Is Finland an EU member or not? Objective reasons for holding a referendum on Britain's exit from the European Union. EU relations with other countries

The European Union (EU) is a unique economic and political union 28 European countries , which formed a “common market”, primarily ensuring the free movement of goods and people.

Within the EU there is a single currency - the euro, which as of 2019 is used 19 participating countries, and has its own parliament, empowered to make decisions in a wide range of areas - from issues related to protection environment before setting mobile tariffs.

MAP OF EU COUNTRIES

EU countries

The current list of countries that are members of the European Union in 2019 (as of today) is as follows.

EU COUNTRIES 2019

On Thursday June 23, 2016, a referendum was held in Great Britain, known throughout the world as Brexit. More than 30 million Human. The final turnout was 71.8%. As a result, 51.9% of Britons expressed a desire to leave the European Union. At the same time, the majority of citizens of England and Wales supported leaving the EU, while residents of Scotland and Northern Ireland were against it.

According to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in 2009, any EU country has the right to leave this association. This article regulates the procedure for leaving the EU, in particular, a maximum of 2 years is provided for the final agreement of conditions. The official start of the process of separation of Great Britain from the European Union was scheduled for March 29, 2019. This was followed by a six-month extension until October 31, 2019.

Some experts predict that the UK's exit from the EU will take at least 6 years. In any case, today the United Kingdom is obliged to comply with all treaty obligations and laws of the European Union. Therefore, the list of countries included in the EU in 2019 remains unchanged and includes 28 states.

Creation of the European Union

The idea of ​​creating the European Union arose against the backdrop of the horrific consequences of the Second World War. To avoid a repetition of such events and to maximally connect countries with each other economically, in 1950, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman proposed uniting the coal and steel industries of Europe.

As a result, in 1951, six states - France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg - signed Treaty of Paris and created the European Coal and Steel Community. The rapid growth of trade relations over 6 years led to the conclusion Treaties of Rome 1957, which led to the formation of the European Economic Community - the basis of the modern EU.

The European Union in its current form was created on the basis Maastricht Treaty, effective from November 1, 1993, which led to the emergence of the single European currency - Euro. Subsequently, the main EU agreements were amended in accordance with the treaties signed in Amsterdam (1997), Nice (2001) and Lisbon (2009).

Accession of countries to the European Union

The first wave of EU enlargement occurred in 1973, following the entry into the union of Great Britain, Ireland and Denmark. Greece joined in 1981, and 5 years later (1986) Portugal and Spain joined. In 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the European Union.

The largest expansion took place in 2004, when the EU gained 10 new members - Hungary, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, the Czech Republic and Estonia. Romania and Bulgaria joined in 2007, and Croatia became the last country to join the EU in 2013.

Functioning of the EU

The combined population of EU member states exceeds 510 million people. Previously, a purely economic union over the years of its existence has turned into a powerful political association, jointly problem solving security, migration, climate change, health, education and much more. The fundamental principles of the European Union are based on a single domestic market ensuring the free movement of goods, services, money and people, including labor.

The core values ​​of the EU include the rule of law, freedom, democracy, equality, respect for human rights and dignity. The functioning of the European Union is ensured 7 main institutions:

European Council.

Council of the European Union.

Court of Justice of the European Union.

European Court of Auditors.

European Central Bank.

Despite the nominal independence of each EU member and collective decision-making, individual countries occupy a dominant position in this association. For example, more than 60% Contributions to the general budget of the European Union come from 4 states - Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy. For comparison, the total share of the Baltic countries - Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia - does not exceed 1%.

Many EU member countries receive considerable funds from the general budget to support the economy and social development, which significantly exceed the size of the initial contributions. Thus, sovereignty and the ability to significantly influence important decisions taken within the European Union are partially lost. Germany has been considered the political and economic leader of the EU for many years.

Candidates for EU membership

As already mentioned, the list of EU countries in 2019 includes 28 members. The last addition took place in 2013, when Croatia joined the association. Four Western European countries - Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein - are not members of the EU, but are closely integrated into the single economic market and are members of the Schengen area.

To join the European Union, a candidate country must meet the so-called Copenhagen criteria, which are based on democratic governance, respect for human rights, the functioning of a market economy and commitment to the goals and intentions of the EU. The right to join the European Union on a geographical basis is enshrined in Article 49 Maastricht Treaty.

As of 2019, there are 5 candidates for EU membership:

Türkiye - application from 1987

Macedonia - application from 2004

Montenegro - application from 2008

Albania - application from 2009

Serbia - application from 2009

All countries except Albania and Macedonia are negotiating accession to the EU. Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo are considered potential candidates. In 2014, the European Union signed association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, which is not a basis for applying for EU membership, but membership is possible in the future. Based on statements from high-ranking European officials, it can be concluded that We should not expect new countries to join the European Union in the coming years.

Great Britain (full name - United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) is an island state in Western Europe, founded January 1, 1801. The name of the country comes from the English Great Britain. Britain - according to the ethnonym of the Briton tribe. Motto: "Dieu et mon droit" "(Gods are my right)", anthem : “God Save the Queen/King.”

Great Britain is one of the leading countries in the world, playing important role in the work of the EU, UN and NATO, occupies one of the first places in the world in terms of GNP. In this regard, for military specialists in foreign countries it is important to correctly analyze and evaluate the ongoing socio-political processes in a country like Great Britain, to objectively study and understand the economic, social, political, ideological and military processes taking place in it, to draw reasonable practical conclusions and assessments in the interests of fulfilling the assigned tasks.

England has always stood apart in the European space. For centuries, her cult of independent political thinking had no equal in Europe, and it is no coincidence that the Magna Carta Libertatum of 1215, a legal instrument that had no analogues in the world at that time, appeared in the British Isles. Individualism, pragmatism and the ability to modify, coexisting with tradition, have always been the foundation of the political construction of England and remain so today.

One of the differences between the Anglo-Saxon mentality and the continental one is greater mobility, a willingness to accept change and abandon the status quo. The idea of ​​a united Europe appealed to the British for a long time, but, like many ideas, it eventually outlived its usefulness. Accordingly, instead of continuing to mark time, complaining about economic and social difficulties, and regretting the funds invested in the pan-European cause, England announced its withdrawal from the European Union (EU).

A referendum on the UK's membership of the European Union, known within the UK as the EU referendum, took place in the UK and Gibraltar on 23 June 2016.

Citizens of Great Britain, Ireland and Commonwealth countries legally staying in the kingdom, as well as British citizens living abroad for no more than 15 years, were able to take part in the referendum. Unlike general elections, voting also included members of the House of Lords, as well as Commonwealth citizens living in Gibraltar. In the constituent entities of Great Britain, the voting results varied: residents of Scotland and Northern Ireland were predominantly against leaving, while representatives of England, not counting the capital, and Wales voted in favor.

The UK's exit from the European Union is the main political goal of the Conservative opposition and some individuals (nationalists and Eurosceptics) in the UK. During the 2016 referendum, 51.9% of voters were in favor of Britain leaving the European Union, respectively, 48.1% of voters were in favor of continuing membership in the EU.

The relevance of this work is determined, first of all, by the need for an objective analysis of possible geopolitical changes and the consequences of Brexit for the EU and the UK. Secondly, by studying the results of the referendum on Britain's exit from the EU. Thirdly, the need to objectively determine the socio-political and economic reasons that led the country to this result.

Britain's exit from the EU is evidence not of decline or crisis, but of the transformation of the European Union and the transition of Europe to a new geopolitical format.

Objective reasons for holding a referendum on Britain’s exit from the European Union

The European Union is a union of European states, unique international education, combining the characteristics of an international organization and a state. All countries included
in the European Union, although they are independent, they are subject to the same rules: they have the same rules for training, medical care, pensions, judicial system, EU laws apply in all EU countries. In 2013, after Croatia joined the EU, the European Union included 28 countries.

In addition to the common political course, there is a visa-free regime for crossing state borders in a single space, and they use a single currency - the euro. As of 2016, 19 out of 28 countries recognized the euro as their national currency.

The EU economy consists of the economies of all its member countries. The EU represents the interests of each member before the world community and resolves all conflict issues. Each
the participating country contributes its share of GDP to the total share. The countries that generated the most income were France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Great Britain.

Share of GDP of EU member states

Thus, through a standardized system of laws in force in all countries of the union, a common market was created, guaranteeing the free movement of people, goods, capital and services, including the abolition of passport controls within the Schengen area.

For many reasons, Great Britain has always occupied a special role in the European Union. This is probably mainly due to the British mentality, which has developed based on geographical location. Britain is a huge island, which on the one hand belongs to Europe, and on the other hand does not. This determines the special “island psychology” of the inhabitants of Britain.

For Great Britain, the very idea of ​​giving up part of its sovereignty and transferring it to the supranational level has become a very difficult decision.

The peak of British power came in the 19th century. However, by the beginning of the First World War it had lost its economic superiority. The Second World War had a strong influence on its policy. Great Britain emerged from the war as an undisputed winner, along with the USA and the USSR, unlike, for example, Germany, which found itself in a defeated status. Thus, the people of Germany and a number of other European states emerged from the war with an awareness of the harmfulness of nationalism and a willingness to sacrifice part of their sovereignty for the sake of peace, while the people of Great Britain, on the contrary, were proud of their victorious state and sought to strengthen its position in the world. The British ruling circles still saw their country as a world power and tried to maintain its exceptional position.

Main direction foreign policy country was the establishment of a “special relationship” with the United States and the preservation British Commonwealth nations. This required, firstly, the preservation of complete freedom of action, which should not be limited by any political obligations regarding a future integrated Europe. Secondly, it was necessary to preserve the system of imperial preferences between England and the Commonwealth countries. In this regard, during negotiations on the creation of a broad integration grouping - the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), Great Britain put forward its plan, the main provisions of which were set out in a memorandum on February 17, 1957. First of all, it sought to preserve both of these principles of its foreign policy . She also insisted on maintaining the integrity of her agricultural sector, which was supported by treasury subsidies that allowed British consumers to buy food at prices close to world prices. However, this plan was not accepted by the remaining participants in the negotiations, since it provided for a more advantageous position for Great Britain in comparison with other countries.

In 1957, Great Britain did not sign the Treaty of Rome, the main document of the European Economic Community (EEC) on the elimination of all barriers to the free movement of people, goods, services and capital. In January 1960, Great Britain created its integration grouping without the participation of the main European countries: EFTA (European Free Trade Association), which, in addition to Britain, included Austria, Switzerland, Portugal and all Scandinavian countries. Subsequently, the ruling circles of Great Britain came to realize that the country's economic potential did not correspond to the status of a global power. The process of ecolonization sharply intensified, and it became obvious that further foreign trade orientation towards the Commonwealth countries had no prospects. British industry began to feel its dependence on continental Europe. Therefore, already on July 31, 1961, British Prime Minister Henry Macmillan announced the UK's intention to submit an application for accession to the EEC on terms that suit London; on August 10 it was sent to Brussels. But Charles de Gaulle was against Britain joining the EU, so the application was rejected. It was not until 1 January 1973, after new governments were formed in France and Germany, that Great Britain, along with Ireland and Denmark, was admitted to the EEC.

Britain joined the EEC with certain privileges. Thus, the country did not join the largest integration projects of the European Union - the euro zone and the Schengen agreements, which provide for the abolition of visa controls at common borders, thereby seeking to preserve elements of political and economic independence. Britain has pursued a much more selective migration policy than France and other EU members.

Despite all the privileges, there has been talk of Britain leaving the European Union since 1973, from the very moment the country entered the union. The referendum on June 23 is not the first; a similar vote took place in June 1975, when EU supporters won with 67.2 percent of the votes.

The accession did not meet with approval in the country; Labor and Conservatives presented this step to the public as forced: if Great Britain had not joined the Union, it would have lost its position in Europe. British leaders have invariably emphasized that the country has more important foreign policy tasks than participation in integration. Thus, from the beginning of its stay in the EU, the UK acted as a “reluctant partner”. For a quarter of a century, it has not put forward a single major initiative that would contribute to the development of integration. On the contrary, every time the partners came up with such initiatives, she “put a spoke in the wheels.” This position naturally led to sharp disagreements with other European countries during the preparation of the Maastricht Treaty. The British government insisted on adopting a protocol that would allow Britain not to participate in the third stage of integration - the creation of an economic and monetary union (EMU). The ratification of the Maastricht Treaty caused acute political struggle in the British Parliament: about 600 amendments were put forward to the bill proposed by the government.

The change in policy towards the EU occurred during the tenure of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. His goal was to show that the UK is a strong partner in the development of integration. The main efforts were focused on the development of a new economic strategy for the EU, the establishment of the European Central Bank and the election of its president, the early start of the functioning of Europol, and negotiations with candidate countries.

On modern stage There are many contradictions between the EU and the UK. The anti-integration sentiments of the British are associated both with the country's historical past and with relations with the European Union.

Speaking about the historical past of the country, one of the groups of people who voted “yes” in the referendum were conservative pensioners who want to keep England the same Great Britain that it was before entering the EU, with its own unique culture and customs
and traditions. In their opinion, Britain is losing its authenticity, and something needs to change radically, even if it means the country leaving the EU.

Speaking about contradictions with the EU, the main points of the British government's demands are: economy - sovereignty - migration. The very principle of supranational control over the economy, finances, and laws does not suit many people in the UK. The government has often called for loosening regulation of the European economy, limiting the expansion of the single market and giving member countries the ability to block the Brussels directives.

In addition, in the United Kingdom big influence traditionally have supporters of transatlantic cooperation: Great Britain has much more in common with the United States than with Europe in the field of law, traditions and principles of doing business. There are a large number of supporters of the need to orient the development of the British economy towards the United States. The British economy and business cycles are unique and different from those in Europe, they are more in line with the US, and in some areas the UK's ties to the United States remain closer at present. Great Britain is a state focused on the development of private property, traditional market relations, freedom, market, entrepreneurship, competition. And the EU (especially France and Germany) are states with socialist potential, with regulation, regulation, and bureaucratization. This is what is the antithesis of conservative traditional capitalist values.

One of the main requirements was also the need to recognize that the euro is not the single currency of the EU, so as not to infringe on the interests of countries outside the eurozone. The presence in most EU member countries of a single currency unit - the euro - is a weak point of the European Union. A common currency is extremely disadvantageous for countries that are economically less developed. Less competitive countries are forced to continually increase external debt because their balance of payments mechanisms do not work. A country that has its own currency can, through devaluation, increase the competitiveness of its exports and limit the volume of imports. But, for example, Greece, which introduced the euro, cannot use such methods. It turns out that while Germany is increasing its balance of payments surplus, Greece and many other eurozone member countries with less competitive economies are forced to increase debt. They have to introduce a regime of austerity, including budgetary ones, but then these less developed countries begin to intensively lose qualified specialists and save on science and education
and healthcare. And thus, in conditions free movement the labor force is further losing its competitiveness.

Another of the main arguments of Brexit supporters was the British contribution to the EU budget - one of the largest, now it is approximately 11 billion euros per year (only Germany, France and Italy pay more). Many believe that EU membership is too expensive for the country.

Residents of the UK are also not satisfied with the Common Agricultural Policy, which actually damages the UK economy, as it leads to inflated food prices and inefficient use of natural resources.

The EU has failed to unify tax policy, budget policy, and financial policy in general. Accordingly, loosely controlled movements of money and capital arise depending on which country pursues which policy. Capital goes to where there are more capacious markets, higher incomes, more qualified and highly paid workers, where more added value is created, that is, to Germany, France and several other small but highly developed EU countries. And this is also tearing the EU apart and creating inequality. different countries. It turns out that a periphery is being created within the EU, represented mainly, in addition to Greece and other countries of southern Europe, by post-Soviet and post-socialist states (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, the Baltic countries, etc.). And this periphery must somehow be supported at the expense of the EU. The problem is that the EU's political and economic model is imperfect. Such a system reflects the interests of the most developed EU member states, primarily Germany, and limits the less developed EU countries.

Disagreements also arose in the political sphere. They especially touched upon the decision-making mechanism. Regarding sovereignty, the UK's political leadership insisted on the ability to limit the effects of pan-European laws and regulations through a veto. The UK Prime Minister had sought to introduce a so-called red card system, which would allow national parliaments to veto EU laws. However, French President Francois Hollande opposed the kingdom's desire to obtain such a right, explaining his position by saying that “a country that is not part of the eurozone cannot have a veto over laws that affect its members.”

At the moment, in the question of whether Great Britain will leave the European Union following the results of the referendum, the decisive role was played not by economic factors, but by political ones. Despite the fact that the referendum was initially initiated based on purely economic motives: Great Britain considered being part of the EU unprofitable and too costly for itself. It is known that the most authoritative British Prime Minister of recent decades, Margaret Thatcher, was initially opposed to Britain’s entry into the EU. She defended, and after her other leaders of the British government, that Britain took an isolated position in the EU, did not abandon the national currency and did not switch to the euro. By and large, Britain has never been a full member of the European Union and has always experienced great fluctuations even at the level of membership that it has. Britain has been engaged in heated discussions with EU governing bodies for many years over its contributions to EU funds. But, nevertheless, a significant part of the British people still have a desire to leave the EU. And there were political reasons for this.

The main stumbling block between the EU and the UK has been social policy. This contradiction provoked D. Cameron's proposal for a referendum, who, during his election campaign for the post of Prime Minister of the country, promised to achieve new conditions for Britain's membership in the alliance and in the future raise the question of the feasibility of the Kingdom's membership in the EU.

An integral part of the process of pan-European integration is the development by EU member states of a common immigration policy. The problem is that traditionally immigration policy has been the responsibility of the national government and has been linked to security and national sovereignty. A common immigration regime involves coordination of the tasks, goals, priorities and scope of immigration policies of the participating countries.

Until recently, supporters of European integration managed to prevail over their opponents, the main argument was the contribution of immigrants to the economy. In particular, immigrants
from of Eastern Europe in the period from 2001 to 2011. paid $7.9 billion more in taxes to the British budget than they received from it. But data from a special study carried out by Eurobarometer in 2006 showed that the problem of immigration was brought to the fore in the UK. The main reasons are competition from immigrants for jobs, government services, social housing, education or health care. Moreover, according to respondents, it is decided this problem should be at the national level. This creates a contradiction between international obligations and public demands.

In 2012, David Cameron, speaking at the annual conference of The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), announced the need to control immigration and that he was considering introducing “quotas” or “restrictions” on entry into the country from other European countries. From the EU's point of view, such a policy is unacceptable; the UK is obliged to adhere to the pan-European immigration policy. In this regard, conflict began to grow between Great Britain and Germany. Berlin took a tough position. In particular, German Chancellor A. Merkel has repeatedly stated that she will not compromise on the issue of free movement, which she considers one of fundamental principles European integration. Moreover, she made it clear that she is ready for undesirable consequences, namely the UK's exit from the EU, if the British Prime Minister introduces restrictions on freedom of movement.

However, the UK does not agree to accept the EU principle of free movement of labor. This principle showed its negative sides against the backdrop of the migration crisis: in 2015, according to Eurostat data, 1.25 million refugees arrived in Europe, which was more than twice the level of 2014 (562.68 thousand). And these are official statistics - that is, figures for those who received refugee status.

In turn, demands for benefits for migrants and a highly complicated extradition process strengthen the position of Brexit supporters. Thus, labor law London does not like the EU due to its lack of flexibility and excessive focus on numerous social benefits.

Despite the fact that before the referendum, Cameron held negotiations with the European Union, as a result of which the UK managed to negotiate a number of “bonuses”: Brussels agreed to carry out reforms in the field of the economy, competitiveness, strengthening British sovereignty and immigration, the majority voted for the UK to leave the EU.

The country's choice of “for” leaving the EU is also explained by the fact that the EU no longer represents a strong and successful association. The European Union was once perceived as a promising organization in geopolitical, socio-economic and cultural aspects. However, at this stage the EU is experiencing a systemic crisis. The financial crisis, economic decline, which has been ongoing for many years, spiritual crisis, the destruction of moral values, the growth of radical sentiments in society are no longer considered accidental.

At the heart of the project's collapse Greater Europe lies precisely in the uncertainty of the policies pursued by the West throughout for long years. Experts note that when the EU collides with crisis situations European politicians cannot take an objective and constructive approach to the current situation.
Despite the fact that the EU has achieved fairly large economic and technological successes, against the background of this progress, the crisis in the spiritual sphere of society is deepening. This tendency, along with all spheres of public consciousness, also manifests itself in political consciousness. So, if among young people such mental states, such as parasitism, depression due to unemployment, radicalism, intolerance towards other cultures, Islamophobic tendencies are becoming more and more apparent among politicians. And instead of looking for solutions to the problems that have arisen within, there is a growing tendency in official circles to look for the enemy on the sidelines.

Attempts are being made to blame other countries for fabricated issues. The EU, under various pretexts, is trying to interfere in their internal affairs, while hiding behind beautiful phrases such as democracy and human rights. By doing this, the organization further aggravates internal problems instead of solving them.

Thus, it is very profitable for the UK to leave the EU, because it never entered the European monetary system and the Schengen area. Today it is a powerful international financial center. And tomorrow it could become a country that will be the center of a separate Atlantic autonomous civilization.

The UK has a huge zone of states that are part of the commonwealth, where, in fact, the Queen is the head of these countries: Canada, Australia, the UK has a strong position in India, not to mention the fact that it controls the zone of offshore banking, including Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Barbados and others. More and more members of the UK government are focused on following their own geopolitical and geo-economic path.

The main objective reasons for Britain's exit
from the European Union we can highlight:

• EU social policy towards migrants and the principle
  on freedom of movement of labor;

Possible geopolitical changes and consequences associated with the UK's exit from the European Union

The European Union has never been homogeneous economically, politically or culturally. IN last years this heterogeneity only grew.

The sharpest moment The rationale crisis that followed the eurozone debt crisis has already led to a sharp decline in solidarity within the EU. Migrants are once again testing the strength of the European Union: illegal entries into the EU in violation of national norms and Schengen rules, violation of Dublin criteria. In almost all these issues, the leadership of the EU countries followed the lead of migrants and expressed their readiness to change the existing migration rules. At the same time, society
and government agencies in most European countries are completely unprepared for the integration of migrants. The continuation of the indecisive policy of the European authorities seriously undermines the effectiveness of the existing European legal system, as well as the very idea of ​​European integration.

The existing model of the European Union is far from perfect.

The EU needs serious modernization, or it will always be in a state of crisis and tend to collapse.

In the European Union there is a very cumbersome and a complex system decision-making, where all countries must make major decisions by consensus. And this is becoming increasingly difficult to do as the European Union expands. The system is becoming extremely bureaucratic and ineffective in terms of management. The UK vote transforms the configuration of forces in Europe and calls into question the entire future of the European Union in its current form. The association considered the most attractive integration project, including for the post-Soviet space, where everyone wants to enter and no one wants to leave, has lost the image of the political dream of the peoples.

The referendum caused a great stir in society, and two diametrically opposed groups emerged. Both groups use different media resources. Many illustrations have emerged of both supporters and opponents of Britain leaving the EU.

The UK's exit from the EU will have positive and negative consequences in the future both for the country itself and for the European Union.

In terms of foreign policy, Britain will lose its influence in Brussels, Paris, Berlin. The British government has always seen the EU as an important tool for pursuing its foreign policy goals. After the referendum, the UK will lose this resource.

On the other hand, the EU without Great Britain will become weaker in the sense that Europe will remain represented by France alone in the UN Security Council. For Great Britain itself, Brexit does not matter in this regard; Britain will still remain a key member of NATO and the UN Security Council, and, what is incredibly important, a nuclear power.

The EU may become less active on the world stage due to Brexit. For example, without the UK, the EU will be less likely to use sanctions as a tool of pressure on countries such as Russia. The UK has always been one of the most active supporters of the use of EU sanctions as instruments of influence on undesirable countries. Thus, after the annexation of Crimea, Prime Minister David Cameron determined that Russia must pay for this action. His support for sanctions against Russia was instrumental in convincing other member states that they must bear some economic costs to put pressure on Russia. In addition, due to the UK's exit, the EU's position in Asia, already weakened by the Eurozone crisis, will be weakened further. It may also turn out that due to Britain's exit, ASEAN countries will no longer see the EU as a model for regional political integration. Additionally, the loss of the EU's second largest economy will reduce the EU's bargaining power in free trade negotiations with countries such as Japan
and India.

It is clear that Britain's departure will increase Germany's predominant influence in the EU. At the same time, this may increase suspicions among member states regarding the growth of German hegemony. Brexit will worsen the “German problem” in the European Union. Without Britain, one part of the EU, led by Germany, may move towards political union, while others try to gain special status within the EU. But major steps towards Eurozone integration are highly unlikely before the 2017 French and German elections.

A chain reaction for the EU, as some experts believe, leaving the second largest economy could lead to a domino effect and the collapse of the European Union. In the Old World, Eurosceptic sentiments are intensifying against the backdrop of a severe migration crisis. Brexit could cause a chain reaction among other EU members. Thus, the leader of the French National Front, Marine Le Pen, has already called for a similar referendum to be held in France. She said a successful Brexit vote in the UK would be like the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Eurosceptics across the EU will have hope that they can prevail.

The leader of the far-right Dutch Freedom Party, Geert Wilders, made a similar statement: “We want to be responsible for our own country, our money, our borders, our immigration policies."

Switzerland gave a bad signal when it withdrew its application for EU membership. In Spain, support for the EU has weakened by 16% and now stands at 47%.

The danger for the UK if it leaves the EU is the possibility that Scotland will hold another referendum on secession from the United Kingdom. Last time, independence supporters lost by just 10%. At the time, the key argument for remaining within the UK was that Scotland, by leaving the UK, might not be accepted into the EU as an independent country.

Together with Scotland, the United Kingdom has a population roughly comparable to France and an economy slightly larger than France's, making it the third most powerful country in Europe after Germany and Russia. Without Scotland, Britain's power will be greatly weakened. Together with part of the population, Scotland will deprive the UK of significant oil reserves, and will also be able to deny the United Kingdom the opportunity to use several naval bases in the country. Having lost nearly six million Scottish residents and $300 billion in GDP, the UK will no longer rank between France and Germany, having fallen in
to the mark between France and Italy.

There are fears that Brexit will embolden Catalonia as it seeks to secede from Spain - especially if Scotland demands a new referendum on secession as a result of the exit.

Thus, leaving the EU can, on the one hand, awaken nationalist passions in EU residents. On the other hand, this step could lead to the fact that London’s geopolitical influence will significantly weaken, and the country itself will lose territory and economic potential, deprived of mechanisms for protecting its interests. The United Kingdom will no longer be able to use the influence it will have as freely as before, and the center of power will shift
from Great Britain towards France and Germany.

Concerning domestic policy, supporters believe that leaving the European Union will only strengthen democracy, as parliament will become completely sovereign. Britain will also not be subject to European laws and regulations.

On the other hand, UK residents will no longer be subject to European social and occupational safety legislation. British citizens will lose the benefit of free movement and residence in Europe.

According to official statistics, there are currently 942,000 Eastern Europeans, including Romanians and Bulgarians, working in the UK, as well as 791,000 Western Europeans. At the same time, the share of workers from non-European countries is 2.93 million people.

Supporters of remaining in the EU argue that, despite some difficulties associated with the provision of housing and public services, overall, immigration from EU countries has had a positive effect on the British economy. Brexit campaigners say immigration numbers must be reduced significantly and the only way to achieve this is to take back control of the borders and set immigration rules ourselves.

Brexit will allow the government to take back control of labor laws and the national health system. Also, a reduction in immigration should theoretically mean more jobs for people remaining in the country, but on the other hand, labor shortages could negatively affect the growth rate of the British economy.

The same can be said about wage levels: their likely increase in the event of Brexit may be beneficial to workers, but not to employer companies. Britain's exclusionary policies could result in the EU's brightest and most talented citizens being excluded from entering the country.
and employers will have to choose from a narrower pool of candidates. Of course this will have Negative consequences for the British economy.

Leave supporters say that without the EU's bureaucracy and countless rules, small and medium-sized enterprises will flourish, leading to increased employment because they trade less with other EU countries than other companies.

Opponents of exit say millions of jobs will be lost as multinational companies move production to other EU countries. This will especially affect the automotive industry, which is almost entirely owned by foreign companies.

The financial sector, which employs 2.1 million Britons, is also wary of the possible consequences of Britain's exit from the EU, since the sector's success is built on free access to the European market, and the loss of such access carries very serious risks.

From a political point of view, one of the first results of the referendum was the resignation of the British European Commissioner Baron Hill on June 25, 2016. On the evening of Tuesday 28 June, as part of the European Council summit in Brussels, a symbolic lowering of the British flag took place in front of the European Commission building.

Discouraged by the results of the referendum, David Cameron decided to leave his post as leader of the ruling party and head of the cabinet. On July 11, Home Secretary Theresa May won a victory, and on the morning of July 13 she began forming a new government. She immediately created two special ministries - for exit from the EU and international trade. Unexpectedly for many, the main Brexit supporter in the party, Boris Johnson, became Foreign Secretary. Thus, the Conservatives remained in power in order to finalize their exit from United Europe by December 2018.

From an economic point of view, being a member of the European Union has been a huge boon for the UK, given that the EU is a single trading area and therefore goods sold within it are not subject to import and export duties. The EU is the UK's main trading partner, accounting for 52% of UK exports of goods and services. A complete exit from the European Union will lead to trade barriers. This means, for example, that cars made in Britain will be subject to a 15% tariff, and cars imported from Europe will be subject to a 10% tariff.

When leaving the EU, the UK will have to renegotiate trade agreements with EU states and other countries. However, Brexit supporters say the European Union as a market is not as important to Britain as it once was, and that the ongoing eurozone crisis will only strengthen this trend.

Economist Roger Bootle argues that even if the UK fails to reach a free trade deal with Brussels, it will not be a tragedy, since it will leave Britain in the same position as the US, India, China and Japan, which have had almost no problems export their goods to the EU.

The UK will be able, through the WTO, to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with fast-growing economies such as China, Singapore, Brazil and India, as well as Russia. Much will depend on what kind of agreements the UK manages to sign with the EU and other countries. There are many options for maintaining trade ties with EU countries.

The Norwegian option: The UK leaves the EU and joins the European Economic Area, which will provide it with access to the single European market, with the exception of part of the financial sector of the economy. It would also exempt Britain from EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, law and home affairs.

Swiss option: The UK will follow the example of Switzerland, which is neither a member of the EU nor the EEA, but enters into separate agreements with Brussels for each economic sector.

Turkish option: UK can enter Customs Union with the EU, which will give its industry free access to the European market, but the financial sector will not receive such access.

The UK could also seek a comprehensive free trade arrangement with the EU on the Swiss model, but with guarantees of financial sector access to the European market, as well as some control over the formulation and implementation of common trade rules.

The UK could completely sever its relationship with the EU and rely solely on WTO rules.

In the worst-case scenario examined by think tank Open Europe, in the event of Brexit, the UK economy could lose 2.2% of total GDP by 2030. However, according to their own forecasts, when the best option By contrast, Britain's GDP will grow by 1.6% if the Kingdom succeeds in concluding free trade agreements and effectively deregulating the economy.

Thus, on the one hand, in the long term, in the event of leaving the EU, London may lose its importance as a global financial center. On the other hand, on the contrary, by becoming completely independent from the requirements of the EU, the UK could become one of the largest economic powers, like Singapore.

Speaking of macroeconomic policy in Europe, Brexit could play an important role in terms of energy policy, further strengthening German influence in this area. The UK opposes the European Commission's efforts to interfere in national energy policy for the purposes of EU energy security. Therefore, without the UK, the EU may adopt a more centralized system of regulation of the common energy market.

The UK was a pioneer in separating energy transmission from production, thereby increasing competition and reducing energy prices. It is this system that was borrowed by the EU to regulate the EU energy market and implement energy security policy. Germany, on the contrary, sought to ensure security of supply through subsidies for renewable energy sources and through long-term contracts, including with Russia. The outcome of Brexit in the energy sector could be further restrictions on the use of coal, coupled with a more centralized system for redirecting energy flows, including gas, to countries where they are needed. Here, Germany's desire to strengthen its control over the common energy sector of the European Union is clearly visible.

In particular, Germany is seeking to create a gas hub on its territory.

The Berlin-led EU could try to improve the security of gas supplies, not by diversifying away from Russian gas, but by increasing imports from Russia, including through the proposed Nord Stream 2 pipeline to create larger volumes of gas in the system, which will allow them to be pumped to Member States suffering from technical or political supply problems. Through this scheme, Germany's influence in the EU will increase.

In terms of defense policy, analysts are divided on the possible security implications of Brexit. Supporters of leaving the EU believe that open borders mean " open doors"for terrorists. And therefore, closing the borders will allow us to better control the flow of immigrants arriving in the UK.

But opponents of the exit, including some senior military officials, believe that the European Union is instead a critical element of security, especially in times of instability in the Middle East, by allowing member countries to freely share information on passengers and criminals.

UK security policy outside the EU is likely to shift towards NATO. But, on the other hand, the EU's security policy without Great Britain should shift towards NATO. The EU's Common Security and Defense Policy was created in 1999 only after Britain and France found a way to combine the EU's defense involvement with recognition of NATO's role. The French were enthusiastic about the prospects of defending the EU, and Britain then supported NATO's priority.

Without Britain, the 27 remaining member states could more easily advance the EU's common defense policy. Against the backdrop of aggravation of various kinds of crises and contradictions, the EU leadership understands that in such a situation it is necessary to be guided by their own national interests, and not the interests of the United States. There is also an understanding that further expansion of NATO will inevitably lead to the emergence of new and deepening existing dividing lines in Europe, increasing fragmentation of space European security, will further complicate relations between Russia and the EU (for example, NATO expansion, the admission of Ukraine and Serbia to the alliance). At the same time, it is obvious that NATO forces will neither be able to stop the flow of refugees nor contribute to the resolution of the Ukrainian conflict, since they were created for open military confrontation with the USSR and were never prepared to repel this type of threat.

Consequently, the countries of the European Union, given the ineffectiveness of NATO, advocate the creation of a single European army; it is possible to create a certain military-political bloc, not similar in structure to NATO. The UK previously not only criticized, but also promised to veto any proposals regarding the creation of a “European army”. This was stated by British Defense Minister Michael Fallon, arguing that there is no possibility of creating an EU army. In principle, such a negative approach by the British to innovations in EU defense policy did not surprise anyone: London has almost always been the conductor of Washington’s foreign policy.

This time, an informal meeting to discuss proposals from Germany and France will be held in Bratislava, but without the participation of Britain, so the conditions are favorable for the implementation of long-standing ideas about a European army.

The heads of the military departments of Germany and France developed new proposals to improve activities in the field of defense policy of the European Union and sent them to the head of EU diplomacy. The action plan is accompanied by a letter in which the defense ministers of the two countries express confidence that the European Union will support a strong initiative in the field of protecting European citizens and their values. The proposals concern the creation of a joint headquarters for the command of EU operations, a common satellite system and a system for the exchange of logistics and military medical resources.

The question arises why Europe needs its own armed forces when the safety of its citizens is reliably protected by NATO troops. In addition, the EU has its own military units - rapid reaction forces, numbering about 60 thousand people, ready to counter threats from outside.

Firstly, Europe is seriously thinking about restoring its prestige, since now, according to many analysts, it is just an American “vassal” who is paying with its own security for the conflicts unleashed by the United States located across the Atlantic. Having your own army would allow Western countries carry out operations themselves, bear responsibility for them and choose allies outside the European Union, including in the post-Soviet space.

Secondly, not all countries that are members of the European Union are members of the North Atlantic Alliance. These include 6 countries: Sweden, Finland, Austria, Ireland, Cyprus and Malta. According to the NATO-EU Partnership for Peace agreement, all these countries can also count on military support from the alliance. But these states try to remain neutral in relation to the bloc.

Thirdly, from an economic point of view, the creation of a unified army in Europe will significantly reduce military costs. Experts have already calculated that savings will amount to about €120 million. European officials are convinced that if the armies are united, funds will be distributed more rationally, and the unified army will become more combat-ready.

Thus, after Brexit, the EU loses one of its most capable European military powers and one of the few EU countries that spend 2% of its GDP on defense. Europe will become sorely lacking in opportunities to project its power and strategic assets. It is possible that Brexit could prompt EU member states to increase funding for the common European defense project. However, on the other hand, the desire to create defense structures outside NATO will decrease among a shrinking EU due to the risk of duplication and inefficient spending of funds, which prefer to save.

The EU is now actively working towards applying common market rules to the European defense industry in order to limit duplication defense programs And scientific research, as well as to increase competition and stimulate innovation. In the event of Brexit, there will be fewer supporters of competition in the military-industrial complex, and France, a supporter of protectionism for its defense industry, will gain greater influence.

NATO did not support Britain's exit from the EU. Secretary General NATO Jens Stoltenberg said that NATO needs a strong UK, a strong Europe. According to the politician, the alliance is now faced with “unprecedented security challenges, terrorism, instability and unpredictability. A fragmented Europe will only make these problems worse.” NATO is particularly concerned about the fact that after Brexit, the established system of communications between Washington and the EU, within the EU and within NATO will be disrupted.

Thus, of course, the UK’s exit from the EU can, on the one hand, have a positive impact, on the other hand, a negative impact on both the UK and the Union itself. This threatens London with a decrease in its authority in Europe. There are questions about the 1.4 million Britons living in other European countries as they lose their right to free movement within the EU, as well as the 2.5 million EU citizens living in the UK. It's getting worse economic question. Currently, more than half of British foreign trade is with EU countries. For the European Union, the exit of Great Britain could call into question the entire European project and lead to the withdrawal of other countries whose populations also do not sympathize with integration.

Conclusion

On June 23, 2016, a referendum was held in the UK to decide whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union or leave it. The majority voted by a small margin to leave the European Union. This event was called “Brexit”.

In launching the process of the collapse of the EU, several factors overlapped - from economic to social, in addition, the issue of identity arose. That is why the process of disintegration of the EU in its current form can be considered inevitable.

Great Britain has always occupied a special place in the European Union. This is even due to the geographical position of the country, which is separated from the continent and is located on big island. For Britain, it is conceptually unacceptable that the EU is built on a federal principle, as a federal superstate. This robs Britain of its traditional belief in British identity and British sovereignty. Britain cannot be a purely European country because it is not a continental state. Also, for many years, the UK and the EU have had disagreements over a large number issues in different areas.

The main objective reasons for Britain's exit from the European Union can be identified:

• Great Britain's reluctance to subsidize weaker economies and support other states and entire nations;
• EU social policy towards migrants and the principle of free movement of labor;
• economic disagreements on a number of issues; the principle of supranational control over the economy, finances, laws;
• EU agricultural policy;
• labor law focused on social benefits;
• growing instability in the world; dissatisfaction of the population with the solution to the security issue;
• systemic crisis of the European Union: financial crisis, economic decline, spiritual crisis, destruction of moral values, growth of radical sentiments in society.

The result of the referendum was a serious challenge for many in the United Kingdom and the world. In this regard, the UK will inevitably face a number of problems. Firstly, there is serious uncertainty regarding how to further build relations with the European Union, how to exit. There has been no precedent yet, and the exit procedure itself is complex and unregulated. Secondly, the referendum demonstrated the obvious vulnerability and need to modernize the British constitutional and political system. Existing state institutions and management mechanisms that have been formed over centuries are clearly failing today. Britain is a country of representative democracy, and the referendum is an institution of direct democracy. The fact that it is being used more often than ever shows that traditional institutions are increasingly failing and the British political elite is trying to find some alternative sources of decision-making.

This is also a colossal challenge and a shocking precedent for the European Union. Even before the referendum, many country leaders stated that the example of Britain and the outcome of the referendum would be a kind of guideline, that perhaps a number of other EU countries would think, if not about holding a referendum, then at least about bargaining for themselves certain specific conditions following the example of Great Britain. The list of such countries is quite wide. From the point of view of its impact on globalization processes, this is a colossal blow to the reputation of the European Union, which has long been considered an exemplary form of integration processes. This is an important signal that the European Union must actively intensify its modernization processes - from developing some common strategic goals and objectives to reforming existing institutions and bodies.

Britain's exit from the European Union will also mean an economic reorientation. In terms of the economy, the UK has always insisted on a fairly liberal and open policy. Whether EU countries will be able to resist protectionist aspirations without Great Britain is a serious question. EU membership also implies a single market. This is a form of integration, including the free movement of goods, works and services, capital, and labor resources. The UK's exit from the EU implies for the country the loss of such privileges and an increase in customs duties. In some cases, it will be necessary to create special subdepartments from scratch, because the country will have to conclude a new trade agreement with 27 countries of the European Union. There is also the option of searching for new agreements with the EU as a whole, but for each item in the trade turnover structure.

The results and consequences of the referendum are different. Everything will depend on the diplomatic steps of the UK, decisions of the EU and Eurozone member countries. But the vote was held, supporters of leaving the EU won. Now only time will tell where this will all lead.

Links

1. Britain's exit from the European Union: website. URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit_of_the_UK_from_the_European_Union (date of access: 10/09/2016)
2. Shaparov A.E. Immigration policy of Great Britain: legacy of the past - problems for the future // Problem analysis and public management design. - 2010. - No. 6.
3. What are the consequences of Britain leaving the EU?: website. URL: http://www.bbc.com/russian/uk/2016/02/160217_britain_and_eu_brexit_debate (access date: 10/13/2016)
4. Koksharov A. Exacerbation of island syndrome // Expert. - 11/17/2014. - No. 47

List of sources

1. Ganiev T.A., Shur V.G., Onishchuk S.M. Special regional studies. Factor analysis. Electronic textbook. M.VU, 2016.
2. Sakantsev A.E., Onishchuk S.M., Burmistrov A.A. Special regional studies. Electronic tutorial. M.VU, 2016.
3. Ganiev T.A., Sakantsev A.E., Burmistrov A.A. Special regional studies. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. M.VU, 2016.
4. Shemyatenkov V.G. European integration. - M., 2003.
5. Shishkov Yu.V. Common market: hopes and reality. - M., 1972.
6. Shemyatenkov V.G. Quovadis Europa: The European Union before a historical choice // Europe. Yesterday Today Tomorrow. - M., 2002.
7. Shaparov A.E. Immigration policy of Great Britain: legacy of the past - problems for the future // Problem analysis and public management design. - 2010. - No. 6.
8. Koksharov A. Exacerbation of island syndrome // Expert. - 11/17/2014. - No. 47.
9. Shaparov A.E. Immigration policy of Great Britain: legacy of the past - problems for the future // Problem analysis and public management design. - 2010. - No. 6.
10. Dejevsky M. Angela Merkel Has Exposed David Cameron’s Graves Failing as a Politician // The Guardian. - November 3, 2014.
11. Koksharov A. Exacerbation of island syndrome // Expert. - 11/17/2014. - No. 47.

Vasilyeva Ksenia

Since the fifties of the twentieth century, the European Union has existed, which today unites 28 countries of Western and Central Europe. The process of its expansion continues, but there are also those dissatisfied with the unified policy and economic problems.

Map of the European Union showing all member states

Most European states are economically and politically united in a union called “European”. Within this zone there is a visa-free space, a single market, and a common currency is used. In 2019, this association includes 28 European countries, including regions subordinate to them, but located autonomously.

List of European Union countries

At the moment, England is planning to leave the European Union (Brexit). The first prerequisites for this began back in 2015-2016, when it was proposed to hold a referendum on this issue.

In 2016, the referendum itself was held and slightly more than half of the population voted for leaving the European Union - 51.9%. It was initially planned that the UK would leave the EU at the end of March 2019, but after discussions in Parliament, the exit was postponed to the end of April 2019.

Well, then there was a summit in Brussels and Britain’s exit from the EU was postponed until October 2019. Travelers planning to travel to England should keep an eye on this information.

History of the EU

Initially, the creation of the union was considered only from an economic point of view and was aimed at connecting the coal and steel industries of the two countries - and. The head of the French Foreign Ministry stated this back in 1950. In those years, it was difficult to imagine how many states would later join the association.

In 1957, the European Union was formed, which included such developed countries as Germany, and. It is positioned as a special international association, including the features of both an interstate organization and single state.

The population of the European Union countries, having independence, should general rules, regarding all spheres of life, domestic and international politics, issues of education, health care, social services.

Map of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, members of the European Union

Since March 1957, this association has included: In 1973, the Kingdom of Denmark joined the EU. In 1981, it joined the union, and in 1986.

In 1995, three countries at once became members of the EU - and Sweden. Nine years later, ten more countries were added to the single zone -, and. Not only is the process of expansion going on in the European Union, but in 1985 it left the EU after gaining independence, joining it automatically in 1973 as part of, since its population expressed a desire to leave the association.

Together with some European states, the European Union also included a number of territories located outside the mainland, but related to them politically.

Detailed map Denmark showing all cities and islands

For example, along with France, Reunion, Saint-Martin, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Mayotte and French Guiana also joined the union. At the expense of Spain, the organization was enriched by the provinces of Melilla and Ceuta. Together with Portugal, the Azores and Madeira entered into an alliance.

On the contrary, those that are part of the Kingdom of Denmark, but have greater political freedom, did not support the idea of ​​joining a single zone and are not part of the EU, despite Denmark itself being a member of it.

Also, the accession of the GDR to the European Union occurred automatically with the unification of both Germanys, since the Federal Republic of Germany at that time was already part of it. The last country to join the union (in 2013) became the twenty-eighth EU member state. At the time of 2019, the situation did not change either towards increasing the zone or towards reducing it.

Criteria for joining the European Union

Not all states are ready to join the EU. How many and what criteria exist can be found out from the relevant document. In 1993, the experience of the association’s existence was summarized and uniform criteria were developed to be used when considering the issue of entry next state into the association.

Where adopted, the list of requirements is called the “Copenhagen Criteria”. Topping the list is the presence of principles of democracy. The main focus is on freedom and respect for the rights of every person, which follows from the concept of the rule of law.

Much attention is paid to developing the competitiveness of the economy of a potential member of the Eurozone, and the general political course of the state should follow from the goals and standards of the European Union.
EU member states, before making any significant political decision, are obliged to coordinate it with other states, since this decision may affect their public life.

Each European state wishing to join the list of countries that have joined the association is carefully checked to ensure compliance with the “Copenhagen” criteria. Based on the results of the survey, a decision is made on the country’s readiness to join the Eurozone; in case of a negative decision, a list is drawn up, according to which it is necessary to bring the deviating parameters back to normal.

After this, regular monitoring is carried out over the implementation of the requirements, based on the results of which a conclusion is made about the country’s readiness to join the EU.

In addition to the common political course, there is a visa-free regime for crossing state borders in a single space, and they use a single currency - the euro.

This is what the money of the European Union looks like - the euro

As of 2019, 19 out of 28 countries that are members of the European Union supported and accepted the use of the euro on their territory, recognizing it as their state currency.

It is worth noting that not all EU countries have the euro as their national currency:

• Bulgaria - Bulgarian Lev.
• Croatia - Croatian kuna.
• Czech Republic - Czech crown.
• Denmark - Danish krone.
• Hungary - forint.
• Poland - Polish zloty.
• Romania - Romanian leu.
• Sweden - Swedish krona.

When planning trips to these countries, it is worth taking care to purchase local currency, as the exchange rate in tourist areas can be very high.

The main idea when creating the European Union (EU, European Union) in 1951 (then the European Coal and Steel Community) was to organize a single platform for trade and economic cooperation between 6 states without the risk of military action from each other. The European Union itself was legally established when the Maastricht Treaty was signed by 12 states in 1992. Countries within the EU are independent, but are subject to common laws regarding education, health care, pensions, justice and other systems.

Definition and objectives of the European Union

The European Union is a unique organization that integrates European states, who signed the accession agreement, with the aim of improving the lives of their citizens in all spheres of public life.

Goals of EU activities in different areas:

1. Human rights and freedoms:

• promoting the preservation of peace and welfare of peoples;
• ensuring citizens freedom, security and legality;
• promoting and protecting one’s interests in relations with other countries.

1. Economy:

• creation of a common internal market;
• maintaining healthy competition;
• socially oriented market economy;
• promoting employment;
• social progress;
• improving the quality of the natural environment;
• scientific and technical progress.

1. Social sphere:

• combating discrimination, including gender discrimination;
• social protection of the population;
• ensuring justice;
• protection of children's rights.

If the founding countries of the EU were aimed mainly at creating a common market for steel and coal, which would solve the problems of employment in these industries and increase production efficiency, today the aspirations of the European Union have expanded significantly.

The European Union is called upon to ensure maximum cohesion and solidarity of the Commonwealth countries in terms of economic development, territorial organization and social order.

EU member states are obliged to respect the richness and diversity of each other's national cultures, as well as to ensure the protection of objects of pan-European cultural heritage.

List of EU countries for 2019

Since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, the European Union has been actively developing: the number of participating countries is increasing, a single European currency is being introduced, and changes are being made to treaties. To find out how many countries there are in the EU in 2019, you need to analyze the number of countries that joined the 12 EU states after 1992:

• 1995 – plus 3 countries (Austria, Finland, Sweden);

• 2004 – plus 10 countries (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Cyprus, Malta);
• 2007 – plus 2 countries (Bulgaria, Romania);
• 2013 – plus 1 country (Croatia).

Thus, the number of countries in the EU in 2019 is 28.

overdue loans non-repayment.rf

Speaking about which countries are part of the EU, in addition to those listed above, we will name the following:

• Germany;
• Belgium;
• Italy;
• Luxembourg;
• Netherlands;
• France;
• Great Britain;
• Denmark;
• Ireland;
• Greece;
• Spain;
• Portugal.

A standardized system of laws has been adopted on the territory of the European Union countries, a common market has been created, and passport control has been abolished within the Schengen zone, which also includes some other European countries that are not members of the EU.

All EU member states are obliged to coordinate their political decisions with other members of the union. The monetary currency of the European Union is the euro. To date, 19 EU countries have introduced the euro into circulation, thereby forming a single eurozone.

Economy of the European Union: features and principles of operation

The economy of the European Union is made up of economic systems all 28 participating countries, the level of which varies significantly. At the same time, weaker states are supported through the effective redistribution of funds and resources between countries. This happens through a common treasury, to which each state contributes its share of funds depending on the volume of gross domestic product (GDP). This policy is one of the main principles of the functioning of the EU (the principle of cohesion or cohesion).

On the one hand, such coordination of the economy promotes social integration in the labor market, prevents and reduces unemployment, eliminates regional imbalances in the European Union, on the other hand, it can lead to aggravation and mutual accusations of donor and recipient countries.

Thus, the most developed EU donor countries, that is, those who invested more funds into the treasury than they received from there, which in 2015 were Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Austria and Cyprus, were unhappy that the new members of the Union actually live at their expense. This fact, as well as the increase in cheap labor coming from Eastern European countries, were one of the main reasons for the UK's intention to leave the EU.

The UK's exit from the EU: the situation for 2019

Brexit (from two words: Br - Britain - Britain, exit - exit), which was activated by Great Britain during the referendum on the country's membership in the European Union in 2016, is expected in 2019-2020. There is a two-year transition period, so in 2019 Britain is still an active member of the EU.

Possible consequences of Brexit

Globally, Brexit could have a negative impact on official development assistance (ODA) as Britain's contribution to the EU budget decreases and the EU is the world's fourth largest ODA donor.

The UK's financial sector will be damaged by restrictions on freedom of movement and trade following Brexit. Predicted reasons for this: problems in the tourism industry and the outflow of qualified personnel. Brexit could also result in a significant reduction in the incomes of the working population - according to experts, losses British families will amount to almost one and a half thousand euros annually.

Another possible consequence of Brexit is the separation of Scotland from the UK. As you know, back in 2014, the Scots raised the issue of secession from Britain, and the votes for and against were then divided almost equally - 44.7% and 55.3%, respectively. And since Scotland, unlike England, intends to remain in the EU, Brexit may speed up the process of gaining independence.

Causes and consequences of the 2017 referendum in Catalonia

The main reason for modern separatism in Catalonia, one of the richest and most developed regions of Spain, lies in the dissatisfaction of the local government and the population with the distribution of state budget funds. The catch is that Catalonia pays significantly more into the country's general treasury than it gets back.

On October 1, 2017, the Catalan authorities organized and held a referendum on Catalonia’s secession from Spain. However, the country's authorities declared this procedure illegal. Despite the actions of the Spanish police aimed at blocking the vote, the poll still took place. 43% of voters managed to vote, of which 90.2 were in favor of secession, and 7.8% were against.

The Spanish authorities never officially recognized the results of the referendum. Instead, the then-current Parliament of Catalonia was dissolved, the Generalitat led by leader Carles Puigdemont was removed, and early parliamentary elections were scheduled for December.

To date, it has not been precisely determined which party will form the government. However, according to experts, Madrid is committed to an uncompromising resolution of the conflict in favor of preserving the integrity of Spain.

Copenhagen EU accession criteria

Accession to the European Union is not available to all countries. Only states that clearly meet the Copenhagen criteria adopted in 1993 at the EU meeting in Copenhagen can count on membership in the EU. So, within the applicant country they must:

1. Comply with the principles of a democratic state governed by the rule of law.
2. Have a market economy capable of competing in the European market.
3. Recognize the rules and standards of the European Union.

Negotiations are held with a candidate country for accession to the EU, then checks for compliance with the above criteria. Based on a thorough analysis of the data, a decision is made on the possibility (or impossibility) of membership in the Union.

Countries applying to join the European Union

Among those wishing to join the EU are not only developed countries, but also countries with developing economies. In 2019, the following official candidate countries for accession to the EU were identified:

1. Türkiye – application since 1987.
2. Macedonia - 2004.
3. Montenegro - 2008.
4. Albania - 2009.
5. Serbia - 2009.

Accession negotiations are already underway with three of these countries – Turkey, Montenegro and Serbia. All candidates except Turkey have signed an association agreement, which usually precedes EU membership.

And finally, the most interesting thing is the restriction of travel abroad for debtors. It is the status of the debtor that is easiest to “forget” when getting ready for your next vacation abroad. The reason may be overdue loans, unpaid housing and communal services receipts, alimony or fines from the traffic police. Any of these debts may threaten to restrict travel abroad in 2018; we recommend finding out information about the presence of debt using the proven service nevylet.rf