- [Kasim] Brexit is one of the most
debated geopolitical issues of our time.
More than two years after the referendum
that resulted in the
decision to leave the EU,
it is still unclear what
the parting conditions will be like.
With such high degree of uncertainty,
it is difficult to foresee
how things will eventually unfold,
but one thing is certain,
Brexit will have a significant impact on
the UK in the years to come.
I'm your host Kasim and thanks
for joining me for another KJ Vid.
In this video we will
discuss the geopolitical
implications of Britain's
departure from the EU.
The history and the foreign
policy of the United Kingdom
have been deeply marked by
its geographic position.
As an island off the European
coasts not far from France,
it was isolated enough to be sufficiently
repaired from foreign
threats but close enough
to be obliged to care about
the continent's affairs.
Since William the Conqueror in 1066,
no invader managed to
land on the British soil.
After a long process marked
by turmoil and civil war,
a unified kingdom of Great Britain
was established in the early 18th century.
Thanks to its favourable position
protracted towards the Atlantic Ocean,
it managed to consolidate
and expand its colonial territories.
Combined with its rich coal deposits
and with an institutional system
favouring capitalism and
technological innovation,
this allowed Britain to spark
the industrial revolution.
Gradually, Britain strengthened its fleet
and turned into the world's
leading naval power.
The Royal Navy became the
cornerstone of its national
security and the vehicle
of its imperial expansion.
Its supremacy allowed Britain to impede
any invasion from the mainland,
but at the same time enabled it to extend
its influence overseas and
dominate maritime trade.
Back then it acted as the
balancer of European politics,
when any given power became too powerful
and started threatening
its national security,
Britain backed a coalition
to counter its rise,
sometimes intervening directly
as it did during the Napoleonic Wars.
At the height of its power in
the second-half of the 19th century,
the British Empire ruled over one quarter
of the world and was the
first power of its time.
But America's rise
and two World Wars determined its decline.
After 1945, Britain gradually lost
its immense colonial empire
and its industry was disrupted
by foreign competition.
To ensure its security it joined NATO,
the trans-Atlantic military Alliance
supported by the US to
contain the Soviet Union.
On the political and economic level,
Britain was initially cautious
towards the European Integration project,
and preferred to promote
its own multilateral
institutions like the Commonwealth and
the European Free Trade Association.
Yet, in 1973 it decided to join
the European Economic Community,
the predecessor of the EU.
Nevertheless, its relations with
the EU have always been turbulent
as it opposed several
integration initiatives
and succeeded in getting
exemptions on several issues.
In 1984 it obtained a reduction
of its transfers to the EU
budget after protesting for
being a net contributor,
meaning that the sum
of money it was giving
to the Union was superior
to the funds it received
for the implementation
of the latter's policies.
In 1992, the UK did not join
the Exchange Rate Mechanism
and Protocol 15 annexed to
the 2007 Lisbon Treaty exempts
it from any obligation to
ultimately adopt the Euro.
Protocol 19 affirms that normally Britain
does not participate to the provisions
of the Schengen agreement that
abolishes borders controls,
a treaty initially established outside
the EU legislation but
integrated into it in 1997.
Similarly, Protocol 21 states
that the UK is not bound by
the EU's legislation in
the context of the area
of freedom, security and justice,
unless an exception is
agreed by both parties.
Finally, Protocol number
30 affirms that courts
cannot judge upon the adherence
of the British legislation
to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights,
which the 2007 Lisbon Treaty recognises
as having the same legal
value of the treaty itself.
Then, amid a global rise
of populist forces opposed
to greater social and
economic integration,
the Brexit referendum took place in 2016.
After a long and heated campaign,
the vote resulted in the victory
of those advocating for leaving the EU.
Since then, following
the procedure established
in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty,
the UK has been involved
in complex negotiations
with the Union to define
the terms of Brexit.
As of today, the Parliament
rejected the plan backed
by May's government for three times
and with a common agreement between
the UK and the European Council
the negotiation period has been
extended up to October 31st 2019,
even though Prime Minister Theresa May
vowed to leave as soon as possible.
In this context,
many voices call for a second referendum
or even to simply cancel Brexit,
and the future of the UK and even
its tenure as a unified
state are being questioned.
The first set of problems related
to Brexit is economic in nature.
Since before the referendum
it has been widely debated how
the UK would perform out of the Union
with opposing and often contradicting
opinions coming from the two sides.
Determining its impact
is still complicated,
as the final terms of
Brexit remain unclear,
yet, a few points seem
to be generally accepted.
First, leaving the EU will
damage Britain's economic growth.
This does not imply a
contraction of the GDP,
but only that it will probably
grow at a slower pace.
In terms of jobs market,
some sectors are likely to be damaged
by losing access to the common market,
while those mostly exposed
to competition from other
EU members are likely
to benefit from Brexit.
The service sectors is particularly
important in this regard,
it is a major driver of job
creation and innovation,
meaning that Brexit could
damage it by reducing
the inflow of qualified
workers from the continent.
In regards to public finances,
leaving the Union surely means not having
to pay contributions to its budget,
but estimates indicate that any saving
would be offset with a GDP contraction
of just one percent compared
to the non-Brexit scenario
and the balance would be negative
if the loss were greater.
Departing would also mean
losing EU funds to universities,
farming, and regional development.
A positive aspect of Brexit
could be the reduction
of regulations deriving
from EU legislation,
but in some cases regulation
and standardisation is beneficial.
Moreover, those British companies wishing
to continue trading with the EU will have
to comply with its regulations,
with the difference that Britain will
no longer have any voice
in determining them.
All in all, most analyses expect Brexit
to have a negative impact
on the economy of the UK
even though there are some who disagree.
But again, determining its real
effects is extremely complicated
and a fully accurate forecast
is simply impossible,
especially as long as the final
terms of Brexit are unknown.
Another major point of discussion
is the future of Scotland
and Northern Ireland.
In 2016, two-thirds of Scots voted
in favour of remaining in the EU.
Scotland has close and expanding trade
ties with continental Europe,
and its local government
is keener of accepting
immigration as a means to
balance its ageing population.
Until now, it seems that
Brexit has not increased much
the support for Scottish independence,
but much depends on the
final terms of the agreement.
If its terms were contrary to
Scotland's economic interests,
then the pro-independence side
would surely gain strength
and could win in the case of
a new independence referendum,
an option which is
already being discussed.
For what concerns Northern Ireland,
Brexit could threaten the equilibrium
established by the 1998
Good Friday peace deal.
The region receives considerable
funding from the EU,
and most importantly
Britain's exit from the Union
could translate in the reintroduction
of a hard border between Northern Ireland
and the rest of the island which would
cause considerable economic
and social problems.
A potential solution is the
so-called Irish backstop,
meaning allowing the area to
remain in the EU common market
and custom union until a
definite settlement is reached.
Yet, there are fears that
Brexit could end up reviving
violent conflict in the area
after more than 20 years.
As seen, it is nearly
impossible to determine
how Britain will look like
after it leaves the EU.
Surely, while it can abandon the Union,
it cannot escape geography.
It will remain a European country
and will have to work
together with its partners
on the continent on common issues such
as trade, finance, terrorism,
transnational crime, and more.
But this means that while it would
recover part of the sovereignty it ceded
to the EU when it decided to join,
in practise it will still have
to comply with many European
legislation without being able
to influence it any longer.
Of course, the UK can try balancing
the negative effects
by creating deeper ties
with other partners
like the United States,
but as long as the wave of protectionism
initiated by Trump continues,
it will be difficult for the UK
to reach an advantageous deal.
Yet, there is another
theoretical solution.
As the Arctic ice cap melts,
the Northern Sea Route becomes
a viable trade course for trade
with Asia and its huge
markets like China and Japan,
thus opening up new
opportunities for the UK.
The exploitation of the Arctic's resources
is also an option to
boost the British economy.
However, this process is
still in its early stages
and it will take decades to fully
develop the Arctic's potential,
without forgetting the dangers
for its delicate environment.
To conclude, it is hard to anticipate
what the impact of Brexit will be.
Many supporters consider it as the only
way to restore Britain's sovereignty
and pursue its national
interest in full autonomy,
but geography makes it impossible for
the UK to simply isolate
itself from the continent.
Therefore, it will need to find
a new equilibrium for
the post-Brexit period,
but this will be a long and complex task
that might even threaten
its unity as a state.
That's all for today, guys.
Thanks for joining me for another KJ Vid.
We really appreciate your
continued support to KJ Vids.
Our subscribers are
growing incredibly fast
and we hope to receive the
100,000 subscriber mark soon.
However, we do need support in finances
since it is expensive
to hire video editors,
a research team, and other
related costs such as licences.
You can support KJ Vids by making
a one off donation to
our Fund My Page account
or by becoming a KJ member on
our website for 4.99 a month.
The money would help us survive,
expand, and grow our project.
Check out kjvids.co.uk
for more information.
Thanks for watching again
and see you next time.
