Answer to a Question: Results of the British Referendum on Leaving the European Union

Answer to a Question

Question:

A referendum was held in Britain on 23/06/2016 regarding remaining in or leaving the European Union. The result was approximately 52% in favor of leaving. Following this, British Prime Minister Cameron announced his resignation, though his government would remain for three months... Was the referendum result contrary to what Cameron wanted? What are the economic and political effects of Britain's exit from the European Union? Is Britain's exit now settled, meaning there is no way back for Britain? Furthermore, is there a role for America in this matter? May Allah reward you with goodness.

Answer:

To clarify the picture and identify the most likely situation regarding the issues raised in the question, we review the following:

1. Since the 2008 economic crisis, Britain has constantly highlighted its problems with the European Union and how the Union does not work in Britain's favor. Prime Minister David Cameron explained the British position toward the European Union in a speech at the Davos Summit in January 2016, saying: "The EU has become increasingly unpopular in Britain. We need the referendum to address the concerns people in Britain have about Europe: ideas like too much legislation and too much bureaucracy... and the idea that the Union could become little more than a single currency club; which we do not agree with... and the idea that Europe is really thinking of a political union, a political union that Britain has never been comfortable with. Britain has never been satisfied with the idea of being part of a political union. We are a proud and independent country, we have independent and democratic institutions that we are proud of, and they have served our interests well. We want to be very clear that these are our affairs. Europe is independent nation-states coming together to cooperate and work together for mutual benefit, but it is not an ever-deepening political union that the British people do not want and will not sign up for." (Gov.uk, 21 January 2016). Accordingly, he entered into negotiations during last February with the Europeans and achieved most of what Britain wanted: maintaining Britain's national identity so it does not integrate politically into the Union, thus keeping its entity independent from the Union; the Schengen Agreement does not apply to it, so its borders remain without undesirable restrictions; the Union recognizes its currency, the Pound Sterling, so it does not enter the Eurozone; and restricting European arrivals to Britain from the right to receive certain benefits and free housing until they complete 4 years of residence in Britain.

Upon signing the agreement, Cameron announced he had achieved the desired results, saying, "The deal reached with European Union leaders gives Britain a special status within the Union." (BBC, 20/02/2016). Cameron had also demanded the EU "grant national parliaments of member states greater powers so that these parliaments, including the English Parliament, have the right to veto or cancel European Council decisions," but the Union did not agree to this request. Britain achieved a lot, but it wanted to make EU decisions and laws non-binding for Britain, allowing it to object to whatever it wished and accept whatever it wished, so that the European Union would have no authority over it. This is what the English want: to make the Union very weak with no authority over its members. Britain, as usual, wanted to benefit from the Union without being bound by its laws and was using the issue of the referendum and exiting the Union as a means of pressure and blackmail to gain privileges. As is known, Cameron, in his election campaign, had promised if he succeeded in the 2015 elections, he would conduct this referendum, following Britain’s habit of waving the referendum to achieve special privileges by frightening the European Union and other member states of the political and economic chaos created by a decision to exit!

Britain's policy of threatening a referendum to achieve gains from the Union is not new; it has been around since the early years of Britain entering the components of the Union. Britain has been a member of the European Economic Community since January 1973, and retaining its currency, the "Pound Sterling," and staying outside the "Schengen" area were symbols of the special status Britain continued to enjoy despite its membership in the EU. It used the idea of a "referendum" on its stay in the Union as a means to blackmail European countries to achieve more exclusivity for Britain within the Union; it conducted a referendum in 1975 to improve the terms of its stay in the Union, in which the British voted in favor of remaining in the European Economic Community.

This current referendum is not an innovation among British referendums to achieve its purposes, even if they are malicious purposes! The Conservative Party proceeded with it shrewdly, with party men managing both the remain and exit campaigns simultaneously!! At the head of the remain campaign was the British Prime Minister himself, and at the head of the exit campaign was MP Boris Johnson, the former Mayor of London, who resigned his position to take a safe Conservative seat in Parliament in a London Conservative area, for the possibility of being the future Prime Minister. Similarly, the current Justice Secretary, Michael Gove, also led the exit campaign. Cameron announced "that the date for the referendum on Britain's stay in the European Union was set for June 23, 2016, following a government meeting. Cameron stressed in a brief statement in front of the government headquarters again that Britain 'will be stronger, safer, and more prosperous within a reformed European Union'." (Monte Carlo, 20/04/2016). Despite his support for the deal, he did not commit his party to support it. While Cameron said that "choosing to leave the Union in Thursday's referendum would represent a 'huge mistake' and would lead to 'a state of uncertainty for up to a decade,'" Justice Secretary Michael Gove told the Sunday Telegraph that Britain would become a "progressive beacon" if it left the Union. Gove said: "Citizens must vote for democracy and Britain must vote for hope." (BBC, 19/06/2016). Thus, British Prime Minister Cameron and a group of his party leaders formed a camp supporting Britain's stay in the Union, while his Conservative Justice Secretary Gove and a group of Cameron's other ministers were coordinating the "Brexit" campaign with former London Mayor Boris Johnson, a well-known leader in the Conservative Party.

Deep reflection on the policy of the ruling Conservative Party led by Cameron regarding the mentioned referendum indicates that Cameron expected the results to be inconclusive, such as being equal, leading to a back-and-forth debate that would allow for a re-run or use these inconclusive results as a basis for new negotiations with the Union. This is why the Conservative Party itself was managing both the stay and exit campaigns. Neither campaign was truly serious about staying or leaving as much as they were serious about the referendum being a path to achieving additional concessions from the Union. This is supported by the fact that Cameron, despite supporting the deal, did not obligate his party to support it; if he were serious about staying, he would have asked his party to support him and vote for staying, and the result would have been strongly in favor of staying. But he let it divide itself in the voting because the goal was not to obtain a majority for leaving or staying as much as it was what we mentioned earlier. This is also supported by what appeared from the leader of the exit campaign, Johnson; if he were truly serious in his campaign and the referendum resulted in leaving, his statements would have continued as they were in his campaign before the referendum against the Union. However, the tone of his statements changed and became closer to a policy of staying! Johnson said in a speech on Monday after the referendum result that the United Kingdom is "part of Europe" and that cooperation with neighboring countries "will intensify," noting that Britain's exit from the Union "will not be rushed" (http://www.almodon.com/arabworld/2016/6/28/). Even his partner in the exit campaign, Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) who previously split from the Conservative Party and was the biggest supporter of Britain leaving the EU, said in his first speech in the European Parliament after the referendum: "Why don't we grow up and be pragmatic, sensible, and realistic? Let's reach between us a reasonable deal of customs exemption, and then you will realize that the United Kingdom will be your friend, that we will trade with you, cooperate with you, and be your best friends in the world. Let's do it sensibly, and let us set off to pursue our global ambitions and the future" (The Telegraph, June 28, 2016). This indicates that what the Conservative Party was planning—both its pro-exit and pro-remain wings—was not necessarily leaving or staying, but rather creating a state of pressure on the Union to negotiate more concessions by having an inconclusive referendum result, such as being equal, to provide room for a re-run or to use these results as grounds for new negotiations with the Union.

However, the "calculation of the field did not match the calculation of the threshing floor," and the result came with a 52% majority for leaving. Here was the shock! Britain wants to remain in the Union to benefit from its advantages, especially the economic ones, while at the same time not being disciplined by its laws! Therefore, throughout its journey in the Union, it has been "troublemaking," threatening with referendums, procrastination, objection, and creating problems, and many of its maneuvers were successful. But this time, the "jar did not come back whole"! Britain cannot actually leave the Union by cutting ties with it because it would then be close to death... At the same time, it touts the opinion of the majority which, according to the referendum, necessitates leaving... Therefore, it is in a state of confusion and has fallen into the evil of its own deeds!

2. Shock swept through Britain and Europe, and even beyond them, due to the result of the British referendum "Brexit" held on Thursday, 23/06/2016, after opinion polls had indicated the voters' approval in Britain to remain in the European Union. Although the referendum result had a violent impact that went beyond Britain to the European Union itself and others, the greatest impact was in Britain economically and politically:

• Economically, confidence in Britain and its economy was shaken minutes after the results were announced, as the value of the Pound fell by 10% against the Dollar and 7% against the Euro. Shocks occurred in European and Asian financial markets; Reuters reported on 28/06/2016 that "the result of the referendum... led to the wiping out of three trillion dollars from the value of global stocks, and trading is still characterized by volatility even with policymakers pledging to protect their economies." Britain pushed the Governor of the Bank of England to calm the situation by saying "there is sufficient liquidity worth 250 billion pounds and that he will not hesitate to take extreme extraordinary measures" (BBC, 24/06/2016). Global credit rating agencies Standard & Poor's, Moody's, and Fitch lowered the British debt rating; statements were published saying: "The British debt grade was reduced from 'AAA', which is the best, to 'AA', meaning it was reduced by two notches... This is the first time this has happened to Britain." These agencies indicated that "the uncertainty that will follow the result of the referendum will lead to a significant slowdown in the short term... a political atmosphere that does not allow for predicting its developments and is less stable and less effective... and the possibility of holding a referendum on Scottish independence" (AFP, 27/06/2016). The International Monetary Fund warned of a sharp drop in real estate prices. As for the British Treasury, it said that "real estate prices could fall by between 10% and 18% compared to what prices would have reached during the following two years" (BBC, 24/06/2016). British Chancellor George Osborne, "whose attempts to calm the markets fell on deaf ears, announced that he would be forced to cut spending and increase taxes to ensure financial stability. Companies have announced a freeze on new hires and the possibility of laying off employees, which shattered voters' hopes that the British economy would flourish outside the European Union" (Reuters, 28/06/2016). Some companies immediately announced urgent plans to move their branches from London to other cities within the European Union, and the FTSE index fell by more than 8% immediately upon opening, "its biggest one-day loss since 2008" (Al-Jazeera Net, 24/06/2016).

All of this means that Britain has been harmed by the referendum result, and this is a bad indicator for it if it leaves the Union definitively, as it is already suffering from the repercussions of the financial crisis that erupted in 2008. It benefits greatly from the European Union, as we mentioned in the Answer to a Question on 02/05/2016: "Britain also benefits economically from the European Union, and this benefits its companies and its wealthy elite; Britain's economy is dominated by services, and the main service in Britain is financial services. Britain exports few goods but relies on financial services for income, capital, and foreign currency. Also, the EU Single Market means that Britain can export without trade restrictions to all of Europe, which benefits large companies and the wealthy elite. Thus, leaving the EU loses it this position and leads to political problems in the country. Because the EU is Britain's main trading partner, leaving the Union while it is a European country weakens its position in Europe... this is in addition to the fact that in this case, it will need to challenge the EU from the outside, and this weakens its influence in the Union. Its influence while inside it is much stronger and more effective..." We said in the same Answer to a Question: "In March 2015, the UK won a lawsuit against the European Central Bank in the European Court of Justice, where the ECB tried to move the Eurozone clearing function into the Union; such a step could have excluded London, while Paris and Frankfurt would become more attractive as financial centers, which would weaken the economic position in Britain..." If this is added to what resulted from the Panama Papers leaks regarding the reduction of British tax havens, as we clarified in the Answer to a Question about the Panama Papers dated 05/05/2016... all of this makes Britain, with the exit referendum, like someone shooting themselves in the foot! If the exit is actually implemented, Britain will lose the advantage of London being a financial center, and Frankfurt in particular—the financial capital of the Union—will be more attractive than London as a financial center. Thus, Britain's losses will be heavy and catastrophic.

• Politically, the British referendum has had a profound effect on the cohesion of the peoples of Britain itself. The people of Scotland voted decisively to remain in the European Union, as did Northern Ireland. Now, these peoples are demanding referendums on their stay within Britain, meaning the unity of Britain itself has become questionable. This was not planned by Britain; one of Cameron's most prominent domestic achievements was his success in preventing Scotland's exit from Britain in the 2014 referendum, and Britain thought the Scotland issue was closed for a long time. But after the British referendum on 23/06/2016, it has returned to the forefront strongly. Scotland's First Minister Sturgeon stated immediately after the referendum results emerged that circumstances had changed after the 2014 referendum when Scots voted in favor of remaining in Britain, and that Scotland would initiate negotiations with the European Union regarding its stay within the Union, which is difficult to achieve without becoming independent from Britain. Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, announced on Sunday that "the United Kingdom that Scotland voted in 2014 to stay in no longer exists," noting that it is "very likely" that a new referendum will be held after the British voted to leave the European Union. (Middle East Online, 26/06/2016). As for Northern Ireland, which is Britain's weakest flank, "the Sinn Fein party, which is considered the political wing of the IRA, called on Friday morning for a referendum on a united Ireland. This call came after the British voted to leave the European Union, according to final results. The Republican party confirmed that the referendum on the European Union 'has massive consequences for the nature of the British state'" (France 24, 25/06/2016)... Thus, the British referendum to leave the European Union has made the disintegration of Britain a topic of discussion among politicians again in Northern Ireland, as well as in Scotland.

Accordingly, the results of this referendum have created pressures that threaten to dismantle Britain, as well as likely economic losses. All of this confirms that the winds of the referendum have gone against what Britain desired, and that it—Britain—has fallen into the trap of its own schemes and has become a victim of its confidence in its own shrewdness. The days since the vote have shown scenes of unprecedented political confusion in Britain's modern political history, alongside a state of severe disorder that affected both the government and the opposition, to the point that the New York Times headlined on Monday, 27/06/2016: "A country famous for its political and legal independence descending into chaos," commenting on what Britain is suffering after the referendum!

3. Therefore, it is expected that Britain will procrastinate strongly in implementing the exit in the near term; it might even take years, if it exits at all, given its skill in malice and deception... What has appeared and become clear from statements... and what the media has reported of comments... all of this makes such procrastination in implementing the referendum result more likely, and even more than that, like maneuvering around the referendum itself. The following points make this procrastination and maneuvering more likely:

a. The texts of Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon signed in 2007 provide room for the evasion and procrastination that Britain excels in through its political malice and shrewdness. This article stipulates that in order to initiate withdrawal procedures, Britain must notify the European Council, composed of the heads of state and government of member countries, of its intention to leave the Union, and then negotiate over a maximum period of two years a "withdrawal agreement." Cameron told the British Parliament: "The government will not start negotiations for leaving the Union at the current stage. The country must first determine the type of relationship we want with the EU before applying Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty." (BNA, 27/06/2016). Cameron said in a speech to the House of Commons... stressing that Britain alone decides when to start the exit procedures, saying "the British government will not activate Article 50 of the European Treaty regarding the exit of states from the Union now" (Al-Jazeera Net, 27/06/2016). Thus, the submission of Britain's request to leave can be delayed until negotiations begin! Not only that, but Cameron made his resignation not immediate, but after about three months, and the formation of a new government, which will then submit the request if it wishes. Meaning, the negotiations are entrusted to a new Prime Minister who will succeed Cameron in September 2016 when the Conservative Party meets to choose a new party leader. Cameron explicitly mentioned this in his speech after the announcement of the referendum results, saying he would resign in October and leave it to his successor to decide when to implement Article 50 (http://elaph.com/Web/News/2016/6/1096000). Also, "British Finance Minister George Osborne confirmed that no negotiations regarding Britain's exit from the European Union will be held before the formation of a new government" (Al-Jazeera Net, 27/06/2016)... Furthermore, one legal commentator explained: "The truth is that the longer the notification of Article 50 is delayed, the greater the chance of it not being activated at all. That is because the longer the delay, events will likely intervene, or excuses will be fabricated." (Why Article 50 notification matters, David Allen Green, 25 June 2016). Therefore, two European diplomats believed that Britain might never initiate its mechanism for leaving the European Union despite the British vote to do so in the referendum held Thursday. One diplomat said, asking not to be named: "My personal belief is that they will never notify the European Union of their intention to leave it." He added: "We want London to initiate Article 50 now, so that things become clear. And since we cannot force them to do so, I expect them to take their time." He added: "I do not rule out, and this is my personal belief, that they will never do it" [Arabi 21, 27/06/2016].

b. Even the issue of the referendum itself can be maneuvered around, such as searching for legal entry points to repeat it or to negotiate its terms. Although working to repeat the referendum is embarrassing for a country that considers itself an ancient democracy and claims it does not violate the will of the people, British political shrewdness and malice will not fail to find exits. This is suggested by:

i. There is an electronic petition to collect signatures from those who wish to repeat the vote: "A petition on the British Parliament website demanding a re-run of the UK's referendum on leaving the European Union collected 3.8 million signatures by 28/06/2016. The petition, launched by William Oliver Healey, states: 'We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the remain or leave vote is less than 60% based on a turnout less than 75% there should be another referendum'." (Quoted from the British Telegraph, 27/06/2016).

ii. Considering that repeating the referendum would shake the democracy that Britain prides itself on... some British legal specialists have begun mentioning other exits, saying that Parliament (the House of Commons and the House of Lords) can prevent the Prime Minister from giving notification to the EU. Lord Pannick QC (a famous public law specialist) said: "Without legislation from Parliament, the Prime Minister cannot legally give notification to the Union" (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36671629).

c. There is an external factor interested in Britain staying in the European Union to weaken it and remain a focus of tension within it. This external factor is America. "Obama visited London last April and urged the British to vote in favor of remaining within the European Union." (Al-Jazeera, 24/06/2016). This is because America wanted Britain to remain in the Union so it remains a fragile union. America realizes that Britain does not work for the benefit of the Union or for European unity; it obstructs it, disrupts many decisions, and thinks only of its own interest—it is a tool of destruction. All of this is in the interest of America, which does not want to see a strong, united Europe challenging it or competing with it on the global stage economically or politically. If Britain's exit results in the disintegration of the Union, that is in America's interest... Therefore, after the result appeared as leaving, Obama sent his Secretary of State John Kerry to Europe to mediate between the European Union and Britain and to mitigate the European reactions toward Britain. When Kerry arrived in Brussels on 27/06/2016, he said: "It is essential that we remain focused during this transitional phase so that no one loses their mind and acts without thinking." After his meeting with Cameron in London, Kerry stated: "Britain's exit from the European Union might never be realized, and London is in no hurry for that, and Cameron feels unable to negotiate the country's exit which he originally did not want... and Cameron does not want to implement Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which would trigger the exit mechanism that would last about two years... Kerry explained that London does not want to find itself outside Europe after two years before signing a new cooperation agreement... and when asked whether it was possible to 'walk back' the decision to exit and how to do so, Kerry replied: 'I think there are several ways'." (France 24, 29/06/2016).

This external factor may contribute to finding an entry point for some new relationship between Britain and the Union, as this is in America's interest as we explained earlier.

4. It seems that the European Union has begun to realize Britain's games. Britain wants to conclude an informal agreement to protect its interests based on the Norwegian and Swedish model before resorting to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to begin separation procedures. But unlike Norway and Sweden, Britain wants access to the European market while opposing the free movement of people, which is a key issue for British voters. Merkel has categorically ruled that out, as the free movement of people is one of the freedoms sanctified by the European Union, alongside the free movement of goods, services, and capital. The European Union recognizes British shrewdness; it not only rejected this idea but also banned any secret talks between any of the 27 member states and Britain. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said: "Let me be very clear, no secret attempts can be made with the British government." He made it very clear to all employees of the Commission and committees, saying: "No secret negotiations are allowed... no secret negotiations are allowed." (Evening Standard, 28/06/2016).

The European Parliament met on 28/06/2016 for sessions lasting two days. One of its first requests was for Britain to activate its withdrawal mechanism from the EU immediately according to the Lisbon Treaty to avoid any uncertainty that might be harmful and to protect the unity of the Union, as mentioned. Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, told the European Parliament: "We cannot remain in ambiguity for long. I want the United Kingdom to clarify its position immediately, not tomorrow or the day after." He ruled out any secret negotiations on the terms of Britain's exit from the EU or allowing London to determine the timetable for it, saying: "We are the ones who decide the agenda and not the one who wants to leave the European Union." (AFP Al-Jazeera, 28/06/2016). Cameron came to Brussels to attend the first European Union session and then left, where he stated: "I really hope that we establish the closest possible relations in terms of trade and cooperation in security affairs because it is good for us." (DPA, 28/06/2016). Meaning, he does not want the European Union but rather wants to pick what is necessary for Britain, which is economic and security cooperation. German Chancellor Merkel sent a clear message to London, saying: "Britain cannot, after the exit referendum, choose to keep its privileges and at the same time abandon all its duties." (DPA, 28/06/2016)... Meaning, the Europeans have made up their minds with Britain and want it to withdraw quickly before they are harmed by its withdrawal and its procrastination in withdrawing.

At the conclusion of the summit, European Council President Donald Tusk announced that "European leaders clearly told the United Kingdom on Wednesday that it cannot negotiate entry into the single European common market as it pleases after its exit from the Union, i.e., without accepting the free movement of people... there will be no tailor-made single market." He added that the first discussions after Britain's decision to leave the Union, which took place in Brussels, did not contribute to reaching results, so "we decided to hold a consultative meeting of the twenty-seven states and we will meet on September 16 in Bratislava (capital of Slovakia) to follow up our discussions...". He said: "Participants agreed that we are going through a serious moment in our common history... one clear issue emerged from our dialogue: leaders are absolutely determined to remain united." (AFP, 29/06/2016).

This does not mean that the European Union was not negatively affected by the result of the referendum, even if that effect is not of the same severity as that caused to Britain. Indeed, the European Union has been affected; it has opened a door in its countries for requests for referendums... many right-wing forces have submitted requests to their governments for similar referendums, including in France, the original core of the European Union. At the same time, the European Commission counted 32 requests from European parties for similar referendums in several European countries including France, in a way that threatens the survival of the entire European Union... The founding countries of the Union, especially France and Germany—the two large countries with the most influence—moved and announced their determination for the Union to remain and moved alongside them Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg as founding countries to hold an emergency meeting... French President Hollande said after the meeting that "Britain's exit from the Union poses a challenge to Europe" and expressed "great regret for this painful choice." He said: "The British vote to exit the Union puts Europe in the face of a serious test, as it cannot continue as it was before... it must show its solidarity and strength..." (AFP, 24/06/2016)... Germany, the second founding member, did the same. Its Chancellor Merkel expressed the position by saying: "Britain's exit is a painful blow dealt to Europe and to the mechanism of European unification." She invited French President Hollande, Italian Prime Minister Renzi, and European Council President Tusk to a meeting in Berlin on Monday (27/06/2016). She said: "The consequences will depend on us, the 27 members of the EU, to prove that we are willing and able to take quick and simple conclusions from the referendum, which could lead to further dividing Europe... Today is a turning point for Europe, for the EU, and for European cooperation. Union countries must analyze the situation and evaluate it calmly and carefully before we take the right decisions together." (AFP, 24/06/2016). Her Foreign Minister Steinmeier said following the announcement of the referendum result on the German ZDF channel: "The British government played with the European fate and lost." The Germans began to realize English malice and its bad results. The German Foreign Minister revealed the truth about Britain: that it played with the fate of the European Union and does not want it to remain sound and strong. He is one of the German politicians most aware of Britain and does not want it to remain in the Union because he realizes its reality as a tool of destruction.

The meeting of the leaders of Germany, France, and Italy in Berlin on 27/06/2016 came to confirm their insistence on the European Union remaining cohesive. They opposed any negotiations with Britain about the post-exit stage as long as London has not officially submitted a withdrawal request, so they can pressure it to submit the withdrawal request rather than leaving the matter hanging, as that has its harms on the Union. Merkel said, "We are in agreement that there will be no official or unofficial negotiations regarding Britain's exit from the European Union as long as no request for exit from the European Union has been submitted at the level of the European Council." (DPA, 27/06/2016).

However, they nonetheless realize that Britain's games and maneuvers are the cause. Therefore, the problem for them depends on their ability to continue in their union and avoid Britain's maneuvers, while it is more capable than them at political games... In any case, if the Europeans manage to get rid of Britain quickly and work on taking new measures to strengthen the Union, that will be better for them. But Britain, if it cannot find a relationship with the European Union, will work from the outside to destabilize the Union. However, it has begun to face a fateful situation due to the dismal economic situation whose bad symptoms have appeared on it, and also if its internal situation is destabilized as Scotland demanded a new referendum to exit the British Union, and Ireland demanded to exit the British Union and join South Ireland. If such things are realized, Britain is finished, as it will comprise the provinces of England and Wales only. Thus, holding the referendum was a losing bet for Britain, and its evil plot may encompass it as has appeared so far and as seen in the future based on the data mentioned above. If the European Union remains aware of Britain's games, it might be true what was said that it "becomes like the island of Hong Kong, one of its old colonies, but on the western coast of Europe and not on the southern coast of China"!

5. In total, Britain has become in a state of great confusion and in a situation it did not plan for. It is not easy for it to make the decision. Retreating from the referendum contains legal obstacles and disregard for the democracy they boast of. Completing the exit journey contains harm to Britain's interests. The era of exceptions for Britain may have passed; European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said: "Anyone who wishes to be part of the single European market must adhere to its strict rules without exception." (BBC, 29/06/2016). Given all this, it was natural for Britain to resort to procrastination and refuse to submit the exit request, hoping that the coming months would provide it with an exit that preserves the greatest part of its interests.

As for if Britain finds itself pushed down the path of inevitable exit, without any relationship with the Union, whether political or economic, and then finds itself on the path of economic contraction and political disintegration, it will most likely work by its dirty means to dismantle the European Union. Some European countries with traditional "loyalty" relations with it may respond to it. UKIP leader Farage mentioned on 28/06/2016 during a clash in the European Parliament in Brussels that "Britain will not be the last to leave the Union," hinting that Britain, upon its exit, will be followed by others... It may find help in dismantling from America because Britain's interests in that completely meet with the interests of the United States of America.

Thus, it can be said that the "Brexit" referendum has come with results contrary to what Britain planned and has created an atmosphere of ambiguity and openness to all possibilities. Britain may circumvent the referendum and "lick its democracy," but at the same time, it contains a significant amount of danger, such that it can develop to become a tool of destruction for Britain before Europe. Truly spoke Allah, the Almighty, the All-Wise:

وَلَا يَحِيقُ الْمَكْرُ السَّيِّئُ إِلَّا بِأَهْلِهِ "But the evil plot does not encompass except its own people." (QS Fatir [35]: 43)

30 Ramadan 1437 AH
05/07/2016 CE