Euroscepticism and Uk

Tony Blair introduced me to politics. Taken by my parents to protest in London against the Iraq war I experienced the inability of national politics and international relations to be mutually exclusive concepts. Key issues such as the growing refugee crisis, the debate regarding Britain’s place in Europe and trade agreements such as TTIP all have national and international implications. Britain’s political sovereignty has been eroded by Unions, Agreements and world events. This opens up the debate as to where power is concentrated. A more controversial debate would address whether national and global decisions are in fact being made by politicians at all, or if global corporations impose greater power. Regardless of this nihilistic view, the

With diminishing control of what happens in Britain, the British people decided it was best to vacate the union. The British were dealing with the laws given by the European members who were not living and experiencing the country themselves. To provide an example of a ghastly law given to the British people, they, as part of the European Union, were only allowed to catch 20% of the fish swimming in British territorial waters. What this meant was that tens of thousands of jobs were lost and they were not able to use one of the most significant resources given to them, as Britain is surrounded by ocean. Nigel Farage, Leader of the UK Independence Party, says that his fellow Englishmen, “effectively gave away the ability to look after one of our greatest resources to a bureaucracy based in Brussels.” Because of the way the government was set up, “Not only could the voters not change anything, but the institutes themselves are incapable of reform.” With an already maimed government, the European Union was creating more problems than it was solving. The British people had enough of giving up their rights as British citizens so the European Commission could tell them how to live. Therefore, with problems like those arising from the Union and with no hope to resolve them, Britain filed for secession and pulled out of the union

2. Read Annual Editions Article 3.1, "Think Again: European Decline", pp. 72-76, and Article 3.9, "Britain and Europe: The End of the Affair?", pp. 107-112.

The United Kingdom initially joined the European Union in 1973 for economic reasons hoping to promote trade and form relationships with other states in the Union. In 1975 the UK held its first national referendum on withdrawal from the European Economic Community. According to the poll,” 67 % of Britons voted to stay in the EEC and 32 % voted to leave the union” (GYE). Because of this result the UK stayed in the EU in 1975. Over the past 40 years the European Union has been through a lot of change, many more countries have joined the organization and the EU has extended its control over more aspects of daily lives. These changes have sparked a lot of controversy coming from both the UK public and

This report will look at the benefits and issues surrounding the UKs decision to remain as a member state of the European Union (E.U.). Along with the newly elected conservative government, came the announcement that a nationwide referendum would be held, by the end of 2017, in order to determine the British public’s stance on the issue of EU membership.

While the contributions of all member-states in the EU have been important and appreciated, the UK has brought a lot to the table that many other countries couldn’t. For example, the UK’s influence and the weight of just its name. For hundreds of years the UK has been powerful and if it had something to say, the world would listen. When the UK joined the EU it was a monumental victory for the existing member parties, because it meant that a powerful country, that could bring credibility and importance to a coalition previously lacking in both areas, would be joining their ranks.

As soon as the results of the referendum was called the value of the £ had decreased by the most to the rate it was at 1985, evidently causing one of the biggest economical loss in recent British history. Yet, MP’s have demonstrated immense hard work on trying to argue the cause against leaving the EU.

This article explains the “on-going” argument of whether or not Britain should remain in the European Union or leave. Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to keep Britain apart, winning the backing of most of most of his Cabinet and the goal of rival parties. Cameron has made it clear Britain is safer and stronger in the EU. However, much of Britain believes in opposition to their membership among the the European Union, leaving this as a constant

The European Union was established as an economic and political partnership between 28 European Countries (European Union, 2015). The UK has been stayed in the EU for over four decades from 1973 to now. In 1975, Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson had ever held a referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU and the voting result is to stay in the European Community. Recently, the article (BBC NEWS, 2015) reported that the UK has a plan to hold the second referendum by the end of 2017 to decide whether or not the UK should stay in or leave the European Union. This might be a significant referendum that may bring lots of impacts on the UK’s economy.

The recent UK referendum sent shockwaves throughout the West and the wider world; few people had predicted that the British people would vote to leave the EU. So what led Brits to say a firm 'no thank you' to continued membership of the European Union? A look at surveys, statistics and anecdotal evidence may help us to solve this puzzle.

Flaws in the eurozone, a term referring to European countries which share the same currency, have resulted in a populist movement lead by young Poles and other Europeans. This movement has contributed to the recent event of Britain voting to leave the European Union. Those who are against the decision fear of the consequences that are present now and those that are to come. One important thing that should be questioned is how populism has not only inflicting Britain and other European countries, but how it is affecting the United States.

Apparently massive political decisions with far reaching socioeconomic repercussions should be made based on results from an indirect vote. Brexit was exactly that kind of decision, a whirlwind of policy and controversy. This summer past Englishmen and Englishwomen upsettingly voted to leave the EU. Both Kenneth Rogoff and Uri Friedman put in their two cents in the form of political articles regarding the outcome of the Brexit vote. Rogoff uses an aggressive narrative, making his opinion quite clear and concise whilst Friedman takes a more general approach, looking at more than one dimension of the Brexit vote. Friedman’s use of interdisciplinary sources and general opinions provide evidence for well supported arguments. The Rogoff article is without a doubt more succinct in writing, but with a set of underlying bias guiding the way, Friedman’s broader approach to writing makes his article an unbiased analysis of the Brexit vote. Rogoff’s aggressive writing style makes his argument very convincing, at the same time the Friedman

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron readys the country for another country-wide vote, this time for E.U. and Eurozone membership, but the P.M. is now coming under fire from some in his own party. This “in-or-out” referendum in June will give a final say on whether or not the U.K. will stay or leave the Eurozone. For many citizens staying in the E.U. is an attack on the sovereignty of their nation as well as a folly abandonment of the stronger british pound. P.M. Cameron is for the U.K. staying a part of the E.U. but some of his fellow tories

Britain’s membership of the European Union (EU) has produced a well-documented history of aloofness, vetoes, opt-outs, referenda as well as intensely contested domestic political debates. (Pilkington & Watts 2005; Gowland & Turner 2000; Wall 2008) It has been described as the ‘awkward partner’ (George, 1998) and a ‘stranger in Europe’ (Wall, 2008) and has long been cautious of European integration. It is widely anxious about threats to national sovereignty and identity, and its relationship with the EU has become a political football between parties who exhibit signs of pro-European attitudes. (Wall, 2008) As Andrew Marr (2001, 1) points out, when Britain’s are talking about Europe they are talking about “Britain’s future as a self governing state, Britain’s economy, Britain’s status as a European power, Britain’s currency and even Britain’s survivability.” Above all else, Britain sees itself as an exceptional power in Europe but not ‘of Europe.’ (Churchill 1930)

Winston Churchill called for the concept of a “kind of United States of Europe”, and with an ever-closer European Union both with tenacious economic and political ties, his call is materialising by the day. Though favoured by Churchill, the high European migrant levels and the erosion of Britain’s sovereignty has led to the questioning of the so-called ‘European super-state’. Britain voting ‘out’ on the 23rd. June would result in ‘Brexit’ and subsequently an end to free trade with its European counterparts. This would release her from the shackles of tariffs and quotas that are present for non-EU trade, leading to potential trade deals with Eastern countries such as China. Further to ones discussion with Britain being EUs second largest