scholarly journals Why withdrawal from the European Union is undemocratic

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 436-465 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tore Vincents Olsen ◽  
Christian F. Rostbøll

The Lisbon Treaty from 2009 introduced the possibility for individual member states to withdraw from the European Union (EU) on the basis of a unilateral decision. In June 2016 the United Kingdom decided to leave the EU invoking article 50 of the treaty. But is withdrawal democratically legitimate? In fact, the all-affected principle suggests that it is undemocratic for subunits to leave larger political units when it adversely affects other citizens without including them in the decision. However, it is unclear what the currency of this affectedness is and, hence, why withdrawal would be undemocratic. We argue that it is the effect of withdrawal on the status of citizens as free and equal that is decisive and that explains why unilateral withdrawal of subunits from larger units is democratically illegitimate. Moreover, on the ‘all-affected status principle’ that we develop, even multilaterally agreed withdrawal is undemocratic because the latter diminishes the future ability of citizens to make decisions together regarding issues that affect their status as free and equal. On this basis, we conclude that it is undemocratic for a member state such as the United Kingdom to withdraw from the EU.


Author(s):  
Federico Fabbrini

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the Withdrawal Agreement of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU). The Withdrawal Agreement, adopted on the basis of Article 50 Treaty on European Union (TEU), spells out the terms and conditions of the UK departure from the EU, including ground-breaking solutions to deal with the thorniest issues which emerged in the context of the withdrawal negotiations. Admittedly, the Withdrawal Agreement is only a part of the Brexit deal. The Agreement, in fact, is accompanied by a connected political declaration, which outlines the framework of future EU–UK relations. The chapter then offers a chronological summary of the process that led to the adoption of the Withdrawal Agreement, describing the crucial stages in the Brexit process — from the negotiations to the conclusion of a draft agreement and its rejection, to the extension and the participation of the UK to European Parliament (EP) elections, to the change of UK government and the ensuing constitutional crisis, to the new negotiations with the conclusion of a revised agreement, new extension, and new UK elections eventually leading to the departure of the UK from the EU.



2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 9-15
Author(s):  
Serhii Rudko

The article highlights one of the main issues related to the UK's withdrawal from the European Union, Northern Ireland’s new status, in particular, the status of the border between NI and the Republic of Ireland. It has been an ‘apple of discord’ from the first stage and during the last stage of the Brexit negotiations. The future ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Irish-British border is not a problem in the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union only, but is also a serious domestic political challenge for Theresa May’s government. The article explains possible models of the future status of Northern Ireland. The most probable solutions are: a ‘reverse Greenland’, a ‘reverse Cyprus’ and a ‘German version’. Following the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, the EU invested heavily in supporting border communities for the development of small business and industry, which improved the economic situation in the area of the former conflict and facilitated border dialogue. However, it led to the fact that many enterprises were oriented towards the EU market or border trade. The article concludes that the ‘reverse Greenland’ model would enable Northern Ireland to remain in the single market and customs union apart from the rest of Great Britain, which would prevent the establishment of a tight boundary between both Irelands. The author outlined the possible implications of the ‘reverse Cyprus’ model, which suggests that the United Kingdom would technically remain a part of the EU, and that the EU’s legislation would be suspended only on its separate parts (that is, Wales and England). The researcher emphasizes that the ‘German version’ could be applied in the case of future reunification of both Irelands, then Northern Ireland would remain a part of the EU until its new status on the referendum have been resolved. The article summarized that no examples above provide a precise analogy, since Brexit is unprecedented event. The most likely models of the Northern Ireland’s future are the ‘reverse Greenland’ and the ‘reverse Cyprus’



2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (03) ◽  
pp. 409-444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Gordon

The United Kingdom 2016 referendum on membership of the European Union – challenges of pursuing the decision to withdraw – challenges for the UK constitution in commencing, executing, concluding, and legitimising EU withdrawal – domestic constitutional requirements for triggering Article 50 TEU – roles of UK government, UK Parliament, and devolved institutions in Brexit – a second referendum or a national general election on withdrawal terms – exiting the EU as a challenge of the UK’s political constitution – Brexit as exposing limitations of the UK’s current constitutional arrangements and architecture – Brexit as an unprecedented event and the centrality of politics – constitutional factors contributing to the outcome of the referendum – concerns about sovereignty and the (im)possibility of a national response – potential implications of the referendum for the UK and for the EU



2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 799-805
Author(s):  
Danae Azaria

The CJEU held that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) is allowed to unilaterally revoke the notification of its intention to withdraw from the European Union (EU) as long as the revocation is submitted in writing to the European Council before the UK's withdrawal takes effect, and as long as the revocation is “unequivocal and unconditional, that is to say that the purpose of that revocation is to confirm the EU membership of the member state concerned under terms that are unchanged as regards its status as a member state, and that revocation brings the withdrawal procedure to an end” (para. 74).



2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-69
Author(s):  
Dumitrita Florea ◽  
◽  
Narcisa Gales ◽  
◽  
◽  
...  

The reality is that we have witnessed in the last 4 years, since the procedure of negotiating the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union in 2016 has started, a real political impasse on the stage of European relations. Who would have imagined on the 1st of January 1973, when England became a member of the European Union after many indecisions – some of them more arrogant than others that in 47 years' time it will be the first Member State to avail itself of Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, which for the first time provided for the right of a Member State to withdraw voluntarily from the European Union? If we look a little at the historical context of England's accession to the EU, we may see similar hesitations that have delayed it so much in joining the EU. Although after the end of the Second World War the economic situation of England was precarious, it still manages to become one of the great world powers. However, in 1951 it refused to join the founding group of the ECSC and also refused to sign the Treaty of Rome in 1957. England believed that the status of leader of the Commonwealth offered you a privileged status compared to other European states in international affairs, especially those with the United States of America, but, nevertheless, it did not bring benefits in the relations with the 6 European states, that were going to establish the European Union. When it realized that this was not a good way for things to happen, in 1961 announced its intention to join the European Economic Community, only that in 1963 France voted against the request. It was only after Charles de Gaulle's resignation in 1969 that the United Kingdom's path to accession was opened. Political and economic integration seemed to be the best solution for achieving a stable economic future.



Author(s):  
Sylwia Majkowska-Szulc

Brexit is a unique phenomenon as no Member State has ever expressed the will to leave the European Union. Never before had the in-depth impact of a Member State withdrawal been analysed. The issue has started to be analysed after the referendum in which the British voted in favour of leaving the European Union. The topic of the potential consequences of Brexit in the field of private international law concerns, inter alia, national jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters, mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, specific procedures of EU uniform law, judicial cooperation between Member States or the functioning of the e-Justice Portal and dynamic forms. Before a given Member State withdraws from the EU, interested parties should have been informed, inter alia, of how pending proceedings will be conducted starting with the withdrawal day, what about proceedings initiated at the date of withdrawal or later on, and what about the rulings of the courts of the applicant state covered by the exequatur procedure before the withdrawal. Therefore, the primary purpose of the article is to determine the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the UK in the field of private international law. An additional aim of this paper is to better prepare natural and legal persons for the new post-Brexit reality. European integration has brought Europe peace and prosperity and enabled unprecedented cooperation in all areas of common interest. Following the withdrawal decision, the state and its citizens cease to benefit from the acquis communautaire. In fact, the United Kingdom left the European Union on 31 January 2020. As far as private international law is concerned, the United Kingdom has become a third country. Subsequently, on 1 February 2020 a transition period has started and it aims to provide more time for citizens and businesses to adapt. The negotiations on the future partnership between the EU and the UK has started in March 2020, but they were postponed due to the coronavirus COVID-19 pandemic. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is sometimes compared to love that has passed away, but former lovers must continue to meet from time to time to manage certain common affaires. The analysis of the topic leads to the conclusion that, in fact, Brexit is a unique phenomenon that has no added value.



SEEU Review ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-43
Author(s):  
Viona Rashica

Abstract The date 23 June 2016 brought in front of the United Kingdom and the European Union a very serious challenge named Brexit. In the June 23, 2016 referendum, the British voted to leave one of the most unique international organizations in the world, thus putting the EU in front of the UK’s request for the activation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which the EU is facing for the first time. Brexit is opening new chapters in the history of the UK, while the EU is engaging with the procedures of the voluntary withdrawal of an important member state, which is known about its high political and military role in the world. Some experts of international relations and European studies say that Brexit will have much more consequences for the UK, some for the EU, but truth is that Brexit will be accompanied with many consequences for both of its protagonists. Its risks are very serious so they may result with the dissolution of the UK. Meanwhile, the increase of euroscepticism within the EU’s member states, with particular emphasis the presence of Eurosceptic voices in its most important members is at a very worrying level. Based on these facts, the knowledge about the real meaning of Brexit is necessary. Therefore, the main focus of this research lies in the classification of the main political consequences of Brexit for the UK and the EU.



2006 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 705-717
Author(s):  
Elena Katselli

The Republic of Cyprus became independent on 16 August 1960 with the conclusion of three agreements between Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom: the Treaty of Establishment,1 the Treaty of Guarantee,2 and the Treaty of Alliance.3 Due to limited space, this article will not consider the troubled history of the new Republic the structures of which were literally shattered by an unworkable and dysfunctional Constitution a few years only after its establishment and which eventually led to the Turkish invasion and continuing occupation of one third of its territory.4 Rather, this article intends to focus on recent legal developments provoked by Turkey's refusal to recognize the Republic of Cyprus, a Member State of the United Nations and as from May 2004 a Member of the European Union, in the context of Turkey's own aspirations to become an EU Member State.



2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-151
Author(s):  
Andrea Circolo ◽  
Ondrej Hamuľák

Abstract The paper focuses on the very topical issue of conclusion of the membership of the State, namely the United Kingdom, in European integration structures. The ques­tion of termination of membership in European Communities and European Union has not been tackled for a long time in the sources of European law. With the adop­tion of the Treaty of Lisbon (2009), the institute of 'unilateral' withdrawal was intro­duced. It´s worth to say that exit clause was intended as symbolic in its nature, in fact underlining the status of Member States as sovereign entities. That is why this institute is very general and the legal regulation of the exercise of withdrawal contains many gaps. One of them is a question of absolute or relative nature of exiting from integration structures. Today’s “exit clause” (Art. 50 of Treaty on European Union) regulates only the termination of membership in the European Union and is silent on the impact of such a step on membership in the European Atomic Energy Community. The presented paper offers an analysis of different variations of the interpretation and solution of the problem. It´s based on the independent solution thesis and therefore rejects an automa­tism approach. The paper and topic is important and original especially because in the multitude of scholarly writings devoted to Brexit questions, vast majority of them deals with institutional questions, the interpretation of Art. 50 of Treaty on European Union; the constitutional matters at national UK level; future relation between EU and UK and political bargaining behind such as all that. The question of impact on withdrawal on Euratom membership is somehow underrepresented. Present paper attempts to fill this gap and accelerate the scholarly debate on this matter globally, because all consequences of Brexit already have and will definitely give rise to more world-wide effects.



2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomasz Kubin

The exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union (so-called Brexit) is one of the most important events in the process of European integration. It has a lot of extremely remarkable implications – both for the EU and for the United Kingdom. Among other, Brexit will affect the security of the United Kingdom and the EU. The aim of the study is to answer the research question: how will Britain’s exit from the EU influence the EU common security and defence policy? In order to answer this question, the factors that are most relevant to the United Kingdom’s significance for the EU’s security and defence policy will be identified. This will show how the EU’s potential of the security and defence policy will change, when the UK leaves this organisation. The most important conclusions are included in the summary.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document