The Impact of Social and Cultural Structures on British Policy Towards The European Union

By Boudinar Imene

Boudinar, Imen. Social Constructivism in Explaining British Policy Towards the European Union. Doctoral thesis, University of Algiers 3, Faculty of Political Science and International Relations, Specialty: Regional Studies, 2023–2024.

Introduction

          To be fair, Europe was ravaged, left in ruins, and a large number of people were slaughtered at the end of World War II. Everything had to be rebuilt, and the European nations had to work together to avoid another World War. The challenge was figuring out how to create conditions conducive to long-term peace between countries that had been fierce adversaries for years, and to lay solid foundations for future relations between those countries. The relationship between France and Germany, which had been arch foes for decades, was the most serious issue. The major goal of European reconstruction was to forge an enduring tie between those two countries, a bond that would eventually spread to all of Europe’s free countries, allowing them to form a permanent, peaceful union.

            On June 23 2016, a referendum was held in the UK to decide whether it should leave or remain in the European Union. Leave won by 51.9% and the UK invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) which began the member state’s withdrawal from the EU.  The UK should have left the EU on March 29 2019. The European Council decided to grant an additional period of negotiation. On April 10 2019, the 27 EU leaders agreed to postpone Brexit until October 31 2019. However, the UK could leave before this date if the withdrawal agreement is ratified.

         The European Union (EU) is a supranatural organization made up of 28 member states that have chosen to cooperate in developing various social, political, and economic policies. Its seeds were planted in 1953 when the European Steel and Coal Community were created for the purpose of regulating certain industries.

                This entity was accompanied by the most major schools in international relations, which explained the integration process at each stage. It did warn, however, that if the entity does not achieve full integration or does not adhere to integration rules, it risked collapsing.       

           To start with, in the section one named: Britain’s accession to the European community, the main point to highlight is the process of the British’s European integration, also the study aims to explain the European identity that leads to the building of the European Union organization, where we will try to demonstrate the EU establishment and development, by putting an emphasize on its institutions and its characteristics. In addition to that, in this section it is highly important to show the history of the European Integration in order to understand the concept of the British joining the European Community.

          Moreover, in this section the attempt is to explicate the Britain’s European countries relationship through the historical process of the Britain’s accession to the European Union. Furthermore, we will talk about the nature of the EU-UK relationship throughout the long process of the Union. After that, we will aim to account for the British role in the EU by talking about the EU as an international actor and its contribution in the trade and the commercial exchanges in the international economy.

         To understand the nature of the British role in the EU it is evident to point the Anglo-Saxon culture to find out the nature and characteristics. To do so, the thesis puts our interest on explaining the British identity. Again we have mentioned in this section the main reasons and consequences of the Britain’s refusal to join the Shengen Agreement , the monetary union  and the future EU-UK relationship after the Brexit throughout clarifying the meaning of the Shengen area and the Euro-zone.

        To conclude, in this section we will explain the UK- EU Integration by using theoretical and conceptual framework, we will use the Social Constructivism and the Intergovernmentalism approaches, in addition to this, the study will shed light on the political and economic dimensions of the EU-UK relationship, where we will give it a theatrical and conceptual framework, in the same taken, the UK will be the first member state to deal with the withdrawal process.

Section One: Britain’s Late accession to the European community

        The EU’s institutions, many of which have no near analogues at the national or international level, are a key part of what makes it distinctive. The EU’s Treaties, on the other hand, designate a number of institutional institutions.

A- The European Union organization:

        The EU is made up of multiple bodies and institutions. The most important are listed below, along with a summary of their functions.

1-The EU: Establishment and Development:

         The European Union is a family of liberal democratic states, action collectively by through an institutionalized system of decision-making. When joining the EU, members sign up not only the body of EU treaties, legislation, and norms, but also democracy, human rights, and principles of social justice. Since its establishment in the 1950’s, commentators have argued over the kind of the body of the European community now is Union. The EU’s enlargement experience to date is often heralded as one of the great achievement of the European integration project.[1]

           For over 60 years, the European project has been synonymous with peace and stability. On the ruins of the Second World War, visionary statesmen came together, intent to build a new Europe. The EU’s contribution to peace, stability and the reconstruction of the (Western) European continent, and the positive role played by the Union on the global scene, were acknowledged in 2012 when the

EU was awarded the Nobel Prize.[2]

           Moreover, the fact that the European project would be capable of playing such a role was in part made possible by the military inclusion of the Western European countries in the NATO alliance. The Marshall Plan also gave a substantial impulse to strengthen mutual economic cooperation. Accomplishing this cooperation was not self-evident. Likewise, the European project has faced its share of crises along the way. Over the years, various, overlapping European platforms for cooperation were established.

           In 1947, the Organization for Economic Corporation and Development OECD was established. The Council of Europe was founded in 1949. Both were intergovernmental organizations. In 1951, it was decided to take the road of supranational cooperation with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). This was only the first step. The European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community followed in 1957 with the signing of the Treaty of Rome. This laid the foundation for European economic integration. The Internal Market went on to be the bedrock of European prosperity and cooperation.[3]

           In other matters too, EU Member States over the years have worked towards closer cooperation, including in the areas of agriculture, fisheries, and environmental health, public health and consumer affairs. With its Cohesion Policy, the EU is seeking to foster convergence between competitiveness and social progress in the Member States.[4]

           From the outset, the EU was an organization that also pursued political integration. Determined to put an end to the devastating wars from the past, the founding fathers envisioned a European community of stability, peace, democracy, fundamental rights and freedoms. In addition to that, the direct election of the members of the European Parliament from 1979 onward, gave the future EU greater representative legitimacy. In 2000, the adoption of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member States gave the signal that the EU is based on the values of the Age of Enlightenment that are shared by all Member States. In 1987, the foundation was laid for the European Political Cooperation.  Then, European Community became involved in the foreign policy of the Member States and the cornerstone was laid for the Common Foreign and Security policy that we know today. With the Fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the integration of the Eastern and Central European countries got under way for which the then EC offered prospects in terms of democracy and economy and geopolitical security.[5]

           After the Schengen area became a reality in 1995, the national borders started disappearing for persons, after they had already done so for goods. Since then, customs checks at the internal borders have been brought to an end. Schengen countries are committed to removing all obstacles to the swift flow of road traffic. The national authorities are still allowed to conduct border controls, customs checks in ports and airports, but only to check whether or not travelers are the rightful holders of tickets.[6]

Furthermore, in 1999, the euro was introduced. In 2002, physical euro coins and banknotes were put into circulation as legal tender in the majority of the Member States. Today, the euro is the common currency of 337.5 million EU citizens in nineteen Euro-zone countries. Starting out as a modest group of six countries in 1951, the Union grew to become the second biggest democracy in the world, home to over 500 million residents.

         Today, European cooperation is under pressure. After the financial and economic crisis, the asylum and the security crisis, and with the Brexit looming large, it now looks as though the Union is set to shrink for the first time in its history. To the Union, the Brexit will represent the loss of over 60 million EU citizens and the loss of a global financial and economic player, a member of the UN Security Council, NATO, the G-7 and the G-20, with a strong diplomatic and intelligence network; all assets we now need more than ever.[1]

           Also, the European Union (EU) is commonly known as one the most significant and sui generis international organizations. It consists of 28 member states which cover an area of almost 4 500 000 km2 and has 500 million citizens .Without a doubt, the EU is a major world trading power thanks to its single market of 28 European countries. According to the Eurostat, the EU’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product (, the most frequently used measure for the overall size of an economy was equal €15.3 trillion in 2017.[2]

            Additionally, the European Union is the largest trade block in the world. It is the world’s biggest import market for over 100 countries and a significant exporter of manufactured goods and services. Together with China and the United States of America, the EU is one of the three largest global players in international trade. Without a doubt, these economic statistics themselves make European Union one of the most influential political actors in the world

          Well as, European Union’s enlargement strategy turned out to be an effective and powerful tool also for social transformation in those member states which have undergone significant economic, democratic and societal developments? Such improvements were possible thanks to the EU policy which assumes cooperation in order to achieve peace, freedom and prosperity as well as to assert Europe’s role in the world.[3]

          The main aims of the EU include assuring the well being of its citizens, combating social exclusion and discrimination and deepening the solidarity between member’s states while respecting their history, their culture and their traditions. In fact, these noble goals are not easy to achieve in a group of 28 countries, each with its own, unique perspective and different political and economic priorities.

          Besides, during several decades of its existence, the European Union went through various peaks and valleys. It was the last decade that was particularly tough, since 2008 the EU has had to face several crises: financial, Russian-Ukrainian and migration one. Even though the EU handled each of them, more and more negative opinions about the EU’s actions and the EU itself emerged. Since the last decade whenever the EU was mentioned on the media, there were always contentions about the EU crisis expressed.[4]

            The sentence “the European Union is on the verge of crisis” was repeated over and over again on the media without deeper reflection and substantive explanation. This narrative has been built over the years and reached its peak on 24 June 2016 when the Brexit referendum results were published.[5]

            Next after that, the controversial referendum in which the United Kingdom’s citizens decided to leave the European Union has an unprecedented implication the first withdrawal of a member state from the EU. Therefore, it initiated a new chapter in the EU’s integration history. The results of the referendum also imply that the EU has run out of original ideas in both a conceptual and functional sense.[6]

              Nowadays, after decades of its existence the European Union has to face the lack of vision and unprecedented brand identity crisis. A reaction to this predicament was a publication by the European Commission of the “White Paper on the future of Europe. Reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025”, provides five possible scenarios of the EU’s future development.

            In order to thoroughly predict how the withdrawal of the United Kingdom will affect the European Union and which of the presented scenarios is the most plausible, the essence of the European Union’s integration mission has to be taken into consideration.

          The map above extracted from www.theodora.com/map, is an illustration about the beginning of the emergence of the European Union; it is also shown how the development of this international organization started to raise step by step applying the assumptions of multiples theories in international relations such as integration theory, Social Constructivism, and Intergovernmentalism. In addition to this, the European Union is a political, economic, and social organization aimed to build a European identity first then eradicate all the differences and problems between the European countries.    

2- History of the European Union Integration

        The six founding countries decided to construct a single market at the Messin Conference in 1955, and signed on March 25, 1957. Because countries had differing energy strategies, the Rome Conventions, the first agreement formed by the European Economic Community, and the second accord, or ARTUM, about nuclear energy, achieved nothing.

          The European Community was created to create a common market and decrease customs charges to allow free movement of products and people. However, the group’s institutions were also a source of contention between federalists and unionists, making control difficult.[1]

          The European Union arose from the European Community, which saw France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg transform the European Coal and Steel Community into a European Economic Community under the Treaty of Rome in 1957, allowing the European Community to expand through a group of never-going countries. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 established European citizenship freedom, allowing citizens who hold the nationality of one of the Union’s member countries to be considered citizens in all of the Union’s member countries, granting them a set of rights, including freedom of movement, residency in member countries, and the right to vote in the country in which they reside right to diplomatic and consular protection in Europe.[2]

         The Maastricht treaty renamed the European Economic community, the European union and the European economic area countries entered a new stage in their integration path with the founding of the European union, always striving to embody unity. European countries and peoples with citizen participation in decision-making, and Maastricht was a turning point in the European integration process, a true start and transformation.[3]

       The Maastricht Treaty contributed to the formalization of the concept of economic and monetary unity, as well as the consolidation of monetary policy exchange, while the introduction of the single currency had a significant impact on the European integration process and the conduct of economic transactions within the union, is also aided in the consolidation of a united Germany, which emerged at the end of the Cold War within a common European institutional framework and established the Maastricht Treaty adopting a unified monetary policy has several advantages, and market forces have played a significant part in establishing discipline in countries.[4]

The map above shows the member states of the European Union and the historical development of the Union. Based on this map, we can clearly understand that the European Union since its beginning has been a successful organization due to its objectives, principles, and thoughts. The integration of Europe was possible at a certain degree because of the creation of the European Union; also the Franco-German historical feud took end due to the Union. But if we take into consideration the social constructivism assumptions, the norms and culture of each country could disappear after the integration of the Union, but the reality it is not the case. No one can deny that the national norms, culture, interests are based on the national terms not the European’s one.

To preserve budgetary discipline when the currency was created, members enacted a no bail out clause. The 1998 Stability and Growth Treaty, which strives to link policies to debt targets and public budget balance, was signed by all Common Market members. The European Union, and even if unification is achieved through economic means, the political orientation does not lose sight of the past. Despite its formal formation with the Maastricht Agreement, the European Union is a series of events. [1]

          As previously stated, the structure of an integrative approach that began before 1992, and there’s what’s known as Schumann’s plan, which is the announcement he made regarding European unity, Robert Schumann remarked that the first goal of coordinated efforts for unification should be to bring Europe closer together after the carnage and devastation produced by the two world wars, it is the establishment of security, it was vital to seek to join in establishing a future of stability and reviving common ideals with respect for the diversity of European peoples’ cultures and the national identities of member states in the first and second, which was Europe as its setting.[2]

        The May 9, 1950 Declaration is the cornerstone of the European Union, outlining the general boundaries and objectives. The European Union is officially built on two pillars: the rule of law and democracy.

         It is not a new alternative to the Union’s current members, nor does it resemble other international regional organizations. Members of the European Union have created their own strategy, with members entrusting certain of their sovereign issues to institutions that represent their common interests as a whole, and all decisions, decisions, and acts are based on treaties. The members have largely given their approval.[3]

           Although lasting peace was the original political impetus for the formation of the new European community, it would not have succeeded without a significant performance in the economic field from which it derived its powers, and the group has fulfilled both economic and, to a degree political objectives.

          Political objectives and orientations also occur in the European project, indicating that the European Union’s foundation was not guided after the failure and difficulty of political unification, economic integration emerged as a means of forming an economic union, to put in another way, European economic unity is more than just a means to an end. The union countries ‘goal of political unification was and continues to be three thousand years ago, when Europe was torn apart by wars and violence, the idea of European unification arose the need for political union is most apparent among Europeans.[4]

         The European Union has progressed to a degree as a result of a series of events. After a series of achievements and failures, he is now higher than he was before. His accomplishment in uniting the bloc and establishing a cohesive foreign policy… In all domains, the European Union strives for unity and full integration.

3- The EU identity

               The first and second world wars were pivotal moments in the establishment of European knowledge and conviction. After the two world wars, it was verified that there was a significant flaw in what was known about the need to build a united and strong Europe. With the belief that the Europeans were slipping behind, they felt superior.[5]

The depth of ideas in the interwar period made the debate about European identity intense, in the 1940s of the previous century, a sharpness that faded with the first decades of European construction, as a relationship emerges between discussions that revolved around European identity in Europe’s distant history and those raised in the post-establishment as well as consolidation stage European union.[6]

We discover that the prevailing European identity throughout the founding time, i.e. the 1950s, was not clear Landmarks. The European concept referred to plans to unite European countries into a federation and the implications that would follow. National sovereignty is being returned to a higher authority, which is represented through regional institutions and organizations. On the other hand, the term “European spirit” refers to a sense of belonging to a common culture rather than a political party.

Which did not exist for you save as a utopian vision or, at best, a draft, and which embodies belonging in the European spirit? Universality, humanism, growth, advancement, high ideals and morality should have characterized European culture through cultural aspects, principles, and values.[7]

You have succeeded in persuading to believe that European optimism and exaltation indicate that European countries’ borders and distinctions are melting, within the basis of European’ highest common human ideals.

Following the two World Wars, Europe experienced a crisis that prompted the emergence of a new ideology that places man at the center of the continent, with the goal of reviving Europe through reviving the European person rather than reviving Europe at the expense of the European individual.[8]

         After WWII, as soon as a different kind of conviction was created among the parents, intellectual trends diverged. The founders of the European Union believe that the common institutions are what make the difference and are the engine, not the cultural conscience or the reliance on institutions at the expense of values, but rather that the purpose of Its view is to preserve European values and the European spirit, as well as to consolidate and consolidate common European identity.[9]

         The Maastricht Agreement, and before it, the Schumann Declaration, were deemed the birth of citizenship Europe, but without eradicating the nation-state, by establishing a new set of rights and responsibilities for European citizens under a shared European regulatory framework.and every European citizen with any nationality from the European union was dubbed a European citizen.

        Furthermore, there are now various elements of identity that strive to consolidate the idea of European identity citizenship from a variety of perspectives. There are also attempts to develop social citizenship through European flag and the European national anthem.[10] And this is clearly shown in the social constructivism thoughts and assumptions, where it considers identity and norms as the most important element to build up a nation and policies.

B-The Political and Economic dimensions of the European Integration

           To be valid, Regional integration is a process by which countries join forces and efforts to serve one another. The common regional scope, there are several dimensions of integration and integration, perhaps the most prominent of which is the economic dimension, where any integrative path must take measures and economic measures, beginning with commercial exchanges and economic until the economic and monetary union is achieved, but because it is difficult to separate the economy from politics, the economic dimension is perhaps the most prominent.

           Furthermore, even if political unity is not achieved, the combined economic experiences have a significant political impact. In addition to the goals, intentions, and political backgrounds that exist in the country, which may or may not be, the inevitability of the emergence of effects and political repercussions appears, whether at the regional or international levels through pressure or influence on decisions and International political issues, or even at the local level.  As a result of the difficulty of starting with political integration, countries decided to go through economic integration first. The gradual process of integration that, if it occurs, leads to political integration in the form of the establishment of a regional political unit that binds the member states together.[11]

          All, commercial, monetary, financial, and economic integration, feudal, institutional through laws, and political and cultural integration are some of the characteristics of regional integration. In developing economies that are unfamiliar with Western history, the political field of regional integration is especially articulated the nation-constitution states. [12]

          Moreover, Regional integration is a political and diplomatic process that involves the transfer of sovereignty and includes non-military security goals. In concept, economic integration is a means of avoiding or resolving security crises, conflicts, and conflicts of interest. Economic is a means of overcoming political rivalries and antagonisms, transferring sovereignty, and producing commodities and services. In general, at the regional level, it is a reaction to globalization in the face of the national state’s narrowness.[13]

          In addition to this, the broadening of goals from economic trade to political security is not limited to the blocs established on economic trade. A clear political orientation, regardless of economic blocs, political backgrounds and influence remain present, and in fact, the overlap and integration between economic and political goals is great, with integration beginning with economic agreement with a minimum level of political consensus and gradually increasing in political character until political comity is achieved.[14]

          When two or more countries wish to join a political union, the goal is sometimes to see the economic bloc politically, but this is not always the case. The security of the hurdles that obstruct the completion of the political union’s construction from the start, which begins with an economic bloc in the form of a customs union or a common market, for example they hope that this will prepare the road for political union, that the people of this country will feel a sense of unity in their economic interests, and that there will be a shared political tool for discussion and dialogue, which will help to facilitate political unification and an economic bloc’s ambition may not be realized. And an economic bloc’s objective may not be to construct a political union, but rather to have a large state govern a number of others politically. This scenario is particularly common when the bloc consists of a major and a small country. [15]

1- Economic Integration for Political Integration

         In fact, Integration can take place in a variety of ways and involve a variety of activities, but it usually starts with the economic and social realms before moving on to the political realm, because integration is a series of successive phases that begin with the formation of a limited unit in terms of the number of members and areas of integration to the establishment of a larger unit in terms of the number of members and areas of integration to the establishment of a larger unit in terms of the number of members and areas of integration to the establishment of a larger unit in terms of Between these two divergent extremes, there are various degrees of integration. The collapse of states as independent, sovereign units in favor of the new political group or unit, there are multiple degrees of integration in between these two diverging extremes.[16]

         In diverse ways, theorists and economists define the meaning and definition of economic integration. Economic Cooperation Levels and Degrees Bella Balassa’s economic integration is both a process and a state.

        It includes measures and measures that lead to the elimination of discrimination between units belonging to various nation-states as a process, and if we look at them individually, we can see that they all lead to the abolition of discrimination between units belonging to different nation-states. Because it is a case that can be represented in the absence of various forms of discrimination between national economies based on these two factors. Belapalaasai is predicated on a discussion of discrimination or the end of government meddling, as well as its relationship to the policy of studying international trade, and this economic situation.[17]

           Also, economic integration is achieved by the creation of free trade zones, common economic markets, and access to full economic integration, with the goal of improving the economic capacities of the countries involved in the integrative processes.

            According to researcher Blasa’s theory of economic integration, “integration is based on multiple levels that demonstrate the degree of economic contact between two or more political entities.” As a result of the rise of specialization in production and the availability of trade in principle, perspectives have emerged advocated by the Libyan economists stating that output and economic recovery reach their optimum if there was free trade that permitted the greatest degree of specialization between countries. [18]

           To get to the greatest step, which is the merger, you must first go through four phases, which are listed in the base as follows:

-Free Trade zone:

          The free trade area has a higher level of integration than the preference area, and it aspires to remove all limitations on trade between member countries. However, each country retains the authority to put limits on its commercial dealings with non-member countries in the region.

         The free trade zone is seen as the foundation for the creation of an economic bloc that helps countries compete with other economic blocs. The free trade zone aims to promote economic development by allowing unrestricted movement of goods and services within the region, which leads to increased productivity. The free trade zone also contributes to promoting national investment and the creation of job opportunities within and outside the region in order to ensure optimal utilization of economic resources in these nations, and the time period through which it is to be established is usually determined. The reduction of customs limitations and the abolishment of customs, this period’s spirit are between 10 and 15 years.[19]

-Customs Union:

        The Customs Union is more integrated than a free trade zone, in that its member states agree to remove customs taxes on products and services between themselves, and the union undertakes to abolish customs restrictions and investigate commerce between member states. The customs union, on the other hand, varies from the free trade area in that it seeks to establish some sort of inter-state coordination in terms of the commercial strategy pursued by member nations, and the union enforces rates.

        Moreover, it assists the Customs Union in expanding the area of the market for goods of countries joining the union, as well as evaluating the work of the nation’s members so that each country benefits from the relative advantages it has in the production of goods and services.[20]

-Common Market:

       The agreement represents a group of countries with no constraints on their freedom, and the common market is regarded a greater level of economic integration. In addition to the eradication of restrictions on the movement of foreign citizens, trade between them is governed by a uniform tariff vis-à-vis the member countries to create a balance between work and money. The common market and the Customs Union have reached an agreement for the common market to operate. In order to comply with each country’s unified trade policy in the face of member states, all customs obstacles between member states should be eliminated.[21]

-The Economic Union

         This stage is more integrated than previous models, as it includes decisions related to economic, financial, and monetary coordination, as well as the free movement of goods and services and elements of production, such as work and dispatches, between member countries and the unified tariff direction to the outside world. Other social and tax policies are enshrined in labor and tax leg.

         Aside from the fact that integration is a grouping of countries with specific linkages between geographical neighborhoods, similar economic conditions, or a common civilizational affiliation, regional bloc is a notion that essentially reflects integration. It expresses a degree of economic integration in terms of the applied component of the process of economic integration. Economic integration between countries is regarded another way in some circumstances, even if it is the main and end purpose of the regional union. When countries opt for a course of integration based only on strategic and political considerations, they become the economic integrative process is both a means and a major goal for achieving the vis-à-vis goal.[22]

         Economic integration is regarded as one of the simplest and most practical forms of integration, as it is primarily represented by the formation of common economic markets, which occurs through a series of measures, the most important of which is the unification of legislation, taxation, and customs duties, removing all barriers to the free flow of goods, services, and capital between different countries.[23]

           Economic integration is difficult to describe, and it should be highlighted that economic integration and reliance are not synonymous. Economic interactions between units of interest and volume are not used to measure reciprocity. Exchanges in the context of global commerce and production growth might have a small volume and cause explanatory distortions; more significantly, the volume of exchanges does not always imply an expansion for units affected by current events.

          And, as Korber points out, this method suggests that the presence of two or more nations in Joint trade partnerships will stay less dependent if trade value is not high. It is possible to utilize the term of integration to describe the price, the input, and the development of two countries, among other things.

         At this level of integration and reliance, economic and harmony in the economic use of that is possible. Although they are both conceptual words for interchangeability, they vary in that integration frequently occurs within a company. PLASSA established a model to regulate the indicators integration since the institutional conceptual framework is in opposition to interdependence.[24]

             The strongest degree of integration is full integration, in which all restrictions on the movement of goods, people, and capital between countries members are removed, in addition to the possibility of following unified financial, monetary, and social policies and the circulation of a unified currency, and the establishment of a unified budget, as Suleiman Nasser believes. The argument is that economic unity necessitates a unified administrative apparatus to carry out these policies, and in exchange, countries agree to limit the national state’s executive power, and thus the states have reached the stage of unification.[25]

2-Political Unity for Regional Integration

          The countries will have completed their economic integration after reaching economic unification, and in some situations, they may wish to do so. Countries do not stop here, but go on to unification and political integration, in the sense of pursuing political unity under the intention and desire of the member states’ governments.[26]

         To comprehend political integration, consider David Easton’s definition of the political system as “a set of interactions through which the authority distributes and arranges things,” and “a group of phenomena that form a sub-system of the main social system, but these phenomena relate to the group’s political activity as part of the life.”[27]

         By dropping this notion and extending it to the regional community, and by establishing joint political institutions, and political integration means harnessing communal institutions and processes, we may create a new framework for integration. Some of the trends I tried to give a broader view, the security and cultural currents, and theoretical works on political integration are still incomplete, but by combining the ideas of the currents and activating policies through joint institutions, we can achieve political integration.[28]

        As far as political integration is concerned, it entails the fusion of political institutions, as well as the transfer of sovereignty over foreign and security policy to common international bodies. The removal of governments is not necessarily required for political unity. national, as in the federal unit model, but it may be limited to transferring powers to these institutions in some specialties based on the full degree of your ownership and realization that does not necessitate the state’s donation of its whole sovereignty, especially in its internal policy.

         Political integration is without a doubt one of the most difficult types of integration to achieve, because it restricts the state’s policy and authority in making appropriate decisions for its citizens, as well as restricting the state’s policy and authority in the process of making appropriate decisions for its citizens. Because this form of integration clashes with nationalist tendencies and fears, others say that economic integration should come first.[29]

C-The British Identity

             Being British or embodying British qualities is the state or quality of being British. It includes the claims qualities that bind and distinguish the British people and form the foundation of their unity and identity, as well as expressions of British culture such as habits, behaviors, or symbols that have a common, familiar, or iconic quality that can be easily associated with the United Kingdom. In terms of nationhood and belonging, expressing or acknowledging one’s Britishness elicits a range of behaviors and attitudes, including advocacy, apathy , or rejection.[30]

            It is true that British dominion was not built according to the principles of the Equal Opportunities Commission and we have to accept, too, that it was interwoven with imperialism and what we now call racism. At the same time we must accept that British national identity survived because it was a broadly acceptable expression of the British people.[31]

        We have to be ready to deal with different names and concepts. E.P. Thompson and G.A. Williams made the English and Welsh working poor become class conscious. Being ethnically Welsh or English was incompatible with being a factory slave or a dispossessed debtor. All working nation states seek to underwrite the long-term obligations upon which all national relationships depend. National identity can be expressed in images and representations. But in order to be meaningful it has to fit experience and think of itself as an arrangement rather than a single entity.[32]

D- The Britain’s European Countries relationship

 The United Kingdom first applied for accession to the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1961. It was somewhat envious of the rapid economic growth of the EEC countries. The UK wished to preserve its traditional role as intermediary between Europe and the U.S.

1- The historical process of the Britain’s accession

          The United Kingdom’s application was passed be the House of Commons, and the Six’s comments were mostly favourable. The first application was announced. Harlond Macmillian, the British Prime Minister, meticulously prepared his country’s application. With a strong majority in the House of commons, he was able to ignore conservative party opposition to the common Market and appoint committed pro-Europeans to important positions in his government. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, made a number of visits to the Commonwealth countries during his first term in office. He toured the capital cities of the Six in order to sound out Member States of the European Economic Community about possible accession by the UK.

        The House of Commons adopted the Government’s proposal by 313 votes to 4, with some 50 Conservatives abstaining. The UK did not apply for accession to the ECSC and Euratom until 28 February 1962. Negotiations with the Six began on 10 October 1961.[33]

The Community’s Member States appeared to be ready to welcome the United Kingdom. Following the British lead, Ireland applied for accession to the EEC on 13 July 1961, Denmark on 10 August 1961 and Norway on 30 April1962. The House of Commons approved accession to the European Economic Community (EEC) on 28 October 1971. Despite divisions within the political parties, the ‘yes’ vote carried the day. British public opinion was seriously divided on the merits of entry into the EEC.

When national legislation was change to bring it in line with community legislation, the number of proponents of British membership fell even further. The UK signed the accession Treaty in Brussels on the January, 1972. The House of Commons reaffirmed its support for accession once more july13, 1972. The House of Lords followed suit on September20, 1972. On October6, the queen gave her royal assent to the UK’s membership in the European Community, which took effect on January1, 1973.[34]

2- The EU-UK Relationship Nature

         Britain’s position as an unconquered island nation with a long tradition of parliamentary democracy and a sense that ultimately it can look after itself, marks it out from other European nations. It was never that sympathetic to the European ideal, or at least not in the 19th century. It joined in 1973, but the drip drip effect of negative media coverage was difficult to reverse in a four-month referendum campaign. One was the 2003 decision of the Blair government to grant full freedom of movement rights to all the 2004 accession states. The number of people seeking work in the UK from CEE and Baltic states surged as a result.[35]

          However, it was also due to the British government’s choice not to use their Article 50 prerogative to prevent them from entering the country. As the Eurozone’s 19 members failed to provide growth, and the economies of debtor countries shrank dramatically, more people left those countries. Third, because it was in command of its own currency and debt and could deploy strong fiscal stabilizers, the UK’s recovery from the financial crisis was significantly faster than the rest of the Eurozone. London, on the other hand, found itself serving as an employment shock absorber for the Eurozone’s more fiscally inexperienced members.[36]

           The British were much more relaxed about immigration and voted heavily for the UK to stay within the EU. In some parts of the country, such as London and the major cities, where there had been long-established foreign communities, the British were more relaxed and voted to leave.

           The Leave vote surged in parts of the UK where there had been little or no new or historical immigration. There were also common worries, concerns and anger about the EU that played out across Europe and reinforced the Leave vote.[37]

          The failure of the Euro-zone to reform itself and provide the transfers and fiscal stabilizers to run a single currency zone is the most obvious. The second is the failure to organize a soft Euro exit strategy for the states with whom Germany principally is not prepared to pool debts and fiscal transfer policies.[38]

          In this study, the aim is to explain the relationship’s type   between the EU and the UK, also the challenging situation of the negotiations among the two sides. The relations with the EU has never been in a good terms, this means, from a historical perspective speaking, the joining was gradually late comparing with the other members. Additionally, from a social constructivism perspective, and, if we take into consideration that the two sides have a different culture, norms, and identity, there lead to a situation which is the integration of the UK into the EU was too complicated and hard to be achieved from all its aspects, also the UK was always in between concerning the European integration.

           The impact of the Euro-zone’s damaging fiscal policies on the UK has been underlined by a number of factors. This is despite the fact that the UK is not a member of the single market and therefore does not experience the same level of single market access as other countries.[39]

            The second phase of the Brexit negotiations could be even more difficult for the UK and the EU than the first. The UK government’s continued reluctance to spell out the trade offs, and a wider range of views among the EU27, could pose new challenges for both sides. Moreover, the Withdrawal Act lays groundwork for regulatory autonomy and provides a solution to the Irish border question. But the majority and the Johnson version of the withdrawal deal also carry potential difficulties. They will cover a range of sensitive substantive issues, such as the role of joint committees and how EU citizens are treated in the UK.[40]

            In this study, the focus is on clarification of the future atmosphere of EU-UK. While, the UK is likely to put future rights for UK citizens in the EU, which the EU said could not be discussed in the first phase, back on the agenda. Whereas, on the EU side, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, EU negotiator Michel Barnier and other leaders have stated their desire and willingness to reach an agreement with the UK, but have also been clear about the EU’s red lines .Any rights must be balanced by obligations and a third country cannot enjoy the benefits of membership.

           Also, they have expressed doubts that it will be possible to reach an agreement covering all the areas where the UK says it wants to negotiate before December 2020. The short timeframe will compel the EU27, who themselves have differing priorities, to agree the issues onwhich agreement has to be found. However, efforts on the EU side to impose sequencing are likely to be resisted by London.[41]     

             As a result, the EU has stated that the UK will not have access to law enforcement and judicial cooperation tools that are only available to member states and Schengen countries, such as the European Arrest Warrant, the Schengen Information System, and the European Criminal Record Information System, but that it is open to developing alternative arrangements. Alternative provisions will need to be negotiated between the two parties in order to get access to a brighter future and neighborhood in Europe.[42]

           In this study, the main point is the procedure of settlement of Brexit, also what benefits would both sides have received.  In fact, a no trade deal outcome is a possibility in December 2020. But unlike leaving with no Withdrawal Agreement, citizens’ rights, Ireland and the financial settlement would be settled   and the less close a relationship the Johnson government seeks, the less difference not having a deal in place would make.

         This is because the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy’s is a loose framework and does not formally constrain EU member states’ policy making.      Furthermore, both the UK and the EU have indicated their desire for a strong security cooperation in the future. However, while security cooperation and information sharing are expected to continue, and the UK will, of course be a member of NATO alongside other EU member states, the UK’s role in EU policies is likely to be less than it is now.[43]

           In this study, it is shown that despite the stated desire on both sides for a close and special relationship, it is not at all clear what the negotiations can or will deliver. It is unclear how far the UK has worked through the full implications of being neither a third country, nor how far the EU is prepared to give the UK a special third country deal.

3- The British Role in the EU

       Since the British Empire’s demise, the UK government has tried hard to capitalize on the situation. To achieve the ultimate goal of maintaining Britain’s influence in the international system, we must contrast internationalism. Britain pondered keeping its national sovereignty dependent on the European Union around the turn of the century. Because many of the concerns that occupy the Kingdom beyond national borders, whether economically, security, or politically, the European regional allows it to fulfill its national interests and impose its orientations at the international level. In order to survive and maintain strength, Britain has changed its policies to reflect the new reality, which compels it to go through international integration.[44]

          Scholars observe that there is internal division and imbalance among the member states. They emerge on multiple levels in their orientations and roles, and Britain, despite its late entry into the European experience, is regarded as a powerful country that has secured its role and place in front of the twenty-eight countries, including the six. Its founders are at the forefront of the Anglo-Saxon trend within the European Union, which strives for political equality. The priority is to strengthen ties with the United States of America and the countries of the North Atlantic, and this trend is being countered by this trend. There are two more directions to consider:[45]

         -The Mediterranean current, which is led by France and includes Greece, Spain, and Italy on its side, and concentrates on reorganizing relations with Mediterranean countries.

        -The German current, as well as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg, urge that the European Union’s bonds be strengthened first.

         Regardless of the importance of the other two currents, the Anglo-Saxon current carries a lot of weight. The first international power, the United States of America, has always been a constant supporter of this movement, and this is exactly what the Washington government hoped for when it urged Britain to join the European Economic Community.[46]

        On the economic front, the European Union is divided into two blocs: strong and weak countries, with the former dominating. It is controlled by the most industrialized countries, and it is also controlled by the rest of the European Union countries on the continents, with Britain leading the way, followed by Germany, France, and Italy, Economically, the United Kingdom continues to be a key contributor to the European Union’s budget, contributing 17 billion Euros in 2013, putting it in fourth place. After Germany and France, which each have a budget of 23 billion Euros, and Italy, which has a budget of 135 billion Euros, the United Kingdom carries 12% of the burden, and Britain’s membership in the European Union also helps to stabilize the situation. Also, look at the dimensions.[47]

         Following Britain’s admission into Europe, there were changes and developments that led to or influenced them. As a result, Britain, with 73 votes in Parliament, is not considered a full member of the European Union, but it plays an important role, even though London was a driving force behind the development of a European security and defense policy at the San Maolo conference in 1998, and had agreed to social separation in the Maastricht Convention. She has not changed her mind to sign the financial agreement issued by the European session in December 2011, Britain stated that the action was not for the purpose of protecting the state, and thus it always plays the role of the state defending its sovereignty, and thus the sovereignty of the other members as it provides a kind of balance, the German hegemony is stopped by France, but France reverts and its hegemony is restored.

        It isn’t truly compared to Germany’s role, but Britain strikes that balance because it is so pragmatic, and some people compare it to Germany’s role in France, where pragmatism is also found the influence that Britain has on France as a result of its decisions as in the case of Greece’s budget in 2013, when the UK backed the French Ari, forcing Germany to reassess its position. It was debatable whether there was enough evidence to underline Britain’s involvement in destabilizing German hegemony inside the European Union.[48]

         Furthermore, Britain’s position within the European Union remains absolutely committed to non-accession. The Eurozone and the Schengen Agreement have no unique status or status within the European Union.

         To sum up, there is no doubt that the relationship between Britain and the EU is a difficult one. There are numerous reasons which render British

membership in the Union problematic. As a former imperial power, the UK finds it particularly difficult to adjust and narrow its political interest only to

Europe. Being a latecomer in the Community, Britain had to accommodate itself to the already established policies and rules, some of which directly conflicted with the basic principles upon which the British Constitution is based. Antagonism with France and affiliation with America are additional issues.

          Furthermore, the fact that the UK joined the Community only for economic reasons at an economically difficult time resulted in popular discontent. However, not only is the population dissatisfied but also this disillusionment and division is mirrored by the political elite.

         From 1979 until 1997 Conservative Governments contributed to a high level of British isolation in the Community. Blair’s Government demonstrated keen interest for and close links to the USA, which at some points seemed to exceed those with the EU.

          However, Labour Governments have generally showed much more interest in Europe and British membership. This could be read as a possible sign of better cooperation in the future, but bearing in mind the British background, it becomes clear that this is going to be an uphill struggle.

           After accepting countries, Britain, which did not seek to unite Europe, joined the European Economic Community in 1973. The group was the third contender for it, and it received 67 percent of the vote in a British popular referendum. Accession has provoked a lot of debate both within the UK and across countries, both before and after it happened. After the establishment of the European Union, European skepticism, which had previously been prominent in circles, got much stronger. This is despite Britain’s special status as a member of the European Union, as defined by the EU’s rules and conditions and the Kingdom’s objections about joining the European Union.

4- The EU as an International actor

      Since the 1970s, a number of researchers have been debating the nature of the European Union, in particular its status as an international actor. In international relations, an actor is an individual or a collective entity capable of devising a personal strategy and acting autonomously in order to achieve certain objectives. [49]

An actor can also be described as a person or organization whose actions in international or transnational domains have an impact on global resource distribution and the definition of particular values. The realist approach to international relations was first used to nations, but it was later expanded to other types of entities engaging in international relations or transnational activities by proponents of the theory. For a practical approach, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, businesses, and other entities must be prioritized.[50]

           Some of these realists continue to doubt the EU’s actorness, justly arguing that the EU is neither a state nor a constituted political entity and is not in a position to act rationally. Therefore, it cannot be a full-fledged actor in international relations and should not be called an actor under any circumstances.[51]

           Gunnar Sjöstedt has reignited the argument since the late 1970s, claiming that the European Economic Community is an incomplete actor incapable of expressing Member States’ interests and preferences in order to carry out autonomous external action. Various studies have recently sought to demonstrate that, on the contrary, the EU is a major player in international affairs by emphasizing the fact that the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties defined the EU’s ambiguous legal standing. The EU’s status as an actor in international relations has been debated over the years by a number of scholars, including Jupille Joseph and James Caporaso, and Charlotte Bretherton and John Vogler. Others have proposed the concept of a “European External Action System”, for example.[52]

            Geography can play an important role in debates on the EU’s role in international relations. We can assess the relevance of the concept of actorness by showing that geography can significantly contribute to such debates. In the first half of this article we will review international relations publications on actorness and focus on their relevance for the EU. [53]

            The EU is an actor in international relation, but only a partial one. The extent of its action is uneven across the various domains. Its degree of autonomy in a given international context is ultimately limited.[54]

The coherence of EU foreign policy speech and action has not been proven, argues the author. There is a clear contrast between Mediterranean neighbors and those of the East, he writes. Coherence between different policy areas seems greater, especially between external trade policy and the geography of development aid.

 Finally, the effectiveness of the EU’s foreign policy is unequal. Signed trade agreements between the EU and non-EU nations have had little, if any, influence. These agreements appear to be little more than a formal framework for a pre-existing connection. More broadly, a geographical study of the EU’s relations with its neighbors could aid international relations research by highlighting the effectiveness of the Northern Dimension or the Union for the Mediterranean, for example, by comparing the coherence of these regional EU initiatives with the EU’s other external actions.[55]

E- The British’s application to join The EEC

Britain had received two rejections before being accepted into the European Economic Community. She filed her candidacy for three occurrences in the two previous attempts:

1-The first candidacy: In 1961, Britain, which had been absent from the early stages of the European unification process in the 1950s, submitted its candidacy for membership in the European Economic Community. As, she had previously Then She noted the group’s countries’ economic progress, as well as the existence of strategic political objectives such as refusing to enter economic and political isolation and seeking assistance from the Kingdom to continue to act as a bridge between European countries and the United States of America.

The negotiations that brought Britain and the six members of the Economic Community together in response to a request and the admission have  been hampered by the London government’s refusal to agree on a single tariff. With the resignation of French President Charles de Gaulle, the European Economic Community enlargement negotiations came to a stop. The veto against Britain’s accession on January 14, 1961, was based on the fact that Britain’s purpose was not to strengthen unity, but rather to join the divide and dissolve the unity, as driven by the US.[56]

2-The second candidacy: The Labor Party was elected to power in Britain in October 1964, and Labor leader Harold Wilson succeeded Prime Minister Harold Macmillan as Prime Minister. The new Prime Minister was an outspoken opponent of Britain’s membership in the European Economic Community. At a time when the economy was suffering, he gradually modified his policy to one that was more open to Europe. It also harmed relations with Commonwealth countries on a political level.[57]

In 1967, Harold Wilson announced to the British House of Commons on the decision of the British Government to submit a second application for candidacy from .It came to join the European Community. The same scenario is repeated, Charles de Gaulle blocks the expansion path and vetoes for the second time.

3-Third candidacy: After Charles de Gaulle resigned in 1969, French politics became more pragmatic, but Britain, Denmark, Ireland, and Norway continued to seek the presidency.  The new French President, Georges Pompidou, agreed to do so on the condition that he finance the country’s politics. A part from developing components like monetary union and foreign policy coordination, this was a legacy. The aspects, in addition to supporting France’s interests, aim to deepen Germany’s ties to the community, as well as the German-German relationship. A blunder on my part will result in the group’s expansion and weakening.[58]

1- The Controversy over accession inside and outside the UK

 Furthermore, the discussion in the United Kingdom over Britain’s membership in the European Economic Community has been heated, both before and after 1973. Public opinion appeared divided on the topic, and political parties and movements took opposing stances, each with their own visions and trends. The British did not appear to be supporters of European integration from the start, even when Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973, because British public opinion and political parties are deeply rooted in national sovereignty and English identity, as well as the Kingdom’s willingness to share its integration experience with other countries. The European Union has sparked skepticism, and a divide has arisen between those who support it and those who oppose it.

– The Controversy in British political circles

 Above all, within the UK, political actors could not agree on a single course for the European integration, and, the players who had an impact and played a role in the debate over Britain’s membership in the European Economic Community. The  Conservative Party, one of the oldest British political parties, arose in England after the civil war in the 17^th century as a powerful political force known as the revolutionary party, afterwards renamed the conservative party.  It has shown a stronger desire to join the European Economic Community than the Labor Party, Britain’s second most powerful political party, which did not enter the political arena until the twentieth century.

In the past, the Conservative Party has surpassed the Labor Party, owing to historical precedent. Since its founding, it has dominated on the political stage with the Labor Party since the beginning of the twentieth century AD, the conservatives have stayed either in power or the primary force in opposition. [59]

Besides, they have strong attitudes and convictions about European unification, but the first sign of entering the European Economic Community came from Tory Chairman Harold Macmillan during the several periods in which the party came to power.[60]

The British government’s first attempt to enter the European Community was also its own party’s initiative when it was established by workers in the 1930s. As for the Labor Party, the party was established with the aim of protecting the rights of trade unions and defending the working class. When the Labor Party returned to power in 1974, its leadership used renegotiations to threaten its leaders. After the referendum in 1975, 67 percent of the electorate voted to remain in the union. The three main parties in Britain have campaigned fully to keep Britain in the EU. Vernon Bougdanor: “Europe was a toxic/hurtful issue in British politics, not only because it divided the two parties, but because of the deep divisions within the parties”.

 In addition, some may conclude that the major battle in British politics following WWII is not so much between left and right as it is between those who believe Britain’s destiny is in Europe and those who do not. Despite her initial support for conservative Europe, Margaret Thatcher gave a speech in Bruges, Belgium in 1988 in which she articulated the British stance, rejecting the “state of a major European exercised increased authority from Brussels.” As seen by supporters of the current Gaullist, Britain failed to keep the European Union divided, eventually signing an agreement Maastricht in 1992, which resulted in a broad transfer of power to the new European Union, but Britain secured the option to leave the single market.[61]

-The controversy Outside The UK

France was the biggest opponent of Britain’s accession to the European integration experience. Harold McMillan’s goal was to ally with the United States and the Europeans who advocated the establishment of a Federerle world order, aborting the nascent Franco-German alliance that was considered an alliance between Germany and France.[62]

Moreover, Britain’s accession to the European Economic Community constituted a controversy among the Commonwealth countries. The United States of America began to encourage the movements of European countries as a whole. It believes that European unity and cohesion can protect everyone from the division of the European alliance.[63]

F- Euroscepticism and European Integration

To begin with, Euroscepticism began as a term used to refer to a section of the Conservative Party that objected to the Delors project for a new wave of integration. Its origins can be traced back to articles in The Times, in 1985 and 1986. David Cameron’s commitment to an ‘in/out’ referendum in January 2013 was the culmination of 20 years of Eurosceptic mobilization and campaigning. It followed the Maastricht ratification rebellions, which had its origins in Margaret Thatcher’s vehement Euroscepticism.

  When Taggart and Szczerbiak began to reformulate Euroscepticism as a testable political concept, the UK emerged as an outlier in the extent to which it was firmly entrenched in the mainstream of British party politics. But its British roots were exposed in the UK’s comparative exceptionalism and awkwardness. The rise of Euroscepticism in Europe has placed the issue at the centre of European integration. Yet, we do not assume that the UK is atypical in terms of its Eurosceptic trajectory. The purpose of this book is to interrogate the UK’s distinctive Eurosceptics without necessarily viewing the UK as an outsider. That is no longer the case, with UKIP and the Front National coming out of the ‘populist’ ‘mainstream’ in many member states.[64] 

As previously indicated, European skepticism refers to the rejection of degrees and European integration under a supranational framework, and the case of Britain is not restricted to the internal Conservative current that opposed unity. Since 1990, political economy and European politics have been intertwined. The impact of European skepticism on Europe has been clarified by numerous researches describing British public attitude toward Europe. Electoral level, and the elected conservatives and workers’ majority.[65]

After the request of each of the governors Harold Macmillan and Labor Harold Wilson to join the European Economic Community failed, and after France twice issued its veto to prevent Britain from obtaining membership in 1961 and 1967, both attempts failed significantly in the emergence of the first anti-EU political movement.[66]

Recent developments in British politics have once again brought to the fore the UK’s troubled relationship with, and within, the European Union. Eurosceptic forces including rebellions in the Conservative Party and the rise of the UK Independence Party have mobilized in the wake of the EU referendum.

         In sum, an extensive domestic Eurosceptic mobilization has had direct implications for European policy and the UK’s future as a European member-state. The management of Europe has never been simple for British party leaders and ruling elites, with profound disagreements in both major parties on the subject. Nonetheless, fear of marginalization was at the heart of the British state, and once in power, leaders linked themselves with a governing ethic that saw British participation as both vital and inevitable. A tense relationship with the EU appeared to be already established.

         Despite more than 40 years of membership, a powerful and pervasive Euroskepticism pervades UK governmental institutions and popular culture. The core argument is that it is past time to recognize this as a systemic and defining aspect of not only the UK and the EU, but also of UK political life in general.

1- Reasons for European Skepticism in Britain

      To be credible, there are four reasons for the difficulties of incorporating Britain into the European unitary project:

-The First reason:

          It is natural cause due to the geography of the United Kingdom, which is nor surrounded by land and has no land borders, and the British people live on an island surrounded by an ocean, or in the middle of a ‘open sea’, as de Gaulle (le grand large) used to say, as the British represent Europe in a different space, and in speech and language among the British public, and ‘We’ll go to Europe’, ‘We’ll negotiate with Europe’, and so on.

         This expression denotes a conceptual distinction and a sense of belonging to Britain, making it difficult to discern whether Britain belongs to the European continent geographically. It is mentioned in the definition of Europe that it is the western extension of Eurasia, and it does not join Eurasia because it is an agglomerated bloc. Britain is a Atlantic island that is not part of any bloc, many European dictionaries regard Britain to be outside the geographical extension.[67]

For example, the continent is “European” according to Collins Dictionary, except for the British Isles, which are in the neighborhood and do not come inside the scope. The continent stretches all the way to the next continent.[68]  

        In this sense, Henry Kissinger claims that Britain remained an island Amawiya remote from the European coast in earlier centuries, but without losing sight of the complicated and intertwined concerns of spatial politics.[69]

-The Second reason:

        It has to do with the first cause, which is historical: British colonialism, foreign capital, and immigration flows from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, on the one hand, and the immigrants, on the other.Because other European countries (France, Portugal) were colonial powers in the nineteenth century, but they differ from Britain in that the latter remains powerful in London, one of Europe’s most cosmopolitan capitals. Despite the fact that the majority of British trade has been transferred to Europe since 1973, a many of the elite and British society as a whole continue to believe that their country is stable because of its openness dealing with the rest of the world, not only Europe.

       In the economic field, there is an advantage to looking to the outside world, especially when it comes to the notion that Europe is too narrow for the United Kingdom.

        Britain’s role in World War II is another key historical factor that encouraged European skepticism among the British. British popular culture has long commemorated the fact that Adolf Hitler’s forces may have reached European countries during World War II, it had to choose between dealing with Nazism, being a colony, or remaining neutral, but Britain was standing up to Hitler and his soldiers, and the latter was unable to reach Britain.

         Many documentaries on British television stations underline Britain’s role in the conflict. The second world and the state’s elevated status, as well as the European countries’ united belief that integration is still possible And the only way to establish security in the region is for the continent to be united, a view that Britain has never shared with the continent.[70]

         Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, was always mindful of where everything the country had experienced historically. While Europe has always been the catalyst for tough events and situations, the United States of America has always been the catalyst for difficult events and situations. This means that British ideology, which is based in British mentalities and derives from its past, opposes the establishment of And the European patent as illegitimate and superfluous.[71]

– The Third reason :

          In terms of the economics, the British economy lagged behind that of the continent countries, but it later saw a global comeback, the economy and the rapid rate of development, which has resulted in a decrease in unemployment. Margaret Thatcher’s conservative government set the precedent in 1979, and Tony Blair’s Labor government followed suit in 1980.

         Meanwhile, a deregulation-based model in the labor market for workers the 2008 financial crisis had an impact on this sector because of its significant focus on services and financial markets. The model, on the other hand, did not erode the foundations, and the British believed that the financial crisis had little impact on the economy’s strength. Britain is still better than it was in the 1970s, thanks to structural reforms that gave measures to improve the economy.

         And it was because of this that the Kingdom was wary of Europe’s regulatory system. The distinction here is in an important point: French European pessimism imitates the vision of an imperfectly formed European Union, whereas the British perspective is the polar opposite.[72]

-The Fourth reason:

        Britain is noted for its plurality and diversity in the media, including newspapers, public television channels, and a body known as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), as well as a leading newspaper such as FINANCIAL TIMES or THE ECONOMIST. It is regarded as one of the most accurate and trustworthy forms of media in the world.  Other European countries, on the other hand, are known to have a scarcity. The newspaper and magazine THE DAILY MAIL, which aims to raise issues and issues of the European Union and European countries such as Germany and France, has a high level of credibility among British readers and followers. They are portrayed as countries that are destructive to the English nation’s history and identity, and newspapers have become accustomed to using such headlines, articles that are provocative and anti-European.

        In reference to Germany, it employs phrases like fraud, manipulation, and so on. Through the Common Agricultural Policy, which is the subject of British agriculture, France frequently emphasizes the issue of British agriculture excellent point of view.[73]

         To sum up, the force of tabloid journalism, which is never censored, has a tremendous influence on the reader’s mentality and orientation, and some American studies have even demonstrated that it has an impact on decision makers in the United Kingdom who respond to what is popular. From the perspective of the general public in the United Kingdom, from the foregoing, it is clear how deeply ingrained European skepticism is in British society, and how long it has endured. Because the United Kingdom retains its national sovereignty, it does not consider itself to be a member of the European Union, but it remains a partner.

C-Social constructivism and Euroscepticism

       In 1999 there appeared a special issue of European Public Policy dedicated to the theory of Constructivism. Such an arrival was an indicator of a broader research programme. It effectively cast the dominance of positivist neo-neo debate into doubt. Additionally, Rationalist approaches have been criticized for their focus on actors as calculating machines with preferences as a given. In 1986, Kratochwil and Ruggie argued that it was impossible to analyse regimes by assuming actor’s interests as given when regimes necessarily entailed convergence of norms, principles, rules and decisions.[74]

        Social Constructivism claims that policies regarding Europe are only subject to change by party elites at ‘critical junctures’, or times when a political event or crisis has led to a questioning of identity and national policy. However, for such a claim to be academically rigorous it would require an identification of causal mechanisms that would help explain which political crises lead to a change in which ideas and ideas under which circumstances.[75]

        Sociological Constructivism occupies a variety of positions in relations to rationalist and post-positivist theories. In my social constructivist analysis of Euroscepticism they do not make any claims as to the position of social Constructivism in the rationalist-constructivist debate.

– Applying Social Constructivism on Euroscepticism

         First, Social Constructivist concepts unearth a strong focus on ‘benefits’ in integration and EU membership discourse.  If  individual’s  interests are constituted by  their social world, as social  Constructivism claims, then we should see that citizens hold ‘benefits’ as the most  important  factor  by which  they  assess  their  countries membership  of  the EU. Though  this  occurs  by  a  different  method  to  Rational  Choice  theory, it can therefore increase our chances of developing an accurate hypothesis  which claims ‘perception of benefits’ is the most important factor in the formation  of Euroscepticism. [76]

          Finally, Social Constructivists  do  not provide  enough  empirical  evidence  by  highlighting  some  empirical  examples  from  the  history  of  EU  integration,  that  relate  to  the  Social  Construction  of  benefits,  and  in  the  next  chapter  by  testing  this  analysis  with  an  empirical  Euro barometer investigation.

3-Britain and the European Union: a difficult relationship

        When the Coal and Steel Community was founded, in 1951, France and Germany were motivated by their ambition to put aside a world war and their ancient rivalry in order to pursue a long lasting process of peace and cooperation. United Kingdom, at that time, did not share the same priorities, geographically isolated from the rest of the continent, the United Kingdom was not present at the signing of the Treaties of Paris or Rome, and only applied for membership in the 1960s, when its foreign direct investments were lower and its rate of economic growth was lower than that of the European Economic Community’s members.[77]

       The British have always maintained a peculiar and detached attitude towards the European Union, and it is not by chance that the country is deemed to be the cradle of Euroscepticism.

         Once cooperation starts in one field in the case of European Union,

Economy for example; it is easier to imagine an increase of commitment to other areas. However, this never happened for United Kingdom, which remained merely bound by economic agreements that increased its competitiveness in the global market. It always refused to engage in further transfers of sovereignty at European level. [78]

         We shall now discuss the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Union’s single currency, the Euro, in order to highlight the inadequacies of neofunctionalist theory in describing the British instance. In 1992, the British government obtained an opt-out from the Maastricht Treaty in the areas that provided for the Euro’s adoption. The unfolding financial crisis in 2008 exposed all of the European Monetary Union’s flaws and limitations: if the United Kingdom had kept control of its monetary policy, it could have recovered from the financial upheaval by decreasing interest rates or launching quantitative easing operations.[79]

         Both the opt-out and the non adherence to the eurozone prove neofunctionalist expectations to be contradicted by the evidence of the facts, as economic cooperation did not “spill over” into removal of border controls or establishment of joint monetary policies. This happened because interest groups and political parties (with the exception, in the last few years, of the Liberal Democrats) did not shift their loyalties at the supranational level, opting for national responses.

        The British have always maintained a peculiar and detached attitude towards the European Union. Margaret Thatcher rejected the idea of a “United States of Europe”, claiming that American history was very different from European one. In her view, Europe could be stronger only if France, Spain and Britain maintained their specific identities.

          However, there is no outright rejection of Europe, as we witnessed on June 23, 2016. Thatcher instead stated her country’s wish to continue cooperation in areas where supranational policies are more successful than national policies, such as commerce, defense, and international relations with third countries.

         Margaret Thatcher’s speech must be understood in its whole. After that, Jacques Delors, then President of the European Commission, had interfered at the Trades Union Congress in Bournemouth a few days before, announcing that the laws on the single market would be modified soon by tighter labor and social restrictions.[80]

        British nationals had the right to freedom of movement inside the EU when the country was a member, even though Britain was never a part of the Schengen Zone for borderless travel. When the nation formally left the European Union (EU) at the end of 2020, this came to an end. This what would be discussed in the next section.

        Britain’s voyage to becoming an island nation began hundreds of thousands of years ago with the disintegration of the land bridge. Following sea level changes at the conclusion of that historic ice age, Britain’s isolation from the rest of Europe was further cemented.

Section Two: Britain’s Non Accession to The Schengen Agreement and The Monetary Union

      To start with, a united European Union constituted a threat to Britain’s power, thus keeping it divided was the permanent goal. On the one hand, Britain wishes to keep the European Union split, and on the other, it wishes to keep the European Union divided. In international concerns, use it to your advantage.

A-Britain and the Shengen Agreement

          The Schengen Agreement is a pact signed by Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands, collectively known as the Benelux countries. It was eventually joined by other European countries on June 14, 1985. It allows visa holders from any of the signatory countries to freely travel across their borders, which allows for the cessation of border monitoring operations between member countries. Schengen was adopted into European Union legislation by the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997, along with provisions for a uniform policy on temporary admittance of persons.[81]

            The treaty was named after a Luxembourgish village in the border triangle between Luxembourg, Germany, and France, where it was signed, and a second treaty was signed in the Luxembourgish village of Schengen on June 19, 1990. It proposed legislative mechanisms for execution that would allow for the eradication of border controls between participating countries as well as the elimination of trade barriers. It includes rules on the Schengen Law European Union’s Common Policy on Temporary Entry of Persons, which were integrated into the Schengen Law European Union under the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997.

        Due to the entry into force of the Schengen Treaty it was not put into force until 1995, and the development of the Schengen space at the European level needed the signing of a new treaty in Amsterdam and Holland on October 2, 1997. Except for the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, other countries joined the European Union and the Schengen area in 2004.[82]

          Except for Cyprus, Bulgaria, and Romania, the treaty was expanded on December 12, 2007, to cover newly acceding countries to the European Union, as it currently includes Norway and Iceland. Even though Switzerland is not a member of the European Union, the treaty was expanded again on December 12, 2008 to include it.

           Prior to the above, the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed on December 13, 2007, altered the legislative regulations governing the Schengen region, allowing for better security and judicial cooperation between the Schengen countries, whether it be in the areas of visas, immigration, or political asylum.

          Switzerland is one of 26 nations that make up the Schengen region, 22 of which are members of the European Union and four of which are not. Schengen is also open to nearly 400 million European Union people in Iceland, Norway, and Liechtenstein. Legal residents have the right to move freely across member states.[83]

          In 2004, the European Union founded the European Agency Frontex, which is responsible with maintaining the continent’s security. It had a budget of 114 million Euros in 2015, including border control, which was considered insignificant in proportion to the function that the agency is expected to play[84]   

          The Schengen Agreement abolished the European Union’s internal borders, allowing movement without a passport in most of the Union’s countries. However, the attacks carried out by the “Islamic State” organization on November 13, 2016, in the French capital Paris, which resulted in the deaths of 130 people, prompted an urgent revision of that agreement, with the threat that the killers had easies. After the flood of them in 2015, the pressure on Schengen rose. Refugees from Syria over a million migrants, the majority of them are Syrian refugees.

        All in all, the Schengen acquis was formally included into the framework of the European Union by the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam. The Schengen Agreement of 1985, the Schengen Convention of 1990, as well as various decisions and agreements issued in the course of implementing Schengen, are all included in the Schengen acquis.

         EU countries implemented temporary border controls one by one. They proposed in December of last year. The European Commission has proposed a substantial change to Schengen, which is anticipated to become law and be subject to ratification soon. The data of the majority of non-EU travelers would be scrutinized from border police databases, according to the European Union’s foreign affairs.

        The most significant difference is that the law will now apply to citizens of the European Union who have not yet been subjected to this assessment. Citizens from outside the EU were not Europeans, and those with a Schengen visa were subject to an identity check while traveling throughout the territory; but, following the attacks in Paris and Belgium, this examination has become increasingly regular.[85]

           The United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland have both opted out of the accord; the UK wants to preserve its borders, while Dublin wishes to keep its free movement arrangements with the UK, which it refers to as The name of the common travel area, rather than entering Schengen.  In the years 2000 and 2002, the United Kingdom and Ireland began participating in various components of the Schengen Agreement, such as the Schengen Information System.

        The Police agencies from all throughout Europe share data on law enforcement through the Schengen Information System. This system keeps track of stolen autos, court proceedings, and people who have gone missing. Austria restricted road and rail travel at its borders with Hungary as a result of the inflow of immigrants. Migrants who entered the European Union without a Schengen visa did so illegally. Hungary was renamed Hungary built a fence along its border with Serbia as a gateway to the Schengen area, which it proudly exhibits. There has been much criticism in the European Union, however Serbia is not a Schengen member, and thus Hungary claims justify the fencing’s construction.[86]  

           Nationalists and EU skeptics, such as the Front National, have frequently denounced Schengen, this agreement, according to the French Nationalists, the Dutch Freedom Party, and the UK Independence Party. It’s an open door for criminals and immigrants alike.[87]

           If the UK signs the Schengen Agreements, ratification must be agreed by the Queen and the House of Commons. However, it appears improbable that a signature will be obtained in the near future given the current situation. The government, which wants to keep control of the internal boundaries, appears to be the source of opposition. Due to To this geographical position of Britain, in position C, it is an island of a place separate within the community in the sense that its effective methods have not exceeded their limitations.[88]

       As a result, the internal debate was not thorough enough for us to consider the ramifications. On the contrary, Britain agrees with the Doblin Agreement when it comes to signing the Schengen agreements on local law. .[89]

     The European Union’s signatories and non-signatories to the Schengen Agreement are depicted on a map:

          To sum up, Schengen is about border politics, that is, politics and policymaking related to border crossing in the broadest sense of the term. As a result, it covers on the most important aspects of government. Any decision to join the Schengen process, then, must take into account the significance of border politics and the norms that govern them in the context of the relevant member state, or member state to be. So far, thirteen of the European Union’s fifteen existing member states have signed the Schengen Implementation Agreement, indicating their willingness to implement the Schengen acquis

           While the majority of EU member states, as well as Iceland and Norway as associated members, have been relatively eager to sign the SIA, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and, to a lesser extent, Denmark, have resisted signing and, as a result, complying with the Schengen acquis, they either reject becoming complete members of the SIA and would rather opt-in to select parts of the SIA, such as the United Kingdom. Or, as in the case of Denmark, they object to the Schengen acquis being communitized.

         Schengen acquis has contributed to forging flexibility as a governing principle in ‘European’ politics. The British ‘no’ to Schengen was not the decisive motivation for the decision-makers, but contextual variables such as supranational and domestic conditions. A specific practice of civil rights, or, a particular citizenship practice for that matter, contributes to a particular understanding of justness, as in the Schengen opt-out case.[1]

          In the case of the United Kingdom’s compliance with Schengen, a shift in border politics offers the risk of altering the British understanding of justice, as opening the borders threatens to alter the inhabitants’ specific situations.

         Even if some EU members sign up for a single currency, Britain should on no account do so. The benefits of low inflation and high employment can be obtained by pursuing coherent domestic economic policies. By pursuing an independent strategy, the UK could achieve an economic performance that becomes the envy of unfortunate EMU participants. ‘Life outside the EU’ could create a prolonged boom, buttressed by the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff, trading rules and the flexibility of the skilled British labor force. A global, not a preoccupied European, economic future is Britain’s destiny.

1- The Effects of Schengen Suspension

         With a population of 500 million people, the EU absorbed 1 million refugees in 2015, far fewer than Lebanon, which has a population of 5 million people. With so many countries engaged, they are unable to reach an agreement on how to address the refugee situation. As each country pursues its own interests, EU values that encourage solidarity have lost their significance. More and more member states have restored border controls, giving the EU the appearance of a fortress, which is in direct opposition to the free values on which it was founded.[2]

        The EU’s goal of removing all internal border controls by December in order to restore regular Schengen functioning by the end of 2016 appears to be overly ambitious. Given the threat to Europe’s peace, order, and security, many European leaders advocate suspending the Schengen agreement for two years.

         The suspension of the accord would be a clear indication that the entire process of economic union for which Europe has struggled is ready to come crashing down. While people’ intracommunity mobility would be limited, the European Commission estimates that the cost of this action will be between €5 and €18 billion per year. This figure covers the expenses of transporting goods, the costs of cross-border workers who would lose more time, and the losses incurred by tourism operators as the sector shrinks. The European Commission analysis also takes into consideration the administrative funds that states will spend on border control equipment and employees.[3]

            Another analysis conducted by Morgan Stanley analysts found that a probable collapse of the Schengen system would result in a loss of €28 billion to Europe’s GDP. Cross-border travel costs and internal trade disruption will lower the EU’s GDP by 0.1 percent. According to a study by a US bank and the newspaper France Stratégie, reintroduced customs procedures would reduce trade inside Europe by 10-20%. Given that the yearly commercial distribution of items supplied in the European market is over €2,800 billion, the loss is enormous. Labor mobility, financial flows, and foreign investment are all expected to be impacted, but the exact magnitude is impossible to predict. If, as a result of the re-establishment of border controls, the Schengen Area’s common visa policy is abandoned, this will undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on tourism.[4]

          The European officials’ concern about the Schengen system’s vulnerability is palpable. The Eurozone, according to Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, and Jeroen Dijsselbloem, President of the Eurogroup, will be jeopardized if the Schengen zone collapses. German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble argued that any suspension of the Schengen area will endanger the EU project, the promise of the European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, Dimitris Avramopoulos, that the creation of the Schengen area is irreversible; Freedom of movement shrinks distances in Europe. [5]

         Unfortunately, the EU’s asylum strategy has been ineffectual, and member nations’ leaders are unable to find viable answers to the global humanitarian issue. The survival of the Schengen agreement, which has served as a symbol of European togetherness and harmony for 31 years, is currently doubtful.[6]

2-Britian’s reservations and protectionist policies towards the EU

           From the moment it joined the European Union, Britain has attempted to weaken it at every chance, including calling for discussions, which led to a referendum: After agreeing to a European single market, it turned around and opposed it. It condemned the development of a European powerhouse because it would jeopardize the region’s sovereignty, citing Britain’s desire for European unification followed by its withdrawal from the continent. The euro was how Britain worked to dismantle the European Union and keep it weak at all costs, however, it has long been understood that in order to make an impact, one must be a member of the European Union. It is politically necessary for it to remain within the European Union, and as a result, it entered the Union in order to achieve this aim after realizing that she could not do so from outside. De Gaulle understood Britain’s objective. The aforementioned prevented Britain from joining the union, but it was eventually permitted to do so. [7]

 B- Reasons for Reservations Regarding the Monetary Union

          The Monetary Unit is defined as a set of policies aimed at facilitating international payments by combining the various currencies of the member countries into a single currency. The achievement of the monetary union necessitates the absence of a single currency among the member states at the end of the process. With the beginning of the 1990s, and in the context of European countries’ efforts to expand the integrative process between them, and in the absence of foreign opinion 1992 on a new treaty of unity, which marked the real and practical beginning of the euro, Europe began to work on achieving monetary union and establishing the Eurozone. As a result, the euro is the name of the European Union’s single currency, and the Eurozone is an economic and monetary union within the European Union (EU) rather than a separate entity from the EU.[8]

        And that the euro’s major purpose is to promote monetary unification among European countries, which is regarded as one of the links. Because the existence of a common currency will ensure this economic unity, and this will reduce the economic crises that the member states are subject to, especially in the monetary and financial aspects, the target European economic union is the best option. In the region, there is financial stability and stability.[9]

        Moreover, the transition of European Union countries from dealing with national currencies to dealing with a single European currency has ramifications for other countries, as the euro is seen as a tool for monetary, fiscal, and economic policy, as well as a tool for reducing disparities in European policies, which pushes more and more to strengthen and strengthen the ties between members and other countries, bringing about political stability.

         Because it enhances common interests, it serves as an incentive to work on a common foreign policy. What drives member states to work together to safeguard their common interests and the euro in the context of Europe? It entails independence and the removal of boundaries between its countries in order to create an open environment that is devoid of restrictions, allowing it to lead and lead. Dealing in the euro to facilitate cross-border trade, trade exchanges, and transfer procedures has become the norm. Quickly and with greater certainty, as there are no unexpected changes in exchange rates, and the price disparity is reduced. Goods and services the euro also helped to integrate European financial markets which has grown in size and liquidity, and so has become a heavyweight worldwide competitor.[10]

           It did, however, end up transacting in the euro. The risk of fluctuating exchange rates and dealing with a single currency provides the most stability and they are the safest option. Dealing in currencies with a wide range of variations and price swings, as well as the admission of the majority of the Union’s countries to these memberships, necessitates additional economic reforms and restructuring in order to establish favorable growth conditions. Many economic sectors are cultivating a competitive environment.[11]

            The presence of these favorable impacts of currency unification on the European economy does not rule out the possibility of negative consequences. The European economy is what motivates us to describe the challenges that the European Union has faced and how it has failed to overcome some of them. Despite the achievements gained by the transition to the single currency and the entrance into force of the euro and daily dealings, there are a number of challenges and obstacles that are meant to benefit the union.[12]

          Britain has refused to join the monetary zone and has said no to the currency that has captivated exchange markets, the euro. Despite his support for the euro, Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, chose to follow Jordan Brown, the Minister of Finance, who firmly refused to participate in the trial on behalf of his country. To Europe, and at the very least, Tony Blair indicated that the United Kingdom would not be joining the European Union immediately, leaving the question unanswered indefinitely.

          In 1997, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer offered his judgment of the Five Economic Criteria to determine whether or not the euro is in Britain’s best interests.

          The first requirement: Without a doubt, the most crucial is related to the convergence of cycles and economic conditions. Prices cannot be lowered. If economic conditions are significantly varied and there is a significant difference and disparity between states, the exchange rate is fixed and the single currency is not stable.[13]

          In truth, economic conditions in the United Kingdom and the European Union differed substantially at the time the euro was implemented, with the exception of inflation, which was exactly the same: 2% in the eurozone and 2.5 percent in the United Kingdom. However, there appear to be considerable disparities in terms of growth, the latter being in 2002.This gap is also related to the rate of unemployment, which is 0.8 percent in Europe and 1.7 percent in England in 2003.

           In 2001, it was 3.1 percent in the United Kingdom, and 5.1 percent in Europe, according to the OECD Harmonized Statistics. Meanwhile, unemployment in the Euro-zone is at 8.8% of the working population, and in France and Germany, it is even worse than that. as well as  hear  England did not want to follow the group in such bad weather since it could cause block and delay in the United Kingdom.

        The Second requirement: Britain’s second requirement is flexibility, as it is vital for countries’ economies to be flexible. Be able to withstand disasters by being flexible. However, this flexibility is far larger in the UK than it is in the rest of the world, as evidenced by the absence of minimum wages, wage flexibility, and labor mobility, not to mention public spending and taxation, and Britain remains much less rigid.[14]

           In other words, the British believe that being a member of a unified monetary area requires them to be flexible wherever they can. They must make adjustments quickly and effectively, and even if they are more flexible than the rest of the region, they believe that the problem is not that she has more flexibility than others, but that she requires superior flexibility. They must join the Euro-zone, even though they have more freedom than the rest of the group; Britain, however, thinks itself to be superior to them and is not yet ready.

           The Third requirement: the third investment requirement is that the UK’s entry into the single currency should result in an increase in public and private investments, both foreign and domestic. They believe that the situation is now unfeasible.

           The Fourth requirement: The financial services criterion is the fourth criterion. The competitiveness of the services sector in the monetary union must be improved. In the United Kingdom, including London, finance is the same. The Minister of Finance believes that the requirement has been met at this time because the city’s financial services are extremely competitive. It has to be strengthened because it has been open to competition for a long time

           The fifth requirement: the final criterion was the extent to which the monetary unit could positively affect employment and economic growth rates, and Britain does not see a need for the euro, and it will not benefit it in this regard, as long as it maintains British monetary policy on price stability, no tariff limits are a reality, with or without the euro, and its foreign trade is going up.[15]

Countries : Germany, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Estonia, Portugal, Austria, Greece, Belgium, Slovakia, Slovenia, France, Finland, Cyprus, Latvia, Luxelbourg, Lithuania, Malta

      The map above depicts member countries of the European Monetary Area that have embraced the euro currency, as well as member countries of the Non-European Union, i.e. countries that have not signed the Single Currency Agreement, as well as those who did not want to, such as the United Kingdom.

Section Three: The Brexit

          Brexit refers to the United Kingdom’s secession from the European Union, one of the most prominent problems currently filling the international stage, as Britain strives to adopt a new policy that is compatible with new developments at all levels, by adopting a future secession strategy to ensure the achievement of its economic and strategic interests on its sovereignty, whether or not it is part of the European Union, because this could affect both parties or the United Kingdom.

          As a result, Britain’s exit from the European Union is a topic that can be interpreted in a variety of ways a vision of the European integrative experience in the future.  Since the United Kingdom entered the European Union, the prospect of leaving has grown. The decision to split from Britain was based on and challenged by the breakdown of the European integrative experience. For a variety of political, security, and economic reasons, the European Union exists.

          In the European Identity has been constructed and discursively shaped by European elites. It rests on the binary positioning of ‘the self’, as Europeans, and ‘the others’, as non-Europeans. First, European decision-makers have always privileged their core objectives as to European integration in forging the European Identity.

       The subject of Brexit has become the defining issue in British politics. There isn’t a day that goes by without some fresh speech, rumor, discussion, remark, or policy suggestion. Anyone attempting to comprehend Brexit may encounter an uphill battle. As a result, Brexit is a topic in desperate need of theoretical understanding. We need to figure out a means to sort through all of the advancements and focus on the most significant ones. This is where theory comes into play, and it’s crucial.

       Many students, let alone decision-makers or members of the general public, squirm when they hear the word “theory.” It can connote abstract rather than practical thinking; the kind that one assumes belongs in the ivory tower. Nonetheless, we all employ theoretical techniques to make sense of our world and our lives in it, and we do it every day. Theories can be useful tools for reducing the chaos and complexities of life so that we can focus on what matters most. One way to think of theory is like a torch that we use to illuminate only the most significant things.

A- The Theoretical and Conceptual explanation of the Brexit

        The unexpected and intricate nature of Brexit bombards us with events, rumors, and facts on a daily basis. We need a means to sort through new advancements and focus on the most relevant ones. Using multiple theoretical techniques, as Tim Oliver suggests, can help us better comprehend Brexit.

          Brexit, sometimes known as the “British exit,” refers to the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union. In June 2016, 17.4 million people voted in favor of Brexit in a public vote known as a referendum. This awarded the Leave campaign 52 percent of the vote, compared to 48 percent for the Remain campaign.

1- The Realism perspective of the Brexit

        On the one hand, Realists see international relations, as characterized by the distribution of power around the international system, as established by its founders such as Gidean Rose, Robert Jervis, and Collin Dueck. Furthermore, a central tenet of the theory is that decision-makers “and their state” operate in calculated, rational ways to maximize national interests. Of course, structural factors such as material capabilities such as wealth or military force, as well as how decision makers employ them, affect the power that Britain or the EU has in Brexit.[1] 

           As a result, Neoclassical Realism aids our understanding of how the United Kingdom and the European Union deal with the limits imposed by Brexit. First, considering that the remaining EU’s $13.8 trillion GDP exceeds the UK’s $2.4 trillion, the UK risks overstretching. Second, while Britain’s military might is on the table thanks to its NATO commitment, it has a significant trade deficit with the rest of the EU. Third, Donald Trump’s election and Russia’s behavior toward Eastern Europe have thrown the European political and security structure into disarray. As a result, the largest issue for the EU’s surviving members may be achieving the essential unity in decision-making. That is to say, because the EU is not a traditional state, it may find it difficult to wield its power in a measured and logical manner.[2]

           Brexit has sent the entire world into a tailspin. It dashed the hopes of many who had come to believe in the power of international institutions, the neoliberal philosophy which holds that institutions can shape states into certain patterns of behavior by ensuring cooperation between states through a shared commitment to rules, values, and norms.

           “Brexit was no surprise for realists!” writes Woron (2016). Neorealists claim that international institutions are ultimately ineffective, and that they cannot force states to follow international rules and act against their own national interests. With the development of Brexit, one should no longer be so quick to pass judgment: the establishment and extension of institutional frameworks that previously provided liberals with an advantage in their arguments can now be rejected. 

          Brexit has proved, as Woron puts it, that institutions have no real coercive force because it is very conceivable and fairly easy for a state to just withdraw and walk away from an institution’s rules if it does not want to follow its rules. This is clearly a setback for the neoliberal dreams that many have come to cherish.[3]

           Woron describes Brexit as shocking and upsetting precisely because it suggests that institutions are as fragile as realists have warned, as evidenced by the Polish foreign minister’s declaration that Brexit demonstrated “declining trust in the EU” and Turkey’s prime minister’s tweet that “the EU’s disintegration has begun.”

           Furthermore, he claims that Brexit proves some of the most commonly repeated realism axioms: that factors like nationalism and the desire for autonomy are ultimately more powerful in state affairs. The idea that people are divided into particular nations, based on things like a homeland, common culture, shared values, and a shared past, has two components: first, the idea that each nation should have its own autonomous political state, with which it can make its own decisions and effectively enact its own laws; and second, the idea that each nation should have its own autonomous political state, with which it can make its own decisions and effectively enact its own laws. Both aspects of nationalism are evident in the choice to leave the EU.[4]

         Meanwhile, “Structural elements such as material capabilities, money, and military might, as well as how decision-makers employ them, influence the power that Britain or the EU has in Brexit.” Realists put a strong focus on material qualities, riches, and military force. He goes on to say that the nature of the organization (EU), which asks states to give up control of their domestic policies in exchange for access to a single currency and economic market, is unusually anti democratic, especially for an organization that includes democracy as one of its membership requirements.[5]

         Brexit could be the result of another state (Britain) seeing its interests swallowed by a larger power (EU) and hence wishing to break free; alternatively it could be a foolish move in an out-of-date power structure. He also claims that the United Kingdom’s involvement is strongly reliant on the benefits it receives from the European Union, and that a fracture of that union can only result from unhappiness since it is seen as infringing on British sovereignty, a fact with realism overtones.[6]

          To comprehend Brexit as a realism manifestation, one must first comprehend the circumstances that constitute any event as having a realist undertone. The work asserts that the United Kingdom prioritizes national interests over the interests of the European Union. While staying in the EU served economic interests, the UK’s rationale for leaving was primarily motivated by two factors: a desire to limit immigration and a broader desire to reclaim her lost hegemonic position in the globe. Of course, these are realistic worries.

2- The Social Constructivism perspective of the Brexit

          Social Constructivism, on the other hand, focuses on the norms, conventions, and regulations that make up international and European politics, including pioneers such as Alexander Wendt, Nicholas Onuf, and Thomas Risse. It’s not so much about our material ability as it is about how we see ourselves in the world. 

         As a result, constructivists are interested in how identities are constructed and how they affect foreign policy.  In the context of Brexit, Britain’s or the EU’s national interests will be formed by who they believe they are and what role they believe they should play in the world. [7] 

         Furthermore, any understanding of Brexit for constructivists will involve an account of how the UK and the remaining EU build their identities and how this play out in relation to one another. In addition, Britain’s self-image as a great power and ideals of “parliamentary sovereignty,” as well as the EU’s commitment to “ever closer union” or thoughts about free movement of people, can be used to explain its approach.[8]

          Too, Theresa May has been accused of prioritizing politics over economics in her approach to the Brexit talks. As Eurosceptics correctly point out, the surviving EU is a political project, and so could place political notions ahead of economics. The UK’s separation from Europe has various causes and justifications. In this essay, the author attempts to explain the Brexit phenomena by illustrating the causes and justifications for the United Kingdom’s decision.[9]

            The current growth of populism in Europe, as well as the emergence of anti-European sentiment in many EU member states’ internal politics, is obstructing the formation of a single European identity. It began during World War II, with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, and has grown in size and scope since then, both in terms of member states and subject areas addressed by EU policy. Brexit Great Britain’s decision to leave the European Union in a still-in-progress procedure after a 52 percent majority voted to leave on June 23, 2016 is currently the most complex and well-known example of this evolution, necessitating the application of International Relations.[10]

          The application of International Relations theories to better explain the key reasons for Brexit as well as central aspects of the Brexit developments is a well-known example for this trend. Identifying identity, power, and legitimacy, as well as norms, as key factors driving the Brexit process Constructivism encourages a better understanding of the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the EU.[11]

           To understand the Brexit-related issues, an overview of Constructivism’s intellectual, meta-theoretical background is required, as well as a brief analysis of the aforementioned concepts: the British identity and national interest in contrast to the idea of a European identity.

           Social Constructivism as an IR theory emerged as a critique of the two main theories Liberalism and Realism in the 1990s. Through integrating sociological and philosophical aspects into the IR theory Constructivism could promote a greater understanding of events such as the fall of the Berlin Wall.[12]

          In addition to this, Constructivism is a philosophy of science based on the principles of holism, mutual constitution, and a critique of rationalism and structures-agent differentiations. The actors in the international political system are constrained by the system whilst their identity is constituted by it, thus a structure-agent differentiation is utilized to analyze them. Theory of mind about understands the world as a social construct with norms, actors, structures and institutions in a social constitutive framework meaning providing social context is essential for the theory to hold true across all fields of inquiry into human intelligence and consciousness.[13]

           And, Britain’s membership in the European Community (ECC) was blocked twice due to fears of Americanized influence. After joining the ECC, a nation-wide referendum questioning whether to remain in the EU was held in 1975. A similar referendum was held on sovereignty, migration and national identity as well as European identity in 2016.

           Indeed, ‘Island identity’ , a concept used to explain the policy and security considerations for the varying integration or disintegration policies of the UK into the EU  was used in a critical geopolitical context to underline the influence of identity in the Brexit debate.[14]

          People’s perception of their identity in relation to a Europeanized identity is reflected in the British peoples voting patterns. People with a special focus on their national identity mostly voted to leave the EU. Those with a perceived dual national identity of seeing themselves as both British and European were essentially remain-voters. After the UK voted to leave the European Union, a series of events unfolded that led to the country’s membership being formally terminated. Uncertainty and internal legitimacy struggles in the British government complicated the negotiations between the EU and UK for a so-called Brexit deal. The official Brexit date has been postponed twice to January 31, 2020 as a majority of the British parliament didn’t legitimate and approve the deal.[15]

          The UK voted to leave the European Union (EU) on June 23, 2016 and formally filed for Brexit on March 29, 2017. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty provides the main normative basis for Brexit with constitutive rules. Domestic regulations of the decision-making process in the British parliament influenced the Brexit negotiations.[16]

          The Brexit process began a new phase with the British parliament’s approval of the Brexit deal. With the United Kingdom exiting the EU on January 31, 2020, a new round of UK-EU negotiations focusing on post-Brexit relations will begin. Because no opinion on the extent of Brexit is properly legitimized, problems encountered during the first round of discussions as a result of an internally divided British point of view are likely to continue to impact the UK. The referendum, as the beginning point for Brexit, can be interpreted as a result of the British national identity, which was perceived as incompatible with a developing European identity, as a result of the UK’s geography and history.[17]

        Social Constructivism is an ontology, or a set of assumptions about the universe and human motivation and agency, rather than a theory. As a result, it is rationalism, not other theories of international relations, that serves as its counterpoint. It provides an alternative to, not a replacement for, doctrines like realism, liberalism, and institutionalism.

        For Social constructivists, the social meaning  or, as Dunne (1995) puts it, the “social construct” of each of the facts inherent in each of them and others should be explored, not only the levels of trade, domestic policies, institutional structures, or troop numbers.[18]

        Social meaning is generated – or constructed – by a complex interplay of history, ideas, conventions, identities, and beliefs, all of which need be investigated if we are to understand the behavior of states like the one encapsulated by the broad phrase “Brexit.” As a result, international relations facts, and hence Brexit do not reflect “an objective, material reality but an intersubjective, or social reality.”

       As a result, constructivist studies are primarily concerned with identities and ideas. Both are produced and reproduced by actors’ discursive practices, according to Wendt (1992). Decision-makers and others “act toward objects, including other actors, based on the meanings that the objects hold for them.”[19]

          The norms, customs, and rules that comprise international and European politics are the focus of Social Constructivism. It is not so much about material capacities as it is about how ‘we’ see our place in the world. As a result, constructivists are concerned with how identities are constructed and their function in foreign policy formulation. In the context of Brexit, Britain’s or the EU’s national interests will be formed by who they believe they are and what role they believe they should play in the world.

           Any understanding of Brexit, according to constructivists, will involve an account of how the UK and the remaining EU build their identities and how they play out vis-à-vis each other. Britain’s self-image as a great power, as well as ideals of ‘parliamentary sovereignty,’ can be used to describe its attitude, as can the EU’s commitment to ‘ever closer union,’ or beliefs about free movement of people. In her approach to Brexit negotiations, Theresa May has been accused of putting politics before of economics. As Eurosceptics correctly point out, the existing EU is a political endeavor that may prioritize political principles above economics.[20]

         Ontology is a term derived from metaphysics that refers to the nature of being and focuses on the different types of items that make up the world. Individualist ontology underpins rationalist IR theories, as the basic unit of analysis is the individual, whether human or state. For example, Neorealist theory treats states as if they are individuals attempting to maximize their ultimate goal of survival.

        Individual states, according to neo-realists like Kenneth Waltz, are the previous condition for a structure of anarchy, which then constrains their nature and conduct. Following a different logic of action in a competitive environment created by numerous governments acting in their self-interest, it is suggested, would be suicide. While emphasizing the individual state and the distribution of power, Waltz does include an element of ‘socialization,’ in the sense that the effects of structure are created ‘through socialization of the actors and competition among them.’ Keohane arguments by neoliberals who stress on the role of ideas, such as Goldstein and Keohane, involve a similar tension between the individual and the social. [21]

          As Ruggie points out, ideas are viewed as causal elements that are exchanged by fully formed individuals: “The people in Goldstein and Keohane’s account are not born into any system of social ties that helps mold who they become.” When we first encounter them, they are fully formed and set to solve an issue.

           Ruggie, and other Social Constructivists have questioned rationalism’s individualist ontology in favor of a social ontology. Individuals and states, as fundamentally social beings, cannot be divorced from a background of normative meaning that molds who they are and the alternatives available to them. Indeed, the concept of sovereignty is first and primarily a social and constitutive category, insofar as the prerequisite for recognizing individual nations’ sovereignty is a shared understanding and acceptance of the term.

          The relationship between the person and the social system is fundamental to both rationalism and constructivism, but each views it differently. Structure, according to rationalists, is a function of competition and the distribution of material capacities. Structures, first and foremost, constrain state acts. The subjects of rationalism are driven by a logic of consequences, which states that a rational act produces an outcome that optimizes the interests of the individual unit.[22]

          Although material considerations play a role, social constructivists place a greater emphasis on norms and common understandings of lawful behavior. Structures, in their opinion, not only constrain but also define players’ identities. The logic of appropriateness guides the subjects of constructivism. What is sensible is defined by common ideals and standards inside institutions or other social organizations rather than solely individual desires.

             According to Ole Jacob, the individual becomes social in this logic by acquiring and fulfilling an institutional identity. In this regard, norms not only regulate action; they also shape actors’ identities.

            Human rights, for example, constrain less due to power considerations than because human rights are a constitutive component of liberal democratic governments in particular, and increasingly, at the international level, the identity of legitimate nations. The emphasis on norms and rule compliance differs from instrumentally rational behavior in that actors strive to ‘do the right thing’ rather than optimize their given preferences.[23]

          Unlike, Realists and Liberals, Constructivists are concerned with the source of constructivism rather than the ways by which interest are achieved

        Ontologically, constructivists and realists differ on three (3) points:

         To begin, many IR theories, particularly neorealism, are materialist in nature, focusing on how material power, such as military weapons and economic capabilities, is distributed. Constructivists oppose such one-sided material emphasis. They contend that the most significant part of IR is social rather than material. For example, Canada and Cuba both exist alongside the United States; nevertheless, the basic balance of military might cannot explain why the former is a close American ally and the latter is a sworn adversary.

         Second, constructivists argue that agents (states) and structures (global norms) mutually constitute one another. Normative and ideational systems may shape actors’ identities and interests, but those structures would not exist without the knowing practices of those actors.            

           Finally, norm-driven conducts the social and political world, including the realm of international relations, are not physical entities or material objects that exist outside of human consciousness. As a result, the study of international relations must concentrate on the ideas and beliefs that influence the participants on the international stage, as well as the shared understandings among them. According to Alexander Wendt, “identities are the foundation of interests.” Tennen Wald classifies concepts into four categories: ideological or shared belief systems, normative, causal views, and policy prescriptions.[24]

                    According to Alexander Wendt social structures have three (3) elements: shared knowledge, material resources and practices. According to the assumptions stated above two points can be emphasized:

         1- The international system, according to constructivist theory, is not something ‘out there’ like the solar system. It does not exist on its own. It existed only as an inter-subjective awareness among people; in that sense the system is constituted by ideas, not by materials forces. It is human invention or creation not of physical or material kind but of a purely intellectual and ideational kind. It is a set of ideas, a body of thoughts, a system of norms, which has been arranged by certain people at particular time and place.

         2- The security dilemma, accordingly; is a social structure composed of inter-subjective understandings in which states are so distrustful that they make worst-case assumptions about each other`s intentions, and as a result define their interests in self-help terms.[25]

         To sum up, according to social constructivism, international relations as a whole is a social fabrication. It highlights the social aspects of global relations. Social Constructivists emphasis on the centrality of nonmaterial factors as determinants of phenomena in global politics can and should serve the agenda of world politics in the twenty-first century. According to Social Constructivism, scholarly debate is more effective at bringing about long-lasting and genuine change in world events than political activism.

          Some schools of thought within the international relations discipline started to look beyond the traditional and dominant theoretical approaches to doing politics in the mid-1980s, when the Cold War was at its worst and nuclear war between the capitalist and communist Blocs, as represented by the two super powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, seemed inevitable.

3-the English school and the Brexit

         On the surface, the ES appears to be an unpromising method for analyzing the Brexit issue. It has said very little regarding regional integration over the years. Its concern in European integration has primarily been limited to the question of sovereignty, namely whether the establishment of a new type of multinational body like the EU threatens the ES’s traditional definition of sovereignty as constitutional independence.

          The school takes pleasure in being in the business of generic IR theory, with a focus on system-level issues. While the founding of the EEC in the 1950s and its transformation into the hybrid polity of polities that exists today has significant regional implications, its relevance for the international system as a whole has been overlooked.[1]

        First, it is assumed that the EU is more than an intergovernmental or interstate organization; it is a new sort of polity, with a broad but not exhaustive set of shared policies, a complex but not all-pervasive institutional framework, and (for the most part) a single currency. But it is precisely this that distinguishes the EU. It is doubtful that its shapes will be duplicated elsewhere. It is not in the works to create a new type of polity that will supplant the old nation-state.

       Second, even if the federalists win the day and this new sort of polity matures into a European super-state, the structural effect will be a fall in the number of international society members. In any case, the EU’s continuous expansion (and now likely minor decline) has limited implications for international society.

          Similarly, because it has mainly disregarded economics, the ES is an unpromising starting place for thinking about Brexit.

        However, since the momentous vote on June 23, 2016, the economic repercussions of Brexit have dominated the debate both internally in the UK and externally in the wider EU. The decoupling of the UK from an intricate network of economic and financial norms and institutions, as well as the arrangements that will replace them, is a major topic of public debate and official negotiation. [2]

         It’s worth noting that, during the previous 44 years, the UK has not only become subject to these rules and institutions, but has also played a key role in shaping them, particularly the Single European Market. Because the ES ignores international political economy, let alone European political economy, it appears to have little to contribute to this vital issue.

B-Reasons of the Brexit

         There are a number of reasons that prompted Britain to take the decision to secede from the United Kingdom. The European Union, which is represented by:

1- Political and Security reasons

          The largest issue confronting British society is immigration and the refugee crisis. Britain feels that the European Union’s policies are to blame for the influx of immigrants into the country. Official estimates show that 285,000 Europeans have entered the British labor market, benefiting from a system of social benefits such as health and education worth 67.3 billion pounds each year.

          Britain wanted the creation of a mechanism to limit the flow of immigrants into the country, despite European rejection, because freedom of movement and individual movement is one of the most significant sections in the EU agreement.[3]

          Fear of terrorism: Recent terrorist incidents in Europe (Brussels, France) have prompted some European countries (Brussels, France) to press British citizens to secede from the European Union in order to protect themselves from such assaults, and that this split will put an end to the agreement. The suggested borders between its countries would limit terrorist activities.[4]

         Also, because of her departure would free power from the restrictions of British sovereignty. In addition to the fact that the British believes that the European Union system lacks the democracy of the British system, they cite judicial provisions of legal constraints, in particular the European Court of Human Rights, so that its judgements become non-binding on the British High Court with the unelected European Commission’s vast powers to write initiatives and laws through the European Parliament, which is directly elected by the European peoples.[5]

         Fears of a European military force: which would compensate for the North Atlantic Treaty, led by the United Kingdom and the United States of America, in particular, where European Commission President “Jean-Claude Bonco” called for the formation of a European Union joint army to confront Russia and other threats at the start of 2016.[6]

           International influence: The British recognize that their country’s power within the European Union is limited, and that if it leaves, it will be able to act freely and earn seats in global institutions, which they regret due to the World Trade Organization’s membership in the European Union.[7]

          The United Kingdom’s wish to provide national parliaments the authority to assemble in order to reject any European legislation is counter to the interests of nation states.

         Strengthening sovereignty: as a sovereign state distant from integrating into the union entity European Union, Brexit will provide the EU with a new opportunity to define its destiny and the enactment of its laws as a sovereign state far from integrating into the union entity European Union.

2-Economic Reasons:

          It is concerned that the 19 eurozone countries will exert influence over the country’s decision-making process. Britain’s refusal to join the European Union’s monetary union d. Experts claim that the European Union’s monetary union, which Britain has refused to join, has become the focal point of decision-making, with all choices being based on it. It must first be negotiated by its members, and then it will be submitted to the European Union’s member countries.[8]

        Economic constraints: The European Union, like other European organizations, imposes Drawings on organizing countries based on their economic might, which was rejected. The British have refused to accept the cancellation of their currency, “the pound sterling,” which is what it demands, because this depletes their treasury. They had to pay about 55 million pounds per day while relying on an austerity policy due to the deficit in their budget, in addition to refusing to accept the cancellation of their currency, “the pound sterling,” which is what it demands. The European Union has designated the “euro” as the official currency of the union’s member countries.[9]

        Free trade: a group opposed to remaining in the European Union has decided to leave. They will be able to form a free trade zone with other countries including as America, India, and China, without being bound by the Union’s laws.

         Rid the British economy of the effects of sovereign debt within the euro union, such as Greece, Cyprus, Portugal, Belgium, Italy, and Spain, as well as several other candidate countries for the financial explosion of the existing debt, such as Ireland, France, and Hungary.[10]

        David Cameron’s government implemented harsh austerity policies and measures that impacted the poor, which were unprecedented in British history since World War II. Workers, retirees, and those on fixed incomes are all affected by the vote. Age groups over 40 are disproportionately influenced by austerity voting policies in support of leaving the European Union, whilst age groups under Forty are unaffected by similar measures in favor of staying in the European Union.[11]

          Around 10 million individuals from other EU nations come to Britain to work and live permanently, which has a negative impact on the British, whether they are business owners or not. Small jobs are accessible at lower wages than in the United Kingdom.

           Reducing the basic services budget for each of the social service programs, such as education and health, has resulted in a sharp drop in the quality of life and standard of living for Britons, whether low or middle income, who rely primarily on these free and subsidized government services for their livelihood.

           Economic issues and the global crisis: Over the last ten years, economics has gained a lot of attention. In addition to the lack of parity in the treatment of institutions and major powers, financial policymakers, and the failure of the European Union on the financial side represented by the European Central Bank (BCE) in resolving structural dilemmas in European economies and high unemployment rates, the major financial and economic crisis.

          The Eurozone crisis and the implementation of austerity policies, as well as low growth rates and a high unemployment rate, increased popular support for the Union, leading to the rise of far-right populist currents in Europe that are suspicious of the European Union. And criticizing austerity programs and criticizing the ruling elites, as well as anti-immigration sentiment.[12]   

            In brief, the British have settled their country’s order to break from the European Union’s robe, shocking the rest of the world. We can sum up the most important causes of the Brexit as follows:

1- Eliminating the migrant and refugee burden: The British individual believes that leaving the European Union will allow his country to implement a new immigration policy that restricts immigrants from outside the EU. According to the most recent figures, the number of immigrants in the United Kingdom is expected to reach 368,000 in 2019, resulting in an annual cost of more than £3.67 mL (£4.131 mL) $.

2- Fear of terrorism: an surge in terrorist acts in various European countries has led British voters to believe that leaving the EU will end the Open Borders Agreement between their countries, limiting the mobility of European citizens and preventing terrorists from entering the UK.

3- Financial provision of health and education: This is why the burden of accepting migrants across the border, which was estimated to save £350 million by hundreds of mailers or street curators, has been removed) $480 million (per week for the British Treasury.

4- Loose promises of prosperity: The British citizen remained with the British citizen on the committees, as former Mayor of London Boris Johnson put it: “If we vote on June 23 and reclaim control of our nation, our economy, and our demise, we can thrive as never before.” Those pledges were backed up by pro-exit publications.

5- Free trade: The opposition’s decision to remain silent on the post-Brexit trade situation was reason enough for the British citizen to hope for the best. The British citizen believed that leaving would allow his country to establish economic relations with the European Union without being bound by the Union’s laws, allowing it to enter into trade agreements with important countries such as the United States, India, and China, as well as pursue the establishment of a free trade zone.

6- International influence: The British consider their country’s clout within the European Union to be limited. They will be able to act freely and gain seats in global institutions if they quit the Union, which they have lost due to their membership in the European Union as the World Trade Organization.

7- Fears of Turkey joining the Union: Politicians at the British exit camp from the European Union were able to sway ordinary citizens by fabricating a case for Turkey’s membership in the Union and portraying it as threatening to open its borders to the influx of thousands of refugees currently in the country.

8- Fees: The European Union charges organizing countries a price based on their economic strength and recovery, but Britain, which is implementing austerity measures because to its budget deficit, complains about the European fees, which burden its treasury, which must pay £55 million every day.

9- Creation of a single European military force: Given the geopolitical problems that the European Union faces, the concept of a unified military force comes to mind, particularly to deal with Russia and other adversaries. This was seen as a danger by Britain, as well as a way to restore the bloc’s prominence in international affairs. Given that the United Kingdom and France have the bloc’s two greatest military forces, increased engagement raises concerns.[13]

3- Social and Cultural Reasons

          Since the creation of the European Union in the early 1990s, there has been an increase in mainstream opposition to efforts for European unification in the UK over the past forty years.

         Although this needs to be understood in the context of British Euroscepticism, which has a longer history of opposing any form of European integration dating back to before World War II and can even be traced to the time when the Church of England was formed and separated from Rome in the sixteenth century.

            Three key periods in more recent British Euroscepticism have been identified: the 1960s, when Macmillan applied to join the European Community (EC), through the 1975 Wilson referendum, which supported EC membership; the Thatcherite redefinition of the European debate; and the third period, when current British Euroscepticism opposed the Maastricht Treaty and EU moves toward political and economic integration. In the UK, Eurosceptic organisations have grown more vocal in recent years which have culminated in the 2016 EU Referendum and vote to leave the EU.[14]

          However, during this time, the roots of British nationalism, which are based on the myths of the British Empire (British exceptionalism), as well as the effects of World War II on the national consciousness, go further and deeper than just the politics of the UK’s relationship with European institutions.

         Through the growth of populism, this is given contemporary expression in opposition to a number of features of cultural, economic, and political globalisation. Along with this propensity for both left- and (particularly) right-wing populism, Euroscepticism and its impact on the 2016 EU Referendum can be understood as a movement that crosses cultural and economic boundaries as well as political ones. This has ramifications for the sociocultural causes of the Brexit vote and its effects.[15]

         However, the post-imperial decline of the British Empire and the broader economic downturn are linked to a strong tradition of British euroskepticism. Of the 28 EU members, British citizens are the least likely to identify as “Europeans”.

C- The Brexit Referendum

         The islanders had been thinking about the British decision to leave the European Union for generations, according to history. It was the product of underlying Euroskepticism that fluctuated on the British political scene over the last few decades. It should also be noted that the United Kingdom has had private interests outside of Europe since the commencement of European integration, which do not always align with European Community policy, and some of the common institutions and postulates do not serve British aims.’ Many myths and untruths about the EU’s dark side have been broadcast in the British media for decades, and political leaders have failed to fully explain the benefits of European integration.[16]

            The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), a highly Eurosceptic party, was founded in 1993. UKIP prospered and grew over the years, rising to third place in European elections in 2004, second place in 2009, and first position in 2014, with 27.5 percent of the vote.[17] The rise and success of UKIP has been cited as one of the most significant predictors of support for the “Leave” movement in the referendum. Due to political pressure to hold a referendum on Britain’s EU status, David Cameron, the then British Prime Minister, outlined the challenges facing Europe in 2013 and announced his intention to renegotiate Britain’s membership in the EU on the condition that his Conservative Party won the 2015 general election. The Conservative Party won a majority in the general election, and the European Union Vote Act was quickly introduced to put the referendum into action.[18]     

           Indeed, David Cameron announced the referendum date on February 20, 2016, and it will take place on June 23, 2016. Soon after, the ferocious and aggressive “Leave” campaign began. It was led by a number of Eurosceptic organizations, the most well-known of which was Vote Leave, Leave. Leave campaigners asserted that the UK would be better off outside the EU, and they were correct in pointing out many of the EU’s shortcomings and difficulties. Even though their campaign was extremely effective, exiting the EU appeared to be a pipe dream. To the surprise of the entire world, 51.89 percent of British residents voted in favor of leaving the European Union, while only 48.11 percent voted in favor of remaining in the EU.[19]      

         It should be emphasized, however, that there was a significant diversity of opinion across the United Kingdom. Scotland, Northern Ireland, and London opted to stay in the EU, whereas Wales and England (excluding London) voted to leave. It’s difficult to give a single, unambiguous explanation for why so many individuals voted to leave the EU. Risk assessments, emotional reactions to EU membership and leader image heuristics, economic and migration-focused benefit-cost evaluations, and finally a wide combination of computations, emotions, and cues are all mentioned in the research.[20]  

          Moreover, on 29 March 2017 Theresa May triggered article 50 TUE with the view to withdrawing the Great Britain from the EU. Her letter was delivered to the European Council President, Donald Tusk. After 46 years of cooperation within the European Union the United Kingdom will leave its structures.[21]

          First, Britain’s history is distinct from those of its European counterparts. It stands out from other European nations because of its unconquered island status, long tradition of parliamentary democracy, and engrained belief that it can eventually look after itself. It was never a big fan of the European ideal. It also joined in 1973, but in a four-month referendum campaign, the drip drip effect of forty years of bad media coverage was difficult to reverse. Similarly to, the United Kingdom is not the only European country where MPs agree on something in Brussels, then return home and blame Brussels for their decision. However, in Britain, the game was played with significantly more vigour and on a far larger scale than in other countries.[22]

          Second, a more recent characteristic British act, which also had a key role in the referendum outcome, was the Blair government’s 2003 decision to provide full freedom of movement rights to all 2004 accession states. As a result, on January 1, 2004, the United Kingdom and Ireland extended complete free movement to all ten accession states, including Central and Eastern Europe, the Baltic States, Cyprus, and Malta.[23]

         Third, because the UK controlled its own currency and debt and could deploy strong fiscal stabilizers, the British economy quickly recovered following the crisis. However, because of the Eurozone’s addiction to fiscally conservative economic policies, London discovered that it was also acting as a job shock absorber for Frankfurt.

           Besides, the UK, Ireland and Sweden were the only three states which provided full free movement of workers. The number of people seeking work in the UK from CEE and Baltic states surged. This influx was reinforced by the economic crisis that followed the break-up of the Eurozone. The number of migrants arriving in the UK from Eastern Europe and the rest of the European Union may not have been a major factor in the EU referendum vote. Nevertheless, the sheer volume of people moving to the UK appears to have played a major part in driving the Leave vote.[24]

           Thus, the Leave vote surged in parts of the UK where there had been little or no new or historical immigration. Parts of the country which had recently seen a surge in immigration voted heavily to leave. There are also common worries, concerns and anger about the European Union across the continent that reinforced the Leave vote.

           Meanwhile, the failure of the Euro-zone to reform itself has serious implications for the UK. The impact of damaging fiscal policies in Frankfurt and Brussels on the UK has a direct impact on the economy. Equally it reduces the value of the single market to the UK, as austerity squeezes economic growth.[25]

           In this study, the aim is to explain the relationship’s type between the EU and the UK, also the challenging situation of the negotiations among the two sides. The relations with the EU has never been in a good terms, this means, from a historical perspective speaking, the joining was gradually late comparing with the other members.

          These include the political, economic and social implications for both sides, as well as the continued reluctance of the UK government to spell out the trade-offs. Withdrawal Act lays groundwork for regulatory autonomy and provides a solution to the Irish border question. But the majority and the Johnson version of the withdrawal deal also carry potential difficulties.[26]

         In addition to this, the government, on the other hand, has yet to communicate to the British public the trade-offs that leaving the EU entails, particularly the economic impact, the likely increase in ‘red tape,’ and an expansion rather than a diminution of government machinery, the talk of the UK and the EU negotiating as one sovereign power to another fails to recognize the asymmetry of the negotiations. The government is pinning hopes on its ability to divide and conquer in the second phase, and is not afraid to go public on this view. The Prime Minister’s insistence that a free trade agreement must cover services as well as goods will be difficult to deliver. The EU will demand assurances on fair competition as the price for agreement to zero tariffs and zero quotas on goods, potentially at odds with the government’s aim of regulatory autonomy.[27]

               In this study, the focus is on clarification of the future atmosphere of EU-UK. While, the UK is likely to put future rights for UK citizens in the EU, which the EU said could not be discussed in the first phase, back on the agenda. Whereas, on the EU side, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, EU negotiator Michel Barnier and other leaders have stated their desire and willingness to reach an agreement with the UK, but have also been clear about the EU’s red lines .Any rights must be balanced by obligations and a third country cannot enjoy the benefits of membership. Also, they have expressed doubts that it will be possible to reach an agreement covering all the areas where the UK says it wants to negotiate before December 2020.

           The negotiations will cover a range of sensitive substantive issues, including data protection and intellectual property rights.[28]

            In this study, the main point is the procedure of settlement of Brexit, also what benefits would both sides have received.  In fact, a no trade deal outcome is a possibility in December 2020. But unlike leaving with no Withdrawal Agreement, citizens’ rights, Ireland and the financial settlement would be settled   and the less close a relationship the Johnson government seeks, the less difference not having a deal in place would make.

         The UK’s involvement in EU policies will be looser than currently. The EU has indicated that it will not allow the UK access to tools in law enforcement and judicial cooperation. The two sides will need to negotiate alternative provisions for access to a better future and neighborhood in Europe. This is because the EU’s Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) is a loose framework and does not formally constrain EU members. [1]

           In this study, it is shown that despite the stated desire on both sides for a close and special relationship, it is not at all clear what the negotiations can or will deliver. It is unclear how far the UK has worked through the full implications of being neither a third country, nor how far the EU is prepared to give the UK a special third country deal.

 
        We can see from the table that England voted overwhelmingly in favor of exiting the European Union. With an estimated 4.53 percent turnout, the European Union received 9.83 percent of the vote, followed by Wales with 5.52 percent and an 8.4 percent turnout, with Northern Ireland and Scotland voting to remain in the country. With a participation rate of 4.8 percent, the European Union voted with an anticipated rate of 38 percent. Northern Ireland received 2.44 percent of the vote, with a 9.2 percent turnout.

4- The Brexit’s Repercussions  

        The vote to leave the European Union will have ramifications on a variety of levels, including political, security, and economic, for the United Kingdom and the European Union in particular, as well as for Arab countries in general. In addition to this the Brexit has a domino effect of both EU’s member states and non member states.

1-Internal Repercussions of Brexit

The Internal repercussions are as follows:

      1 – Britain will lose full membership in the European Union, as well as tariff-free entry for products and services, and all trade agreements with 53 countries. Canada, Singapore, South Korea, and Mexico, for example, have trade agreements with the European Union and will be need to negotiate separately with each country to gain the same rights.[1]

      2 – The formation of strong separatist movements from the United Kingdom, such as Northern Ireland, and the secession of Scotland, which voted 62 percent to remain in the European Union, despite the fact that the majority of Scots decided not to split from Britain in 2014. A second vote to secede from the United Kingdom has been declared by Scottish Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and this could have a detrimental impact on the latter, considering that Scotland has a portion of the world’s oil reserves.[2]

        3- As Referendum Results Lead to Britain’s Abandonment, Britain’s prestige is eroding. It is the world’s largest economic and political bloc, and as a member, it has established exemplary connections and economic partnerships with China in recent years. This has been related to China’s desire to internationalize its currency and improve its position in the global trade market.[3]

        By taking use of Britain’s financial market position and considering its banking center for the European Union.

      4 – During the negotiation period, exports are projected to be considerably impacted. However, it should be highlighted that the United Kingdom’s continued membership in the European Union during the negotiation time will lessen the negative consequences on commerce between the two sides. The weighted decline in the British pound is linked to a variable in the negotiation conditions that will increase the cost of imports from the European Union on the one hand, while improving the competitiveness of British goods on the other.[4]

        5 – London, the British capital, will be particularly affected by the withdrawal because it is the largest provider of financial services in the European Union, and many international banks and banking institutions manage part of their business from Britain by establishing branches in London that allow It will have to enter the European market, but after Britain withdraws from the European Union, it will have to re-enter the European market.[5]

         6-The occurrence of a slowdown in economic growth: In 2016, the rate of economic growth was affected, as it was estimated to be around 1.2 percent, and this might have a greater impact in 2017, as it was estimated to be around 1.2 percent. Due to fewer investments and disruption, growth is predicted to slow by 4.1 percent. In the trade balance, which consists of exports and imports, sluggish demand, rising inflation rates, the devaluation of the pound sterling, and a huge increase in the general budget of the United Kingdom, which totaled 122 billion US dollars, and this trend will continue. As a result of her exit, she was unable to participate in the European common market for at least five years.[6]

      7- The pound sterling’s depreciation and inflation: the currency rate versus the dollar has fallen to its lowest level in more than a year since the Brexit referendum. From 31 years old, the value of the British currency declined from $47.1 to $25.1. It lost 15% of its value at the end of 2016, indicating that the growth in value will be accelerated. The impact of rising inflation and commodity prices on the British consumer Inflation rates have been rising as a result of investment shortages, prompting the Central Bank to intervene. Britain’s interest rate has been slashed to 0.25 percent, increasing inflationary pressures. It is possible to see the evolution of inflation rates using the graph below.[7]

            It should be recalled that inflation rates were 8.1 percent or more at the start of 2017. The second quarter of the year saw an increase of 3.2 percent, indicating the presence of negative effects for consumers in the United Kingdom as a result of the country’s economic woes.

           There are also other ramifications that will influence Britons’ lives both inside and beyond the Kingdom, affecting ordinary parts of their lives such as travel inside the Schengen zone, employment in European countries, and sickness insurance.

          8- Visas and Borders: One of the immediate repercussions of Britain’s exit from the European Union is a restriction on Britons’ freedom of movement within the EU. Despite the fact that Britain is not a member of the first European Schengen zone, British citizens have unrestricted travel between the two nations if they produce their British passport.[8]

          Also, new borders from Ireland or Northern Ireland, for example, may develop as a result of Brexit. Or he may press Spain to block the border with Gibraltar, which is annexed to Andalusia and home to about 33,000 Britons.

          9- Travel and phone costs are high, and purchasing power is limited. Travel costs will raise for the British as the British currency (the pound sterling) depreciates against the single European currency (the Euro). European airlines will often no longer have the same freedom and pace of work in the European space to and from the United Kingdom, which will surely affect costs.[9]

           For the British, the cost of using a cell phone in European space is similar to what has been done to standardize costs inside countries. It is predicted to rise as a result of the union.

           10-Operating market: With Brexit in effect, some major corporations may decide to leave the United Kingdom those in the banking and insurance industries, in particular.[10]

          With the depreciation of the pound against the euro, it is projected that pensions enjoyed by Britons in Europe will fall sharply, making living conditions for a big proportion of seniors in European countries more difficult.

           11-Sickness insurance and work permits may be rejected to Britons living in European nations who have health care guaranteed by British public health coverage through bilateral agreements in their countries of residence, as is the situation in France, for example.[11] They may also confront a barrier as a result of this joint coverage with the activation of Brexit new information about their right to work in European countries, including whether or not they will need to obtain a work visa for foreigners.[12]

        It should be recalled that inflation rates were 8.1 percent or more at the start of 2017. The second quarter of the year saw an increase of 3.2 percent, indicating the presence of negative effects for consumers in the United Kingdom as a result of the country’s economic difficulties.
 2-The EU members’ Repercussions

        1-The European Union will lose 5.12 percent of its market share and roughly 15% of its economic power as a result of Britain’s leave, since it will be without a military force that has a significant impact on European security.[1]

       2-Britain’s exit from the European Union, a decline in decision-making inside the European Union The European Union will demand that decision-making systems within institutions be reviewed. Exit will result in the loss of 29 votes in the Council of Ministers and 73 members in the European Parliament (5.8% of the relative weight). To vote, the minimum eligible majority would have to be reset, which would certainly result in a shift in the power balance in favor of the big countries with representation of the three major EU decision-making institutions (Germany, France, and Italy).[2]

        3-The nature of the interaction between Eurozone members (19 countries) and European countries is changing. Non-Eurozone countries (8 countries) are in support of focusing more on the euro as a future driver of European integration.

        4 -Fears of referenda contagion spreading across Europe, particularly within countries. That is afflicted by economic problems such as those in Greece, Spain, Hungary, and Italy, which may damage the European integration project and raise questions about it.[3]

        5-The European Union’s international standing deteriorating, as this will erode the European Union’s strength. By taking the lead, the European diplomatic action impacts the bloc of the Union. The world community, particularly in relation to the Palestinian question, as a result of the union’s membership on the committee. The Middle East Peace Quartet is a group of people who are working to bring peace to the Middle East.

         6-Britain’s leaving will also have an impact on its neighbor Germany, as the two countries share a border. The European Union is pushing the movement, notably in politics, with its distinguished bilateral partnerships. There will be a greater economic impact on British businesspeople as a result of this leaving. First and foremost, businessmen in the United Kingdom and Germany, where more than 2500 German companies employ 370 thousand people in the United Kingdom and Britain owns 3000 enterprises in Germany. However, Britain’s exit from the European Union will benefit everyone, especially Germany, which will have the most power and influence in Europe.[4]

         7- The European Union’s position as an active regional bloc in international politics will deteriorate as a result of the loss of a significant portion of its budget, as well as Britain’s diplomatic and military intervention. This will make the European Union less powerful in the face of major powers such as the United States of America, Russia, and China.[5]

         8-Brexit will put more pressure on the UK from a strategic standpoint. In order to mitigate the impact of Britain’s departure on European Defense and Security Policy, the German-French axis intensified their military cooperation.

         9-Exit Britain would deprive the European Union of one of its two key military powers, posing a threat to European security and transatlantic relations on a worldwide scale, the United Kingdom and France.

        They have the closest working relationship in Europe. In the field of intelligence, particularly in terms of border security, Britain’s exit from the European Union is unlikely to have a significant impact on it or the union itself, because the countries of the union are currently suffering from weak security coordination among themselves, as evidenced by the Paris and Brussels attacks, and Britain relies on its coordination Aalstkhbarata and infrastructural capabilities.[6]

        The EU and its member states lack the ability to act together. To find a solution to the refugee situation, particularly the plight of Syrian refugees, as well as the migration crisis which has gotten much worse in the last year as some of the most vital components of life have been lost project for Economic Integration[7]

3-The Regional and International Repercussions

         The European Union is on the verge of disintegrating because it has lost a significant military and economic powerhouse like the United Kingdom. Secession in the United Kingdom might result in a political confrontation between England and Wales on the one hand, and Scotland and Northern Ireland on the other. The United Kingdom will eventually collapse, and the political and economic consequences will be evident in the following months.

 A- The Regional Repercussions

         In terms of the economy, Brexit would relieve Britain of its pre-imposed deficit ceiling of 3% of GDP set by Brussels, as well as the public debt ceiling

of 60% of GDP Beautiful local and from observation.  

         The withdrawal is anticipated by British economists and agencies such as the International Monetary Fund. It will make Britain “poorer,” according to economic studies prepared by the Bank, which validated differing assessments of the impact’s magnitude the international anticipation that Britain will lose free trade agreements and roughly 224 billion pounds sterling as a result of its leaving from the European Union.[8]

          In addition to the decline of the pound sterling, which is one of the most prominent British problems, there is the scenario of a possible decline in the value of the “sterling,” which first appeared after the 2016 Brexit referendum, when the value of the pound sterling fell to its lowest level against the dollar since 1985, at a time when gold prices rose to historic highs.[9]

B- The International Repercussions

          It appears unavoidable that the new British foreign policy will differ in its orientations from that of the previous decade, particularly given the belief in fresh structural developments. Even if its influence in international affairs is lessened, Britain will remain a strong country, which means the world will likely regard it as more politically conservative in the near future.

          According to The European Parliament, after it effectively exited the “Brexit” plan, which was voted on by EU membership, Britain will be freer to defend itself, especially with regard to the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, which are the three regions that form the focus of these Policies are the most important in terms of British economics.

          Because Asia/Pacific is the world’s fastest growing area, it is the one that catches London’s attention more than acute Geopolitics the other two regions among the American and Chinese titans. Because Australia and Japan are London’s closest allies, they are the first in the Asia/Pacific region to get attention and concentration from the British.[10]

         Of course, this does not mean that we ignore Southeast Asian countries, which share certain common interests with the Commonwealth.

         It was once tied to old colonial relations with Britain, but is now identified with the British. In this regard, it was reported that London had launched a special mission in Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital, where the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ASEAN permanent’s secretariat is based.

          The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is part of Britain’s new foreign policy interest in increasing the country’s connections with the region; this bloc’s ten members operate on their own terms.[11]

          There isn’t a single point of contention about these countries. This means it can now be more flexible in its dealings with them, signing free trade agreements with them that include some concessions in their initial positions or incorporate abuses. For example, in connection with the delivery of goods with lower protective health and environmental standards than those of the European Union, in order to obtain an advantage at the expense of the rest of Europe despite the European Union’s warnings on the subject.[12]

         In conclusion, it is worth noting that a number of British academics have expressed geopolitical concerns. They regard the Middle East as a candidate for additional rift due to the intensification of wars. Take into account the fact that In view of the ongoing crises in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere, I wanted a change in geopolitics. The pillars of balance that exist presently if international charter rules are not followed and aim inconsistencies continue, as well as insights amongst significant international actors. This necessitates the Arabs diversifying their alliances and developing alternatives. A new approach based on partnerships with governments from all over the world and from several continents.[13]

          Britain is also conscious that the Gulf’s security is critical to its economy, therefore it believes that sustaining the region’s stability is in the best interests of many of its sectors. In addition, his efforts are focused on restraining the escalation of China and Russia’s economic and tactical roles in order to strengthen the United States its relations with the region’s countries[14]

           As a result, Europe has witnessed one phenomenon, namely the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, often known as BREXIT. The character of the British government’s foreign policy has consequences and effects. A lot of people make a difference the United Kingdom’s Position in the Global Order In this study, we examine the characteristics of the British role in the international system, as well as the changes that will occur as a result of Britain’s exit from the European Union.

        This study aims to analyze and anticipate the expected effects of Britain’s exit from the European Union on the most important British economic indicators, by relying on a set of international reports, and following the descriptive analytical approach, we reached that the exit decision is expected to shock on the most important sectors and British economic indicators, as the damage that It will catch up with the British economy and will continue to accelerate until the details of the new arrangements are finally settled, with a potential for GDP growth of 11 billion pounds by 2025 and 15 billion pounds by 2029, In addition, inflation rates reach 5%, and the price of the British pound falls by 15 to 20%, unless a new agreement is reached.

          The European Union was legally divided from the European Union after 43 years of admission between Britain and the European Union, as Britain entered a new phase in its political, economic, and social history. Britain is a fundamental pillar of the European Union, the fifth largest economy in the world, and Europe’s financial center, with the highest percentage of direct Urbian investments and land acquisitions. In the economic domain, British goods, as well as airplanes, have been readily transported within the United States, and more than half a million Britons work in American institutions and preserve their currency in the sterling pound. The Failure to deal in the European currency is an economic loss for the euro, and Britain has been expelled from the European Union as a result of all of these effects. All members of the United States of America lose the right to enter products, goods, and services without tariffs as a result of the separation decision.

     The consequences for the four most important economic indicators: foreign trade, foreign direct investment, and currency will be discussed in this section, GNP (gross domestic product) and FDI (foreign direct investment).

4- The Brexit’s Repercussions on the Market’s Currency

        Since the Brexit referendum, the Euro has lost approximately 400 pips against the US dollar, and it is still losing ground. As anxiety about the impact of Brexit on the euro lingers, it is trending downward. Add to this the problems of weak economic growth and European bank problems, as well as the rise in votes for right-wing parties calling for secession from Europe in several countries, such as the Netherlands, Italy, and Greece, as well as the rise in votes for right-wing parties calling for secession from Europe in several countries, such as the Netherlands, Italy, and Greece. [15]

         The euro, on the other hand, continues to have a strong position against the pound sterling, which has been hit harder.

         Economic studies prepared by the World Bank, on the other hand, have confirmed that Britain’s exit from the EU will result in the loss of free trade agreements worth £224 billion, as well as a 4.1 percent reduction in the British economy by 2019 and a loss of ability to influence the European Union on an economic and political level.

         Due to the avoidance of EU immigration agreements, including the return of migrants and refugees to the first nation where they enter, the country will be exposed to waves of illegal immigrants. It will lead to a trade war between the European Union and the United Kingdom. It would oblige Britain to renegotiate several bilateral agreements with other EU members, as well as review many of the legislations and laws it passed while still a member of the federation in order to put its decisions into effect. It will have immediate severe consequences for London’s financial and business markets, as the UK will lose its “rights to sell financial services” to the European Union.[16]

      It will have repercussions immediate negative impact on London’s financial and business markets, as Britain will lose its “rights to sell financial services” to the European Union, which allow British institutions and financial institutions to sell their services to European countries without having to have branches abroad.

         The dollar: For decades, the United States dollar was the most widely used money in the world the funds are held in cash reserves and are backed by. The US economy’s strength and ability to react to disasters, the dollar has been at record highs against European currencies since June 23, 2017, and has been dropping since then.

         The euro/dollar exchange rate fell from 14.1 to below 11.1, while the dollar index stays the same, the British pound/US dollar pair has fallen from a high of 50.1 to a low of 30.1. The dollar’s advance versus the euro and sterling is likely to continue, especially if the US Federal Reserve decides to boost interest rates.

        The British pound: was the currency most hit by the secession crisis, with historic lows. It hit its lowest point against other currencies on December 31, another reason to set aside a year for fairy tales. The sovereign debt of the United Kingdom, estimated at 72.1 trillion pounds, equals 90% of GDP, and doubts about its ability to pay its bills, especially when the Kingdom’s economy enters a recession, are weighing on the currency.[17]

          It is expected that the pound will continue to suffer against other currencies, especially The US dollar and the Swiss franc remain uncertain about the future of the UK, especially If the central bank takes easing policies to stimulate the economy.

On Friday, June 24, 2016, the pound sterling reverted to 1.3229 per dollar, down approximately 12% against the dollar and 8% against the euro. At roughly 4:25 GMT, the euro was at its lowest level in over thirty years.

      The curve above shows that it was 12 percent lower against the dollar by the end of June 2017, right before the election. The fall in the value of the pound sterling, which will have a detrimental impact on British citizens’ purchasing power due to high inflation rates, would likewise disappear. Support from Europe, particularly in agricultural and scientific research, is essential.[1]

      Inflation increased from 0.5 percent in June 2016 to 2.6 percent later that year, while real wage growth fell from 1.5 percent to -0.5 percent within the same time period. In general, wages may suffer the brunt of any slowdown caused by the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union. In the scenario of survival, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research in the United Kingdom predicts that real consumer earnings will fall by 2.2 percent to 7% by 2030. The United Kingdom is a member of the EU. Pro-Brexit economists, on the other hand, believe that by repealing onerous EU regulations, the country’s job market will become more dynamic.

    The British pound is likely to continue to fall as a result of the British economy’s volatility, as well as the expected political ramifications within the country and their impact on the investment climate. However, if a referendum on Scottish secession or Irish unification is approved, or even if Britain and the EU agreed to leave in accordance with Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and not in accordance with giving Britain special treatment, the British pound is expected to continue its decline and may reach new record lows.

      Brexit impact on the DGC: Before the vote, the British government, the Central Bank of England, research institutions, international organizations, and hundreds of academics presented a series of estimates indicating that Britain’s economic growth would decline even more if it left the European Union than if it stayed in. Former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has warned of a recession, while the Bank of England has cautioned that Britain’s leaving from the European Union might cause a significant slowdown. Former Bank of England Governor Mark Carney has predicted that the country’s economy will enter a recession, and credit rating agencies have confirmed that the projected slowdown in growth following the referendum has occurred.

      A small number of pro-Brexit experts believe that exiting the EU will enhance growth in the coming years, albeit at least one predicts a temporary slowdown. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, if the United Kingdom left the European Union, the Union’s production would fall by around 1% by 2021, excluding Britain. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development also warned that if Britain’s exit weakens trust in the European Union’s future, a scenario not included in its estimates, a new economic crisis might develop.

        The full impacts of the UK’s exit from the European Union began to be felt on January 1, 2021, more than four and a half years after the country’s EU vote.

The United Kingdom ceased to be a member of the EU on February 1, 2020, and withdrew from the bloc’s institutions. However, it continued to follow EU laws during a post-Brexit transition period that maintained most of the UK’s EU membership arrangements in place until the end of 2020. Significant changes have begun, many of which are unrelated to the last-minute trade and future ties agreement.[2]

-New Trade Border Rules

      The UK will leave the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union on January 1, 2021, allowing it to implement trade agreements with third countries. This resulted in new customs procedures and regulatory regulations between the EU and the United Kingdom. The EU warned in July 2020 that these would entail extra red tape and “longer delivery periods,” a warning that looks to have come true, with several UK exports particularly impacted. The British government attributed the early disruption to “teething problems,” but the shock was great for many traders, both in EU countries such as France and Belgium, but especially in the UK. Scottish seafood exporters were among the first to suffer as a result of the industry’s appeals for assistance, which were met with a promise of government assistance.

       The UK had already decided to bring in new border inspections on imports and announced a six-month delay in March 2021. Another delay was announced in September, postponing out new tests until 2022. In 2020, there were several cries of concern from British businesses about the quality of the country’s preparations. The supply of commodities from the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland has also been impacted by the arrangements outlined in the Brexit divorce agreement.[3]

       Other rules that will no longer be in effect as of January 2021 include those governing freedom of movement (the conditional, but not absolute, ability of EU residents to migrate to other EU nations to live and work), cross-border travel, and personal rights. EU citizens no longer have the right to work and live in the UK, and vice versa.

         Beginning in January 2021, the United Kingdom will establish a new immigration policy. EU nationals are no longer given preferential treatment; instead, the government intends to implement a new points-based system to recruit talented workers.

    Many European workers have returned to their home countries from the UK, and the harsher entry criteria have not made it easier for them.

     Intra-EU foreign trade accounted for 44.6 percent of total goods and services exports and 53.2 percent of total exports in the UK. These commercial exchanges will be in front of Britain’s imports of products and services if the country leaves the European Union.

        In conclusion, we can see that the United Kingdom’s trade is mostly focused on the European Union, as seen in this illustration, which illustrates the most important export destinations for the country.

The United Kingdom and its imports show that the structure of its exports is not diverse, as it is obvious that just two nations, the United States and Japan, are not members of the European Union, accounting for nearly 80% of the destination of its exports to EU countries. The same is true for imports, as there are just three non-EU partners: the United States, China, and Norway. The latter belongs to the European Free Trade Area but not to the European Monetary Union.

        Following Britain’s exit from the European Union, it is expected to reach a trade agreement with it, similar to Norway, which benefits from the single common market without being subject to European Union laws, but it is likely that the European Union will not agree to give Britain this advantage in the event of its exit, as European officials such as European Commission President Jean Claud have stated, and to keep the group together Some European Union member nations, notably Germany and France, are anticipated to implement protective measures against British exports, particularly agricultural items, but this does not imply the end of commercial relations with the United Kingdom.

In the circumstances provided, the parties may also choose to deal according to the World Trade Organization’s guidelines.

      Before the financial crisis, the European Union’s direct foreign investment in the United Kingdom accounted for more than half of all inbound FDI. These investments totaled around $735 billion in 2012.

E- The Brexit’s  Negotiations Process

           In order to be ready for the EU-UK negotiations, the European Union designated Michel Barnier as its top Brexit negotiator in late July 2016. Following months of debate and Theresa May’s formal activation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on April 5th, 2017 formally laying out its key principles and conditions for its approval of the UK’s withdrawal agreement, noting that any such agreement at the end of UK-EU negotiations will need to be approved by the European Parliament.

1- The withdrawal agreement

           MEPs also stressed the importance of treating EU citizens living in the UK and British citizens living in the Union equally and equitably. They also pointed out that Britain would be an EU member until it formally quits, which entails both rights and obligations, including financial obligations that may stretch beyond the leaving date. The EP resolution also warns against any trade-off between security and the future EU-UK economic relationship, opposes any sort of “cherry picking” or piecemeal economic relationship based on sector-specific deals, and reaffirms the single market’s four freedoms: free movement of goods, capital, services, and people.[1]

         Finally, the resolution specifies that talks on possible transitional arrangements may only begin when “substantial progress” in talks on Britain’s exit from the EU has been made.

         The European Council also released its recommendations for Brexit conversations on April 29th, expressing its support for the European Parliament’s decision. “The Union’s main priority in these negotiations will be to defend the Union’s interests, as well as the interests of its citizens, enterprises, and Member states,” the Council states in this article.[2] It also outlines the EU’s core ideals, such as the indivisible character of the four freedoms of the single market and the impossibility of separate negotiations between individual Member States and the UK on problems connected to the UK’s exit from the EU.                 

        According to the guidelines, the first phase of the negotiations will aim to provide citizens, businesses, stakeholders, and international partners with as much clarity and legal certainty as possible about the immediate effects of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, as well as to settle Britain’s dissociation from the Union and all rights and obligations derived from commitments made as an own member. [3]      

        As soon as the European Council determines that sufficient progress has been made in the first round of Brexit negotiations, the European Union is ready to engage in exploratory and preparatory conversations. ‘During a second round of the negotiations, an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship should be identified,’ they continue.[4]

         The Directives primarily describe the nature of the withdrawal agreement, which will be negotiated and concluded solely by the Union, as well as the content that will be required to be included in it, such as the withdrawal date of 30 March 2019 unless both sides agree to an extension, as set out in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the citizens’ rights to be covered, the financial settlement, and other issues. ‘Establish an institutional structure to ensure effective enforcement of the Pact’s commitments, taking into account the Union’s interest in effectively maintaining its autonomy and legal order, including the role of the European Union,’ according to the agreement. [5]

A- Northern Ireland Protocol

         Despite being a part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland continues to obey some EU standards as part of the Brexit divorce agreement in order to maintain an open land border with the Irish Republic, which is an EU member. However, tensions have erupted into a quarrel over the negotiated Northern Ireland Protocol outlining the new procedures.

         Negotiations remained tense throughout 2021 and into 2022 due to issues with the protocol’s implementation. The resignation of David Frost, the UK’s Brexit minister, added to the uncertainty. His replacement, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, has signaled no change in strategy but has adopted a more conciliatory tone with the EU.

         Since the summer, the UK has demanded a full reworking of the text, doubting the oversight of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and has threatened to suspend the agreement if necessary. The EU has issued comprehensive ideas to reduce border bureaucracy between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, while ruling out treaty reform.[6]

        The Protocol attempts to combine the UK’s flexibility to deviate from EU laws and standards with the political imperative of maintaining the Irish Republic’s land border open. It effectively creates a regulatory border between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, which stays compatible with EU Single Market laws and the EU customs code.

         New red tape requirements on certain commodities entering Northern Ireland from the British mainland caused disruption and shortages after January 1, 2021, sparking outrage among unionist communities and contributing to a violent spree in early April.

         Grace periods on agri-food controls imposed unilaterally by the British government to allow firms to adapt to new procedures have been extended indefinitely.[7]

          The European Commission labeled the UK’s initial extension a “violation” of the trade agreement and threatened legal action, but the procedure has now been halted to avoid further deterioration in ties. In late January, the European Commission decided to restrict vaccination exports amid a supply problem. To incorporate cross-border transport from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, the Commission briefly contemplated activating emergency measures under Protocol Article 16, which empowers either side to overturn parts of the agreement.[8]

        The idea, a massive political failure, was immediately abandoned, and the EU admitted its mistake. However, the UK government has repeatedly used the incident to justify its threat to suspend the protocol itself.

2-The Timetable’s Negotiations

     By the end of March 2017, Theresa May’s predecessor as Prime Minister had triggered Article 50, after claiming that it simply wanted to expedite the departure process until the goals that Britain hoped to achieve from the leave negotiations were agreed upon, the EU agreed. The following are the primary stages of the exit procedure:

-23/06/2016: 17.4 million British people, or 1.9 percent of those who voted in the referendum, endorsed the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.

-24/06/2016: David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, announced his retirement from the presidency, and Boris Johnson, the leader of the Brexit campaign, resigned?

-13/07/2016: May succeeds David Cameron as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, despite the fact that she did not vote for Brexit.[9]

-29/03/2017: May enacting Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, thereby initiating the withdrawal process, which is set to expire on March 29, 2019.

-08/12/2017: President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker and Prime Minister Theresa May announced that they had reached a preliminary agreement on the three most important cases of secession: the financial settlement, the rights of European citizens in the United Kingdom, and the question of the border between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.

-25/11/2018: The European Summit endorsed the Political Declaration and Exit Agreement. The agreement resolves, in particular, the issue of the bill that London must pay to the European Union, as well as the spirit of the bill’s worth, which is estimated to be between 40 and 50 billion Euros. A plan is also included in the agreement, “Safety net,” which grants Northern Ireland a special status in order to avoid constructing a physical border with Ireland, May, as a last resort, asked British MPs to vote in favor of her EU leave agreement in a parliamentary vote on December 11th, 2018.

-12/12/2018: The ruling party votes on Prime Minister May no-confidence vote.

-10/04/2019: President of the European Council Donald Tosk said that British Prime Minister Theresa May had accepted the European Union’s offer to postpone Brexit for six months.

-07/06/2019: the resignation of Theresa May, the Prime Minister of Britain from her office.

-23/07/2019: Boris Johnson, who was picked to succeed Theresa May as Prime Minister, supports Britain’s exit from the European Union, whether with or without a deal.

-08/09/2019: Boris Johnson, the British Prime Minister, stated that “tremendous progress” was being made toward a deal for Britain’s exit from the European Union.[10]

-09/09/2019: If the Prime Minister does not request a Brexit postponement from the European Union, Queen Elizabeth has approved a bill requiring her to do so. By October 19, he will have gotten Brexit approved.

-17/10/2019: The European Union and the United Kingdom have announced the signing of a new deal, but it must still be approved by the European Parliament and the British Parliament.

-31/01/2020: Britain permanent exit from the European Union. [11]

        Future commercial relations, fisheries, aviation, security cooperation, governance, and dispute resolution are anticipated to be among the subjects discussed. The primary goal of this study is to anticipate the future trade relationship between the two countries, as well as the short- and long-term consequences of Brexit.

             In order to be ready for the EU-UK negotiations, the European Union designated Michel Barnier as its top Brexit negotiator in late July 2016. Following months of debate and Theresa May’s formal activation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on April 5th, 2017 formally laying out its key principles and conditions for its approval of the UK’s withdrawal agreement, noting that any such agreement at the end of UK-EU negotiations will need to be approved by the European Parliament.[12]

          MEPs also emphasized the significance of ensuring that EU residents residing in the UK and British people living in the Union are treated equally and fairly. They also noted that Britain remains an EU member until it formally leaves, which implies both rights and obligations, including financial commitments that may extend beyond the exit date. The EP resolution also warns against any trade-off between security and the future EU-UK economic relationship, opposes any sort of “cherry picking” or piecemeal economic relationship based on sector-specific deals, and reaffirms the indivisibility of the single market’s four freedoms: free movement of goods, capital, and people.[13]

          Finally, the resolution states that talks on possible transitional arrangements can only begin when “significant progress” has been made in talks on how Britain would exit the EU. Furthermore, on April 29th, the European Council published its guidelines for Brexit discussions, in which it expresses its support for the European Parliament’s decision. The Council states in this text that “the Union’s main goal in these negotiations will be to preserve the Union’s interests, as well as the interests of its citizens, businesses, and Member States.” It also lays out the EU’s key values, such as the indivisible nature of the single market’s four freedoms and the impossibility of separate negotiations between individual Member States and the United Kingdom on issues related to the UK’s exit from the EU.[14]

          The guidelines also state that the first phase of the negotiations will aim to provide citizens, businesses, stakeholders, and international partners with as much clarity and legal certainty as possible about the immediate effects of the UK’s withdrawal from the bloc, as well as to settle Britain’s disentanglement from the Union and all rights and obligations derived from commitments made as a Me member.[15]

         They go on to say that ‘an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship should be identified during a second phase of negotiations under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty,’ before concluding that the European Union is ready to engage in preliminary and preparatory discussions as soon as the European Council determines that sufficient progress has been made in the first phase towards a deal.

          More recently, on the 22nd of May, the Council, convening in an EU27 format (without Britain), approved a decision approving the start of Brexit discussions with the United Kingdom and naming the European Commission as the EU negotiating institution. The Council published the ‘Directives for the negotiation of an agreement with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal from the European Union’ (a mandate for the Commission) on the same day, with the first phase of the negotiations set to begin on June 19, 2017.[16]

          The Directives primarily describe the nature of the withdrawal agreement, which will be negotiated and concluded solely by the Union, as well as the content that will be required to be included in it, such as the withdrawal date of 30 March 2019 unless both sides agree to an extension, as provided in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the citizens’ rights to be covered, the financial settlement, and the simplification of the process. The agreement should also ‘establish an institutional structure to ensure effective enforcement of the Agreement’s commitments, taking into account the Union’s interest in effectively maintaining its autonomy and legal order, including the role of the European Union Court of Justice.’[17]

-The 2020-2021 Negotiations’ Period

        Five years ago, on June 23, 2021, the people of the United Kingdom voted in a referendum to leave the European Union.

         Today, the United Kingdom is no longer a member of the EU and is no longer subject to its regulations, but only after a tremendous political war both at home and with the bloc itself. For better or worse, some of the hoped-for and feared changes are beginning to take shape.

         However, the story is far from over. The post-Brexit UK-EU relationship, which has been tetchy to say the least in the year since new rules took effect, is under tremendous strain. Disagreements over arrangements governing Northern Ireland continue to boil, much as they did during the arduous divorce process. As a result of the UK’s decisions, new border and immigration procedures between the UK and the continent have disrupted trade and labor supply.[18]

        Concerns have been raised that the protracted, fractious process, exacerbated by the pandemic and its economic impact, has diverted focus away from key global concerns, not least the climate emergency. Many in Europe believe that the UK-EU split undermines the region at a time when the US has gone inward and other nations, particularly China and Russia, are becoming more assertive.[19]

        Britain exited the European Union, now a 27-country economic and political partnership, on January 31, 2020, under the terms of a negotiated divorce agreement (the Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration), bringing to an end 47 years of British membership in the EU and the institutions that preceded it.

        “Brexit,” the phrase used to designate Britain’s exit from the European Union, constitutes the most significant constitutional upheaval the UK has experienced since joining the six-nation European Economic Community in 1973. It is also the first time that a member of the European organization has died.

        A “transition phase” that kept most pre-departure arrangements in place expired on December 31, 2020, bringing the transformation that has awaited since the UK decided to leave the EU in June 2016.

       After months of deadlock, a last-minute compromise on post-Brexit trade and future EU-UK relations (the Trade and Cooperation Agreement) was struck on Christmas Eve 2020, and the formal ratification procedure was completed in April 2021. The TCA allows for tariff-free, quota-free access to each other’s markets for commodities but not services, and it also addresses future competition, fishing rights, and security cooperation.

        After becoming freed from EU commercial and “free movement” regulations, the UK has implemented its own trade and immigration policies, just as the EU can now do with British nationals. Other changes have an impact on people, travel, and business. EU residents already living in the UK and Britons living on the continent have the right to remain, according to campaigners, but the registration process and worries about documents have caused some ambiguity.[20]

         Due to new border procedures and red tape, the UK’s exit from the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union has caused major disruption in commerce, particularly for UK exports to the EU. In the United Kingdom, an outflow of European workers and stricter immigration laws has contributed to a labor shortage.

         However, the influence of Brexit on shortages has been difficult to differentiate from the coronavirus outbreak at times. The UK has begun imposing some import controls on EU goods as of January 2022, after repeatedly postponing border checks due to supply chain issues.

        Relations between the EU and the United Kingdom have remained tight. London and Brussels have battled over a number of topics, including diplomatic representation, coronavirus vaccine exports, and, most importantly, new arrangements for Northern Ireland, where post-Brexit negotiations over the divorce deal protocol outlining the rules are ongoing. Tensions have fueled disagreements between the British and French administrations over fishing licenses and migration over the English Channel.[21]

        To conclude, Post-Brexit tensions have persisted in Scotland, where separatist parties secured a majority of seats in 2021 elections, demanding for another referendum on independence.

3- The Transitional period

        The UK and EU reached an agreement on their future commercial and security relationship on December 24, 2020. The transition period ended seven days later, and the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) as well as the Northern Ireland Protocol (approved as part of the previous Withdrawal Agreement) went into force. On January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom had already departed the EU’s political institutions. However, while the future partnership was being discussed during the transition phase, very little had changed in practice for most individuals, businesses, and the government, the actual Brexit began on January 1, 2021.[22]

          Businesses now face major additional impediments to trade with the EU27 as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU single market and customs union. Despite the TCA’s prohibition on the imposition of tariffs and quotas on goods trade, enterprises must adhere to complex origin regulations in order to profit. Businesses trading goods with the EU face high new non-tariff barriers, such as customs and health checks, as well as new ‘behind the border’ requirements, such as dual regulatory regimes in chemicals and product standards, as a result of the UK’s decision to prioritize regulatory freedom over market access in negotiations.[23]

         Outside of the single market, the TCA offers little to alleviate the increased hurdles that services firms face. Despite the fact that it ensures restricted market access, it contains numerous limitations that vary every member state. There is no reciprocal recognition of professional degrees, and the financial services sector has been largely disregarded the TCA only contains a pledge to establish an agreement on regulatory cooperation, which has yet to be fulfilled.[24]

          The TCA isn’t the only thing that supports the UK’s new commercial relationship with the EU. The Northern Ireland Protocol establishes the rules for goods commerce between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, as well as between Northern Ireland and the European Union. The protocol compels Northern Ireland to continue to comply with several EU standards in order to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. The TCA establishes a customs and regulatory border in the Irish Sea, with new checks and documentation for goods transiting between the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. The administration has more leeway in NI-GB commerce and has promised to provide ‘unrestricted access’ into the UK.[25]

         The impact on business is still being seen, with some industries, such as agriculture and food, being more affected than others. The immediate disruption has been portrayed by the administration as ‘teething problems,’ but this does not give the complete picture. Many businesses may face structural challenges as a result of the new commercial relationship with the EU; new costs and laws may force enterprises to adjust how they operate in order to stay afloat.[26]

         Despite the fact that the pandemic consumed most of the government’s time and energy in 2020, the civil service managed to prepare for Brexit. But its work isn’t done yet. It must still fully execute the EU2 accords and guarantee that the government and businesses are prepared for the (delayed) implementation of full import controls and future regulatory adjustments. In the long run, the government plans to construct the “world’s most effective border” and to use its regulatory authority in fields such as agriculture and financial services, which will require businesses to adapt.[27]

         The economic consequences of the transition’s end are complicated. The massive drops in commerce in January cannot be attributed exclusively to new trade barriers; corporate hoarding and the pandemic’s ongoing effects also played a role.

           To sum up, the EU is an example of a successful integration experiment because it began its step-by-step path from a simple coal and steel economic union domain to a 28-nation European Union with a common foreign and security policy, and a European security and defense policy, although talking about a common defense was totally unacceptable at the start of the bloc, This was mainly due to the United States of America and to Britain, which was always reluctant to get out of American control.

        This rejection was later explained on June 23,2016, because of the referendum for the purpose of withdrawing from the European Union, which joined its country in 1971 for fear of being expelled from the bloc began to be held on the continent, But despite this accession, Britain has always been a loyal ally of the United States and protector of its interests in the region, and Britain was not a full member by refusing to enter the field of Schengen, work in the same currency Union, and this makes us wonder how positive withdrawal is.

          Integration has been recognized as a key feature in international relations by a number of countries. The world is vital and necessary, thus clusters are being formed in an attempt to fulfill political, security, and economic goals. Given its successes in numerous areas through horizontal growth to a number of States, the European Union is one of the most renowned and successful regional integration projects. The vertical development began with the creation of the Free Trade Area, which was followed by the construction of a customs union and a common market. In addition to this, economic integration paves the way for political unification.

4-The UK-EU Future Relationship

          For the EU, this is a worrying time. The Euro-zone remains fragile, Schengen is at risk of collapsing, Euroscepticism is on the rise, Russia’s attitude toward Ukraine and Eastern Europe raises the risk of war, and relations with the United States may reach new lows if the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations fail or if Europeans fail to respond to Washington’s reports to increase defense cooperation. The issue of Britain’s EU membership must be thrown into the equation as well.

        The debate about the UK-EU relationship has mostly focused on the implications of a Brexit for the UK. In comparison, despite the possible consequences being significantly greater and more serious, there has been little debate of what it could mean for the EU. Many people, including those in the United Kingdom, believed that a British in/out vote was a long way off, especially when compared to other crises. Given the UK’s long-standing issues with the EU, the rest of the EU may be forgiven for thinking they’ve been here before, with an in-out referendum in 1975, but an actual exit has never happened. To be fair, losing any EU member state is a taboo subject. Many beliefs and theories about European integration are challenged by it.[28]

          The British exit from the European Union is a threat to the whole European project, whether on the European Union (EU), or on Britain, that could lead to a tragic fate in terms of social, political, economic and special terms with a parent relationship.

       The case of secession from the European bloc is a huge challenge with the exit of a country with the size of the UK .The United States represents one of the Big Three, along with Germany and France. Britain’s exports to the European Union 19.4% of the latter’s total contribute about €8.5 billion in the 2015 EU budget. Besides being the third largest country. The number of people in the Union States makes it a huge market and an influential player in a process of making the decision, as well as her role on the ground and her enormous military potential.[29]

          Continuing laws and legislation governing the movement of trade between Britain and the Union In the coming years and in the quest to confront this new crisis, the Union is building on its adoption a set of outlines on ongoing negotiations with Britain, where it deals Unite as a bloc to preserve its interests by reducing the uncertainty created by Britain’s decision to relative to European citizens by working to keep Britain a partner Europe and the Atlantic Alliance.

         Despite Britain’s departure from the Union and without ignoring the challenges The difficulties that the two parties will face (both European and British) during the negotiations in particular: Article 50 of the European Union Convention does not elaborate on the exit of a State from the Union, which is a delay. Negotiations could exceed two years without taking the final decision of Britain’s exit from the Union So Europe is forced to take care of the prospect of dismantling the European Union. By increasing the convergence that makes it a single political entity.

5-Post-Brexit

        Throughout 2020, London and Brussels were racing against the clock to secure an agreement on the future EU-UK relationship, which would take effect in January 2021. Failure would have resulted in the two parties reverting to fundamental international trading regulations, increasing costs and disruption and putting other accords in limbo. The primary impediments to a settlement were EU fishing rights in UK waters, protections to ensure fair competition, and an enforcement mechanism. All of this occurred in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic and Europe’s worst economic crisis since World War II, necessitating international cooperation and action to alleviate, rather than exacerbate, catastrophic issues.[30]

         The Trade and Future Cooperation Agreement (TCA), reached on Christmas Eve 2020, arrived too late to allow for a traditional ratification process. It was accepted by EU leaders and the UK parliament, and it went into effect provisionally at the start of the new year. The European Parliament ratified the treaty in late April 2021by Davit Frost*.[31]

         The post-Brexit EU-UK trade and future ties agreement maintains tariff-free and quota-free access to each other’s goods markets. It eliminated the possibility of a disastrous “no-deal scenario,” which could have forced thousands of businesses to close their doors. However, there are several caveats, and the UK’s exit from the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union adds more paperwork and costs for importers and exporters on both sides of the English Channel.[32]

          Although the two parties may disagree on issues such as employment and environmental standards, there are safeguards in place, including a “rebalancing mechanism” overseen by arbitration, to ensure fair competition. The United Kingdom is not subject to EU law or the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). However, challenges in each other’s courts are feasible, and punitive measures may be imposed if subsidies distort commerce. Further uncertainty looms for the UK’s service industries, as the agreement provides only hazy guarantees. Financial services are not covered at all and must be handled separately.[33]

           The trade agreement included a five-and-a-half-year transition time for fisheries, which was one of the main sticking points in the discussions. During that time, EU access to UK seas would be cut in half, while British quotas will be raised. Annual negotiations will thereafter take place, but if access is further restricted, the EU may take punitive steps. And the UK, which sells the majority of its fish to the EU, will almost certainly continue to rely on the European market.

           In the fall of 2021, post-Brexit fault lines erupted in a confrontation between the UK and France, which was enraged that dozens of its ships were denied entry to waters between the shores of England and the Channel island of Jersey.

        Cross-border police investigations and law enforcement will continue. The United Kingdom maintains a participant in various EU security exchange programs, however it is no longer a member of the European Arrest Warrant or Europol.[34] The United Kingdom also remains a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the agreement excludes some critical policy areas.

          “Foreign policy, external security, and defense cooperation are not covered by the Agreement because the UK refused to negotiate this topic,” the European Commission stated in a statement.

          “There will thus be no structure in existence between the UK and the EU as of 1 January 2021 to formulate and coordinate cooperative responses to foreign policy difficulties, including as the imposition of sanctions on third-country persons or economies,” it added.

           Following Brexit, the UK will be free to pursue an independent trade strategy and, beginning in 2021, will be able to implement its own trade arrangements with foreign countries. The British government has been attempting to “roll over” dozens of EU trade agreements with foreign nations that no longer apply to the United Kingdom. Parallel to the Brexit issue has been the evolution of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the United States, the most important of Britain’s non-EU allies with whom it aspires to strike a future trade deal. President-elect Joe Biden has cautioned that if the Irish peace pact is compromised, this will be impossible. According to some trade experts, the UK confronts a critical option regarding regulatory alignment: whether to adhere to EU laws in order to gain access to the European market, or to adhere to American regulations.[35]

         The UK’s departure from the EU on January 31, 2020, took effect on the terms of the amended divorce agreement reached in October 2019 by London and Brussels.

          An earlier version, negotiated during Theresa May’s tenure as UK Prime Minister, was faced with significant resistance in the British parliament, which twice rejected it. Her successor, Boris Johnson, negotiated the revised agreement, and his subsequent election victory secured its swift passage.

        The agreement comprises of a Withdrawal Agreement outlining the terms of withdrawal, as well as a Political Declaration outlining future ties. The agreement also set a transition period that began following the UK’s departure and ended on December 31, 2020. Many established arrangements remained in place throughout this time.[36]

F-Social and Cultural Structures of the Brexit

      By a margin of 52% to 48%, Britain chose to exit the European Union on June 23, 2016. How can the social foundations of Brexit be understood? What are the social and cultural foundations of cynicism toward Europe in the UK? The argument in favor of Leave or Remain is multifaceted. Voters’ perceptions of a wide range of problems, including the economic repercussions of Brexit, immigration and its effects, Britain’s ability to enact its own laws, etc., were influenced to varying degrees and in different ways. Likewise, there are various perspectives on Brexit. However, they can be broadly divided into two categories.

1- Social and Cultural values and National Identity

       According to Kaufmann (2016), “Brexit voters… It appears logical to assume that Leavers have a somewhat parochial image of the United Kingdom in relation to Europe, in contrast to Remainers’ more cosmopolitan outlook. English nationalism is one manifestation of this exclusive viewpoint. National identity is frequently deep and multifaceted. It would be wonderful to know how individuals identify with Britain, Europe, Britain and Europe, and so forth in relation to Brexit. Unfortunately, our statistics do not contain such a measure. However, if national identity has a fractal structure, it would be illuminating to explore whether people identify with Britain as a whole or with one of the United Kingdom’s four home nations. England dominates the United Kingdom by far in terms of politics, and economy. Some people in England may identify as English, British, English and British.[37]

      According to Kumar (2010), the English have historically been “quite willing to call themselves equally English and British,” whereas the Scots and the Welsh “have emphasized their Scottish and Welsh identities over their British ones.” However, this “English-British elision” may be disintegrating. He claims that “the people of England now than it has for maybe more than a century came more naturally to be consciously English.” According to his theory, Englishness can occasionally be “tainted by its regressive, conservative, and ethnically tinged character.” Britishness is a more inclusive, less racialized category that many people, and ethnic minorities and immigrants in particular, may identify with.[38]

To sum up, it may be argued that those who identify as British as opposed to English are making a larger and more inclusive choice. This enables us to assess if Remainers (Leavers) have a more globalised (insular) perspective on the world.

2-Brexit and Globalization 

       “Brexit is a vote against globalization and its uneven impact on different sections of the country”; according to Coyle, he calls Brexit “a backlash against globalization.” He contends that “the ‘winners’ of globalization,’ the young, educated professionals in metropolitan areas, favor greater open borders, immigration, and international cooperation, while the ‘left-behind,’ the working class, less educated, and the aged, oppose such openness.[39]

           The aforementioned comment demonstrates that it is difficult to pinpoint exactly who is left behind. The baby-boomers have received better treatment from successive administrations than from the younger generations. Therefore, it appears unfair to categorize older individuals as being among the “left behinds” as a whole.

        Colantone and Stanig offer a similar Brexit argument based on the work of Autor et al. They make three separate claims. First, “a fundamental driver of difference in economic success among UK areas” is import from China. Second, no “effective compensation” has been provided for workers who were displaced by the Chinese import shock. They represent the losers. Third, areas where the left-behind are concentrated are more pro-Brexit.[40]

Chapter’s conclusion

        In conclusion, there is no denying that the relationship between the UK and the EU is challenging. The UK’s troublesome Union membership is caused by a number of factors. The UK finds it particularly challenging to adapt and limit its political interest to solely Europe as a former colonial power. As a latecomer to the Community, Britain was forced to conform to the existing policies and rules, some of which were in direct contrast with the fundamental tenets of the British Constitution. The rivalry with France and allegiance to America are further problems. Additionally, the UK’s economic-only membership in the Community during a period of challenging economic conditions contributed to public resentment.

        However, the political elite share the discontent and division of the populace as well as that of the latter. Conservative governments from 1979 to 1997 facilitated a considerable degree of British isolation in the Community.

          Blair’s administration showed a strong affinity for and closes ties to the US, which at times appeared to outweigh those with the EU. But generally speaking, Labor governments have been far more enthusiastic about Europe and British membership. This may be interpreted as a potential indicator of future improved cooperation, but given the British background, it is obvious that this will be a difficult task.

          As a result, by leaving, the UK would lose bargaining strength and unfettered trade with the rest of Europe. As the UK attempts to recreate trade arrangements with other countries, the outcome may be less positive. Brexit uncertainty also produces volatility and has an impact on firms operating in the United Kingdom.

                 Nowadays, British politics looks to be folding in on itself, and the British economy appears to be less outward-looking than it was before the referendum. Numerous issues remain unaddressed with the commission, and confidence between London and Brussels has long ago vanished.

        The issue of the Brexit negotiations was observed with mixed views across the EU. The first remorse gave way to a determination to reduce the harm. Some economic opportunities arose to fill the voids left by the UK. Brexit was plainly going to be a loss for everyone, but the UK economy would suffer significantly more than any other continental European country.

        So far, the negative impact on commerce has been significant for the United Kingdom. The Centre for European Reform has projected that Brexit had had an 11.2 percent negative impact on commerce. In comparison to pre-referendum forecasts, the UK’s share in global commerce has plummeted by another 15%.

           Assessing the impact of Brexit on the EU is difficult since macroeconomic data has been tainted by the epidemic shock. However, when it comes to trade flows, there has been a notable detrimental impact on some countries, industries, and enterprises. This has been especially significant for small producers who used to have unrestricted access to the UK’s single market. Now, the additional paperwork deters enterprises who lack the critical mass to absorb the additional fixed expenses of dealing with non-EU trade procedures. The situation may improve over time, but some businesses have already given up. British customers have paid the price, whereas EU consumers have paid significantly less.

          Once EU funds to compensate countries for the impact of Brexit are dispersed, a clearer picture of the geographical and sectoral mix will emerge.

          Since 2016, the number of EU workers coming to the UK has been decreasing. This process increased last year, generating serious imbalances in the hotel, agriculture, transportation, and healthcare industries, as well as in some highly skilled jobs. In the EU, the corresponding effect is a larger pool of labor in some countries and less brain drain, which increases unemployment but eventually becomes a positive supply-side phenomenon. Again, while the influence is significant in the UK, it is greatly diluted in continental Europe.

         Although the impact of Brexit on the City of London has yet to be felt, the potential of maintaining an undisputed dominating position in increasingly interconnected European financial markets has been jeopardized. On the outskirts, financial job openings in London have shifted to continental Europe, and some firms have migrated.

          The Conservative Party’s historically Eurosceptic wing wanted Brexit to provide more freedom from what they saw as excessive restraints and bureaucratic difficulties imposed by Brussels. A foolish minority ultra-liberal wing fantasized about a more open, deregulated, low-tax environment that would boost economic dynamism and transform the UK into a Singapore-like haven. This aroused concerns in the EU about unfair competition through access to the single market, especially given the UK government’s obstructive stance to negotiations. However, in general, these hazards have not materialized, and concerns are receding.

        The illusion of boosting the UK economy through tax cuts has collided with increasing demands for public spending on healthcare, the fight against climate change, infrastructure projects, and different election commitments, prompting the government to hike taxes. Instead of separating, policies in the UK and the EU appear to be becoming more similar.

          Finally, there are intangible impacts to consider. Historically, the UK government has been obstinate on a number of efforts aimed at improving the EU’s architecture and attaining greater economic and political union. It chose not to participate in initiatives designed to mitigate the effects of the financial and economic crisis on Greece and other economies. Would the €800 billion (£665 billion) pandemic recovery plan have been viable if the UK government had remained at the table? Some in Brussels believe it would have been unthinkable.

          Because the economic impacts of the pandemic necessarily overlap with those of Brexit, the damage can only be accurately measured until the dust settles. Brexit has fortunately receded from the forefront of the EU’s many difficulties at the moment.

         The Russian effort to regain its former status as a world power, changes in the rules of partnership with the United States, and the emergence of China as a major player on the international stage will all pose significant challenges to the Federation. Additionally, we cannot ignore the nature of the international institutions and principles that China produces as a rising force.

sources