Brussels, 22/06/2016 (Agence Europe) - What will the map of the European Union look like on the morning of Friday 24 June? Will the Union wake up with 28 member states, or with the prospect of just 27? Will it be able to survive the amputation of its British limb? The uncertainty was at its peak on Wednesday 22 June, on the eve of the critical vote by the British electorate over whether or not they wish to remain citizens of the EU, on the basis of a new relationship negotiated in February between David Cameron, the British prime minister, and his 27 European partners (see EUROPE 11495).
In Athens on Tuesday 21 June, the president of the European Commission called upon the British to exercise caution, stating that the country leaving the EU would constitute an “act of self-mutilation”. “Turning your back on your neighbours and withdrawing into isolation would go against everything Europe and the United Kingdom stand for”, Juncker said. On Wednesday, he issued a further warning to the British: there will be no renegotiation or any going back. “Out is out”, he stressed.
The EU has, however, mostly remained silent throughout the campaign, paralysed by what is at stake with the vote - a historic precedent - and the potential of a Brexit, which would also plunge the EU into politically and legally unknown territory. So far, not even the experts can agree on the actual economic consequences, particularly working out whether it would be the EU or the UK that would pay the higher price for British defection.
Although the other European countries may feel benefits from Brexit in terms of trade and investment, Europe would lose a major contributor to the EU budget and, logically, would lose a chunk of its GDP. For the United Kingdom, however, leaving the EU would lead to an immediate financial crisis. According to economists, the drop in growth of British GDP would be between 0.5% and 1%.
Several taboos broken. There is only one certainty and that is political in its nature: “the British prime minister has broken a taboo” that “you can leave the EU”, said Charles de Marcilly, of the Robert Schuman Foundation. And that will lead into a multitude of scenarios. However, the researcher argues that the situation of the EU will be difficult, irrespective of the outcome of the referendum. Because even if the British stay in the EU, David Cameron broke another taboo when he got his European partners to agree to question the principle of an ever-closer Union. If it decides to stay in the Union, the UK will be able to move forward at its own pace. This open door may be used by other member states to refuse to transfer any more competences or sovereignty. This eventuality would throw the existing divisions within the EU into even sharper relief, because “a differentiated Union already exists”, the researcher explained.
The migration crisis recently made it clear as well: a number of countries, such as Slovakia, which will hold the next six-month Presidency of the Council of the EU, has announced its intention of challenging the policy of European quotas for relocations of refugees currently trapped in Greece and Italy.With the barrier of ever-closer integration now gone, various countries may be tempted to try to negotiate an “attenuation of the political will in certain areas”, thereby scuppering any ambition.
Even so, in the short and medium terms, de Marcilly cannot necessarily see any risk of the dissolution of the EU or any actions taken by certain countries, particularly from Central and Eastern Europe, leading to its collapse. “I do not believe in this exit procedure”, he said, as surveys in the member states show instead that the citizens of Europe feel that they belong to the EU.
For Alain Lamassoure, French MEP and member of the EPP Group at the European Parliament who was behind Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon allowing a country to divorce the EU, Brexit will be the opportunity to ask all members of the EU the “question of trust” and what they hope to do together. This question must be asked as soon as possible by the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, he argued. “Are other countries tempted by this example? Are some of them satisfied with what the EU is today? And which other countries would like to go further in certain areas?” asked the MEP.
Lamassoure, who is largely favourable to the UK remaining in the EU, believes that if the country, or others, were to leave, this would have the merit of making the “EU more homogenous” and allowing it to “do more things”. But a chain of exits of this kind is difficult to conceive of. “When you go round the countries that are tempted, given the immediate negative consequences from an economic point of view, it will make the others think”, the MEP added, in reference to the “tragedy for the British financial markets” that Brexit would imply.
Cameron's “crazy idea” to hold a referendum, as Lamassoure describes it, remains a historic moment for the Union, irrespective of the result. “If there is Brexit, everybody will have to take responsibility: the United Kingdom will have to reconsider its place on the world map” and the Europeans will have to review their responsibilities and competences in terms of budget, defence or immigration policy. However, the possibility that the United Kingdom will stay in the European family could also constitute a “major boost” because, at a time when the EU is going through “one of the greatest crises of its history”, one member state would be saying that it cannot see its future outside the European Union. The worst-case scenario, according to Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE, France), would be for France and Germany not to grasp the nettle.
In the event of Brexit, Article 50 of the Treaty would have to be clarified. If the UK leaves, a very clear interpretation of Article 50 of the Treaty will be required. This article organises the divorce between the member states and the EU. It will also be necessary to clarify whether, during the period of negotiations for the withdrawal agreement, which is expected to take two years in theory, the United Kingdom would have its voting rights suspended in the Council of the EU. “That will be a firm demand on my part”, Lamassoure stressed, adding that it is inconceivable that a country arranging its withdrawal could continue to take position on dossiers which will no longer concern it. De Marcilly also said that the British Presidency of the Council in the second half of 2017 would have to withdraw from inter-institutional negotiations in trialogue, for instance, Article 50 not being sufficiently clear on these points, in the view of either man. Furthermore, the question of members of the European Parliament elected in the United Kingdom will naturally crop up and the fate of European civil servants of British nationality will also have to be dealt with.
Any notification made by the British prime minister that the United Kingdom is to leave the EU would have to be immediate, “within 24 to 48 hours”, according to Lamassoure, with uncertainty hanging over the fate of Cameron himself, who has campaigned for his country to stay in the EU, and over the possibility of early general elections being called.
So far in Brussels, no major instrument is foreseen. The final results of the referendum will not be announced until around 8.30a.m. on Friday 24 June. At 10.30, the presidents of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Council will meet the Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte. A conference of the presidents of the groups of the European Parliament has been convened for 8.00a.m. on Friday. The possibility of holding an extraordinary plenary session of the Parliament - on Tuesday 28 June, the day of the European summit - has also been raised. In Luxembourg on Friday, the General Affairs Council will, unsurprisingly, discuss the results of the British referendum. (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)