ECONOMIC COSTS OF UK LEAVING EUROPEAN UNION: COSTS INVOLVED FOR EU AND UK

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 97 - 131, 30.11.2020

Murat Pütün

Öz

Birleşik Krallığı temsil eden siyasetçiler, özellikle Muhafazakar Parti kanadından olanlar, çoğu zaman Birleşik Krallığın Topluluk içerisindeki konumunu ve aynı zamanda Topluluğun kendisini eleştiren bir tutum sergilemişlerdir. Bu karşı tutum, Ekonomik ve Parasal Birlik projesinin Delors Raporu ile deklare edilmesinden sonra daha da yoğunlaşmıştır. Birleşik Krallık EPB projesine bilinen nedenlerden dolayı karşı idi ve uzun bir pazarlık sürecinden sonra, EBP’ in dışında kalmayı garanti altına alan bir antlaşma elde etmeye muvaffak oldu. Diğer taraftan, 1990’lardan itibaren uzun süre gündemde olan AB genişleme süreci; memnuniyetsizlik eksenini genişletmiş; ülkenin aldığı yasal göç, AB’ne sağladığı finansal katkı, ve diğer konular Birleşik Krallığın siyasi gündeminin ağırlığını temsil etmiştir. Maastricht süreci, Birleşik Krallığın Federatif bir Avrupa yönündeki muhalif tutumunu artırmıştır. Muhafazakar Parti liderliği, Kendi partisi içerisinden geldiği belirtilen baskılar altında, Birleşik Krallığın AB içerisindeki üyeliğinin gelecekteki yerini belirleyecek bir referandum kararını açıklamıştı. Muhtemel bir ayrılık senaryosu kurgusu içerisinde maliyetin paylaşımı Birleşik Krallık ve AB üyesi ülkeler ve AB üyesi olmayan fakat AB’ne ticaret antlaşmalarıyla bağlı olan ülkeler arasında çok taraflılık ilkesi çerçevesinde gerçekleşmek durumundadır. Belirgin maliyetlerin ticaret, yatırım ve işgücü hareketliliği ve finansal sektörlerde ortaya çıkması olası görülmektedir. Diğer taraftan politika koordinasyonu konusu, Birleşik Krallık ve AB üyesi ülkelerin politika yürütücüleri arasında ortaya çıkan diğer bir uyuşmazlığın boyutuna işaret etmektedir. Bu çalışma, Birleşik Krallığın AB’den muhtemel ayrılığı durumunu analitik ve eleştirel çerçevede incelemektedir. Birleşik Krallığın ayrılmasını destekleyenler büyük oranda bunun getirileri üzerinde yoğunlaşırken, bu çalışma potansiyel maliyetlerin önemli yer tutmakta olduğunu ve sağlanabilecek faydaları aşacağı beklentisini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Brexit, Avrupa Birliği, Gümrük Birliği

BİRLEŞİK KRALLIĞIN AVRUPA BİRLİĞİNDEN AYRILMASININ EKONOMİK MALİYETLERİ: AB VE BİRLEŞİK KRALLIĞA YÜKLENECEK MALİYETLER

Öz

The UK politicians, particularly those of Torry party line, have often been critical of UK’s position in the Community as well as the Community itself. This stance of opposition had been intensified soon after the Delors Report’s manifestation of Economic and Monetary Union project. UK was against EMU for obvious reasons and after a long negotiation process managed to obtain an opt-out deal. On the other hand, the prolonged EU enlargement process from 1990s onward have broadened the focus of complaints; legal migration to UK, UK’s financial contribution to EU and some other issues have had dominated British political agenda towards EU. Maastricht process had intensified UK opposition towards federal Europe. Conservative leadership, amidst the alleged pressures from within its own ranks, had announced the launching of a referendum on the fate of UK’s future membership in EU. Under a possible Brexit scenario, the spread of costs has to be shared multilaterally between UK and EU member countries and; between UK and non-EU member countries which have linked to the EU with trade agreements. Visible costs are likely to emerge in the sectors of trade, investment, labour movement and financial sectors. On the other hand, the theme of policy coordination presents another channel of division between policy makers of UK and EU and member countries. This study examines a possible UK exit from EU within descriptive, yet through analytical and critical perspective. While the proponents of Briexit largely capitilazed on benefits, this study affirms that the potential costs are significant and expected to outweight benefits.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Brexit, European Union, Customs Union, Cost- Benefit Analysis

Kaynakça

• Baier, S.L., Bergstrand, J.,H., Egger, P., McLaughlin, P.A, (2008) ‘Do Economic Integration Agreements Actually Work? Issues in Understanding the Causes and Consequences of the Growth of Regionalism’, The World Economy 31(4): 461-97.
• Bank of England (2015), “EU Membership and Bank of England”, Sank of England, 2015.
• Begg, I. (2013), “EU Budgetary Policies” in “The UK &Europe: Costs, Benefits, Options. The Regent’s Report, 2013, P.34, Regent’s University, London.
• Boltho, A., Eichengreen, B (2008), ‘The Economic Impact of European Integration’, CEPR Discussion Paper No. DP6820
• Brunow, S, Nijkamp, P., Poot, J (2015), ‘The Impact of International Migration on Economic Growth in the Global Economy’, Handbook of the Economics of International Migration, Volume 1B, pp. 1027-1075
• Buckwell, A., (2016), Agricultural implications of Brexit,Worshipful company of farmers, 2016.
• Center for Economic Performance (2016), “BREXIT 2016, Policy analysis from the Centre for Economic Perfornance, the London School Economics and Political Science, June 2016.
• CER (2014), ‘The final report of the CER commission on the UK and the EU single market’
• Congdon, T. (2012), How much does the European Union cost Britain? 2012 Edition, Essex: UKIP
• Crafts, N. (2016) ‘The Growth Effects of EU Membership for the UK: A Review of the
• Eicher, T., Henn, C (2008), ‘In Search of WTO Trade Effects: Preferential Trade Agreements Promote Trade Strongly, But Unevenly’, Working Papers UWEC-2008-22-FC, University of Washington, Department of Economics
• European Commission (2011), “Attitudes towards the EU in the United Kingdom”, Analytical Report, March 2011.
• Eurostat (2015), European Labour Force Survey, Eurostat, 2015.
• http://www.globalbritain.org/BNN/BN62NoNeedtobelongEUtoTradewithit.pdf (20.08.2017)
• Global Counsel (2015), “BREXIT: the impact on the UK and the EU, Global Counsel, 2015.
• House of Commons (2013) ‘Leaving the EU’, Research Paper 13/42, 1st July.
• http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06077#fullreport (15.10.2017)
• http://www.globalbritain.org/BNN/BN65Costof EUmembership.pdf (25.09.2017)
• http://www.globalbritain.org/BNN/BN68GrowthExportsImports[1].pdf (25.09.2017)
• http://www.globalbritain.org/BNN/BN80PinkBook12pdf.pdf (20.09.2017)
• http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2012/buchan_swiss_norway_11oct12-6427.pdf (15.10.2017)
• https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/eu-speech-at-bloomberg (10.10.2017)
• Minford, P. (2015) ‘Evaluating European Trading Arrangements’, Cardiff Economics
• Pain, N., Young, G., (2004) ‘The Macroeconomic Effect of UK Withdrawal from the EU’, Economic Modelling 21: 387-408. 78
• Performance Election Analysis No. 1.
• Stiftung, B., (2015), “Brexit-Potential economic consequences if th U.K. exits the EU”, Future Social Market Economy, Policy Brief, 2015/05.
• Wadsworth, J. (2015) ‘Immigration and the UK Labour Market’, Centre for Economic
• Wadsworth, J., Dhingra, S., Ottaviano, G. And Reenen, J.V. (2016), “Brexit and the impact of Immigration on the UK”, in BREXIT 2016, Policy analysis from Centre for Economic Performance, L.S.E., 2016, (p.37), CEPBREXIT.
• Zangana, A., (2016), The implications of the UK voting to leave the EU,Senior European Economist &strategist