/image%2F1027532%2F20160806%2Fob_c45e21_fb-portada)
/https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FxWwUJH70ubM%2Fhqdefault.jpg)
They paved paradise And put up a parking lot With a pink hotel, a boutique And a swinging hot spot Don't it always seem to go That you don't know what you've got Till it's gone They paved paradise ...
Big Yellow Taxi. Joni Mitchell
"...Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone."
Patricia Scotland, Commonwealth SG
The Commonwealth
Leavers say that the Commonwealth is waiting with open arms for Brexit Britain but far from uniting the Commonwealth family, Brexit would harm it as countries choose practical economic necessity over a sentimentality shared only by a few nostalgic imperialists. On the eve of the British EU referendum, no Commonwealth member, from mighty India to tiny Tuvalu, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, has come out in favour of Brexit.
Patricia Scotland from Dominica, an island country which is part of the Windward islands in the Lesser Antilles archipelago of the Caribbean Sea with 750 square kilometres and 72,301 inhabitants, Secretary-General of the Commonwealth of Nations, stressed the importance of this association made up by 53 countries all around the world being instrumental in bringing together its many small and vulnerable member states and uniting their voices in advocacy for action with those whose economies are larger and voice on the world stage more powerful. According to her, it works like a vital platform for wider political consideration of their concerns but not least in Europe thanks to the participation of its three EU members, namely the United Kingdom, Cyprus and Malta. Malta is Commonwealth Chair-in-Office and will hold the Presidency of the Council of the European Union on January 2017. Thus, what she describes as a powerful European voice for the Commonwealth trough the representation of this EU trio would be sharply diminished in case of British absence from EU institutions.
Jonathan Lis, a political consultant who advocates a more active role for Britain in global affairs and who works to change the terms of the debate about Britain’s role in Europe and in the world by providing a positive vision of Britain’s role as a leader, considers that the Brexit clamour for British free trade with the Commonwealth is being amply satisfied by the EU. Negotiations are taking place, or have already been completed, with all but five Commonwealth countries, and three of these already benefit from reduced or zero quotas and tariffs on their exports. Without the EU, a British dream of comprehensive free trade with the Commonwealth would be much further away, and far less attractive to Commonwealth countries.
The EU is the only viable route to Britain's free trade with the Commonwealth, Lis adds. There is no political will for a Commonwealth FTA, and little need for one. The Commonwealth's shared cultures can facilitate trade but are not its principal mediator, and the vast majority of Commonwealth economies, large and small, are focused on their neighbourhoods. Not only would a one-size-fits-all Commonwealth FTA prove an unwieldy, fiercely complicated distraction, it would also ignore the widely differing stages of economic development of Commonwealth members, levels of regional economic integration, and trade barriers. An FTA could also seriously disrupt trading relationships –particularly in Africa – which involve non-Commonwealth actors, as well as the evolving single markets of ASEAN and CARICOM.
The prospect of any bilateral FTAs between a post-Brexit UK and Commonwealth countries is remote in the short and even medium term. Major countries' trade negotiations with the EU could be disrupted and delayed after Brexit, but the UK will almost certainly not be a beneficiary – and indeed, could spend the next decade attempting simply to get back to the FTA negotiating positions it currently occupies.
Commonwealth countries would not prioritise FTAs with the UK alone for the same reason that they want the UK to stay in the EU – so they can have access to a market of 508 rather than 64 million people, in which their voices will be loudly heard and vocally supported. Any Commonwealth members approached by the UK would have the greater political capital and advantage, given that a separated UK would want and need to complete negotiations quickly. While the Commonwealth countries would have lost a significant proportion of the EU, the UK would have lost everything.
As a member of the EU, the UK can continue to push for trade deals that benefit the Commonwealth and open up the EU's markets, and indeed, can help to shape and improve them as well. Developing countries, in particular, will have to deal with the EU with or without the UK's involvement. It therefore remains unclear how having the UK outside such a Single Market will advantage Commonwealth trade at all. As Carolyn Fairbairn, Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry, states: “Remaining in the European Union and trading with some of our closest Commonwealth allies are not mutually exclusive – they are mutually reinforcing.” Truly, the best of both worlds, Lis concluded.
HM The Queen Elizabeth II
The Queen
The Queen has been asking her dinner companions for three good reasons why Britain should stay in the EU, according to her biographer, Robert Lacey. Here’s the answer given to HM by Hugo Dixon on behalf of the INFACT campaign team: peace, power and prosperity.
"First, peace. The EU has helped make war between Germany and France virtually unthinkable. It has provided a democratic home for former fascist regimes in southern Europe and former communist states of the Soviet bloc. As a result, we now have a 1,000 mile zone of security in every direction. That’s a powerful buffer against instability further afield.
NATO, of course, is the mainstay of our defence. But NATO doesn’t do economic sanctions, while the EU does. That helped bring Iran to the negotiating table on its nuclear programme and check Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine. Nor does NATO do counter-terrorism, an area where the EU is playing an increasing role. What’s more, Donald Trump, an anti-NATO bully, could be America’s next president. That risk makes it even more important to stay in the EU.
Second, power. Britain is one of the EU’s leaders. We don’t get bossed around in Brussels, contrary to the propaganda being peddled by the Leave camp. We can use that power to make things happen on the global stage. Last year, for example, we pushed the EU to take an ambitious stance against climate change – which, in turn, helped secure a good global deal at the Paris summit.
Our power in the EU also give us clout to cut advantageous trade deals with America, Japan and China. Looking to the future, one of our biggest challenges will be the migration crises of the Middle East, Africa and Asia. As one of the EU’s leaders we are well placed to devise and help execute a joined-up political and economic plan to stabilise our immediate neighbourhood.
Third, prosperity. The EU’s single market, which we helped create, is the world’s biggest trade bloc. Not only does it underpin our current prosperity; the best is yet to come. We are in the midst of a project to build a single market fit for the 21st century, by extending it to the digital economy, services and capital markets, These are all dynamic areas where Britain excels.
There are many other reasons why Britain should stay in the EU. But, on their own, these three make a compelling case."
Greenland
Greenland
The right of a Member State to withdraw from the European Union was introduced for the first time with the Lisbon Treaty. Article 50 TEU (Treaty on European Union) does not set down any substantive conditions for a Member State to be able to exercise its right to withdraw, rather it includes only procedural requirements. It provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement between the EU and the withdrawing state, defining in particular the latter's future relationship with the Union. If no agreement is concluded within two years, that state's membership ends automatically, unless the European Council and the Member State concerned decide jointly to extend this period.
The legal consequence of a withdrawal from the EU is the end of the application of the EU Treaties and the Protocols thereto in the state concerned from that point on. EU law ceases to apply in the withdrawing state, although any national acts adopted in implementation or transposition of EU law would remain valid until the national authorities decide to amend or repeal them. A withdrawal agreement would need to address the phasing-out of EU financial programmes and other EU norms.
Experts agree that in order to replace EU law, specifically in any field of exclusive EU competence, the withdrawing state would need to enact substantial new legislation and that, in any case, complete isolation of the withdrawing state from the effects of the EU acquis would be impossible if there is to be a future relationship between former Member State and the EU. Furthermore, a withdrawal agreement could contain provisions on the transitional application of EU rules, in particular with regard to rights deriving from EU citizenship and to other rights deriving from EU law, which would otherwise extinguish with the withdrawal.
In a referendum on 23 February 1982, Greenland decided – by 53% to 47% – to leave the then European Communities (EC). However, the 1985 'exit' of Greenland from the EC is legally speaking not a 'withdrawal' as Greenland was not a Member State of the EU but was, and remains, part of an EU Member State, Denmark. This is why its 'withdrawal' from the EC took place in the form of a reduction of the territorial jurisdiction of the Treaties through a Treaty change ratified by all Member States. Due to its former status as a colony and its geographical distance from the EU, Greenland became an 'associated overseas territory' with special arrangements with the EU, particularly with regard to fisheries – it is given access to the Single Market for fisheries' products in return for EU fishermen's access to Greenland waters