position close to the United States on the issue of a military invasion of Iraq, which was at odds with the positions of France and Germany. The proximity of Britain to Washington has always been and remains the subject of controversy over the kingdom's EU membership, both from British politicians and from European neighbors.

Euro or pound?

The debate over Britain's participation in the single European currency continues throughout Blair's premiership. As commentators point out, there were both supporters and opponents of the idea in his government. Therefore, the attitude of the British authorities towards the euro also changed from day to day: the abandonment of the pound has always remained too heavy a political issue for the British cabinet.

The Blair Treasury Secretary, Gordon Brown, is proposing a five-point economic check before committing to the euro. In June 2003, the British Treasury rapports: the country is not ready to join the euro. After Gordon Brown took over as prime minister, talk of participating in the euro is gradually fading away: new prime minister does not force discussion due to the crisis in European finance.

Fear of the Polish plumber

The next expansion of the European Union in 2004 gave rise to a wave of new fears associated with the influx of cheap labor from the east. Almost all “old” EU members restrict access to their labor markets for new economic migrants (a special amendment was provided in the law for this). Only three countries did not take advantage of this opportunity, including Great Britain, where they hope for the help of cheap labor in economic construction.

The image of the “Polish plumber”, famous in Europe, initially worries the French more. But the sharp influx of economic migrants to Britain makes the British think about the advisability of opening the borders. As hundreds of thousands of Britons leave the country and decide to “settle down” in other, sunnier countries in Europe, migrants are making up for the lack of a labor force. But on the other hand, in certain circles, the influx of foreigners into the UK raises fears of a loss of national identity. This opinion is exacerbated by the issue of creating additional infrastructure for new residents of the British Isles: it is necessary to build new schools, hospitals and roads, provide social assistance to the poor, etc.

Farage and the Independence Party

At the end of 2005, the future Prime Minister David Cameron becomes the leader of the Conservatives (at that time, in opposition). The following year, the relatively young UK Independence Party is led by the ardent Eurosceptic Nigel Farage. According to Cameron's colorful description, this party is actually made up of "weirdos and latent racists." Farage, of course, responds to this attack with a sharp protest. Be that as it may, the Independence Party sees Britain's exit from the European Union as its main task.

New Europa

In December 2009, the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. The search for a compromise for its signing by all EU members continued for several years. Critics say the treaty is too blatant a step towards European federalism. Britain, which has already refused to participate in the Schengen area and in the euro mechanism, this time is negotiating for itself a refusal to apply the EU Charter on Human Rights (of all the countries of the Union, except for the United Kingdom, only Poland refused the Charter).

In the same year, David Cameron forms a new faction of Eurosceptics in the European Parliament, leaving the European People's Party, which represents a bloc of right-centrist politicians in Brussels.

On the way to the referendum

The next round of tension between London and Brussels comes in 2011. First, the British refuse to participate in the eurozone summits, citing the fact that Britain is not interested in closer integration in this direction. In December, Cameron vetoes a new EU fiscal policy treaty. France and Germany are again unhappy, and the UK is isolated.

In January 2013, Cameron promised the British for the first time a referendum on EU membership. At that time, the Independence Party was supported by only 10% of citizens. In 2014, the ban on work in the United Kingdom for citizens of Romania and Bulgaria, who joined the EU in 2007, expired. Despite the growing number of visitors from the EU (123,000 in 2013 and 178,000 in 2014), the bulk of migrants reach Albion from outside the EU.

In 2015, Cameron wins a small victory: a referendum on independence in Scotland rejects the idea of ​​this part of the country leaving the Kingdom. On this wave, the Tories win the parliamentary elections.

Finally, in February 2016, London agrees with Brussels on new concessions if the country remains in the EU. These include abandoning the idea of ​​“close union” (which underlies EU integration policy), strong guarantees to EU members that are not part of the euro area, the possibility of reducing social payments migrants and the rejection of many bureaucratic elements.

Euroskeptics in Britain are not happy with the new rules. But this agreement with Brussels allowed Cameron to call a referendum, bearing in mind a specific prospect for the country if it still remains in the European Union.

Great Britain (full name - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland listen)) is an island state in Western Europe, founded on January 1, 1801. The name of the country comes from the English Great Britain. Britain - by the ethnonym of the tribe of the Britons. Motto: "Dieu et mon droit" "(Gods are my right)", anthem : "God Save the Queen/King".

Great Britain is one of the leading countries in the world, plays an important role in the work of the EU, the UN and NATO, and occupies one of the first places in the world in terms of GNP. In this regard, it is important for military specialists in foreign countries to correctly analyze and evaluate the ongoing socio-political processes in a country such as Great Britain, to objectively study and understand the economic, social, political, ideological and military processes taking place in it, to draw reasonable practical conclusions and assessments in the interests of fulfilling the assigned tasks.

England has always stood apart in the European space. For centuries, its cult of independence of political thinking had no equal in Europe, and it is no coincidence that Magna Carta Libertatum, 1215 (Magna Carta Libertatum), a legal instrument that had no analogues in the world at that time, appeared precisely in the British Isles. Individualism, pragmatism and the ability to modify, coexisting with tradition, have always been the foundation of the political construction of England and remain so today.

One of the differences between the Anglo-Saxon mentality and the continental one is greater mobility, a willingness to accept change and abandon the status quo. The idea of ​​a united Europe impressed the British for a long time, but, like many ideas, it eventually outlived itself. Accordingly, instead of continuing to stagnate, complain about economic, social difficulties, regret the funds invested in the common European cause, England announced its withdrawal from the European Union (EU).

A referendum on the UK's membership in the European Union, known within the UK as the EU referendum (English EU referendum) was held in the UK and Gibraltar on June 23, 2016.

Citizens of Great Britain, Ireland and Commonwealth countries legally residing in the Kingdom, as well as British citizens living abroad for no more than 15 years, were able to take part in the referendum. Unlike the general election, members of the House of Lords as well as Commonwealth citizens living in Gibraltar also took part in the vote. In the subjects of Great Britain, the voting results differed: the inhabitants of Scotland and Northern Ireland spoke mainly against the withdrawal, while the representatives of England, not counting the capital, and Wales voted in favor.

The exit of the UK from the European Union is the main political goal of the conservative opposition and some individuals (nationalists and eurosceptics) in the UK. During the 2016 referendum, 51.9% of those who voted for the UK to leave the European Union, respectively, 48.1% of voters supported the continuation of EU membership.

The relevance of this work is determined, first of all, by the need for an objective analysis of possible geopolitical changes and the consequences of Brexit for the EU and the UK. Secondly, by studying the results of the referendum on the UK's exit from the EU. Thirdly, the need to objectively determine the socio-political and economic reasons that led the country to this result.

Britain's exit from the EU is not evidence of a decline or crisis, but of the transformation of the European Union and Europe's transition to a new geopolitical format.

Objective reasons for holding a referendum on the UK's exit from the European Union

The European Union is an association of European states, a unique international entity that combines the features of an international organization and a state. All countries included
in the European Union, although they are independent, they are subject to the same rules: they have the same rules for education, medical care, pension, judicial system, the laws of the European Union apply in all EU countries. In 2013, after Croatia joined the EU, there were 28 countries in the EU.

In addition to the general political course, there are visa-free regime crossing state borders, and use a single currency - the euro. As of 2016, 19 countries out of 28 recognized the euro as their national currency.

The EU economy is made up of the economies of all its member countries. The EU represents the interests of each member before the world community and resolves all conflict issues. Each
the participating country contributes its share of GDP to the total share. The states that brought the greatest income are France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Great Britain.

Share of GDP of EU Member States

Thus, with the help of a standardized system of laws in force in all countries of the union, a common market was created, guaranteeing the free movement of people, goods, capital and services, including the abolition of passport control within the Schengen area.

The UK, for many reasons, has always played a special role in the European Union. This is probably mainly due to the mentality of the British, which has developed on the basis of geographical location. Britain is a huge island that on the one hand belongs to Europe, and on the other hand it does not. This is the reason for the special "island psychology" of the inhabitants of Britain.

For the UK, the very idea of ​​giving up part of its sovereignty and transferring it to a supranational level has become a very difficult decision.

The peak of Britain's power came in the 19th century. However, by the beginning of the First World War, it had lost its economic superiority. The Second World War. Great Britain emerged from the war as the undisputed winner, along with the USA and the USSR, unlike, for example, Germany, which turned out to be defeated. Thus, the peoples of Germany and a number of other European states emerged from the war with an awareness of the perniciousness of nationalism and a readiness to give up part of their sovereignty for the sake of peace, while the peoples of Great Britain, on the contrary, were proud of their victorious state and sought to strengthen its position in the world. The British ruling circles still saw their country as a world power and tried to maintain its exceptional position.

main direction foreign policy country was the establishment of " special relationship with the United States and the preservation of the British Commonwealth of Nations. To do this, it was necessary, firstly, to maintain complete freedom of action, which should not be limited by any political obligations in relation to a future integrated Europe. Secondly, it was necessary to preserve the system of imperial preferences of England with the countries of the Commonwealth. In this regard, during the negotiations on the creation of a broad integration grouping - the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), Great Britain put forward its plan, the main provisions of which were set out in a memorandum on February 17, 1957. First of all, it sought to preserve both of these principles of its foreign policy . She also insisted on maintaining the integrity of her agricultural sector, living off subsidies from the treasury, which allowed British consumers to purchase food at prices close to world prices. However, this plan was not accepted by the rest of the negotiators, since it provided for a more advantageous position for Great Britain in comparison with other countries.

In 1957, Great Britain did not sign the Treaty of Rome, the main document of the European Economic Community (EEC) on the elimination of all barriers to the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. In January 1960, Great Britain created its own integration group without the participation of the main European countries: EFTA (European Free Trade Association), which, in addition to Britain, included Austria, Switzerland, Portugal and all the Scandinavian countries. Subsequently, the ruling circles of Great Britain came to the realization that the economic potential of the country does not correspond to the status of a global power. The process of eco-colonization intensified sharply, it became obvious that further foreign trade orientation towards the Commonwealth countries had no prospects. British industry began to feel its dependence on continental Europe. Therefore, already on July 31, 1961, British Prime Minister G. Macmillan announced the intention of Great Britain to apply for accession to the EEC on conditions that suit London; on August 10, it was sent to Brussels. But Charles de Gaulle was against the UK's entry into the EU, so the application was rejected. It was not until January 1, 1973, after new governments were formed in France and Germany, that Great Britain, along with Ireland and Denmark, was admitted to the EEC.

Britain joined the EEC with certain privileges. Thus, the country has not joined the largest integration projects of the European Union - the euro area and the Schengen agreements, which provide for the abolition of visa control at common borders, thereby striving to preserve elements of political and economic independence. Britain pursued a much more selective migration policy than France and other EU members.

Despite all the privileges, talks about the UK's exit from the European Union have been going on since 1973, from the very moment when the country entered the union. The referendum on June 23 is not the first, a similar vote was held in June 1975, when the supporters of the EU won with 67.2 percent of the vote.

The accession did not cause approval in the country, the Laborites and the Conservatives presented this step to the public as forced: if the UK had not joined the Union, it would have lost its position in Europe. British leaders have consistently emphasized that the country has more important foreign policy tasks than participation in integration. Thus, since the beginning of being in the EU, the UK has acted as a “reluctant partner”. For a quarter of a century, it has not put forward a single major initiative that would contribute to the development of integration. On the contrary, every time when the partners came up with such initiatives, she "put spokes in the wheel." This position naturally led to sharp disagreements with other European countries in the preparation of the Maastricht Treaty. The British government insisted on the adoption of a protocol that would allow the UK not to participate in the third stage of integration - the creation of an economic and monetary union (EMU). The ratification of the Maastricht Treaty caused a sharp political struggle in the British Parliament: about 600 amendments to the bill proposed by the government were put forward.

The change in EU policy took place during the tenure of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. His task was to show that the UK is a strong partner in the development of integration. The main efforts were focused on the development of a new EU economic strategy, the establishment of the European Central Bank and the election of its president, the early start of the functioning of Europol, and negotiations with candidate countries.

At the present stage, there are many contradictions between the EU and the UK. The anti-integration sentiments of the British are connected both with the country's historical past and with relations with the European Union.

Speaking about the country's historical past, one of the groups of people who voted "yes" in the referendum were Conservative pensioners who want to keep England the same Great Britain that it was before joining the EU, with its own unique culture, customs
and traditions. In their opinion, Britain is losing its authenticity, and something needs to be radically changed, even if it is the country's exit from the EU.

Speaking of contradictions with the EU, the main points of the requirements of the British government: economy - sovereignty - migration. The very principle of supranational control over the economy, finances, and laws does not suit many people in the UK. The country's government has often called for deregulation of the European economy, limiting the expansion of the single market, and giving member countries the ability to block the Brussels Directives.

In addition, supporters of transatlantic cooperation have traditionally been very influential in the United Kingdom: in the field of law, traditions and business principles, the UK has much more in common with the United States than with Europe. There are a large number of supporters of the need to focus the development of the British economy on the United States. The British economy and business cycles are unique and different from European ones, they are more in line with the American ones, and in a number of areas the UK's relations with the United States are on this moment remain tighter. Great Britain is a state focused on the development of private property, traditional market relations, freedom, market, entrepreneurship, and competition. And the EU (especially France and Germany) are states with socialist potential, with regulation, regulation, bureaucratization. This is what is the antithesis of conservative traditional capitalist values.

One of the main requirements was also the need to recognize that the euro is not the single currency of the EU, so as not to infringe on the interests of non-eurozone countries. The presence in most EU member states of a single currency unit - the euro - is a weak point of the European Union. A common currency is extremely disadvantageous for countries that are economically less developed. Less competitive countries are forced to continuously build up external debts, because their balance of payments regulation mechanisms do not work. A country that has its own currency, through devaluation, can increase the competitiveness of its exports and limit the volume of imports. But, for example, Greece, which introduced the euro, cannot use such methods. It turns out that while Germany is increasing its positive balance of payments, Greece and many other eurozone member countries with less competitive economies are forced to increase their debts. They have to introduce a regime of austerity, including budgetary ones, but then these less developed countries begin to intensively lose qualified specialists, save on science and education
and healthcare. And thus, in the conditions of free movement of labor, they lose their competitiveness even more.

Another of the main arguments of Brexit supporters was the British contribution to the EU budget - one of the largest, now it is about 11 billion euros per year (only Germany, France and Italy pay more). Many believe that membership in the European Union costs the country too much.

Residents of the UK are also not satisfied with the common agricultural policy, which really hurts the economy of the United Kingdom, as it leads to inflated food prices and inefficient use of natural resources.

The EU has failed to unify tax policy, budget policy, financial policy in general. Accordingly, there is a loosely controlled movement of money and capital, depending on which country pursues which policy. Capital goes to where there are more capacious markets, higher incomes of the population, more skilled and highly paid workers, where more added value is created, that is, to Germany, France and several other small but highly developed EU countries. And this also tears the EU apart and creates inequality different countries. It turns out that a periphery is being created within the EU, represented mainly, in addition to Greece and other countries of southern Europe, by post-Soviet and post-socialist states (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, the Baltic countries, etc.). And this periphery somehow needs to be maintained at the expense of the EU. The problem is that the political and economic model of the EU is imperfect. Such a system reflects the interests of the most developed EU member states, primarily Germany, and limits the less developed EU countries.

Disagreements also arose in the political sphere. They especially touched upon the decision-making mechanism. With regard to sovereignty, the political leadership of the UK insisted on the ability to limit the operation of European laws and regulations through the veto. The British prime minister has been pushing for a so-called red card system that would allow national parliaments to veto EU legislation. However, French President Francois Hollande opposed the desire of the kingdom to receive such a right, explaining his position by saying that "a country that is not part of the eurozone cannot have the right to veto laws that affect its members."

At the moment, in the question of whether the UK will leave the European Union following the results of the referendum, the decisive role was played not by economic factors, but by political ones. Despite the fact that initially the referendum was initiated based on purely economic motives: Great Britain considered it unprofitable and too costly for itself to be part of the EU. It is known that the most authoritative Prime Minister of Great Britain in recent decades, Margaret Thatcher, was initially opposed to Britain's entry into the EU. She defended, and after her, other leaders of the British government and the fact that Britain took a separate position in the EU, did not abandon national currency and did not switch to the euro. By and large, Britain has never been a full member of the European Union and has always experienced great fluctuations even at the level of membership that it has. Britannia long years engaged in heated discussions with the governing bodies of the EU about its contributions to EU funds. But, nevertheless, a significant part of the British retained the desire to leave the EU. And there were political reasons for this.

The main stumbling block between the EU and the UK has become social policy. This contradiction provoked D. Cameron's proposal for a referendum, who, during his election campaign for the post of Prime Minister of the country, promised to achieve new conditions for Britain's membership in the alliance and further raise the question of the expediency of the Kingdom's membership in the EU.

An integral part of the process of pan-European integration is the development by the EU member states of a common immigration policy. The problem is that traditionally immigration policy has been the responsibility of the national government and has been linked to security and national sovereignty. A common immigration regime involves the coordination of tasks, goals, priorities and scope of the immigration policy of the participating countries.

Until recently, supporters of European integration managed to prevail over their opponents, the main argument was the contribution of immigrants to the economy. In particular, immigrants
from Eastern Europe between 2001 and 2011 paid $7.9 billion more in taxes to the British budget than they received from it. But data from a special study conducted by the Eurobarometer in 2006 showed that the problem of immigration was brought to the fore in the UK. The main reasons are competition from immigrants for jobs, government services, social housing, education or healthcare. Moreover, according to the respondents, this problem should be solved at the national level. This gives rise to a contradiction between international obligations and public demands.

In 2012, David Cameron, speaking at the annual conference of the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), spoke about the need to control immigration and that he was considering imposing "quotas" or "restrictions" on entry into the country from other European countries. From the point of view of the EU, such a policy is unacceptable, the UK is obliged to adhere to a common European immigration policy. In this regard, a conflict began to grow between Great Britain and Germany. Berlin took a tough stance. In particular, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has repeatedly stated that she will not compromise on the issue of free movement, which she considers one of the fundamental principles of European integration. Moreover, she made it clear that she is ready for the undesirable consequences, namely the exit of the UK from the EU, if the British Prime Minister imposes restrictions on freedom of movement.

However, the UK does not agree to put up with the EU principle of free movement of labor. This principle showed its negative sides against the backdrop of the migration crisis: in 2015, according to Eurostat, 1.25 million refugees arrived in Europe, which is more than twice the level of 2014 (562.68 thousand). And these are official statistics - that is, figures for those who received refugee status.

In turn, demands for migrant benefits and a highly complicated extradition process strengthen the position of Brexit supporters. Thus, London does not like EU labor law due to lack of flexibility and excessive focus on numerous social benefits.

Despite the fact that before the referendum, Cameron held negotiations with the European Union, as a result of which the UK managed to negotiate a number of "bonuses": Brussels agreed to reform the economy, competitiveness, strengthening British sovereignty and immigration, the majority voted for the UK to leave the EU.

The choice of the country “for” leaving the EU is also explained by the fact that the EU is no longer a strong and successful union. The European Union was once perceived as a promising organization in geopolitical, socio-economic and cultural aspects. However, at this stage, the EU is experiencing a systemic crisis. The financial crisis that has been going on for many years, the economic decline, the spiritual crisis, the destruction of moral values, the growth of radical sentiments in society are no longer considered accidental.

At the heart of the collapse of the Greater Europe project lies precisely the uncertainty of the policy pursued by the West over the course of years. Experts note that when the EU is faced with crisis situations, European politicians cannot objectively and constructively treat the current situation.
Despite the fact that the EU has achieved quite large economic and technological successes, against the background of this progress, the crisis in the spiritual sphere of society is deepening. This trend, along with all spheres of public consciousness, is also manifested in political consciousness. So, if such mental states as parasitism, depression due to unemployment, radicalism, intolerance towards other cultures are increasing among young people, Islamophobic tendencies are becoming more and more pronounced among politicians. And instead of looking for solutions to the problems that have arisen within, there is a growing tendency in official circles to look for the enemy aside.

Attempts are being made to accuse other countries of fabricated questions. The EU, under various pretexts, is trying to interfere in their internal affairs, while hiding behind beautiful phrases type of democracy and human rights. This makes the organization even more internal problems instead of solving them.

Thus, it is very beneficial for the UK to leave the EU, because it never entered the European monetary system and the Schengen area. Today it is the most powerful international financial center. And tomorrow it may become a country that will be the center of a separate Atlantic autonomous civilization.

The UK has a huge zone of states that are part of the Commonwealth, where, in fact, the Queen is the head of these countries: Canada, Australia, the UK has strong positions in India, not to mention the fact that it controls the banking offshore zone, including Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Barbados and others. More and more members of the UK government are oriented to follow their own geopolitical and geo-economic path.

The main objective reasons for the exit of the UK
from the European Union are:

• EU social policy towards migrants and the principle
  on the freedom of movement of labor;

Possible geopolitical changes and consequences associated with the exit of the UK from the European Union

The European Union has never been homogenous economically, politically and culturally. AT last years this inconsistency has only grown.

sharpest moment The rational crisis that followed the eurozone debt crisis has already led to a sharp decline in solidarity within the EU. Migrants once again test the strength of the European Union: illegal entry into the EU in violation of national norms and Schengen rules, violation of the Dublin criteria. In almost all these issues, the leadership of the EU countries followed the lead of migrants and expressed their readiness to change the existing migration rules. At the same time, societies
and government bodies in most European countries are absolutely not ready for the integration of migrants. The continuation of the indecisive policy of the European authorities seriously undermines the effectiveness of the established European legal system, as well as the very idea of ​​European integration.

The current EU model is far from perfect.

The EU needs serious modernization, or it will always be in a state of crisis and tend to disintegrate.

In the European Union there is a very cumbersome and a complex system decision-making, where all countries must make critical decisions by consensus. And it becomes more and more difficult to do this as the EU expands. The system becomes extremely bureaucratic and inefficient in terms of management. The UK vote is transforming the configuration of power in Europe and calls into question the entire future of the EU as it stands. The association, which was considered the most attractive integration project, including for the post-Soviet space, where everyone wants to enter and where no one wants to leave, has lost the image of the peoples' political dream.

The holding of the referendum caused a great resonance in society, and two diametrically opposed groups appeared. Both groups use different media resources. There are many illustrations of both supporters and opponents of the UK's exit from the EU.

The exit of the UK from the EU will have its positive and negative consequences in the future both for the country itself and for the European Union.

In terms of foreign policy, Britain will lose its influence in Brussels, Paris, Berlin. The British government has always seen the EU as an important tool for pursuing its foreign policy goals. After the referendum, the UK will lose this resource.

On the other hand, the EU without the UK will become weaker in the sense that Europe will be represented on the UN Security Council by France alone. For the UK itself, Brexit does not matter in this regard, Britain will still remain a key member of NATO and the UN Security Council, and, most importantly, a nuclear power.

The EU may become less active on the world stage due to Brexit. For example, without the UK, the European Union will be less likely to use sanctions as an instrument of pressure on countries such as Russia. The UK has always been one of the most active supporters of the use of EU sanctions as tools to influence objectionable countries. So, after the annexation of Crimea, Prime Minister David Cameron determined that Russia should pay for this action. His support for sanctions against Russia was instrumental in convincing other member states that they must incur some economic cost to put pressure on Russia. In addition, due to the exit of the UK, the position of the EU in Asia, already weakened by the Eurozone crisis, will be further weakened. It may also turn out that because of the British exit, the ASEAN countries will no longer see the EU as a model of regional political integration. In addition, the loss of the EU's second largest economy will reduce the EU's bargaining power in free trade negotiations with countries such as Japan.
and India.

It is clear that the British withdrawal will increase Germany's dominant influence in the EU. At the same time, this may increase the suspicions in the member states regarding the growth of German hegemony. Brexit will exacerbate the "German problem" in the European Union. Without Britain, one part of the EU, led by Germany, may move towards a political union, while others will try to get a special status within the EU. But major moves towards Eurozone integration are highly unlikely before the 2017 French and German elections.

A chain reaction for the EU, according to some experts, leaving the second largest economy could lead to a domino effect and the collapse of the European Union. In the Old World, Euroskeptic sentiments are intensifying against the backdrop of a severe migration crisis. Brexit could set off a chain reaction among other EU members. Thus, the leader of the French National Front Marine Le Pen has already called for a similar referendum in France. She said a successful Brexit vote in the UK would be like a fall Berlin Wall in 1989. Euroskeptics across the EU will find hope that they can prevail.

Geert Wilders, leader of the far-right Dutch Freedom Party, made a similar statement: "We want to be responsible for our own country, our money, our borders, our immigration policy."

A bad signal was given by Switzerland, which withdrew its application for EU membership. In Spain, EU support has weakened by 16% and now stands at 47%.

The danger for the UK in the event of an exit from the EU will be the possibility that Scotland will hold another referendum on secession from the United Kingdom. Last time, independence supporters lost only 10%. Then the key argument for remaining in the UK was that Scotland, having left the United Kingdom, could not be accepted into the EU as an independent country.

Together with Scotland, the United Kingdom has a population roughly comparable to that of France, as well as an economy slightly larger than that of France, making the UK the third most powerful country in Europe after Germany and Russia. Without Scotland, Britain's power would be greatly weakened. Together with part of the population, Scotland will deprive the UK of significant oil reserves, and will also be able to deny the United Kingdom the ability to use several naval bases in the country. With the loss of almost six million Scottish residents and $300 billion of GDP, the UK will no longer rank between France and Germany, falling
between France and Italy.

There are fears that Brexit will give strength to Catalonia seeking to secede from Spain - especially if, due to the withdrawal, Scotland demands a new secession referendum.

Thus, leaving the EU can, on the one hand, awaken nationalistic passions in the EU residents. On the other hand, this step may lead to the fact that the geopolitical influence of London will significantly weaken, and the country itself will lose territory and economic potential, having lost the mechanisms for protecting its interests. The United Kingdom will no longer be able to use the influence that it will have as freely as before, and the center of power will shift
from the UK towards France and Germany.

As for domestic politics, supporters believe that leaving the European Union will only strengthen democracy, since the parliament will become fully sovereign. The UK will also not be subject to European laws and regulations.

On the other hand, residents of the UK will no longer be subject to European legislation in social areas and labor protection. British citizens will lose the benefit of free movement and residence in Europe.

According to official statistics, there are currently 942,000 Eastern Europeans working in the UK, including Romanians and Bulgarians, as well as 791,000 Western Europeans. At the same time, the share of workers from non-European countries is 2.93 million people.

Supporters of maintaining EU membership argue that, despite certain difficulties associated with the allocation of housing and the provision of public services, in general, immigration from EU countries has had a positive effect on the British economy. Brexit agitators say that immigration numbers must be significantly reduced, and the only way to do this is to regain control of the borders and set immigration rules on our own.

Brexit will allow the government to take back control of labor laws and the national healthcare system. Also, a reduction in immigration should theoretically mean more jobs for people who remain in the country, but, on the other hand, a shortage of labor could negatively affect the growth of the British economy.

The same can be said about wage levels: their likely increase in the event of Brexit may be beneficial to workers, but not to employers. Britain's defensive policy could keep the brightest and most talented EU citizens out of the country.
and employers will have to choose from a narrower pool of candidates. Of course, this will have negative consequences for the British economy.

Exit advocates say that without the EU's bureaucracy and its myriad rules, small and medium-sized enterprises will flourish, resulting in more employment because they trade less with other EU countries than other companies.

Opponents of the exit say that millions of jobs will be lost as multinational companies move production to other EU countries. In particular, this will affect the automotive industry, which is almost entirely owned by foreign companies.

The financial sector, which employs 2.1 million Britons, also fears the possible consequences of a UK exit from the EU, as the success of the sector is built on free access to the European market, and the loss of such access carries very serious risks.

From a political point of view, one of the first results of the referendum was the resignation of the British European Commissioner, Baron Hill, on June 25, 2016. On the evening of Tuesday 28 June, as part of the European Council Summit in Brussels, a symbolic lowering of the UK flag took place in front of the European Commission building.

Discouraged by the results of the referendum, David Cameron decided to leave the post of leader of the ruling party and head of the cabinet. On July 11, Minister of the Interior Theresa May won, and already on the morning of July 13, she began to form a new government. She immediately created two special ministries - on exit from the EU and international trade. The main supporter of Brexit in the ranks of the party, Boris Johnson, unexpectedly for many, became the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Thus, the conservatives remained in power in order to finalize the exit from the "United Europe" by December 2018.

From an economic point of view, being a member of the European Union was a huge boon for the UK, given that the EU is a single trading area and therefore goods sold within it are not subject to import and export duties. The EU is the UK's main trading partner, accounting for 52% of British exports of goods and services. A full exit from the European Union will lead to the emergence of trade barriers. This means, for example, that British-made cars will be subject to a 15% tariff, while cars imported from Europe will be subject to a 10% tariff.

When leaving the EU, the UK will have to re-develop trade agreements with EU states and other countries. However, Brexit supporters say the European Union as a market is not as important to Britain as it used to be and that the ongoing eurozone crisis will only reinforce this trend.

Economist Roger Bootle argues that even if the UK fails to conclude a free trade agreement with Brussels, it will not be a tragedy, since as a result, Britain will be in the same position as the US, India, China and Japan, which are almost without problems export their goods to the EU.

The UK will be able, with the help of the WTO, to conclude bilateral trade agreements with countries with rapidly growing economies, such as China, Singapore, Brazil and India, as well as with Russia. Much will depend on which treaties the UK manages to sign with the EU and other countries. There are many options for maintaining trade links with EU countries.

Norwegian option: The UK leaves the EU and joins the European Economic Area, which will provide it with access to the single European market, with the exception of part of the financial sector of the economy. It will also free Britain from EU rules in the areas of agriculture, fisheries, law and home affairs.

Swiss option: The UK will follow the example of Switzerland, which is not part of the EU or the EEA, but concludes separate agreements with Brussels for each sector of the economy.

Turkish option: The UK may enter into a customs union with the EU, which will give its industry free access to the European market, but the financial sector will not receive such access.

The UK could also try to conclude a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU along the Swiss model, but with guarantees for the access of the financial sector of the economy to the European market, as well as some control over the formulation and implementation of common trade rules.

The UK can completely break off its relations with the EU, and rely only on the rules of the WTO.

In the worst-case scenario considered by the think tank Open Europe, in the event of Brexit, the UK economy could lose 2.2% of total GDP by 2030. However, according to their own predictions, the best option By contrast, Britain's GDP will grow by 1.6% if the Kingdom manages to conclude free trade agreements and implement effective deregulation of the economy.

Thus, on the one hand, in the long run, in the event of an exit from the EU, London may lose its importance as a global financial center. On the other hand, on the contrary, becoming completely independent of the requirements of the EU, the UK can become one of the largest economic powers, like Singapore.

Speaking of macroeconomic policy in Europe, Brexit can play an important role in terms of energy policy, further strengthening German influence in this area. The UK opposes efforts by the European Commission to intervene in national energy policy for the purposes of EU energy security. Therefore, without the UK, the EU could adopt a more centralized system for regulating the common energy market.

The UK has pioneered the separation of energy transmission from production, thereby increasing competition and lowering the price of energy. It was this system that was borrowed by the EU to regulate the energy market of the European Union and pursue an energy security policy. Germany, by contrast, has sought to secure supply through renewable energy subsidies and through long-term contracts, including with Russia. The result of Brexit in the energy sector could be further restrictions on the use of coal, combined with a more centralized system for redirecting energy flows, including gas, to countries where they are needed. Here one can clearly see Germany's desire to strengthen its control over the common energy sector of the European Union.

In particular, Germany seeks to create a gas hub on its territory.

The Berlin-led EU may try to improve the security of gas supplies, not by diversifying from Russian gas, but by increasing imports from Russia, including through the proposed Nord Stream 2 pipeline to create large volumes of gas in the system, which will allow them to be pumped to Member States suffering from technical or political supply problems. Through this scheme, Germany's influence in the EU will increase.

On defense policy, analysts are divided on the possible security implications of Brexit. Supporters of leaving the EU believe that open borders also mean " open doors» for terrorists. Therefore, closing the borders will allow better control of the flow of incoming immigrants to the UK.

Opponents of the exit, however, including some senior military officials, believe that, on the contrary, the European Union is an essential security element, especially in times of instability in the Middle East, allowing member states to freely exchange information about passengers and criminals.

UK security policy outside the EU is likely to shift towards NATO. But, on the other hand, the security policy of the EU without the UK should shift towards NATO. General Policy Security and Defense The EU was created in 1999 only after Britain and France found a way to combine the EU's involvement in defense with recognition of NATO's role. The French were enthusiastic about the prospects for protecting the EU, and Britain backed NATO priority at the time.

Without the UK, the remaining 27 member states could more easily advance the EU's common defense policy. Against the background of the aggravation of various kinds of crises and contradictions, the EU leadership understands that in such a situation it is necessary to be guided by their own national interests, and not by the interests of the United States. There is also an understanding that the further expansion of NATO will inevitably lead to the emergence of new and the deepening of existing dividing lines in Europe, the strengthening of the fragmentation of the European security space, and will further complicate relations between Russia and the EU (for example, the expansion of NATO, the admission of Ukraine and Serbia to the alliance). At the same time, it is obvious that NATO forces will not be able to stop the flow of refugees or contribute to the settlement of the Ukrainian conflict, since they were created for an open military confrontation with the USSR and were never prepared to repel this type of threat.

Consequently, the countries of the European Union, in the context of NATO's inefficiency, advocate the creation of a single European army, perhaps the creation of some kind of military-political bloc that is not similar in structure to NATO. Great Britain earlier not only criticized, but also promised to veto any proposals concerning the creation of a "European army". This was stated by British Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, arguing that there is no possibility of creating an EU army. In principle, such a negative approach of the British to innovations in the defense policy of the EU did not surprise anyone: London has almost always been the conductor of Washington's foreign policy.

This time, an informal meeting to discuss the proposals of Germany and France will be held in Bratislava, but without the participation of Britain, so the conditions for the implementation of long-standing ideas about European army are favorable.

The heads of the military departments of Germany and France developed new proposals for improving the activity in the field of the defense policy of the European Union and sent them to the head of the EU diplomacy. The action plan is accompanied by a letter in which the defense ministers of the two countries express their confidence that the EU will support a strong initiative to protect European citizens and their values. The proposals concern the creation of a joint headquarters for commanding the operations of the European Union, a common satellite system and a system for the exchange of logistics and military medical resources.

The question arises why Europe needs its own armed forces when the security of its citizens is reliably protected by NATO troops. In addition, the EU has its own military units - rapid reaction forces, numbering about 60,000 people, ready to confront threats from outside.

First, Europe is seriously thinking about restoring its prestige, because now, according to many analysts, it is just an American "vassal" who pays with his own security for the conflicts unleashed by the US located across the Atlantic. Having your own army would allow Western countries conduct operations themselves, bear responsibility for them and choose allies outside the European Union, including in the post-Soviet space.

Secondly, not all countries that are members of the European Union are members of the North Atlantic Alliance. Among them are 6 countries: Sweden, Finland, Austria, Ireland, Cyprus and Malta. According to the NATO-EU "Partnership for Peace" agreement, all these countries can also count on the alliance's military support. But with regard to the bloc, these states are trying to remain neutral.

Thirdly, from an economic point of view, the creation of a unified army in Europe will significantly reduce military spending. Experts have already calculated that the savings will be about €120 million. According to European officials, if the armies are united, the funds will be distributed more rationally, the single army will become more combat-ready.

Thus, after Brexit, the EU is losing one of its most capable military powers in Europe and one of the few EU countries that spend 2% of their GDP on defense. Opportunities to project their power and strategic assets will be sorely lacking in Europe. It is possible that Brexit could prompt EU member states to increase funding for a common European defense project. However, on the other hand, the shrinking EU will lessen its desire to create defense structures outside NATO due to the risk of duplication and inefficient spending of funds that prefer to save.

The EU is now actively working towards applying common market rules to the European defense industry in order to limit duplication of defense programs and research, as well as to increase competition and stimulate innovation. In the case of Brexit, there will be fewer supporters of competition in the military-industrial complex, and France - a supporter of the protectionism of its defense industry - will gain more influence.

NATO did not support the UK's exit from the EU. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO needs a strong UK, a strong Europe. According to the politician, the alliance is now facing “unprecedented security challenges, terrorism, instability and unpredictability. A fragmented Europe will only exacerbate these problems.” Of particular concern to NATO is the fact that after Brexit, the established system of communications between Washington and the EU, within the EU and within NATO will be disrupted.

Thus, of course, the exit of the UK from the EU can, on the one hand, be positive, on the other hand, have a negative impact on both the UK and the Union itself. This threatens London with a decrease in authority in Europe. This raises the question of the 1.4 million Britons living in other European countries as they lose their right to free movement in the EU, as well as the 2.5 million EU nationals living in the UK. The economic question is aggravated. Currently, more than half of British foreign trade is with EU countries. For the European Union, the exit of Great Britain may call into question the entire European project and lead to the exit of other countries whose population also does not sympathize with integration.

Conclusion

On June 23, 2016, a referendum was held in the UK, which decided whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union or leave it. A narrow majority voted to leave the European Union. This event was called "Brexit".

In starting the process of the disintegration of the EU, several factors overlapped - from economic to social, in addition, the issue of identity became acute. That is why the process of disintegration of the EU in its current form can be considered inevitable.

The UK has always held a special place in the European Union. This is even related to geographic location country that is separated from the continent and located on a large island. It is conceptually unacceptable for Britain that the EU is built around the federal principle, as a federal superstate. This robs Britain of its traditional belief in British identity and British sovereignty. Britain cannot be a purely European country because it is not a continental state. Also, over the years, the UK and the EU have had contradictions on a large number of issues in different areas.

The main objective reasons for the UK's exit from the European Union are:

• Britain's unwillingness to subsidize weaker economies, support other states, entire nations;
• social policy of the EU in relation to migrants and the principle of freedom of movement of labor;
• economic disagreements on a number of issues; the principle of supranational control over the economy, finances, laws;
• agricultural policy of the EU;
• labor law focused on social benefits;
• growing instability in the world; public dissatisfaction with the solution of the security issue;
• systemic crisis of the European Union: financial crisis, economic decline, spiritual crisis, the destruction of moral values, the growth of radical sentiments in society.

The outcome of the referendum was a major challenge for many in the UK and around the world. In this regard, the UK will inevitably face a number of problems. First, there is serious uncertainty about how to build relations with the European Union, how to exit. There has not yet been a precedent, and the exit procedure itself is complex and unsettled. Secondly, the referendum demonstrated the obvious vulnerability and the need to modernize the British constitutional and political system. Existing state institutions and the mechanisms of governance that have been formed over the centuries are clearly failing today. Britain is a country of representative democracy, and the referendum is an institution of direct democracy. The fact that it is being used more than ever shows that traditional institutions are increasingly failing and the British political elite is trying to find some alternative sources of decision making.

For the European Union, this is also a colossal challenge and a shocking precedent. Even before the referendum, many leaders of countries stated that the example of Britain and the outcome of the referendum would be a kind of guideline, that perhaps a number of other EU countries would think, if not about holding a referendum, then at least about how to bargain for themselves certain specific conditions as in the UK. The list of such countries is quite wide. From the point of view of its influence on the processes of globalization, this is a colossal blow to the reputation of the European Union, which has long been considered an exemplary form of integration processes. This is an important signal that the European Union should actively intensify its modernization processes, from developing some common strategic goals and objectives to reforming existing institutions and bodies.

The exit of the UK from the European Union will also mean an economic reorientation. Economically, Britain has always insisted on a fairly liberal and open policy. Whether without the UK, EU countries will be able to resist protectionist aspirations is a serious question. EU membership also presupposes a single market. This is a form of integration, including the free movement of goods, works and services, capital, labor resources. The exit of the UK from the EU implies the loss of such privileges for the country, an increase in customs duties and duties. In some cases, it will be necessary to create special subdivisions from scratch, because the country will have to conclude a new trade agreement with 27 EU countries. There is also the option of searching for new agreements with the EU as a whole, but for each item in the trade turnover structure.

The results and consequences of the referendum are different. Everything will depend on the diplomatic steps of the UK, the decisions of the EU and the member countries of the Eurozone. But the vote was held, supporters for leaving the EU won. Now only time will tell where this will all lead.

Links

1. UK exit from the European Union: website. URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_of_Great Britain_from_European_Union (Accessed: 09.10.2016)
2. Shaparov A.E. UK immigration policy: heritage of the past - problems for the future // Problem analysis and state management design. - 2010. - No. 6.
3. What are the consequences of Britain's exit from the EU?: site. URL: http://www.bbc.com/russian/uk/2016/02/160217_britain_and_eu_brexit_debate (accessed 10/13/2016)
4. Koksharov A. Exacerbation of the island syndrome // Expert. - 11/17/2014. - No. 47

List of sources

1. Ganiev T.A., Shur V.G., Onischuk S.M. Special regional studies. Factor analysis. Electronic textbook. M.VU, 2016.
2. Sakantsev A.E., Onischuk S.M., Burmistrov A.A. Special regional studies. Electronic tutorial. M.VU, 2016.
3. Ganiev T.A., Sakantsev A.E., Burmistrov A.A. Special regional studies. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. M.VU, 2016.
4. Shemyatenkov V.G. European integration. - M., 2003.
5. Shishkov Yu.V. The Common Market: Hopes and Reality. - M., 1972.
6. Shemyatenkov V.G. Quovadis Europa: The European Union faces a historic choice // Europe. Yesterday Today Tomorrow. - M., 2002.
7. Shaparov A.E. UK immigration policy: heritage of the past - problems for the future // Problem analysis and state management design. - 2010. - No. 6.
8. Koksharov A. Exacerbation of the island syndrome // Expert. - 11/17/2014. - No. 47.
9. Shaparov A.E. UK immigration policy: heritage of the past - problems for the future // Problem analysis and state management design. - 2010. - No. 6.
10. Dejevsky M. Angela Merkel Has Exposed David Cameron's Gravest Failing as a Politician // The Guardian. - November 3, 2014.
11. Koksharov A. Exacerbation of the island syndrome // Expert. - 11/17/2014. - No. 47.

Vasilyeva Xenia

TASS-DOSIER. On June 23, 2016, a nationwide referendum was held in the UK, which asked the question: "Should the United Kingdom remain in the European Union or leave the European Union?". The proponents of leaving the EU won.

As evidenced by the final results published on the basis of the processing of ballots from all 382 polling stations, 52% of the British (17.41 million people) voted in favor of terminating the membership of the United Kingdom in the EU, 48% (16.14 million people) were in favor of continuing European integration.

Of the 11 referendums held in the country since 1973, only two were nationwide: in 1975, on maintaining membership in the EEC (European Economic Community, one of the predecessors modern European Union) and in 2011 on reforming electoral system. The rest were at the regional level. The TASS-DOSIER editors have prepared material on the UK's relations with the European Union and voting conditions.

UK and European Union

In the 1950s, when the foundations of a united Europe were being laid, the British did not support the idea of ​​European integration. Great Britain joined the EEC only in 1973. However, already at a referendum in 1975, more than 67% of citizens approved the retention of membership in the EEC.

At the same time, within the organization, the United Kingdom sought to maintain maximum independence in economic and political matters. The country has not joined the largest EU integration projects - the euro area (existed since 1999) and the Schengen agreements, which provide for the abolition of visa control at common borders (came into force in 1995). In addition, the UK has not signed the Fiscal Pact (which entered into force in 2013), aimed at pursuing a coherent tax and budget policy by the countries. There were frequent disagreements with partners. In particular, in September 2015, during an emergency meeting of EU Interior Ministers on the migration crisis in Europe, the UK stated that "it will not take part in the EU system for the distribution of migrants, but will accept refugees directly from camps in Syria."

On the other hand, the contribution of the UK to the EU is one of the largest (in 2014 - 11.3 billion euros). According to this indicator, the country ranks fourth after Germany (25.8 billion), France (19.6 billion) and Italy (14.3 billion).

The question of the referendum

In 2011, in the context of the crisis in the eurozone, an initiative group of the British collected more than 100,000 signatures in favor of holding a referendum on the country's withdrawal from the European Union. However, Parliament considered that this issue was raised at the wrong time.

In early 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron proposed a referendum in 2017 if the Conservative Party he leads won the 2015 election. One of the factors that influenced Cameron's decision to propose a referendum was the fear on the part of the Conservatives of a possible outflow of votes in favor of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), which holds strong anti-European views. After the Conservatives won an absolute majority in the May 7, 2015 parliamentary elections and formed a one-party government, the provision for a referendum was submitted to legislators. On June 9, 2015, the vast majority of parliamentarians were in favor of holding a vote (544 people - "for", 53 - "against"). By this time, the term Brexit was firmly established in everyday life, denoting the possible exit of the UK from the community (Brexit is an abbreviation of the words british and exit).

London's EU Reform Initiative

In November 2015, David Cameron, who believes that Britain should remain in the EU, but subject to reform of the organization, sent specific proposals to the EU leadership. They covered four blocks of topics: the economy, competitiveness, issues of strengthening the sovereignty of the UK and immigration issues. Among the requirements of the UK: reduction of pressure on business from the EU; release of the UK from the obligation to participate in the process of further rapprochement of the member countries of the union; strengthening the role of national parliaments.

The draft document on reforming the EU, agreed upon by London and Brussels, was approved at the EU summit on February 18-19, 2016. In particular, the UK will no longer be obliged to take part in further political European integration. Also, the kingdom was given the right to use its own mechanisms in the field of social benefits payments to migrants from EU countries (details will be finalized later). After that, Cameron said that he would recommend that the British vote to remain in the EU. At the same time, a number of British media accused the prime minister of making big concessions to Brussels and the adopted agreement does not meet British interests. On February 20, the government announced the voting date - June 23.

Supporters and opponents of UK membership in the EU

On April 15 campaigns were launched by such associations as "Britain Stronger in Europe" (Britain Stronger in Europe; headed by one of the country's most famous businessmen, Stuart Rose) and "Vote Leave" (Vote Leave; key figures- Attorney General Michael Gove and former Conservative mayor of London Boris Johnson).

A number of statistics (from various sources) were cited on the website of the "Britain Stronger in Europe" campaign in favor of retaining EU membership, in particular:

The UK spends 5.7 billion pounds (7.2 billion euros) a year to be a member of the EU single market, and as a result, the British economy receives 91 billion pounds (115 billion euros) annually;

If the country leaves the EU, the spending of each British family will increase by 4.3 thousand pounds (5.4 thousand euros) a year, as food, fuel and electricity prices will rise;

The retention of membership will entail the creation of an additional 790 thousand jobs by 2030, otherwise 950 thousand people will be left without work.

The "Vote Quit" campaign made little use of economic indicators. Exit supporters urged the British to give the money spent on EU membership to health care and education, warned of the danger of an increase in the number of migrants in the country.

According to the British Broadcasting Corporation BBC on May 16, 2016, among the politicians of the ruling Conservative Party, 164 deputies of the House of Commons and 23 members of the cabinet of ministers supported EU membership, 131 deputies and seven members of the cabinet opposed. Brexit Conservatives include House of Commons leader Chris Grayling and Northern Ireland Secretary Teresa Willers. David Cameron refused to public disputes with fellow party members.

The vast majority of Labor MPs believed that the UK should remain part of the EU. Three former prime ministers shared the same opinion: Labor Tony Blair (1997-2007) and Gordon Brown (2007-2010), as well as Conservative John Major (1990-1997). According to the "Britain Stronger in Europe" campaign, this view was shared by 89% of the British business community.

The main political force that led the fight for leaving the EU was UKIP, led by Nigel Farage.

On June 16, after Labor MP Jo Cox was assassinated in Burstall, West Yorkshire, both campaigns were suspended.

referendum terms

The associations "Britain Stronger in Europe" and "Vote Leave" received 600 thousand pounds sterling (over 766 thousand euros) in the form of a state grant for campaigning. In addition, they were provided with free mail, airtime on television, meeting rooms. They also had the right to spend 7 million pounds (8.9 million euros) in donations.

To participate in the referendum, registration in the list of voters is required. This right is available to citizens of the UK (including those living abroad), Ireland (including those born in Northern Ireland and resident outside the UK) and Commonwealth countries over 18 years of age residing in the Kingdom and the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar. Proxy voting is possible. By the beginning of the referendum, over 45 million voters were registered on the list, the UK population was 64.5 million.

There was no turnout threshold for the referendum. The issue was decided by majority vote.

The referendum was won by supporters of Britain's exit from the European Union; they beat their opponents by 1.26 million people. Now the process of signing documents on withdrawal from the organization is ahead, which, according to experts, may take two to three years. The procedure for leaving the European Union is enshrined in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty of 2007, but so far there have been no such precedents.