YMUNT VII: The European Union

Letter from the Dias

Dear Delegates,

A warm welcome to Yale Model United Nations Taiwan! I know I speak for our whole team in saying that we are so excited to meet you all and begin our work together. I am especially delighted to be serving as the director of the European Union committee this year. I so look forward to exploring the topics at hand and hearing all of your thoughts. One of my favorite aspects of model UN is that it forces us to listen and collaborate with one another. I cannot wait to begin that process with all of you this spring.

Before we dive right into that material, I wanted to introduce myself! A Minnesota native and die-hard theater nerd, I am in my second year of studying Political Science at Yale. Outside of my classes, I work events at residential college and fix laptops as a student tech worker. I am also involved with a college-access mentorship program, Matriculate, and participate in various activities through the Yale International Relations Association, of which YMUN Taiwan is one! Although I had no model UN experience before coming to college, I have quickly grown to appreciate the high level of knowledge, skill and focus that it demands of its participants. I particularly enjoy watching the development of a committee and its members and I cannot wait to see how you all address our topics.

I chose the European Commission–and its dealings with migration and Brexit–not only because of the prevalence of these topics in current news headlines but also because they represent a few of the critical debates going on in politics across the globe. While multifaceted and complex, these debates often lead to discussions of national sovereignty and protectionism in the face of globalization. Do countries have an obligation to provide for those outside of their national boundaries? How do nations adequately respond to huge levels of immigration, especially given increasing frequency in climate disasters around the world? Is it in a nation’s best interest to practice protectionism and nationalism rather than free trade and globalization? These are all questions I hope to explore in our upcoming committee, and ones which I urge you to keep in mind as you read through this topic guide.

In preparation for the conference, I urge you to prepare as best you can using this guide and the additional materials mentioned in it. The material you bring into the room will not only benefit you but will contribute to the experience of everyone in the room. That being said, I also urge you to come with an open mind. These are highly debated topics and ongoing news stories. There is no simple solution to these questions, and I urge us not to look for one. My hope, instead, is that this experience challenges all of our ideas and forces us to think more deeply about the topics at hand. 

I will see you all soon! In the meantime, don’t be a stranger. My email is ymunt.conference@yale.edu and my inbox is ready for any and all of your questions, comments, concerns and random thoughts.

Best,

Lillie Horton

Role of the Committee

The European Union (EU) is a unified governing body of 28 member states that oversees various economic and political processes between countries and Europe and between Europe and the rest of the world. While initially created to maintain peace on the continent and to promote the integration of the coal and steel industries in Europe, the EU has come to stand for a much greater level of integration among its member states [1]. Today, the EU has seven main governing bodies operating within it. In this committee, we will be simulating the entire European Union, meaning that we have a large number of powers to draw upon when drafting resolutions. Below is a description of the seven committees, organized by their basic functions.

Executive: The European Council, The European Commission. The European Council consists of the top leaders from member states who set the agenda for the rest of the EU. The European Commission performs the majority of the executive tasks such as implementing and proposing legislation, overseeing the budget, and representing the EU internationally.

Legislative: The European Parliament, The Council of the European Union (the Council of Ministers). The European Parliament is integral in passing legislation and budgetary decisions. The Council of the European Union is the secondary legislative branch, also integral to passing legislation.

Judicial: The Court of Justice of the European Union, The European Court of Auditors. The Court of Justice is the foremost authority on interpreting EU law and oversees the national implementation of those laws. The European Court of Auditors oversees the use of the EU budget, specifically checking for fraud.

Financial: The European Central Bank. The European Central Bank regulates the EU banking system and oversees the euro for the 19 countries that use it.

The video below offers a more detailed explanation of what the EU does and how it does so:

Beyond the roles and responsibilities listed above, the seven committees also have regulatory power over each other. The flowchart below represents the relationship between each committee and the processes by which they carry out their various functions. It is through their regulatory powers that the committees maintain a balance of power.

History of the Committee

The European Union was first formed in 1951 as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), meant to increase cooperation and trade throughout Europe. The founding countries were Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. In 1957, the ECSC expanded with the establishment of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. These three separate communities were fused into one in the mid-1960s, representing a desire for more intercontinental collaboration and a step towards the European Union as it exists today.

It was the Treaty of Maastricht, signed in 1992, that established the European Union under its current name as an umbrella over its three pillars: the European Communities, the Common Foreign and Security Policy, and the Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters. The Treaty also created European citizenship and a new monetary union, further steps towards creating a united continent [2]. 

Since its conception as the ECSC, the European Union has expanded many times, most recently in 2007 to include Bulgaria and Romania. At present, there are 27 member states in the EU, as shown on the map below. 

The Schengen Agreement exists within the European Union. It is an area of free travel that today encompasses most of the EU member states. The region was originally meant to allow for completely free movement and resettlement between member states. While that has not been implemented, today within the Schengen Area, any person, regardless of their nationality, may cross borders without security checks. Below is a map of the current Schengen Area. It is worth noting that Britain is not part of the Area since it wished to maintain its own borders [3]. 

Important treaties after the Treaty of Maastricht include the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999), which helped implement the Schengen Agreement to expand the number of stages in the Schengen Area. The Treaty of Nice (2001) was important towards incorporating ten new countries- the largest enlargement of the EU yet. The Treaty of Lisbon (2007) simplified the bureaucratic processes within the EU such as voting rules and oversight. In addition, the EU strengthened its international presence by the institution of a High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy [2].

Despite the EU being larger now than at any other point in history, recent crises, among them the refugee crisis and the British referendum to leave the Union, have revealed discontent and disagreement between the member states. National borders and monetary policy remain some of the most debated topics, with some EU states clamoring for more sovereignty and nationally centralized power.

Topic History

In 2015, there was a dramatic increase in the number of immigrants seeking migrant or asylum status in Europe, totaling more than 1 million. The estimated number of immigrants entering European countries via illegal pathways was estimated to be greater than 2.3 million. Most of these immigrants came from Middle Eastern, African and South Asian nations and were fleeing instability and violence in their region [4]. For comparison, below is a graph of asylum seekers in Europe from 1985 to 2019. 

As evidenced in the graph above, the number of formal asylum seekers in 2015 alone–not including non-asylum-seeking migrants–was almost double the previous highest value. Asylum seekers are migrants who seek protection from a foreign government because they fear that their life is at risk in their home country [4]. According to the 1951 Refugee Convention on the Status of Refugees, a refugee is a migrant whose request for asylum has been granted. However, the UN officially recognizes migrants fleeing persecution or violent conflict as refugees, regardless of their asylum status. The third broad classification of migrants is economic migrants: those who move to another country for economic gain. Asylum seekers who are classified as economic migrants are less likely to be granted refugee status, which poses a significant challenge to their ability to successfully settle in another country. However, in reality, there is a lot of overlap between these three groups. Migrants may move because violent conflict in their area not only threatens their safety but also has decreased their economic opportunities. EU state policy for processing asylum seekers is not standardized across all member states, also leading to complications in distinguishing asylum seekers from refugees [5]. Moving forward in this topic guide, I use the term ‘migrant’ as an umbrella term, applying to immigrants who have applied for asylum status and those who have not. ‘Asylum seeker’ references immigrants whose asylum request is pending, and ‘refugee’ in reference to immigrants whose asylum requests have been granted or who were automatically classified as refugees by the UN. I urge you, though, to remember the overlaps between these classifications, and consider how that overlap complicates migrant and refugee policy as well as how they oversimplify the migrant narrative. 

Another classification within migration policy is legal versus illegal immigration. Legal refers to migrants who enter a country through the processes established in that nation’s legislature. Illegal refers to those who enter through unofficial and undocumented pathways. Illegal immigration into Europe started to rise around 2011, but increased sharply in 2015 alongside the rise in asylum-seekers, as illustrated by the graph below.

This recent rise in illegal immigration into Europe has lead to the expansion of old pathways (arrows 2,3,5,6)  and the creation of new ones (arrows 1,4,7), as shown in the figure below.

As mentioned previously, migrants of the 2015-2016 crisis were coming from Middle Eastern, African and South Asian nations. The chart below displays the countries with the most asylum seekers in Europe in 2015. Syrian refugees were the largest group of national origin, making up 39% of the asylum applicant pool [5, 6]. In 2011, a civil war broke out in Syria between government, rebel, and jihadist militant groups. Between 2011 and 2015, many Syrians fled into neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan. In 2015, the number of Syrian migrants seeking asylum in Europe increased sharply for a number of reasons. Refugee camps in neighboring countries were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the incoming populations, leading to a deterioration of living conditions. Additionally, successful migration of some Syrian refugees into Europe established social networks which encouraged migration of others. Lastly, a new policy from the German chancellor Angela Merkel in 2015 created opportunities for Syrian refugees to settle in Germany. At the same time, civil unrest and growing poverty in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Similar circumstances in Sub-Saharan Africa lead many migrants to move to Libyan refugee camps. However, subsequent overpopulation of those camps also contributed to the influx of asylum seekers into Europe in 2015 [7]. 

While most refugees crossed the Mediterranean, some also traveled land routes into Eastern Europe. The graphic below illustrates the primary routes of travel and the European countries with the largest number of migrant arrivals in 2015. As you can see, Spain, Italy, Malta, and Greece, in particular, were overwhelmed by the influx of refugees. Due to the 2003 Dublin Regulation, EU countries were responsible for processing all asylum seekers who had arrived in their country, putting larger pressure on coastal countries [8].

The video below offers more detailed information about the causes of the refugee crisis and the means of migration. The video also elaborates on the response in Europe from both a policy and a public opinion perspective, which will be expanded on in the next session. 

Current Situation

“People in Europe are full of fear.” This is a quotation from Viktor Orban, the conservative prime minister of Hungary. Orban voiced concern about what he sees as a loss of control across European governments: “[p]lease don’t come. Why do you have to go from Turkey to Europe? Turkey is a safe country. Stay there. It’s risky to come. [9]” Orban is specifically referencing fear from the perspective of European leaders and citizens, which includes worry that the wave of migrants in 2015 will flood labor markets, increase housing prices, dilute national language and culture and increase crime rates. However, his comments are also applicable to the migrant perspective: worries about the safety of the journey, the acceptance of their asylum application and their integration into European society. The following segments will focus on both of these perspectives, providing details on the path into Europe, the funding of European states, the distribution of refugees across Europe and their social and economic integration in receiving countries.

Case Study: Safety and Security Entering Europe

Refugees entering Europe during the migrant crisis followed routes that primarily took them across the Mediterranean or Aegean Seas. Those crossing on land, mainly from Turkey into Greece and Bulgaria, made up a significantly smaller number of migrants, estimated to be 34,000.

On the other hand, over 1 million people were documented entering Europe over water, primarily into Greece and Italy.  The journey via sea is especially dangerous given that refugees often cross in overcrowded boats which are unfit for the rough waters. In 2015, 3,735 refugees were missing, believed drowned, after attempting to cross the sea [10].  

Once safely in Europe, many migrants were relocated to processing facilities and refugee camps to begin the asylum application process. Many refugees end up in camps in the countries that they originally entered, following procedures outlined by the Dublin Regulation. Those procedures stipulate that, within the European Union, the member states who first welcome in asylum seekers are responsible for processing those migrants asylum applications. Detainment of migrants is not advised, but allowed when necessary [11]. In 2015, processing facilities, often called “refugee camps” by the media, were constructed to house incoming refugees. However, conditions in these camps are often poor given overcrowding and a lack of resources. Many migrants, left with no other options, are forced to stay, some even after their asylum claim has been rejected. EU leaders have voiced concerns that these camps will become permanent housing for refugees, making them into detention centers despite the fact that detaining refugees without due cause is a violation of human rights under EU law [12]. 

Above is a picture of a refugee camp in Greece said to house at least 6,000 refugees at the time of the photos. An estimated 46,000 others are said to be housed in similar camps across the country. The refugees in these camps await what they hope is eventual relocation into Europe [13]. However while they wait, they are forced to endure poor living conditions driven by overpopulation and a lack of resources. The video below provides a snapshot of conditions inside a camp in Vienna, Austria. 

As mentioned in the video, the reception of refugees entering Europe varies depending on where they land. Large charity organizations such as UNICEF, UNHCR, and Doctors without Borders play a key role in offering medical attention and providing refugees with basic necessities. Local grassroots movements, as depicted in the video, also create community-driven support of refugees [14]. In a recent report, the World Health Organization (WHO) urged action to protect refugees against both communicable and noncommunicable diseases, including mental health. The WHO urges the importance of accessible health care for all, highlighting especially the health needs of mothers and children and labor workers [15].

Case Study: Developmental Aid and the Allocation of Financial Resources between States 

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that in 2015, in-country refugee costs totaled 6.6 billion USD, an increase from previous years, although most countries used international aid funds to cover some of the costs, minimizing their impact [16]. In 2015, European state contributions to the international Official Development Assistance (ODA) fund made up over half of the total funding, although the United States still provided the largest amount of aid from any single country with a contribution of 31 billion USD. The increase in ODA funds from 2014 to 2015 was mainly in response to the migration crisis in Europe [17].

A recent OECD study found that sub-central governing (SCG) bodies bear most of the responsibilities for integrating refugees. SCG’s are non-governmental organizations that derive administrative authority from federal, regional or local government. The national government directs domestic and international funds to these governing bodies, who generally still face high costs that are not covered by federal aid. Processing and housing each asylum seeker is estimated to cost the country upwards of €10,000 and can be more expensive if the country is working to integrate the migrant even before they are granted asylum. These costs include housing, education, food and health care [18].

Amidst the large increase in asylum applications in 2015, growing economic expenditure on the processing and acceptance of refugees led to a wave of pushback on the European continent. One of the central arguments of this outcry was that immigrants would flood the labor market and depress wages of local workers as well as suck the state dry of its public goods while contributing little in taxes. However, this is not necessarily the case. While economists do concede that, in the short term, an influx of low skilled workers will lead to wage declines in low skilled labor industries, many of the refugees come with marketable skills which, if they are transferable in the European labor market, translate into an increase in high skilled work. While in the short run, these refugees may provide a financial burden for the receiving state, many are young and skilled workers who, in the long run, are projected to increase the state’s fiscal earnings. The integration of these refugees into the labor market is especially advantageous given the aging worker population in many European states [19]. European Economic and Financial Affairs Commissioner Pierre Moscovici also theorized that the migration crisis could boost European economies, saying “The problem that still exists in the E.U. is that we suffer from an investment gap, we need to invest more in the future” [20]. Further details on the integration of refugees into the European economy will be discussed in a later segment. 

Beyond internal funding, the European Union also responded to the 2015 refugee crisis by pursuing diplomatic deals with countries outside of the EU, most notably with Syria, Lebanon and Jordan. In 2015, the European Commission pledged to give €62 million to Syrians displaced within their country. In addition, the EC allocated €43 million to Lebanon and €28 million to Jordan, both of which have taken in large numbers of Syrian migrants [21]. In addition to providing aid to those who are displaced from their homes and often within basic necessities, these funds are also a possible strategic move on the part of the EU. By supporting opportunities for refugees in and close to Syria, the EU dissuades migrants from seeking asylum in Europe.

Reallocation of Refugees Across EU Member Nations

In 2003, the Dublin Regulation was created to ensure shared responsibility of asylum applications across European Union member states and provide asylum applicants with an efficient and well-functioning process. As soon as asylum seekers reach a member state, they are fingerprinted and their identity and documents are placed into the EU database. Under the Regulation, members states who first received the fingerprints and documents of an asylum applicant are thereafter responsible for processing that applicant’s request for asylum [22, 23]. However in 2015, given the large number of migrants crossing via water into Europe, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Malta received a disproportionately large number of asylum applications given their geographic location. Given the stress placed on these coastal nations, the European Union began drafting reforms to the regulation as early as spring of 2015. An emergency redistribution of 40,000 migrants to some member states was part of the April Ten-point plan for migration and, beginning in September, all member states were required to accept 120,000 migrants [24]. Once migrants arrived in their appointed country, they were often subject to further redistribution across the nation [25].

The two figures above illustrate the international reallocation process of 2015. In addition to the mandatory quota, some member states–most notably Germany–chose to take in much larger shares of asylum seekers. Some countries, such as Hungary, approved a small number of asylum applications, relative to the gross number of applicants. This discrepancy highlights the degree to which individual EU member states determine their own migration policy. 

These figures also illustrate the degree of discrepancy between how many refugees each country accepted. On one side of the spectrum is Germany, who, in 2015 alone, accepted over 1 million refugees due to a last minute policy issued by Chancellor Angela Merkel. In August of 2015, Merkel suspended implementation of the Dublin Resolution for Syrian asylum seekers, ensuring that, upon reaching Germany, they would not be sent back to the land they first applied for asylum in. Merkel also called on her country to embrace Syrian refugees, saying it was their “national duty” to do so and referencing a German “welcoming culture” in an effort to maintain the public’s support in the face of increasing immigration rates. Merkel’s rhetoric and open door policy also attracted migrants, quickly making Germany the most popular refugee destination in Europe. Despite her attempt to stir public enthusiasm, Merkel’s policies were met with extreme public discontent. Economic anxieties mixed with xenophobia and racism to create a sometimes hostile environment for incoming migrants. 1,000 attacks on German asylum centers were documented in 2015 [26]. Further obstacles to the societal integration of refugees will be explored in more depth in the next segment. 

On the other side of the spectrum, states such as Poland took a hardline approach to refugee policy. In 2015, the government pledged to accept only 6,800 refugees, a small number relative to other countries, but which was criticized as too generous by the public. A poll of the Polish public found that roughly ⅔ were opposed to the acceptance of Middle Eastern and North African refugees. Jarosław Kaczyński, the leader of a large political party in Poland, announced publicly voiced his opinion that refugees posed a health threat to the Polish people and were likely to carry disease and parasites. Researchers analyzing the outcry against migration in Poland hypothesize that the country’s high degree of religious and ethnic homogeneity has created a wave of xenophobia in light of the migrant crisis [27]. 

Another issue facing European states in light of the migration crisis is how to deal with illegal immigration. According to Frontex, the organization in charge of coordinating security at European land and coastal borders, more than 1.8 million people crossed the border illegally, which was significantly larger than the 280,000 detected crossings in 2014. Also rising are the number of detected illegal crossings, as borders are now being more closely policed. In response to the rise of illegal immigration, the EU began talks with Turkey in 2015 to curb illegal travel along its Southeastern borders. However, given the demand for travel into Europe, some analysts have predicted that strictly regulating Southeastern borders would only encourage the establishment of alternative routes of illegal entry [28]. 

The Economic, Political and Social Integration of Refugees

Integration into European social, political and economic systems remains as a challenge to refugees long after their asylum status has been granted. Studies have found that, in general, immigrants’ participation rates and employment rates and wages are, on average, lower than the general population’s for the first several years after entry. Several factors such as gender, skill-level, and employment rate of the receiving country dictate how quickly immigrants become economically integrated. Female, highly skilled immigrants tend to rise more quickly in the labor market. The development of language skills and obtainment of relevant job experience also helps immigrants reach higher rates and wages. In general, more educated migrants, and those from countries with more developed economies, also tend to integrate into the workforce more quickly. On the other hand, if average employment is low in the receiving country, immigrants can expect workforce integration to advance more slowly [29].

In response to the 2015 migration crisis, both governmental and non-governmental organizations fund integration efforts, as mentioned above, providing refugees with housing and basic necessities, as well as education and job training. The table below shows the activity levels of native-born, EU born and non-EU born workers from 2008-2015. 

Based on this table, the activity level of non-EU born workers is lower than local or EU born workers and is also decreasing. However, there are no noticeable positive or negative shocks to the table in 2015, suggesting that initially at least, the integration of refugees into the labor market was relatively successful [30]. 

In addition to workforce integration, a report by the European Social Network following the 2015 crisis found language skills, housing and provisions for unaccompanied minors to be among the most pressing social service crises. Language and housing concerns were more evident in local anxiety about the impacts of the refugee crisis [25]. These concerns are at least somewhat justified by data. Language and education barriers are some of the greatest integration obstacles that refugees face, but are also some of the best methods for integration, particularly when enough resources are allocated to address the heterogeneity of needs and learning abilities [31]. A recent study on the impact of the 2015 migration crisis on German housing rents found strong evidence that, especially in areas without decentralized refugee housing, rent prices were driven up by the influx of immigrants. This paper supports fears that large scale immigration into the country will drive the supply of housing down while raising the prices; this fear is not just in Germany, but all over the European Union [32]. In addition to these social services, each European country also has its own welfare policies in place for refugees, who are greater risk for poverty, providing monthly stipends dependent on the migrant’s work, housing, and sometimes marital status [33, 34].  

Worry over unaccompanied minors is also reflected in immigration trends. In 2015, nearly 90,000 unaccompanied children requested asylum in Europe, four times the number in 2014. Unaccompanied minors are especially vulnerable to human trafficking and criminal gangs and require additional education and health resources than adult migrants [35].  

Beyond providing immigrants with housing, work, and basic necessities to live off of, cultural and social involvement is also important in migrant integration. Social integration policy varies greatly between different EU member states. The video below analyzes Sweden and Italy’s policies in 2015, just as the migration crisis was beginning. Key among these policies are those that ensure refugee professional development, job security, rights protection, and community involvement. Studies show that European immigrants are at a higher risk of poverty and social exclusion [34]. Such integration policies not only boost social and economic involvement, but they also contribute to more positive local attitudes towards migrants [36].

And yet, despite integration policies, 2015 also marked a significant increase in anti-immigrant sentiment across Europe. Alongside fears that immigration will increase labor market competition for natives, many people also worry that immigrants will increase crime rates in their communities. These fears often manifest as islamophobia, as evidenced in the table below, reflecting the general population’s anxiety about Muslim migrants and religiously motivated terrorism.

Polling support also increased for many alt-right and anti-immigration political parties across Europe. The increase in vote choice for two such parties, Sweden’s Democrats and the Alternative for Germany (AfD), can be seen in the table below. Both parties exposed anti-immigrant views and both saw a significant rise in support as migration into Europe sharply increased in 2015. While the relationship between the graphs is undefined, they support the argument that the migration crisis fueled xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment across Europe [37]. 

Despite the impact of integration policies on the lives of refugees, without citizenship, migrants are politically excluded as well, making paths to citizenship all the more important in facilitating social and economic inclusion. Again, each EU country has its own policies when it comes to naturalization. Common among countries, however, is the requirement of long term settlement and fulfillment of various cultural assimilation measures, including language and civic fluency. After gaining national citizenship, a refugee may also become an EU member. Following the 2015 migration crisis, there were calls to allow migrants to obtain EU citizenship before national citizenship, providing them with a higher degree of mobility and political capital as they begin the integration process. This suggestion remains unresolved, leaving refugees with few opportunities for formal, political involvement [38].

Bloc Positions

Coastal countries- Italy, Greece, Spain, Malta

These countries initially received the most asylum seekers in 2015, as they were direct recipients of migrants crossing the sea. Under the Dublin Regulation, they were initially responsible for processing all asylum seekers that landed on their shore, leading to a push to modify the Regulation. Among these countries, the main concerns are the housing and care of asylum seekers immediately upon arrival, as well as their eventual relocation to other European states.

Open countries- Germany, France

In 2015, these two countries accepted some of the most asylum applications out of the EU member states and lead efforts to integrate immigrants into their national society and economy. Germany, especially, emerged as a leader in migrant acceptance in 2015, urging its fellow EU states to accept as many asylum seekers as possible in the face of the migration crisis. France’s migration policies remained more closed, although moderate. Both countries face large issues with the social integration of refugees, especially Muslim populations. 

Partially open countries- The Netherlands, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Sweden

These countries all have moderate migration acceptance policies, accepting a relatively large number of migrants in 2015, although remaining well below the standard set by Germany. Migration rhetoric in these nations tends to focus on the tightening of national borders in the face of illegal immigration, and calls for a more unified EU response to migration.

Closed countries- Austria, Poland, Czech Republic, Poland, Slovakia, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria, Slovenia

These EU countries house the most hardline migration policies in the face of the migration crisis, and accept the fewest asylum applicants. Within each state, public perception of migrants is overwhelmingly negative and political leaders echo societal fear of allowing too many immigrants into the country. Right-wing political parties often have the largest share of support in these nations, although smaller, leftist parties are active in attempting to counter right-wing support for anti-immigration policy. Despite their reluctance to accept high numbers of refugees, some of these countries, most notably Bulgaria, do support a unified EU response to migration. 

Sideline countries- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland, United Kingdom

These nations, given their geographic positioning, have remained isolated from most of the migration pathways of 2015. Because of this, these countries take in very few migrants. Perhaps because of those low numbers, they also tend to have weak social service policies in place and have difficulty retaining migrants given low financial and social incentives to stay. An outlier among these nations, the United Kingdom accepted far more migrants in 2015, but, given its geographic proximity and recent Brexit referendum, still remains isolated from most migrant traffic. The UK has opted to follow its own relocation procedures over those of the EU, especially given its pending exit from the EU [40]. 

Questions for Further Research

1. How do the legal classifications of “migrant,” “asylum seeker,” and “refugee” affect the justness of migration policy? Which groups of migrants are favored in the asylum granting process? Which of the above classifications migrants are underrepresented in migration policy? How can migration policies incorporate the overlap between economic and socio-political reasons for migration?

2. Should national or sub-regional bodies in charge of refugee relief funds and their allocation?

3. What can non-governmental organizations contribute in humanitarian aid that governments are unable to? What can the government provide refugees that is outside of the scope of non-governmental organizations? How can they work together in addressing the social and economic needs of refugees?

4. Should EU member states be required to accept similar proportions of refugees? What policies can be put in place to unify EU member state acceptance and integration of refugees?

5. How can policy help prevent illegal immigration? What procedures should be in place for immigrants who have entered the country illegally?  

6. How do nations ensure the transference of migrant skills into the European labor market?

7. How do nations provide refugees with opportunities for workforce upward mobility?

8. How do nations protect refugees in the face of rising anti-immigrant hate crimes?

9. Should immigrants be able to become EU citizens before gaining national citizenship in a member state?

Additional Sources  

1. This website offers an in-depth look at how the European Union functions and what the scope of its power is.

2. This website has basic facts and statistics about the 2015 migration crisis.

3. This website houses data on migration policies and trends worldwide.

4. This website provides information for national migrant detention and processing facilities worldwide.

5. An overview of the 2003 Dublin Regulation. 

6. A comprehensive summary of EU policy in the face of the 2015 migration crisis.

7. A review of the economic impact and strategies for the economic integration of refugees in Europe.

8. A summary of how refugees impact social services in EU countries.

9. An overview of refugee social demographics in Europe in 2016 and approaches to the social integration of migrants.

Glossary 

Migrant/immigrant: A person who crosses state borders with the purpose of settling in another country. An immigrant is specifically someone entering into a country to settle there. 

Asylum seeker: A migrant who has been forced to relocate to another country and has applied for protection and right to settle (asylum) in that country.

Refugee: A migrant who has been forced to relocate to another country, has applied for asylum in that country and has received asylum.

Economic migrant: A migrant whose primary motivation in moving is economic gain. 

Legal versus illegal immigration: Legal immigration refers to methods of entry into another country which are codified in that country’s law. Illegal immigration refers to unofficial methods of immigration, which are not recognized in that country’s law.

European Union (EU): A coalition of 28 European nations who share migration, trade and diplomatic benefits. The EU has its own governing body to promote peaceful alliances between member states and abroad.

The Dublin Regulation: An agreement introduced by the EU in 2003 with the purpose of providing asylum seekers with a standardized and transparent application process. 

Refugee Camp: A processing facility wherein asylum seekers await the outcome of their application. 

United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF): A United Nations agency dedicated to the protection and development of children worldwide. 

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): A United Nations agency dedicated to the protection and care of displaced communities worldwide. 

The World Health Organization (WHO): A United Nations agency dedicated to international public health and often involved in addressing global health crises. 

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD): An international organization comprising of 36 member nations and 70 more non-member cooperative nations promoting sustainable economic growth. 

Official Development Assistance (ODA): Federal aid invested in developing nations to promote sustainable economic growth. 

Sub-central governments (SCG): A non-governmental organization with administrative authority derived from local, regional or federal government. 

Xenophobia: Fear and prejudice towards people from other countries.

Homogeneity: Similarity among a population, can be in reference to a dominant ethnic identity or religious affiliation.

Islamophobia: Prejudice against Islam and Muslims. 

Naturalization: The process of becoming a citizen of a country.

Topic History

On January 1, 1973, the United Kingdom (the UK) joined the European Economic Community (EEC), an intergovernmental body within Europe meant to facilitate economic cooperation which would later be integrated into the European Union. The UK is made up of four countries: Britain, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Whales. “Britain” is often used to refer to the UK as a whole and will appear in this topic guide in reference to all four nations unless otherwise specified. Brexit applies to all of these nations, even if the name is modeled only off of Britain. 1973 marked the first year of Britain’s participation a formal European governing body after two failed attempts to join the EEC in the 1960s: both times, the French President Charles de Gaulle vetoed Britain’s application, claiming they seemed more interested in collaboration with the US than with the rest of Europe [2]. Even after Britain formally joined the Community, its membership was disputed, with the country internally divided on whether to leave or stay. After an administrative turnover in 1974, the new prime minister, Harold Wilson, made a promise to the British people that is eerily familiar to British politics today. Wilson promised that he would renegotiate Britain’s terms of membership in the EEC after which he would hold a referendum to allow the people to decide Britain’s future. Four decades later, in 2016, prime minister David Cameron made the same offer, allowing the citizens to determine whether Britain would remain in the European Union.

Wilson’s referendum took place in 1975, and was most enthusiastically supported by the country’s leftist Labour party. On the other hand, Britain’s three major political parties, most notably the Conservative Party led by future prime minister Margaret Thatcher, were the strongest supporters of staying in the EEC. Geographically, support for exiting was concentrated outside of Britain in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. England itself, especially in the South, was in favor of staying. In 1975, the debate around remaining in the EEC centered around emigration, commercial trade, and economic instability. At the time, Britain was experiencing a period of economic drought characterized by high unemployment, rising inflation, and the risk of food shortages. The Remain campaign promised voters that trade and migration policies within the EEC, for example the Common Agricultural Policy, would boost Britain’s economy and prevent total collapse. The Leave campaign argued the opposite, claiming that it was Britain’s membership that was depleting its financial resources, and that the country’s economy would rise if it left. 

Both sides of the argument presented the choice as monumental and integral towards Britain’s survival, raising the stakes, especially for a population who had recently lived through World War II and was familiar with the daily struggles of national economic and political crisis. The Remain campaign featured the support of many of the leading British politicians of the time, from both the political right and left. The Leave campaign’s leaders, while prominent, were more controversial and often inhabited the more extreme ends of the political right and left. With British citizens so pressured to make a monumental decision on behalf of their country, it is little surprise that the majority chose to support the Remain party in the referendum, taking their cues from the more mainstream political voices of the time. With 64.5% turnout, ⅔ of the British people voted to remain in the EEC, a decisive victory for the remain party [1].  

In 2016, the debate on whether or not to remain in the EU focused on new issues: national sovereignty, economic independence, and immigration policy. In the years between 1975 and 2016, Britain became significantly more integrated into the European Union, most notably in 1992 under the Maastricht Treaty [2]. This new treaty created the current model of the European Union, consolidating member states’ foreign and security policy, facilitating more cooperation between states on domestic policy, and paving the way for the use of a standardized monetary system, the euro [3]. Under this new treaty, member states lost full control over certain policies, such as competition, agriculture, and copyright. In addition, the European Commission, the main executive body in charge of policy implementation, is not directly accountable to British voters. The Commission is chosen every 5 years by member state leaders but operates without direct accountability of member state voters or the European Parliament, the main legislative body whose members are voted in by member state citizenry. In addition, rising sentiments that EU policy is, at times, irrelevant and restrictive towards British politics and that the EU favors wealthy corporate interests over democratic reform, have contributed to a surge in nationalism and Euroscepticism in Britain over the last few decades [4]. 

In addition to legislative and executive autonomy, the current Leave party also argues that full economic integration with the European Union will be detrimental for Britain. In 1992, Britain chose to opt out of the monetary standardization of the EU, keeping the pound system instead of adopting the euro. The 2008 recession only increased the number of British citizens opposed to economic integration with the EU, since member states using the euro were harder hit than those who do not. However, some proponents of the EU system believe that all member states must adopt the euro in order to achieve full economic and political stability between states. This has lead to some support outside of Britain for Brexit since Britain’s full separation from the EU could allow the remaining states to more fully integrate their economies. Beyond economic integration, the Leave campaign also emphasizes the weight of the membership fee that Britain pays to the EU, 13 billion pounds, which is about 230 pounds per British citizen [4]. 

The last main argument of the Leave campaign is that the EU’s immigration policy is not restrictive enough, setting immigrant quotas per country which many citizens and politicians in Britain think are too high. Immigration policy is another example of a legislative agenda largely dictated by the EU to its members states. The Leave campaign believes that Britain should have full political autonomy over immigration policy and, especially in the wake of the 2015 refugee crisis in Europe, citizen support has risen for more restrictive policies and British legislative autonomy [4]. 

Euroscepticism has been present in Britain since the beginning of its membership in the EEC, well through the formation of the current EU, and has been building in the decades since the last referendum. In more recent years, however, Britain has gained more independence from the European Union. What began with the exemption from monetary integration in 1992 was continued in 2011 when prime minister David Cameron fought to exempt Britain from budget rules targeted at mitigating the effects of the recession. Cameron ultimately vetoed even the exemption package, all of which paved the way towards his announcement in 2016 that he would hold a referendum in which the British people would decide the fate of British membership in the EU [2]. His announcement, shown in the video below, gives voters the final say on whether Britain will continue its already selective and limited membership in the EU, or whether it will cut ties completely. 

The referendum took place on June 23, 2016, and the outcome was a slight victory for the Leave party: 51.9% to 48.1%. Below is a geographic breakdown of the support for both sides throughout the United Kingdom. Note that, in stark opposition to the referendum of 1975, the Leave party was heavily represented within Britain in 2016, while the Remain party was concentrated in Scotland and Ireland [5].

Current Situation

In June of 2016, prime minister David Cameron was head of the Conservative party, and a strong proponent of the Remain party. The Labour, Green, and Liberal Democratic parties all supported staying in the EU, while the Tory party, especially former London mayor Boris Johnson, spearheaded the Leave campaign [6]. 

Our committee begins on June 24, 2016. It is the day that the British people wake up and learn the results of the referendum. The only certainty is that Britain has voted to leave the European Union. When and how are yet to be determined, and those decisions will be made in negotiations between British and EU officials. Adding to the uncertainty, prime minister David Cameron announces on June 24th that he will be stepping down from his position before the October Conservative Party elections, creating an opening for a new political leader to guide Britain through Brexit. 

There is a formal legal process for states who wish to leave the EU which is contained in Article 50 of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. Cameron spoke of it after announcing his resignation but said that it was up to his successor to decide whether Britain would follow that legal process or define its own exit terms [7].  

The initial reaction of the leaders of EU member states is negative across the board. Last-minute meetings were assembled immediately following the results of the referendum to address the immediate fallout of the decision. One of the main concerns of member states is that Brexit will stoke nationalism and euroscepticism across Europe, further endangering the stability of the EU [7]. The sections below examine various issues contributing to or affected by Brexit and they provide context for exit deal negotiations. The sections are as follows: the economics and politics of UK autonomy, potential exit deals with the EU, the impact on the EU, and rising Euroscepticism.

The Economics and Politics of UK Autonomy

Since no exit strategy for Brexit has been finalized, the UK remains a full member of the EU. They, therefore, maintain full representation in various EU governing bodies, pay full membership fees, and receive full membership benefits. Those governing bodies include European Parliament, the Council of the EU, and the European Economic and Social Committee, among others. The first two councils legislate and execute EU policy, while the third is consulted regarding economic and social impacts of proposed laws. Each year, the UK pays a fee of roughly 13 billion pounds to the EU. In return, they are given full representation and the EU also funds various public goods operations. For example, in 2018, the EU spent 6.633 billion euros on UK development, including building roads and funding research [8]. 

As an EU member state, the UK is subject to the economic, social, and foreign policy regulations determined by EU governing bodies. However, the UK has adopted more exemptions from EU law than any other member state, most notably from the euro and the Schengen zone. In addition, the UK is exempt from the Lisbon Treaty and is not a signatory on the Fundamental Charter of Human Rights. The UK’s unique position in the Lisbon Treaty exempts it from EU justice and domestic affairs-related regulations. The UK has a “clarifying protocol” within the Fundamental Charter of Human Rights, which states that the European Court of Justice may not find UK laws in violation of the Charter. This protocol was created to protect UK labor law from international interference [9]. Beyond these exemptions, the UK is still heavily influenced by EU policy. Below I will explore the pros and cons of Britain losing EU oversight and legislation. 

The Leave and Remain campaigns, for the most part, focus on the same few issues, with each side seeing their cause as the better option of the UK. These issues are focused around trade, immigration, sovereignty and foreign affairs. If the UK left the EU, they would no longer be subject to the trade agreements between its member states. The Leave campaign sees this as a chance for the UK to trade with non-EU countries unimpeded by EU regulation. However, the Remain campaign argues that the EU single market is an invaluable resource for the free movement of goods and services and they fear the economic impact of tariffs on goods after the UK leaves. Free movement within the EU also allows workers to move between member states without visas, and businesses may establish offices in other nations. The Leave campaign represents the portion of the UK displeased by the number of foreign workers in Britain and calling for stricter immigration policy. The Remain campaign, however, sees free movement as integral to the UK’s economy and they believe that leaving the EU will cause a loss in job opportunities abroad and will lead international business headquarters to relocate elsewhere. Already, the results of the Brexit referendum caused the value of the British pound to decrease and caused UK markets to dip as well, potentially projecting future economic loss as a result of the decision. Another major argument of the Leave campaign is that the UK will regain a lot of national sovereignty upon leaving the EU. This would include autonomy over all UK laws complete control of border security. In response, the Remain campaign argues that the UK has already been able to achieve a lot of political autonomy through its opt-outs in various EU treaties. Lastly, UK sovereignty also means that Britain will be able to have greater international influence beyond Europe. For instance, it would make it possible for Britain to hold a seat in the World Trade Organization. However, given the size of the EU, the UK does have more influence on international matters as a member state of Europe in contrast to a member state of a global organization [10].

Also worth mentioning are the Northern Border of Ireland, Scottish independence, and EU climate regulations. Northern Ireland is a part of the UK while The Republic of Ireland is not. Britain leaving the EU would force Northern Ireland to as well, while The Republic of Ireland would remain a member state. The question of trade and movement between the two sections of Ireland remains unclear in the face of Brexit. Scotland would also be forced to leave the EU along with Britain, despite the majority of the country being in support of remaining. This has caused some in Scotland to call for a vote of Scottish independence from Britain [11]. Lastly, the EU Climate and Energy Package is a set of regulations that its member states must adhere to in order to meet climate change response goals. The EU has also introduced restrictions on energetically costly consumer goods in recent years. While Leave campaign supporters agree that these regulations are costly to the UK, and they are, the regulations also remain a key part of Europe's response to global climate change [12]. If the UK leaves the EU, it is possible that it would undo some of these regulations, and become more wasteful in its use of energy and fossil fuels. 

Potential Exit Deals with the UK

In the face of the referendum results, the UK now has three basic options: hold another referendum or declare the latest one to be void, negotiate an exit deal with the EU, or leave the EU without an exit deal. The prospect of holding another referendum is unpopular in the UK, especially because of the potential danger it poses to other Democratic institutions in the UK. Voiding the results of the first referendum would undercut the underlying democratic principles of the UK’s government. The most popular option by far is negotiating a deal, although some pro-Leave campaigners believe that leaving the EU without a deal would maximize British political and economic autonomy. 

The clearest path forward is to follow the process outlined in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Under this article, the country in question may invoke Article 50 once it has decided to leave and then has a maximum of two years in which to do so. According to the British Government, Prime Minister the power to invoke this article on their own under “royal prerogative” over foreign affairs, or in consultation with their Cabinet. Some legal scholars have rejected this, claiming that Parliament must also consent to the invocation. Once a member state decides to invoke Article 50, they must notify the European Council of its decisions. A timeline for negotiation and withdrawal will be decided upon between the state in question and the European Council, after it has obtained permission from the European Parliament, and will follow the processes of Article 218(3) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union [13]. 

Exit-deals with the EU would primarily concern the economic and political relationships between the UK and the EU post-exit, including some of the topics discussed above such as trade and foreign affairs. Below is a video of potential structures that the UK could adopt upon leaving the EU, which would allow it to maintain its current integration with the EU to varying degrees. 

The consensus on the no-deal exit is that it would cause huge economic losses to the UK. For example, regulations on trade and immigration would lead to the sudden imposition of tariffs and job opportunity loss abroad. In addition, Brexit could cause initial logistical issues as the UK separated itself from its integration in EU systems of trade and movement, for instance, adding regulatory checks between the UK and the EU. All of these losses and issues would only become larger without a deal in place to mitigate them. Some supporters of the Leave campaign believe that these downsides are only short term and that long term, the UK would be given a clean slate if it left without a deal. They argue that a no-deal Brexit would give the UK greater leverage in future negotiations, including international trade agreements and border policy [15].

The Impact on the EU

Given that the UK would be the first country to leave the EU, its impact on EU member states remains uncertain. Many worry about the economic impact that new trade and immigration regulations will have on Europe. Another concern is that the rest of the EU will feel the effects of international immigration more strongly if the UK leaves, having to absorb more refugees [14]. As seen in the figure below, as of July 2016, the UK housed the most foreign residents out of all EU member states. A large portion of these residents work in the UK under EU free movement policies and the Brexit referendum has cast a shadow of uncertainty over their immigrant status.

With regards to trade, monetary, and security, the video below discusses the benefits that the UK has on the EU and vice versa. Note that, in accordance with our timeline, some of the events mentioned in the video have not yet occurred. Most notably the Brexit Divorce Bill would not be signed until 2017, promising that the UK would continue to contribute membership fees to the UK into 2020 in order to fill part of the economic gap it would cause by leaving. 

While the Lisbon Treaty outlines the processes for negotiating a deal between the UK and the EU, the reality of Brexit is that the UK will also have to negotiate individual trade and immigration deals with each individual member state. In this paragraph, I am including the priorities of the largest EU member states when it comes to Brexit negotiations. More on country positions can be found in the Bloc Positions section. Germany and Spain have been firm that the UK must fully leave the single market rather than cherry-picking the EU benefits that it would like to hold on to. Germany worries that this will lead other member states to want to do the same. France has expressed concerns that the UK will try to escape regulatory standards, for instance on employment and the environment. Italy, however, favors a soft deal in which the UK is allowed to maintain some political and economic integration with the EU, protecting EU institutions from too great a loss. As is evident, while all nations prioritize the protection of EU member state interests, they have very different opinions on how this should be achieved [17]. 

Should Brexit be carried through without a deal in place, the immediate impact on the EU would be the disruption of trade and immigration, while long term, the EU would experience economic loss. As mentioned above, the logistics of establishing new trade and migration policies between the UK and the EU would become much more difficult without a deal in place to smooth the transition. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the EU should expect a 1.5% loss in growth by 2030 if the UK leaves the EU without a deal negatively affecting all EU member states. If the UK and the EU established a trade deal, that loss would be contained to 0.5%. The IMF considers the best deal, however, to be the Norway model, in which the UK remains a member of the EU economic area [16]. 

Also worth considering is how Brexit will affect nationalism and euroscepticism in other EU member states, and whether it will pave the way towards the exit of other nations. These issues are discussed in the section below. 

Rising Euroscepticism

Euroscepticism is defined as displeasure with the European Union, specifically with membership in it. Eurosceptics are likely to be in favor of their country’s exit out of the European Union or the complete abolition of the EU. According to a 2016 study done by the Pew Research Center, EU approval ratings within its member states have been steadily decreasing since 2004 and were heavily impacted in 2015 following the refugee crisis. The consensus across member states was that the EU did not respond to the refugee influx in a satisfactory manner, fueling ever growing nationalism across the continent. The graph below illustrates this point, showing that while a slight majority of member state citizens still support the EU, the majority are also in favor of increased national autonomy [18]. 

It is also true that, while a majority may be in favor of the EU, support for membership varies greatly between nations. The table below illustrates this point and also serves as a guide to which countries are experiencing the greatest rise in euroscepticism.

The past decades have seen huge gains for eurosceptic political parties in EU member states, who usually occupy the far right side of the political spectrum. These parties include the National Front in France, the Alternative for Germany, the Government of Change in Italy, and the Hungarian Civic Alliance in Hungary. Many of these parties rose in popularity following concerns over immigration, from both within the Schengen Area and outside of it [19]. The accountability of political officials to the citizens who voted for them is also a major concern of eurosceptics. Despite the increase their popularity, these political parties are still far from occupying the majority of political seats across Europe. However, given the recent political gains, is it possible that eurosceptic parties will one day outnumber centrist, pro-EU lawmakers in government [20]? 

While the direct impact of the Brexit referendum on euroscepticism is unclear, many lawmakers fear what has been termed “the domino effect.” The domino effect refers to increased nationalism and euroscepticism across member states to the point where other nations would also begin to leave the EU. Whether the domino effect will in fact take place remains to be seen, and is in part contingent on the outcome of UK negotiations and withdrawal from the EU [21].

Bloc Positions 

Bloc positions on Brexit are difficult to define, given the multiplicity of affected issues. While I have chosen to break countries down along how complete they believe the UK’s exit from the EU should be, other questions to consider are: who is most greatly affected by trade renegotiations with the UK? Which countries are most at risk for the Domino Effect? How does geographic proximity affect a country’s position on Brexit? 

Hard Deal: EU leaders, Germany, France, Spain, Czech Republic, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, Malta

A hard deal for Brexit would mean the UK’s complete exit from the EU, without the retention of any membership benefits. This would mean that the UK would leave both the single market and the customs union. It is the official stance of top EU leaders as it protects the political and economic integrity of the EU and avoids setting the precedent that member states may pick and choose which EU policies to take part in. Countries in support of a hard deal Brexit are willing to take the initial economic hits that it may cause them, believing that the consolidation of EU power will be worth it in the long run. In addition, countries such as Luxembourg and Malta who hope to attract international business who will stop operating out of the UK.

Soft Deal: Italy, Poland, Estonia, The Netherlands, Ireland, Hungary, Belgium, Romania, Greece, Portugal, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Croatia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Latvia, Cyprus

A soft deal Brexit would allow the UK to formally leave the EU while still partially integrated into the single market and the customs union. This would minimize the disruption to trade and immigration, which are huge concerns for countries that do a lot of business with the UK or who have a large citizen population living in Britain. For the UK, a soft deal would mean continued favorable trade and immigration agreements but without representation in EU legislative bodies. A soft Brexit would also make it more difficult for the UK to establish trade relationships outside of the EU. In addition, Eastern European countries are often in support of a soft Brexit due to security concerns. Many rely on the EU for protection against Russian and Turkish encroachments national sovereignty and land, much of that protection coming from the UK. These countries fear that the EU would no longer be able to protect them as well in the face of a hard exit.  

[17, 22, 23, 24]

Questions for Further Research.

1. What have been the UK’s major political and economic contributions to the EU?

2. What UK businesses would be most heavily impacted by Britain leaving the EU? Which businesses in other EU member states would be most affected? How can those economic losses be mitigated?

3. How will independent British border security and policy affect immigration in and out of other EU member states? 

4. What EU membership benefits should the UK strive to keep in its exit deal?

5. Which other EU member states may be at risk to leave the EU? 

6. How would UK abolition of regulatory standards, especially those regarding climate change, affect other EU member states?

7. How will Brexit impact EU security, especially in Eastern Europe?

Additional Sources 

1. This source provides detailed information on the terms of UK membership in the EU.

2. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This article provides the legal process whereby an EU member state may leave the EU, including the framework for establishing a negotiation and withdrawal timeline. 

3. An overview of the impact that Brexit will have on EU trade. 

4. An overview of the impact that Brexit will have on immigration in the EU.

5. An overview of the issue of the Irish Border explained in greater detail. 

6. These videos (parts 1 and 2) provide individual country’s perspectives and priorities with regards to Brexit.

Glossary 

Brexit: The decision of the UK to leave the European Union.

Sovereignty: The authority of a state over itself or other states.

The EU single market and customs union: EU regulations which allow for the free movement of goods and services across member states. 

Integration: The combination of two factors such that one is a part of the other. Economic integration, for instance, means the overlap between the economic systems of two separate entities.

Autonomy: The right or condition to self-govern. An entity’s control over their own actions.

Nationalism: Extreme support of one’s own nation, sometimes to the point of advocating for the detriment of other nations. 

Euroscepticism: Displeasure with the European Union, especially membership in it. Eurosceptics are likely to be in favor of their country’s exit out of the European Union or the complete abolition of the EU.

Referendum: A direct vote by the citizenry to decide the outcome on a single issue.

Exit-deal: The outcome of negotiations between the UK and the EU. Decides how integrated the UK remains in the EU and what future relations with EU states will be.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF): An international organization working towards global monetary cooperation.

The Domino Effect: The fear that Brexit will cause other EU member states to leave the union as well.

Hard Deal: An exit-deal in which the UK is no longer a member of the single market or the customs union.

Soft Deal: An exit-deal in which the UK remains partially integrated in the EU single market and customs union, without retaining formal membership.