By Rachel Brock
Another tremor rattles the current international order. On June 23, Britons will vote whether or not to stay in the European Union, a decision that could prove disastrous for both Britain and for Europe. This announcement creates a new fissure within the EU. Countries who are still scrambling to lift the lagging Greek economy, address currency solvency issues that linger from the Euro crisis, and who are currently considering limiting passport-free travel in order to mitigate the migrant crisis now face a threat to the continuance of their union.
The European Union was originally created to foster economic cooperation in the wake of WWII.
The European Union represents an important shift towards global governance. It was created in the aftermath of WWII in an effort to foster economic cooperation, which was believed to reduce the likelihood of armed conflict. The resulting European Economic Community (EEC) in 1958, a six-member state economic cooperation, served as a precursor for today’s huge single market. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, this economic union expanded into policy. With the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993, the European Union as we known it today was created. There are currently 28 member states that operate under binding treaties and agreements to make democratic governance decisions. Significant characteristics of the EU include its elimination of border controls, common currency, and a singular ‘internal’ market. In essence, the EU marks an intrastate governance experiment, a trust exercise in which sovereign nations relinquish a degree of sovereignty to this larger institution in order to promote the greater good.
While the global financial crisis of 2007-2008 strained the structure of the European Union, the organization was able to protect its member states from complete economic destruction. However, Greece’s heavy debt and continuing finance problems demonstrate the limited response capabilities of the institution. Economically robust states, such as Germany, have voiced discontent because they are required to help shoulder the burden of economically struggling members. But up until this point, the union has maintained its coherence.
Britain’s potential exit from the European Union—what some British cabinet members have referred to as Brexit—would deal a heavy blow to this intergovernmental organization. Prime Minister David Cameron has vocalized his desire for Britain to remain in the EU, warning, “Leaving Europe would threaten our economic and national security.” The June 23 referendum all comes down to popular vote, which is currently divided.
So what exactly does Britain stand to lose if it leaves the EU? It does not currently use the euro, the EU’s common currency, nor would it be required to convert to the euro currency in the future. Mr. Cameron recently negotiated this settlement, which would give Britain “special status”, that also includes exemptions from a treaty obligation to pursue “ever closer union”, the right to restrict welfare entitlements for other EU citizens who come to work in Britain, and retain passport restrictions. Yet with its exit, Britain would lose automatic access to Europe’s single market and increasingly isolate the island nation.
Scholars debate on the extent to which supranational institutions can provide world order. The classical realist argument focuses on the intransigence of anarchy, or the fundamental lawless condition that governs the international system. While creations such as the EU do not eliminate this problem completely—as clearly exemplified by the institution’s limited effectiveness in dealing with global problems—they do mitigate some of its effects.
Britain’s possible decision to leave the European Union would bring no real benefit to anyone. The country would suffer political ostracization and international criticism for leaving a (generally considered to be) successful governance agreement. More difficult access to European markets would damage Britain’s economy and most likely devalue the pound. London, once the center of world diplomacy and the driver of modern innovation, would increasingly lose its influence as a driver of world policy.
For the European Union, Britain’s exit would cripple the union’s ability to address pressing regional and global problems. Britain’s economic aid and legacy as a world-shaper have provided the EU with great ability to deal with problems such as the migrant crisis, global terrorism, and religious intolerance. In addition, the loss of Britain will encourage other countries to either negotiate for special status benefits or to leave if they are unhappy with current policies.
Britain’s exit, in short, marks a slippery slope towards the disintegration of the European Union. It is essential to protect this institution, which stands as a remarkable success in the push towards greater supranational governance. Britain should appreciate its negotiation settlements and recognize that its potential decision to leave will create backlashes that will ultimately only hurt both itself and the rest of the world.
Rachel Brock is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania, majoring in International Relations and minoring in French.
