R E M A I N 48 %
L E A V E 52 %


BREXIT = Britain left the EU







  • Restrictions on immigration. Today, the UK must agree to the free movement of persons due to the free market. It is very difficult for the UK government to influence immigration into the UK. After Brexit, the UK would have more options on this issue, although there would still be some restrictions.
  • Greater control over the UK’s use of its own funds. For example, the financing of the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) accounts for roughly 40 % of the 2016 EU budget (in the ’80s, it was about 75 %). Given the small UK agricultural sector, this is not a crucial issue for the UK.  The UK could invest its funds in other areas.
  • Greater control over the efficient use of UK fundsThe EU is not efficient in the use of  financial resources.  Naturally, it is a group of many countries with different motivations and objectives, but the effectiveness of the use of funds from the EU budget is minimal. The use of EU funding is often associated with massive corruption. The UK would be more able to oversee the use of its funds. Given that the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget, other EU member states spend the UK’s money. The efficiency of the utilisation of these funds is often questionable.
  • Restrictions in the supremacy of European Law over UK Law. This is the price for integration. But the truth is that it should be reduced.
  • Limitations of the Brussels bureaucracy. The EU bureaucracy is really immense. The power of Brussels officials is vast. Very often the most important matters are decided by unelected, out-of-touch Brussels bureaucrats sitting in Brussels offices or in other European cities hundreds of miles from the UK.
  • The UK obtains its own seat and a vote at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) (which it surrendered in 1973 because of accession to the EEC).
  • The UK would regain control over the fishing rights around its coast.



  • The possibility of the secession of Scotland or the deterioration of the situation in Northern Ireland.
  • Impact on British citizens living in EU member states. There is the possibility of losing „free emergency healthcare“, but this is not 100 % certain.
  • Loss of jobs??? Some materials show figures of approximately 3-4 million workers.  However, it is very difficult to estimate how much Brexit will influence these jobs. Even if the economic situation worsens and exports decrease, we can certainly not state that 3-4 million workers will lose their jobs. Definitely not a quarter of them would lose their jobs. In our opinion, in the worst scenario, there would be an approximate 7-10% of job losses. In the case of a more moderate scenario, it would be 1-3%. We also have to keep in mind that, if Brexit happens, a certain proportion of employees from current EU member states would probably leave the UK (mainly from Eastern and Southern Europe). This could result in the fact that the possible job losses due to Brexit would be compensated for by the departure of these employees.
  • It is currently impossible to quantify the impact on the economy, but at least in the first years there would be great uncertainty about the stability of markets and the future of the UK (Scotland’s secession, level of the Free Trade Agreement with the EU, etc.).
  • Decreased security cooperation and information on criminals in Europe. The European Arrest Warrant is important for the security of the UK. Cooperation would continue, but the question is how „smooth“, fast and willing it would be after Brexit.
  • Uncertainty about the future Free Trade Agreement to be negotiated between the UK and the EU. The EU is not likely to be willing to conclude rapidly and without any problems a favourable Free Trade Agreement with the UK. It would be a precedent for other countries such as Denmark, Sweden, etc., who are also considering leaving the EU. There will be little expectation of generosity from the EU. France has already said that there would be „consequences“ for the UK in the case of Brexit.
  • Weakening of London as the financial centre of Europe and the world. However, this will only be a slight weakening. The tradition of the City of London will still be important.
Brexit umbrella

B R E X I T  for  EU






N   O   T   H   I   N   G  







  • The importance of the UK to the EU can easily be calculated in figures. The UK is responsible for 12 % of the EU budget; about 14-15 % of its economy; 19 % of its exports; and makes up roughly 12 % of the EU population.
  • The overall weakening of the EU after Brexit — more possible Russian influence in Europe.
  • Decline in the importance of the EU in international relations, international trade, security, defence, etc.
  • Impact on the EU budget, because the UK is now a net contributor. Pressure on other countries to increase their contributions to the common budget.
  • High probability of other referendums on EU departure. Other states may want to negotiate  better terms (Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Cyprus, the Netherlands…).
  • Loss of prestige in the international arena.
  • The EU would lose the large military force of the UK. At present, it is disadvantageous to be  militarily and logistically weakened. The UK is the major EU military power. The UK has a large budget for defence and defence research and development, in comparison with other EU countries.
  • A large number of people from the current EU member states (mainly from Eastern and Southern Europe) will probably leave the UK. This will mean that these workers will seek job opportunities in other EU countries, especially in Germany, France and the Netherlands. It certainly would lead to an increase of unemployment in those countries and pressure on local workers. Some employees would return to their home countries, where not all would find employment, so unemployment will increase in those countries (Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Slovakia …).
  • Other problems within the EU — more referendums for leaving the EU; negotiations for better terms — could paradoxically lead to the fact that the UK would become a safe haven in Europe. It could lead to Scotland being less likely to seek independence and to Ireland wanting even closer ties with London.
  • Brexit will cause less pressure for liberalisation within the context of discussions and the future development of the EU. Germany will not have a strong ally, such as the UK, in the case of supporting greater liberalisation within the EU. This could lead to disputes between Paris and Berlin.
  • The loss of the City of London financial centre.

We have read dozens of studies on Brexit

Some are better than others. It is fairly easy to quantify the direct financial costs of British membership of the EU. However, it is very difficult to describe the advantages or disadvantages in the case of the UK leaving the EU. This is almost impossible in the case of the financial benefits.

This is because  it is currently very difficult to predict which collaboration will continue and which will not. Never in history has such an important state as the UK seceded from European integration. Therefore, it is very difficult to predict what the situation would be like after Brexit.

David Cameron

In our opinion, one thing is certain. The conditions negotiated by David Cameron with other EU countries are very weak.

There was a good opportunity to negotiate much better conditions. This, unfortunately, did not happen.

European integration project… quite successful!

Despite all the difficulties and problems, the European integration project has been quite successful. The primary goal of European integration is to prevent another war on the European continent.

It has been 70 years since the end of World War II, and the probability of war between France and Germany, or other nations involved in European integration, is minimal. This is of course largely thanks to European integration.

Wrong and good ideas…

In our view, however, the process of European integration in recent years has been proceeding in a different direction from that which is appropriate. Some ideas were good, but were incorrectly accomplished. Some ideas were wrong from the start.

The endeavour to facilitate mutual trade between the countries of Europe, so that all European countries involved in European integration benefit, was a good idea. However, the main motivation for the UK accession to the EEC was economic, and the UK certainly did not try to participate in political integration! In a nutshell: it was an economic motivation that urged London to apply for membership. This motivation did not require the creation in Europe of a multinational unit with a common court, parliament, constitution, etc.

United States of Europe

Efforts in Europe to create the United States of Europe with a common constitution, citizenship, etc., is an utopian idea.

European integration should focus on what is successful. This is undoubtedly the area of mutual trade. Efforts to create a supranational unit are wrong, with the right of this group having more weight than the right of individual member countries.

…missed opportunity…

In our opinion, there was an opportunity to discuss the future direction of the EU, if EU member states had recognised the real and great chance of such an important EU member state seceding from this group.

It is certain that the EU would not have any positive impact on Brexit. The contrary is true. If, even in this situation, the EU fails to negotiate better terms for the UK, it is really a missed opportunity.