When the UK finally joined the EEC (now known as the European Union) in 1973, a majority of the nation were in full support as the referendum suggested, however over time, there has been debate as to whether being part of the European Union is indeed best for the UK. Whilst it seemed like a good idea at the time, nowadays the reasons for joining no longer seem as valid as they once were. The UK, some argue would be better off no longer being a member of the European Union.
It is well known that after World War II, states began to move away from the trends of nationalism that had brought on conflict in the first place. Across large parts of Europe, there is instead great support for federalism and get support for integration and interdependence. In 1952, the European Coal and Steel Community was created, followed by the establishment of European Economic Community in 1957. With allies being made and different treaties and agreements being signed, Europe was definitely becoming a ‘federation’. In 1973, Britain joins the EEC along with Denmark and Ireland. The European Union is then formally established by the Maastricht in 1993 and gains its 28th member, Croatia by July 2013. When a referendum was taken in the UK regarding joining the EU the vote was two-to-one in favour. The benefits of joining of the EU were clear. The UK would benefit not only in an economic sense but also politically and socially. However, in recent times, opinions have changed. There is now debate as to whether the UK should remain n member of the EU. More and more people are speaking in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the EU and standing on its own. While there are persuasive arguments for and against, it could still be argued that the argument against...
... middle of paper ...
...ss laws which have not been voted on in our national parliament but will yet still supersede our laws that do go through democratic processes. It could also be argued that the UK has separated somewhat from the EU by choosing not to take on the single currency. It must seem especially to other countries that we have only foot in and one out or that the UK is simply picking and choosing. At this point, it’s too late to commit fully so surely isn’t the right thing to do is just leave altogether. After all the UK is very capable of standing on its own. It is ridiculous to argue that the UK stand alone. Firstly because of other European countries are doing it, secondly because the UK is in the position to succeed on its own, and thirdly because the UK becoming a non-member would actually give us the freedom to make independent choices and moves on an international scale.
The benefits of the European Union outweigh the costs. Ever since the end of World War II, countries in the EU have been helped economically, politically, and culturally.
Furthermore, Norway didn’t join because they do not want to give up their independence. Small countries such as Portugal, Greece, Italy joined so they could be more powerful and wants more money. Still, does do the advantages of being in the EU excel the sacrifices? Honestly, I would say yes; essentially for economic competition, peace and security, and cultural diversity.
In conclusion, the benefits of the UK’s membership in the EU outweigh the costs. The most significant benefit is the access they have to the single market as this has managed to benefit quite Access to single market is aiding this inward investment
To better understand Brexit, one must know about the European Union (EU). The EU began following World War II with a purpose to create economic agreements amongst the countries of Europe. The belief behind the establishment of the EU is that countries whom trade with one another are less likely to go to war. Since its establishment, the EU has grown in number of member states and in the amount of power the governing bodies of the EU possess. In 1992, the EU became a single market as if it is one country. All new members of the EU must adopt the EU’s currency, the euro, in which 19 of the 28 countries have adopted. As a single market the EU parliament sets laws in many areas: environment, transport, consumer rights, etc. The single market allows
However, there are many countries that have not yet adopted the Euro and have remained incredulous about it. Two countries that fit into this example are the UK and Denmark. The UK’s reluctances to adopt the Euro has begun with its opt-out of the Maastricht Treaty that was signed in 1992 by all members of the European Community and has led to the creation of euro. Within the Conservative Party John Major, who was at that time the Prime Minister of Great Britain, was considered “pro-Euro”, as he pledged to keep Britain “at the very heart of Europe”. However, as his government was endorsing the Treaty, he was faced with strong antagonism in the House of Commons that consisted mostly of the so-called Maastricht Rebels who were members of his own Conservative Party rather than the Labour opposition. The endorsement was voted down and Major’s authority in Parliamen...
The most significant and challenge to the traditional view of parliamentary sovereignty was Britain’s membership of the European Community in 1972. The European Communities Act 1972 brought with it the requirement that European Law be given priority over domestic courts over conflicting issues of national law. This notion was a direct affront to parliamentary sovereignty, which required that if a later statute, contradicted and earlier statute, which sought to incorporate European Law into English Law, then the later statute should impliedly repeal the earlier statute. Therefore the European Communities act imposed a substantive limit on the legislative ability of subsequent Parliaments.
On the other hand, UK is playing a major role in the single market. Thus, by leaving this market, UK
To enable Britain to fulfil its part of the United Kingdom’s responsibilities within the European Union.
...: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40 (4), pp. 603-24.
The final cause for the Brexit vote is likely to be the lack and failure of support for the Remain campaign. First, “Project Fear”, a strategy to convince the poorer areas of England, sparked backlash among British citizens, and also utilised by Leave campaigners as a way to demonstrate elite interest. The main message of Project Fear was that Britain would be economically worse off if it were to leave the EU. The campaigners who utilised this strategy were members of prestigious bureaucracy such as the OECD and the IMF. However their appeals were neither positive nor emotional, but in fact purely negative and economical, which were made unpopular by Leave campaigners who interpreted, and claimed it as an “arrogant, selfish, unaccountable ” elitist interest, rather than an interest for the whole of UK.
Currently, we are seen as one of the most respectable countries globally. Our EU membership allows Britain to give its insight into big world issues, such as global warming. Leaving would see us throw away the crucial say we currently have and therefore be left in the dark while these big matters are being discussed. A countless number of people have acknowledged the fact that if voters decided they want to leave it will have grave repercussions upon all of Britain. As Britain begins to be left out of the big debates taking place in the EU, we would start to lose considerable amounts of influence.
Cerutti, F and Lucarelli, S: The Search for a European Identity: Values, Policies and Legitmacy of the European Union, (2008) Routledge
The Swiss federal government is greatly divided over joining the European Union (EU). In a March 2001 referendum 70% of Swiss voters rejected steps toward EU membership (The World Factbook, 2007).
The enlargement of the European Union (EU) in 2004 and 2007 has been termed as the largest single expansion of the EU with a total of 12 new member states – bringing the number of members to 27 – and more than 77 million citizens joining the Commission (Murphy 2006, Neueder 2003, Ross 2011). A majority of the new member states in this enlargement are from the eastern part of the continent and were countries that had just emerged from communist economies (EC 2009, Ross 2011), although overall, the enlargement also saw new member states from very different economic, social and political compared to that of the old member states (EC 2009, Ross 2011). This enlargement was also a historical significance in European history, for it saw the reunification of Europe since the Cold War in a world of increasing globalization (EC 2009, Mulle et al. 2013, Ross 2011). For that, overall, this enlargement is considered by many to have been a great success for the EU and its citizens but it is not without its problems and challenges (EC 2009, Mulle et al. 2013, Ross 2011). This essay will thus examine the impact of the 2004/2007 enlargements from two perspectives: firstly, the impact of the enlargements on the EU as a whole, and thereafter, how the enlargements have affected the new member states that were acceded during the 2004/2007 periods. Included in the essay will be the extent of their integration into the EU and how being a part of the Commission has contributed to their development as nation states. Following that, this essay will then evaluate the overall success of the enlargement process and whether the EU or the new member states have both benefited from the accessions or whether the enlargement has only proven advantageous to one th...
The United Kingdom was a member of the European Union. The European Union is an example of the second most integrated arrangement, the economic union. Therefore, voting to leave is a direct effort to reverse regional economic integration.