Comparison of different regimes of future legal relations
between the United Kingdom and the European Union after
Henrique Moric Vilela Mariano
Law student at Fakulta Právnická,
Universidade Federal do Paraná, Researcher at
Západočeská Univerzita v Plzni, Curitiba, Brazil
Henrique Moric Vilela Mariano, Law student
at Fakulta Právnická, Universidade Federal do
Paraná, Researcher at Západočeská Univerzita
v Plzni, Curitiba, Brazil.
The following article comes from a Research Internship at the University of West
Bohemia in Plzen promoted by the UNIGOU Program, from the INCBAC Institute.
After a long research, the text intends to analyze the possible future relations
between the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU) after Brexit, comparing
the different options and attempting to better understand the possible outcomes
from it. The text is divided in eight parts: a brief introduction; an explanation about
the EU and Brexit; the five different options or models (namely, Norwegian, Swiss,
Turkish, Canadian and WTO); and the conclusion of the entire work. Each of the
Options explains briefly the current relation between those countries and the EU
and try to assume how would it work with the United Kingdom.
This project's objective is to compare the possible future relations
between the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU) after their
so‐called “divorce,”analyzing what are the options and the advantages
and disadvantages of each.
Although it seems very clear that the United Kingdom will leave the
EU, it is not so clear in what terms that will happen: if that detachment
will be as hard as some of the Leave campaign suggested or softer and
not a so big separation. Needless to say that the terms of this parting
will have great impact in Britain, the EU, and even the whole world.
Based on the existing relationswith the EU, it is possible to assume
that thereare some main paths that the post‐Brexitrelations mayfollow.
Therefore, this article intends to explain what those different relations
are, how they work, and what problemsmay surge from each. It is not
the idea of this textto try to predict what will happenin the future, but
only to analyzewhat are the possibilitiesand what are their implications.
Nonetheless, to do so, it is necessary to understand what Brexit is,
what led to it, and, generally, how the leaving process works.
Brexit (or Britain exit) has been a popular subject around 2016, but the
origins of this idea go a long way. The United Kingdom joined the
European Communities in 1973, and that membership was confirmed
by a referendum in 1975. Since then, there has been advocates of the
withdrawal, but this topic gained special importance in the last years
(House of Commons Library, 2013).
Soon after the 2015's elections, the Parliament voted the
European Union Referendum Act 2015 (United Kingdom Parliament,
2015), which made legal provisions for a nonbinding referendum to
be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a Member
State of the EU or leave it. Such referendum took place on June 23,
2016, and 51.9% of the participating U.K. electorate voted to leave.
The heart of the Brexit campaign is to recover Britain's lost
sovereignty, hence the main slogan “Take control”(The Economist,
2016; Vote Leave Campaign, 2018). More specifically, those in favor
of leaving argued that the EU imposed too many rules and charged
billions of pounds a year in membership fees for little in return
(Carswell, 2015). Another very important issue was the immigration.
Therefore, in sum, it is possible to list three main objectives: stop
paying to the EU (or, at least, reduce this payment), let the United
Kingdom make its own laws again, and control harder the borders
(Hunt & Wheeler, 2018).
However, how does the leaving process work? The answer for
that is on Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, signed by all Member
States of the EU (The Lisbon Treaty, 2008). After the Parliament
approval, the Prime Minister, according to Article 50, notified the
European Council, in March 2017. That was the starting point of the
Received: 17 May 2018 Accepted: 10 June 2018
J Public Affairs. 2018;18:e1845.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of6