Is Finland part of the European Union? European Union (EU): general characteristics. Criteria for joining the European Union

The European Union is an association of 28 European states. They created a common economic and political space. The motto of the European Union is “Concord in diversity”, which implies common work for the common European good and prosperity. At the same time, a wide variety of cultural traditions and languages ​​have a positive effect on this process.

History of creation

The idea of ​​​​creating the “United States of Europe” in the post-war period was voiced by Winston Churchill. The first German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Luxembourg politician Joseph Bech, Italian Prime Minister Alcide De Gasperi and other famous European politicians are also considered the founding fathers of the European Union.

The year of creation of the prototype of the European Union is considered to be 1951, when, according to the plan of Schuman (French Foreign Minister), the “European Coal and Steel Community” was created. The agreement was signed by Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. The positive experience of joint regulation of the two industries led to the creation of the European Economic Union in 1957. The name "European Union" (abbreviated as European Union or EU) appeared after the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992 by 12 countries. Gradually, other states of Western and later Eastern Europe joined it.

What is the Eurozone? Who is included in it?

In 1999, the EU moved to the fourth stage of economic integration. After the free trade zone, the common market, and the customs union, a monetary union began to operate. It included 19 EU countries, which formed a zone with a single euro currency.

The Vatican, Andorra, Monaco, and San Marino, which are not members of the EU, officially joined the Eurozone under the agreement. Without a treaty, Kosovo and Montenegro use the euro. At the same time, Great Britain and Denmark have so far abandoned the euro, and 7 EU countries (Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden) have promised to introduce a common currency in the future.

List of EU member countries for 2018

Today the EU includes the following countries:

• Austria
• Bulgaria
• Belgium
• British Kingdom
• Germany
• Hungary
• Greece
• Italy
• Spanish Kingdom
• Denmark
• Ireland
• Lithuania
• Latvia
• Republic of Cyprus
• Malta
• Kingdom of the Netherlands
• Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
• Slovenia
• Slovakia
• Poland
• Finland
• French Republic
• Portugal
• Romania
• Croatia
• Sweden
• Czech
• Estonia

Seventeen EU countries received EC aid to support farmers due to drought

Seventeen of the 28 EU states have taken advantage of the European Commission's help by requesting that farmers receive a series of advance payments from the EU budget to support them due to this summer's severe drought, European Commissioner for Agriculture Phil Hogan said at a press conference after the EU Agriculture Ministerial Council.

“Seventeen EU countries have taken advantage of this opportunity,” he said, clarifying that we are talking about direct payments received in advance and funds for rural development.

The media named three EU countries in which Ukrainians most often sought asylum

According to the Statistical Institute of the European Union, in the first eight months of 2018, the authorities of Italy, Spain and Germany received the most new applications for asylum from Ukrainian citizens.

According to UNN, in Italy only in the first six months of this year, 1,515 new applications from Ukrainians were registered.

At the same time, Spain and Germany received 1,205 and 715 new applications from January to August 2018, respectively.

Ukrainians also submitted 180 applications to Poland in eight months.

The countries of the European Union did not immediately count the number in which they are represented today. The Union expanded gradually thanks to common goals and worldviews.

European Union countries - sounds proud

Europe, as a geographical location, has concentrated quite a lot of countries, or rather, all the countries of the European Union, which differ from other states in their individual high development in absolutely all directions. At the moment, the countries of the European Union 2016 are 28 independent states with their own diverse focus. Back in 1992, the EU countries determined for themselves main goals, which should positively affect not only the growth rate of each EU country in 2016, but also other countries in the world.

Full list of EU countries 2016:

Based on which countries are members of the European Union, you can roughly formulate the main positions of this union. But you should not confuse the countries of the European Union and the Schengen zone, although most states can be found in both. For example, having a Schengen visa, it is impossible to cross the border of such EU countries as: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Great Britain, Romania and Ireland. A Schengen countries Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, in turn, are not members of the European Union in 2016.

Why there was a goal to unite the countries of the European Union 2016

The idea of ​​creating a list of EU countries in 2014 arose immediately after the end of World War II. The countries of the European Union were supposed to be exclusively capitalist in nature. Countries belonging to the European Union began to unite looking at the created NATO, Soviet Union and the Council of Europe.

At first, the EU countries pursued a purely economic goal and declared themselves a coal and metallurgical association in 1951 in Luxembourg. But already 1957 presented the countries of the European Union as states nuclear powered. It was 1957 that became the primary reason for the creation of the modern European Union.

Since 1951, today's countries of the European Union 2014 have been “growing up” gradually. With the entry of each state, the union became stronger and stronger. As a result, the countries of the European Union began to play a significant role in foreign relations in 2013; they began to adopt common laws and regulations. The countries of the European Union, the list of which is presented above, have become powerful political and economic association with its own unique strategy and views on current events in the world.

1973 is the time when Great Britain decided to join the European Union, followed by Denmark and Ireland.

1981 was the year Greece rejoined the union.

1986 became a landmark year for countries such as Portugal and Spain.

1995 was the year of the unification of the former European Union with Sweden, Austria and Finland.

2004 - the accession of Malta and Cyprus, as well as those countries that were in the past socialist camps and former Soviet republics: Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia.

Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007, followed by Croatia in 2013.

Now knowing for sure what countries are in the European Union today, we can say that the population here is 500 million people. Of the existing 28 states, 17 of them have entered the Eurozone, where the euro is considered the formal sole currency.

EU COUNTRIES. LIST OF EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES 2016.

Which states are part of the European Union, which are in Schengen, and which are in the euro area? An interesting situation has developed in Europe: there is integration, but each country is trying to assemble its own construction kit according to its choice. That's why there are several collective farms here. The most advanced option is when the state is simultaneously a member of the European Union, the Schengen area and the eurozone.

We need to clarify a little what gives the state entry into a particular community.

The list of EU countries today is quite impressive (table below). Today the European Union (until June 2011, the Western European Union) is, simply put, a similarity former USSR. It was formed back in 1948 as a counterweight to the USSR. There was a second compelling reason: preventing the revival of an independent Germany after the Second World War. And now Germany has been given the honorable right to be the locomotive of the economy of the entire European Union, so as not to get rich, but this is a topic for a separate difficult conversation.

Of course, there are still many differences with the Soviet Union. For example, the lack of a single currency. But there is also a lot in common: there is practically a federal structure based on common legislation, there is a common treasury from which you can draw. Single central bank (ECB), single customs area. Centralization as a command-administrative government - limits are lowered from above on the area under crops, for example.

This is how they are trying to increase the profitability of agricultural producers. As a result of this policy, the Czech Republic almost lost its vegetables, and in return increased the volume of rapeseed cultivation. And then subsidies for rapeseed, the oil from which it became fashionable to add to diesel fuel, began to decline. Now in the Czech Republic and neighboring countries you won’t find mayonnaise with sunflower oil as before.

Most successfully, these countries managed to develop a common foreign policy. In this area, perhaps, there is the least disagreement. Who to execute and who to pardon is decided very unanimously in Brussels. Although, in last years this mechanism began to slip. The economic crisis has cooled the belligerence of European governments, or rather, made them less decisive and friendly. And sanctions against the Russian Federation were adopted amid the groans of some members, for whom the loss of eastern markets threatens economic degradation.

EU executive bodies are European Commission , headed by a chairman, and European Council, consisting of heads of member states. Legislation is regulated by the European Parliament, in turn with its President, and the Council of the European Union.

Look, here is the Central Committee of the CPSU, and the Politburo, and the Supreme Council, and party congresses, and Secretary General, and the chairman of the presidium! True, parliament is organized on a multi-party basis.

And here Constitution The European Union does not have one yet. Partly due to its complexity political structure, not understood first by the peoples of the Netherlands and France, and later by Ireland and the Czech Republic. Currently, the members of the union have managed to adopt the so-called Lisbon Treaty. This document is intended to simplify the procedures and bureaucratic structure of the organization and subsequently adopt a unified Constitution

EU fiscal structure

Customs borders between EU countries are conditional. Internal customs points as such have been abolished, but state customs offices have switched to a mobile version of the service. In the Czech Republic, on the main transit routes you can often see customs service minibuses monitoring passing vehicles.

Movement EU citizens within the community are free, but labor markets are regulated by separate provisions, requiring, for example, obtaining a work permit.

All VAT (value added tax) payers in the European Union are combined into a single electronic database. In the Czech Republic, to find out whether a company or entrepreneur is a VAT payer, you can go online to the electronic register of VAT payers of the Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic. The information is open. To obtain it, it is enough to enter the TIN of the business entity.

EU members determine many things for themselves, for example, tax rates. Thus, VAT rates in European Union countries are regulated only at the minimum level of the basic (base) rate. Investigations, legal proceedings, codes may differ significantly in different states of the community.

The amount of deductions from the wage fund is not regulated at all within the union. Therefore, social payments and contributions to health insurance funds vary significantly across EU countries.

Schengen Union - many countries, one visa

Some European countries at one time wished to establish a community based on the Schengen Agreement on a common external border. What can I say, a very convenient structure, which citizens of the states of the former USSR, with the exception of the Baltic states, can only envy. Today you can drive several thousand kilometers along European roads without encountering border guards.

Is it true, mobile control remains, it works. This should be remembered by those foreigners who receive in their passports not a Schengen visa, but, for example, a national visa type “D”. With such a visa, you can travel outside the state only if you have additional visas from those states that are intended for travel.

Euro area

The Czech Republic is included in the EU and Schengen list of this triumvirate, but is not included in the eurozone for the reason that citizens do not want to introduce the euro in the Czech Republic. And after the fall of 2008 they no longer really want to. So neighboring Poland, too, due to the economic crisis, sharply slowed down its elegant train, just at that moment running towards the euro at full speed. Somehow they immediately became tired of it.

To make it convenient for my reader, and often for me when writing notes, let us have this table at hand.

Table 1. EU countries, Schengen area and Eurocurrency area for 2015

Third states

Czech laws regulating immigration to the Czech Republic often use the term "third state nationals" With the sign posted above, it is now much easier to figure out who is who. All states that are not on the plate are within the meaning of Law 326/1999 Sb. “On the stay of foreigners on the territory of the Czech Republic”, are just called third. The exception in the table is Liechtenstein, which is also “third”.

Table 2. History of the development of the eurozone

Association Agreement with the European Union

There is also an extensive list of non-EU states with which the European Union has signed association agreements on a bilateral basis. A textbook example of this type of relationship is Turkey, which has been eager to join the EU since 1963, when the Association Agreement between Turkey and the European Union was signed. It developed three stages, the implementation of which would allow Turkey to join the EU.

Each such agreement is a long, painstaking work of hundreds of people from different sides. It’s no wonder, the EU was not established for charitable activities. Currently, the leaders of the union are concerned about two things: where to put their goods in order to ease deflation, and how to protect their labor market from the influx of newcomers, and the crisis only spurs the solution of these problems.

Looking at the list of states associated with the European Union, you understand that if a country like Turkey has not been accepted as a full member of the EU for so many years, then many others will not be able to do so for decades. Last year, Turkish politicians, in particular Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, spoke in the spirit that, they say, everything is clear, they’ll wait a little longer, and that’s it for this project...

The list is not exhaustive of this type of agreement. There are also such types of contractual relations as an agreement on a customs union, on free trade (regular and expanded), and neighborhood policy.

Table 3. Associated members of the European Union

European Union and the common market

Today the European Union is a kind of liberal federal formation, which made it possible to unite approximately 500 million people into a single market. Despite the fact that not all states wished to enter the single currency zone, one way or another they are firmly tied to the euro.

The presence of such a huge consumer market makes it possible for the economies of EU countries to benefit, especially industrialized ones that have a high share of technological goods in industrial production(Germany, France).

At one time, the USSR carried out almost lightning-fast industrialization, won a difficult war, and then reaped the laurels of the past for a long time after the failed Khrushchev reforms. This also happened because the Soviet Union a short time created his own grandiose common market, which included not only his republics, but also the Warsaw Pact countries. Commodity flows within such a large and populous territory were gigantic, and the industry of these countries produced most nomenclature independently. In modern terminology, a return to such an economic model is called import substitution.

Labor markets within the European Union are divided like the Warsaw Pact. But statistics show that, unlike the former USSR, now the leading EU countries are striving to obtain maximum benefits for themselves. For example, to close a number of industries in newcomer states, to reduce plantations of agricultural crops that were so common among newcomers. Buy up existing enterprises, banks, telecom operators, transport.

If the Czech Republic or Poland were able to negotiate preferences for themselves and preserve industry and energy, then the accession to the EU, for example, of Bulgaria, the Baltic and Mediterranean states, weakened their economies and undermined labor markets. Numerous streams of citizens of these states rush abroad in search of work, and at this time their enterprises either go bankrupt or gradually become the property of citizens of wealthier states.

I am curious to what extent EU politicians are able to continue to evaluate the experience of the Soviet past, without paying attention to the ideological background of that government structure? So far they have been doing a good job of scaring the average person with the Soviet communist dictatorship, while at the same time copying, to one degree or another, the structure of the collapsed socialist camp.

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, plays an important role in the work of the EU, UN and NATO, and ranks among the first in the world in terms of GNP. In this regard, it is important for military specialists in foreign countries to correctly analyze and evaluate the ongoing socio-political processes in a country such as Great Britain, to objectively study and understand the economic, social, political, ideological and military processes occurring in it, to draw reasonable practical conclusions and assessments in 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 residing 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, a unique international entity that combines 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 education, medical care, pensions, and the judicial system; the laws of the European Union 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 her policy. World War. 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.

The main direction of the country’s foreign policy was the establishment of “special relations” 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 the 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.

At the present 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 country's historical past, one of the groups of people who voted “yes” in the referendum were Tory pensioners who want to keep England the same Great Britain that it was before joining the EU, with its own unique culture, 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 the developed countries begin to intensively lose qualified specialists, 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 also tears the EU apart and creates inequality between 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 the desire to leave the EU. And there were political reasons for this.

The main stumbling block between the EU and the UK has become social politics. 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 Eastern Europe between 2001 and 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, this problem should be solved at the national level. This creates a contradiction between international obligations and public demands.

In 2012, David Cameron, speaking at annual conference The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has said it needs to control immigration and is 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, London does not like EU labor law 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. European Union was once perceived as a promising organization in geopolitical, socio-economic and cultural aspects. However, on at this stage The EU is experiencing a systemic crisis. The ongoing financial crisis, economic decline, spiritual crisis, destruction of moral values, and the growth of radical sentiments in society are no longer considered accidental.

The collapse of the Greater Europe project lies precisely in the uncertainty of the policies pursued by the West over many years. Experts note that when the EU encounters crisis situations, European politicians cannot treat the current situation objectively and constructively.
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. Thus, if mental states such as parasitism, depression due to unemployment, radicalism, and intolerance towards other cultures are increasing among young people, 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.

Main objective reasons UK 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 recent years, this heterogeneity has only increased.

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.

The European Union has a very cumbersome and complex decision-making system, where all countries must make the most important 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.

C political point In 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 forecasts, in the best case scenario, Britain's GDP, on the contrary, will grow by 1.6% if the Kingdom manages to conclude free trade agreements and implement effective deregulation of 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 result of Brexit in the energy sector could be further restrictions on the use of coal, coupled with more centralized system 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 their own army would allow Western countries to conduct 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 the application uniform rules market 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. NATO Secretary General 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, which 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, 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

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 that have signed an accession treaty with the goal 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 richness and diversity national cultures each other, 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 required to harmonize 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 consists of the economic systems of all 28 member 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