By now, the dust on the internationally watched vote by
Britain to exit the Europen Union (Brexit) has settled. Views & Woes have
been made, resignations rendered and protests erupted then gradually abated.
What remains is to examine its means for the modern world as we know it and
whether UK will initiate the withdrawal process. After the vote, there was
immediate pressure from the President of the European Council Jean-Claude
Juncker, that it is in the best interest of UK that they finalize on the exit
immediately.
It is worth noting that the referendum was non-binding and
merely advisory. This is essentially what was claimed by the 48% that voted to
stay. Essentially, the UK still has an option of staying in the union. It would
however seem like a complete waste of process and resources to ignore the need
of the vast majority. The 52% voters who want the exit effected.
The European Union much like the East African community was
established to facilitate free trade, free movement and good relations among
European States. Before this, different sates had different policies that
impeded their relations with each other. The goal of the Union was to harmonize
laws in order to reduce such conflict.
Cooperation developed to the extent that there is a common currency (Euros)
for members of the union. Being in such an arrangement meant that members
shoulder gain and loses at equal footing. Richer states would be disadvantaged.
For example, if that was the same arrangement in EAC region was hit by a
recession, Kenya, which is seemingly the powerhouse of the region, will suffer
more than the others.
Britain joined the European Economic Community on 1 January 1973, along with Denmark and
Ireland.
In as much as this was beneficial to the UK, it brought
about a set of problems. It for example, started struggling with immigration.
Since its join, people flocked the state in search of greener pastures which
saw to a rapid population increase. The current influx of migrants from war
torn Middle East also does little to salvage the situation UK might have
thought it was in. Country A, say, is being coerced to allow migrants in the
thousands. Country B which is watching, knows that its turn is approaching once
A is filled to capacity. So, what does B do? It leaves the Union to prevent those
future obligations.
 |
| Was this Britain's notion of being in the EU..?? You judge! |
This is not a conclusion that Europe’s immigrant crisis
might have triggered Brexit. Britain might have thought that being in the EU
does it more harm than good. In 2015 the decision to exit the union was first
brought.
Now that there is a majority vote to leave the EU, the world
is watching for the initiation of due process to formally withdraw. Article 50
of the Treaty of the European Union (which by now, must be the most read
article worldwide) summarily provides that:
"Any Member
State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own
constitutional requirements". Although it calls for a negotiated
withdrawal between the seceding state and the rest of the EU, if no agreement
is reached two years after the seceding state announced its intention to leave,
it would cease to be subject to the treaties anyway (thus ensuring a right to
unilateral withdrawal). Britain, known for having an unwritten constitution
clearly did not have to struggle on choice of appropriate means to exit. So, if
Article 50 is invoked today, the process might be concluded in 2019. Unless
Britain decides to stay and stops holding the rest of the union by the throat,
then anytime (be it in months or a year’s time) they decide to formally
withdraw; then, their relation with EU will be running on a 2year timer.
Since the referendum was conducted, protests have arisen
from pro-stay Brits condemning the exit. It is not yet clear what long-term implications
Brexit has but the EU Treaty guarantees the continuity of rights and
obligations of the European citizens belonging to a new state arising from the
democratic secession of a European Union member state. It is however, highly
unlikely that those who voted against Brexix would want to form their own state
and remain under the wings of EU. Highly Unlikely! Additionally, Brexit could
remove rights enshrined in the EU treaties - unless the UK agreed to keep them
under a new settlement with the EU.
If at the end of the line, Britain decides that the exit was
a terrible idea and it wants in again, it will have to apply to join like any
new state. This is also a fathomable prediction given that most young people
voted to stay. Statics show, most elderly people voted to exit. It may then lie
on the young people to bring it back (decades later) in case the exit is
finalized. Presently, knowing that historically, Britain doesn’t stay in one
place at a time for too long, we might just live to see the BREXIT come to
pass!
 |
| Please take us back.. we did not mean to BREXIT :( |
