A UK exit would leave a different EU behind. The EU would lose 12.5 per cent of its population and 14.6 per cent of its earnings. The EU voting balance between the north and the south would be seriously affected. At present the northern European countries as well as the Mediterranean countries have a blocking minority vote. A UK exit would cause the northern European countries to lose that position, while at the same time Germany would lose a major northern partner. The northern European countries remaining in the EU would face an increased bill for transfers to the lesser endowed south and east. The consequences might be catastrophic if other European countries followed the UK example and if the remaining Europe simply became a selection of states without a common vision. There are reasons, as we shall explore further, to believe that this is not unthinkable. [...]

The UK dilemma

The choice of the Conservative party in the 2015 UK election campaign to promise a referendum on UK-EU membership was understandable as a means to contain the UK Independence party’s threat. However, this was a very risky bet. Ever since the Eurobarometer measurements of EU public opinion began, the UK has been the most Eurosceptic country. As Sofia Vasilopoulou states in her Policy Network paper on Britons’ mixed feelings towards the EU, “British support for membership has been persistently low over time and much lower than the EU-wide average.”  [...]

Present room for maneuver

The Cameron referendum has put the EU in a highly uncomfortable position. Very few citizens of EU countries would like to see the UK leave the EU. There is an overall appreciation in the EU for the UK presence in and contribution to the European council, the European parliament and the European commission. [...]

Yet the UK’s demands for an ever more special status come at a time when terrorism and the refugee crisis call for more from Europe as a whole, and less national sovereignty. Europe needs more burden-sharing, more migrants to deal with aging societies, more labour mobility to increase welfare, but smaller risks of exploitation of national security systems. [...]

It is therefore essential to make the referendum a starting point for a new charter for Europe. The priority is to lay solid ground for a security union, and for a union of good governance, in which corruption decreases and the rule of law (including an independent justice) is self-evident.

The risk of a domino effect

The outcome of referenda in Europe has shown to be highly uncertain, depending on mood swings in the short period preceding the elections.  Whatever is concluded in the negotiations and however fierce Cameron campaigns for the pro-Europe vote, the UK could vote to exit the EU. Even if one thinks it unlikely, it is important to take possible Brexit effects into account from now on.

Most EU member states have followed the UK with serious anti-European political parties. [...]

EU disintegration after Brexit is a serious possibility. It is then imperative to look for a positive scenario which might pre-empt the dark clouded referendum.

A positive European scenario

[...] Brexit should therefore be used to improve the current state of the European Union and thereby reduce Euroscepticism. The most direct way is to begin discussions about a fresh European charter. Authors propose that the current Dutch presidency of the EU takes the initiative before waiting for a possible Brexit in order to address concerns rising in various member states. A way to meet the challenge is to create both more and less Europe. Europeans need both less bureaucratic interference in matters that can be done and should be done by national governments and their parliaments. And europeans need to deepen essential parts of Europe like the common market, solid solidarity and reciprocity foundations, and a sense of common European identity.

Authors therefore suggest reinforcing the notion of external security and internal integrity by:

•    clarifying the notion that the EU has external borders that need safeguarding;
•    creating a European defence, a European intelligence agency and a European police force for cross-border criminality;
•    and introducing labour immigration mechanisms which address the misuse of the asylum right, a core European value.

Authors also suggest reinforcing the notion of trust in each other by taking the EU’s principles of good governance seriously. This necessitates reinforcing the European identity while respecting national identities; and installing a process for correcting deviations from the rule of law and the freedom of press, for instance by strengthening the European Court of Human Rights, tracking funding  at member state level, creating an EU prosecutor’s office, and securing the possibility of class actions when a case is lost in the European court.

With the exception of governing the openness of the European market (including internal migration) and strengthening competition, European Union decision-making would leave ample space to national parliaments. [...]

Full article on Foreign Policy