Brexit, or exit of Britain, is a term used to connote the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union or EU. Before this author proceeds to discuss the technicalities of Brexit issue, one needs to see the EU’s structure and its effect on the member states. The European Union is an economic-political structure of 28 states which serves as a single market amongst the member states. The history of European Union goes back to 1958 whereby the European Economic Community (EEC) was formed with a view to promote the interest of the member states. The first treaty which was signed between the states was the Rome Treaty in 1957 which was later replaced by the Maastricht Treaty of 1993 which established the present European Union. The European Union is a highly complex structure which is run by the appointed bureaucrats rather than elected representatives. The laws which are passed by the European Parliament are binding upon the member states and the states have no say regarding the laws made by the parliament. The purpose of EU was simple – it was meant for the collective distribution of resources which is better illustrated by the proverb “United we stand, divided we fall.” This ideology is good so long as there is collective betterment of people but as soon as there is contentment amongst the masses, there is a definite fall. In my humble opinion, fall can be of Britain from the European Union. In 2009, Lisbon treaty came into being which gave the right to the member states to withdraw from the European Union. Article 50 of the said treaty states that any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements and the decision to withdraw shall be notified to the European Council. Before the Lisbon treaty, there was no such provision regarding the withdrawal of any member state. The said treaty may come with the intention that many member states may be better off without the Union and now this provision is of great help to the UK. The question which could be asked is that what if Article 50 of Lisbon treaty was not there? According to the principles of International Law, a treaty has to be abided in good faith but thanks to God, now we need not debate this question. The Britain’s intention to leave the Union was solidified on June 23, 2016 when 52 per cent of the population voted to leave the European Union in the referendum. But what made the people of Britain to leave the Union whose very purpose was to benefit the States? I think it was neitherBritain nor its people that were against the Union but the very policies of the Union which had made the public to opt out of the Union. The problem in Britain, in fact in the whole of the Europe was that of National Security, Income Inequality, Immigrants, Low Income, and Rising Prices etc. Now if analyze the policies of the European Union, it becomes clear that they are pro-capitalist and anti-poor which is the reason that 52 per cent population voted to exit. The European Union had made the cartel among the member states as no international product can come into the territory because of the complexities in the trading process and it is a fact that when there is no competition then there is a lack of innovation and prices of commodities are high. This cartel broke after the WTO came into being as members of WTO have to accept the rules and no cartelization is possible. These all are peripheral issues but the major question is what will be the effect of Brexit on the World economy and that of Britain and why Britain decided to leave the EU?

Soon after the news of Britain leaving the EU came, the market crashed and there was a sense of uncertainty in people. History has it that when one country breaks the treaty then the other countries follow suit and this can be a bad trend for the Union.. It can also be problematic for the states who want to stay in the Union as it will not remain strong with decreasing membership. The unprecedented step by the Britain was taken only after the condition had deteriorated in the whole of Europe as the economies were facing slowdown and jobs were scarce. It was an unnecessary burden in the sense that by being a part of the European Union, Britain would have had to share  responsibility in the immigrant crisis, which was taken after the influx from the Middle East, whereby the tax payer’s money was used to set off the burden in a collective manner. The resentment among the masses grew when their hard earned money began to be used for the purpose that had no relation with their lives. Secondly, the immigrant crisis is not only bad in the sense of economic repercussions but also from the standpoint of national security. Under the European Union, the information regarding the terrorist activities and their movements was shared among the member states so if Britain would opt out from the European Union, then what would have happened to the Intel they had received from the 28 countries. But one of the arguments against it is that, whether United Kingdom needs someone’s help in order to protect itself? Every country has its own way of intelligence gathering and methods to cope with it, then coming short of information cannot be an excuse so as not to exit the European Union.

It cannot be denied that when one is out of a group then question of self-reliance is of major importance. As Britain exits the European Union, it is hard to sustain itself in the coming days because of the fact that Britain’s major goods market was EU and without the EU market, where will they dump off its goods? Though, Britain can establish itself outside the European countries but when ties are already broken, it is hard to regain or establish those ties again. The problem which lies with UK is of self-sustenance and how to merge the markets of Britain with the rest of the world without the help of existing market of EU. Even if UK is able to do that, it will take years to materialise.