Brexit beyond borders: Beginning of the eu collapse and return to nationalism.

• Author: Scuira, Leonardo

This study analyzes the potential disintegration of the European community and suggests reflection on the impacts that this event may exert over long-held integrationist principles. Additionally, the various reasons leading European states to diverge in their interests are thoroughly interpreted. This paper brings forth a vast array of information that helps to identify the origins of both inner and outer forces that currently threaten Europe's stability. Although the study combines issues of social, economic, political, and ideological nature coexisting throughout the entire Northern Hemisphere, the topics are mainly contextualized in an assessment of the United Kingdom.

Mahatma Gandhi was once asked what he thought about Western civilization. 'I think,' he replied, 'that it would be a very good idea.'" (1)

Historically, by and large, there are two opposite reasons for countries to pursue integration: the first, and noblest, is when they have many similarities and therefore seek to work together in order to leverage their shared values. The second, and more realistic, is when these nations do not have anything in common and yet integrate with one another to complement what lacks in one but is abundant in the other. (2)

In the contemporary world, however, what catalyzes a country's wish for "teamwork" is more often than not the absence of the capacity to compete on its own against a greater power, either in the trade sphere, military realm, or both. Though it is not clear which of the aforementioned reasons motivated the onset of the 28 European nations to band together, what is recognized are the many changes in the bloc's form and aspect since its foundation. Moreover, with the speed of globalization increasing exponentially in the last decades, the national interests of the European countries have varied as often and fast as the international agenda of the European Union and its foreign policy. This is one of the reasons why the EU has consistently proven to be a difficult project to sustain in the long term, especially now that international relations are introducing a new era of bilateral accords. Nevertheless, the whole of difficulties the bloc faces to stay afloat breaks down to a much larger number of small--but significant--issues, such as cultural differences, conflicts of interest, uneven economies, technological discrepancy, political instability, incompatible legislations, language barriers, regionalism, racial segregation, xenophobia, and many others.

A BRIEF HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The idealization of a community comprised of European nations was first brought to light on 9 May 1950 by the former French foreign minister Robert Schuman through the Schuman Declaration, which proposed the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)--an economic bloc originally formed by France, Italy, West Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. The ECSC undertook unprecedented steps toward integration and helped create alliances over enemies. After undergoing a substantial institutional overhaul, in 1958 this community had already stablished a common market and began to be called the European Economic Community (EEC). Decades later, from 1993 onwards, the group would gain a new signature and would evolve to an unparalleled level of union between countries, known today as the European Union. (3)

In addition to the primary reason for the creation of the EU--free movement of goods, services, and people--this array of nations has also contributed to maintaining peace in Europe. As documented through history, the continent is marked by centuries of bloodshed and wars between Europeans nations. (4) It is important to note that shortly before the foundation of this community, the European continent had just been the host of a battle that would escalate to the greatest war in human history: World War II.

The European Union has transcended to such a stage of integration that it has even adopted a monetary union--the highest degree of integration yet achieved by an economic bloc. However, one of the most robust economies in Europe decided to enter the EU without having to waive their strong, convertible currency. The United Kingdom has been notorious for its aversion to adopt a single currency since it entered the bloc in 1973. Therefore, this country agreed to remain in the European Union in the late 1990s with the strict condition to leave its financial institutions outside the eurozone. (5)

THE BREXIT FROM A TRANSPARENT VIEW

The UK has historically demonstrated a reluctance to fully joining the European bloc. One glaring indication of its unwillingness was in 1997 when, despite being one of the cornerstones of the group's foundation, it decided not to adopt the euro. Instead, the Bank of England preferred to preserve the powerful British pound. Among the various justifications, it is understood that the United Kingdom wanted to keep its monetary sovereignty because it would not be advantageous to cede control of the enormous British financial sector to the European Central Bank. (6)

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, a growing discontent with the EU could be observed throughout Britain in all rungs of the social ladder. On the political side, London has found it difficult to reconcile goals and objectives with Brussels, given that European interests do not always please members of the House of Commons and Lords (MPs). This lack of conformity would regularly result in the UK government defying the European Parliament's edicts. (7)

Resistance to the implementation of supranational policies is reasonable because national sovereignly reflects engrained cultural values, which are hard to dispel. However, what really displeased many politicians in Britain was that, due to the UK being part of the EU, more than 60 percent of legal decisions derived from the European Parliament instead of being decided by the MPs. Besides, a democratic and traditional country like the United Kingdom does not approve of the idea that the European Parliament is overwhelmingly composed of "unelected bureaucrats," a term used by British separatists to refer to Members of the European Parliament (MEPs).

In addition to the surge in political divergences, it is also noticed that British people have other forms of dissatisfaction with the current EU partnership. Many UK companies argue that they face serious bottlenecks imposed by harsh European regulations, and the lower classes of the population are led to a growing separatist sentiment under the pretext that the free movement of people is to blame for unemployment rises and wage reductions.

There are specific reasons why the three distinct social classes in the UK oppose European integration. Eurosceptic politicians claim that the bloc is a threat to British sovereignty and the UK's political independence. Companies, in turn, deem themselves wronged by exacerbated bureaucracy arising from Brussels. And the working class is concerned about jobs, wages, and housing costs skewed by the lopsided immigration. (8) All of the abovementioned...