2015年-CEPS欧洲政策研究中心_How_to_withdraw_from_the_European_Union_Confronting_hard_reality_4页_435kb

Summary: How to Withdraw from the European Union?

Core Content

This document discusses the legal, economic, and political implications of a country withdrawing from the European Union (EU), with a focus on the United Kingdom (UK). It emphasizes that leaving the EU is not a simple process and involves a complex legal framework, significant economic consequences, and political challenges.

Main Views

• Unilateral withdrawal is not feasible: The EU is a legal order agreed upon by its member states, not a casual association. While Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) allows for a withdrawal, it is not a unilateral act but requires a formal treaty framework.
• Withdrawal process is lengthy and complex: A withdrawal agreement must be negotiated and ratified, which may involve multiple treaties and agreements. The process is not just about exiting but also about defining the future relationship between the departing country and the EU.
• Legal and economic consequences are significant: The withdrawal would mean the end of EU law's applicability in the departing country, the loss of the four freedoms of the internal market, and the need to renegotiate numerous international trade agreements.
• The UK faces a political dilemma: David Cameron is under pressure from both his own Conservative Party and the eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKIP) to either renegotiate terms or initiate a referendum on EU membership. The document suggests that a referendum is likely, and the outcome could lead to Brexit.
• Future relationships require careful negotiation: The UK may seek to join the European Economic Area (EEA) or other arrangements, but this would require additional treaties and agreements, which are unlikely to be easily negotiated due to the complexity and the reluctance of EU member states.

Key Information

Legal Framework

• Article 50 TEU: Provides the mechanism for withdrawal, requiring a formal treaty.
• Notice period: Two years from the notification of intent to leave unless extended.
• Withdrawal agreement: Must be an international treaty between the EU and the departing country, not part of EU primary law.
• Amending EU treaties: To remove the departing country's provisions from the EU's founding treaties, a new treaty would need to be negotiated and ratified by all remaining member states.

Economic Implications

• Loss of internal market access: Free movement of goods, persons, services, and capital would end.
• Trade agreements: Hundreds of international agreements would no longer apply, and the UK would need to renegotiate them.
• Customs union: The UK would no longer be part of the EU customs union, requiring the establishment of a new customs regime.
• Common policies: The UK would have to phase out the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) and Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

Political Considerations

• Referendum likelihood: The document suggests that a referendum is a fait accompli due to growing anti-EU sentiment and political pressure.
• Political and legal analysis: A decision to leave the EU should be based on a thorough understanding of the consequences, rather than on political or emotional grounds.
• Future arrangements: The UK may consider models like the EEA or Switzerland's relationship with the EU, but these would require complex negotiations.

Conclusion

• Withdrawal is not a simple 'exit': It involves a series of legal and institutional steps, and the UK cannot simply walk away from the EU without significant consequences.
• Profound impact: A withdrawal would have major legal, economic, and political implications for both the UK and the EU.
• Practical considerations: The UK would need to establish a new legal and economic framework, which is not trivial and may take years to negotiate and implement.

Final Thoughts

The document warns against the illusion that leaving the EU is an easy or straightforward process. It highlights the need for a realistic and well-considered approach to any withdrawal, emphasizing that the UK must carefully weigh the potential costs and benefits before making such a decision.