UK WITHDRAWAL FROM THE EU

Public International Law

Dr. Katherine Reece-Thomas

Word Count: 5,950

Critically discuss if it is legally possible for the UK to

withdraw from the EU and what the possible impact of UK withdrawal

might have on the EU and the UK's obligations under treaties

signed by the EU?

The discussion of the relationship between the European Union

and the United Kingdom is an ambivalent topic. There has been an

upsurge in Eurosceptical parties throughout the EU due to the Euro

crisis that has caused British attitudes against the EU to harden.

This essay will discuss the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from

the EU to be legally feasible. Furthermore, how the withdrawal

might impact the EU and UK obligations to EU-signed treaties. To

address this the following will be discussed: Firstly, it will

legally justify the UK withdrawal by placing emphasis on the

legislation from the Lisbon Treaty. Secondly, the possible impacts

the withdrawal might cause on the EU contrasting both negative and

positive outcomes. Thirdly, it will evaluate the UK’s legal

obligation under treaties signed by the EU by defining state

responsibility.

The UK withdrawal - is it legally justified?

This section will explore the legal justification for the

withdrawal of the EU membership by the UK. In order to comprehend

this situation, the historical background will be analysed and

treaties that justify the legality behind the withdrawal will be

examined. The alignment of the European Community began in the

1950’s with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel

Community (ECDC) and the European Economic Community (EEC). These

institutions were later to merge into the official founding of the

European Union with the creation of the Maastricht Treaty or

Treaty of the European Union (TEU) of 1993. The Maastricht Treaty

did not include a clause for members to withdraw from the European

Union. Furthermore, in 2009, the Lisbon Treaty added a withdrawal

clause reforming the TEU. Foundational to this, there was the use

of customary law, the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties and

the Greenland Treaty that demonstrates a member was still able to

withdraw legally from the union pre-Lisbon Treaty.

Customary Law

The evidence suggests that before the establishment of the

Lisbon Treaty, customary law was used for the establishment of the

Vienna Convention and the Greenland Treaty. Crawford exemplifies

this concept stating, ‘customary law may be called on to mould and

even modify treaty texts which cannot realistically be amended,

however desirable [the] amendment may be.’1 Hence, customary law

can be used for when a subject recedes from a treaty or

organization that does not have an exit clause, to create the

possibility to negotiate and facilitate the withdrawal.

Negotiation can be essential since the withdrawing party might

still make business with the association they withdrew from in the

future. Therefore, in order to create the possibility for future

relations and facilitate withdrawal customary law plays a major

role. Customary Law will be further analysed when discussing the

UK’s obligation under treaties signed by the EU.

The Vienna Convention

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) was first

written in 1969 however it became the official principle source of

international law on 27 January 1980. The treaty concluded the

rule pacta sunt servanda to be universally accepted and recognised the

significance of treaties as a tool of international law.

1 James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public international Law (8th edn, Oxford 2012) 33

Additionally, it summarised customary laws that are not

specifically stated in the treaties made between states. Hence, in

the issue of the legality of the UK withdrawal, Article 56 of the

VCLT validates the withdrawal. Article 56 of the Vienna

Convention on the denunciation of or withdrawal from a treaty

containing no provision regarding termination, justifies the

legality of the British withdrawal from the EU since in the TEU

there is no specific clause that indicates membership withdrawal.

Article 56 briefly outlines,

(1) It is established that the parties intended to admit the

possibility of denunciation or withdrawal.

(2) A right of denunciation or withdrawal may be implied by

nature of the treaty.2

Therefore, according to Article 56 (1) the UK has

demonstrated tendencies for withdrawal from the Union beginning

with the 1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership

referendum to the possible referendum proposed by British

Conservative Party for 2017. Subsequently, section two, as part of

the customary law of treaties allows for the UK to withdraw

although it is not outlined in the Maastricht Treaty since it is

presumed it can withdraw due to the nature of the law. For that

2 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [1969], s 56 (1) (2)

reason, in the principles of customary international law, the

United Kingdom may legally resign to its membership on the basis

founded by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

Greenland Treaty

Although there was no official clause from the origin of the

European Communities (EC) there was a member state that resigned

to the predecessor of the Maastricht Treaty, which was the EEC in

1985. The Greenland electorate voted on 23 February 1982 on the

withdrawal of the EEC that resulted in 52% against the membership.

The Greenland Treaty was created despite the EEC not having a

withdrawal clause. This negotiation treaty allowed Greenland to

withdraw and establish new agreements between Greenland and the

EEC. The treaty stated,

‘Denmark has submitted a proposal to the Council for the

purpose of revising the Treaties establishing the European

Communities so that they cease to apple to Greenland and

introducing new arrangements governing relations between the

Communities and Greenland.’3

This indicates that even before the formal introduction of

the Maastricht Treaty as the foundation of the European Union,

members were still able to recede from the alignment. Greenland3 Greenland Treaty [1982] s 1

withdrew officially on 1 February 1985 and it became associated as

an Overseas Country and Territory later in the formal

establishment of the EU. Hence, the United Kingdom would be able

to legally withdraw from the union because even before the Lisbon

reform and the Maastricht Treaty a member was able to leave

alliance.

The Lisbon Treaty

The Lisbon Treaty of 2009 established a new framework to make

changes to institutions and procedures. It amends the main

constitutive treaties of the European Union that include the

Treaty of Amsterdam 1997, Treaty of Nice 2001 and chiefly the

Treaty of the European Union 1993. Conventionally to the creation

of this treaty there was no formal provision that allowed member

states to withdraw from the European Union. Thereupon, Article 50

of the Lisbon Treaty allows members to withdraw from the union.

Article 50 emphasises,

a) Any member state may decide to withdraw from the Union in

accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

b) A member state, which decides to withdraw, shall notify

the European Council of its intention.4

4 Consolidated Texts of the EU Treaties as Amended by the Treaty of Lisbon [2008] art 50 (a) (b)

As expressed in Article 50 (1), the United Kingdom may

withdraw from the membership if it abides by national law.

Customarily, the British referendum to withdraw from the EEC of

1975 could potentially support the need to abide by national law

that would allow the withdrawal to be legal. This is because

national parties proposed it and called for public votes thereby,

abiding to British legislation.5 Consequently, Article 50 (2)

highlights that a member state should notify intentions of

withdrawal in which the UK has maintained that with the British

Conservative intentions for a 2017 referendum. This official

notification should notify Commonwealth partners, the President of

the United States, main government officials of European

countries, and Britain’s economic and geological partner nations,

United Nations, the World Trade Organisation, amongst others. In

addition to notification of the intentions to withdraw, section

two states that the union will have to come to agreement with the

state in question and negotiate an agreement cognisance future

legislations with the union.

Authors Mark Garnett and Phillip Lynch, highlight that the UK

‘retains the right to withdraw from the EU by repealing the 1972

European Communities Act, although the UK would have to enter5 BBC ‘1975: UK embraces Europe in referendum’ <http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/6/newsid_2499000/2499297.stm> accessed 15 January 2015

difficult negotiations with other member states to finalise the

terms of withdrawal.’ Therefore, if a member decides to leave,

they would have to negotiate an agreement with the EU that would

contain transitional arrangements for future EU relations. This

negotiation process can be found in Article 218 (3) of the Treaty

on Functioning of the European Union.

Article 218 (3) reitertes:

‘The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for

Foreign Affairs and Security Policy where the agreement

envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common

foreign and security policy, shall submit recommendations to

the Council, which shall adopt a decision authorising the

opening of negotiations and, depending on the subject of the

agreement envisaged, nominating the Union negotiator or the

head of the Union’s negotiating team.’ 6

It is possible for a member to withdraw, it is not necessary

for withdrawal agreement as long as the intention to withdraw has

been notified to the European Council. Also the withdrawal must be

done according to European guidelines as in Article 218 (3) that

would authorise negotiations and it would be done by the

6 Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2008] art 218 (3)

representative of the Union negotiator. Consequently, this

negotiation was also seen recalling the Greenland Treaty that

negotiated an agreement when they left the EC. Additionally, this

secession would take two years since it is constitutionally

obligates the EU as stipulated in the Treaty of Lisbon. During the

negotiation period upon the withdrawal, the EU Directive and

Regulations that were incorporated into the law in Britain would

still be applicable. Therefore, according to IEA, British courts

will impose the EU Directives and Regulations without a reference

to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) unless the UK Parliament

repudiates them.7

It could be argued that they did not need to include a legal

withdrawal clause to the Maastricht Treaty because it was part of

customary international law. This was previously outlined in the

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that although it was

written in 1969 and enacted in 1980. It was written before the

implementation of the 1993 TEU, thereby, it could be interpreted

that even before the exit clause of the Lisbon Treaty, the UK

possibly could have legally withdraw from the union.

Legally Justified

7 Ben Clements, ‘Britain outside the European Union’ IEA Brexit Prize (London, 31 October 2013) 10

Although it is legally possible for the United Kingdom to

leave the European Union, it does not mean it will cut all its

ties with Europe. This was illustrated in a speech by David

Cameron in January 2013, ‘If we leave the European Union, we

cannot of course leave Europe. It will remain for many years our

biggest market, and forever our geographical neighbourhood. We are

tied by a complex web of legal commitments.’8 Hence, even if they

withdraw they are bound by the Lisbon Treaty Article 50 to come to

agreements for future relations with the EU. Subsequently, based

on the legislations from the Vienna Convention on the Law of

Treaties and the Lisbon Treaty it can be argued that the UK

withdrawal from the European Union is legally justified therefore

it is possible to have a referendum to renounce membership.

What are the possible impacts on the EU if the UK withdraws?

The key aspect discussed in this section is the possible

impacts on the EU if the UK withdraws from the union. If they

8 ibid 15-18

withdraw, it will be the first time a member of the EU seceded and

it would mean that the EU would lose its largest contributors.

This will be explored by contrasting both positive and negative

impacts it could potentially cause to the union.

Negotiations

Once the UK has withdrawn from the European Union, according

to Article 50 of the TEU it has to be open to negotiations

following the framework provided by Article 218 as previously

stated. Similarly to the Greenland Treaty, the negotiations and

agreements between the UK and the EU will have a lasting effect

for both parties. Additionally, the UK will potentially have a

relationship with the EU similarly to the relationship with Norway

and Switzerland. Following the Norway or Switzerland models, the

UK will most likely join the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA),

which creates free trade arrangements with the European Economic

Area (EEA). These agreements can impact the EU’s budget and its

Monetary policy.

Budget and Monetary Policy

The United Kingdom is one the biggest contributor to the

European Union’s budget. It contributes with approximately £8.6

according to the British Treasury in 2013.9 Dr. Ben Clements,

highlights that the monthly contribution of the UK to the EU

budget can be potentially reduced if they were to follow the

Switzerland model. It could be reduced ‘by 1/24 of the difference

between the financial contributions Switzerland makes to the EU

compared with the UK.’10 If the UK arranges a free trade agreement

it would impact the EU since it is one of its biggest contributors

to their budgets. This could potentially afflict EU’s future

economical plans and projects, this is reflected in Article 312

section 1 of the TEU where it states ‘The annual budget of the

Union shall comply with the multi annual financial framework’11 For

example the establishment of Council Regulation on laying down

implementing measures for the system of own resources of the

European Union was set under Article 311 paragraph 4 of the TFEU.

This latest procedure manages the annual budgetary balance and

supervises the revenue.12 Furthermore, it allowed for example for

Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden to ameliorate from reduced

called rates based on the value of the VAT. New schemes such as

9 Tim Congdon, ‘Our net contribution to EU budget ma be well over £8.6bn’ FinancialTimes (Gloucestershire, 27 October 2014)<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b90e39c-5b92-11e4-a674-00144feab7de.html#axzz3PP3DBM46> accessed 10 January 201510 Clements (n 7) 1911 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] art 318 (5)12 Council of the European Union 5602/14 on the system of own resources of the European Union (Council Decision) [2014] paras 1-5

these can impact the EU since they will be challenged and they

will have to re-adjust their plans.

Subsequently, Article 310 Section 5 of the TEU states ‘The

budget shall be implemented in accordance with the principles of

sound financial management. Member States shall cooperate with the

Union to ensure that the appropriations entered in the budget are

used in accordance with this principle.’13 Therefore, each member

state most abide with the Union’s financial management and make

contributions to the budget for its expeditors. The UK however has

not always facilitated cooperation with the budget as can be

evidenced by the Session of the European Council in Fontainebleau

of 1984, where it adjusted UK’s budget input to a fixed sum to

correct budgetary imbalances.14 Thus, the withdrawal of the UK can

impact the EU’s budgetary policies as it can either facilitate the

making of new treaties or provoke adverse changes to their

policies.

In the case of the challenges the withdrawal can incite on

the EU’s monetary policy, it can prove beneficial for the Union.

The UK is not part of the EU’s single currency and it has not

fully been incorporated into the EU’s economic policies. This was

due to the failed entry to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism13 Treaty on European Union [1993], art 310 (5) 14 European Council session of the European Council 1975-1990 [1984]

(ERM) and the aftermath of Black Wednesday of 1992 that led to its

withdrawal. Subsequently, it led to the opt out from the European

Monetary Union (EMU) causing the division of interest rate

decision between the European Central Bank and the Bank of

England. This has led for the UK to have an independent monetary

policy. It was suggested in Protocol 25 on certain provisions

relations to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland of 1992 section 4, ‘The United Kingdom shall retain its

powers in the field of monetary policy according to national

law.’15 Therefore since the EU is not in charge of British monetary

policy, it could potentially bring more EU autonomy over its

member states.

Considering the separation of the monetary policies between

the UK and the EU, it can be concluded that if the withdrawal

occurs the UK could potentially impose restrictions, barriers and

taxation on European goods. Hence, contradicting the free movement

of goods as expressed in Article 31 of the TFEU, ‘Member States

shall refrain from introducing any new measure which is contrary

to the principles laid down paragraph 1 or which restricts the

15 Consolidated version on the Protocols annexed to the EU Treaty, the EC Treaty and the EAEC Treaty [2003] pro 25 (4)

scope of the articles dealing with the prohibition of customs

duties and quantitative restriction between Member States’16

Additionally, the withdrawal could impact the EU’s committees

that are set up in the TEU as advisory bodies such as the European

Economic and Social Committee (EESC). The United Kingdom, being

one of its largest members will impact the Council’s the decision

on the members of the committee since it is distributed per Member

State.17

Free Movement

If the UK were to secede from the EU, there will be a limit

in immigration and freedom to travel. It could be a major impact

in European citizens living in the UK since recently there has

been a recent boost in immigration. In 2010, there were only

34,000 United Kingdom citizens that migrated to the EU while

156,000 EU migrants came to the UK which indicated that there are

more EU migrants coming in to the UK. This is illustrated in graph

118:

16 I Murray and R Broomfield, ‘Cutting the Gordian knot: A road map for British exit from the European Union’ IEA Brexit Prize (London, 31 October 2013)17 M Horspool and M Humphreys, European Union Law (8th edition, Oxford 2014) 5918 The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, British and other EU migration <http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/britains-70-million-debate/5-british-and-other-eu-migration> accessed 15 January 2015

Free movement of citizens within the EU - in the TFEU Article

26 (2) highlights ‘the internal market shall compromise an area

without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods,

persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the

provision of the Treaties.’19 Moreover, if the UK withdraws, EU

migrants can be at strife with the restriction of movement.

Beside the restrictions on immigration, there will be a major

conflict regarding the free movement of workers. According to

19 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [1958], art 45 (3)

Article 45 Section 3 of the TFEU, ‘To stay in a Member State for

the purpose of employment in accordance with the provision

governing the employment of nationals of that state laid down by

law, regulation or administrative action.’20 The UK withdrawal will

redefine these laws for EU workers since they will have to abide

with British common law. Although the Court of Justice of the

European Union secures these rights, the withdrawal will cause

disputes on passed legislature enacted by the court. For instance,

in the case of Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (1982) were a

British national that resided in the Netherlands, married a non-

union national. The British national’s wife earned what was

considered less than the minimum wage for the Netherlands.21 This

case was challenging since the Union law mainly applies to EU

nationals and there has to be special arrangements in EU labour

laws to include the labour on non-EU workers. Therefore, it will

be cases like these that will be challenged and it could lead to

an upsurge in court cases since the British will be considered

non-members of the union.

The effectiveness of the Union law will be impaired since

there will be contention when it comes to the free movement of

members and past legislatives when the UK was a member. The

20 ibid art 45 (3)(c) 21 M Horspool and M Humphreys, European Union Law (8th edition, Oxford 2014) 320

impact of the secession could prove time consuming, conflicting

for EU legislation and could lead to migratory struggles amongst

members.

The ‘awkward’ partner

It might be beneficial to lose the ‘awkward partner’ since

the UK has not been pro- European and has a soft Eurosceptical

approach to the union. This approach can be seen to contradict one

of the fundamental principles of the European Union as highlighted

in Article 3 (1) and (3) of the TEU where it states,

‘Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union

and the Member states shall, in full mutual respect, assist

each other in carrying out tasks which flow from the

Treaties. … The Member States shall facilitate the

achievement of the Union’s tasks and refrain from any measure

which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union’s

objective.’22

The UK has been reluctant to cooperate with the EU’s goals

and treaties however if they withdraw it will impact it in that it

will facilitate the enactment of treaties within the union. The UK

pushes for a reformed EU however the EU has not been able to offer

this and as much as the UK opts out it only causes separation and22 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, art 3 (1) and (3)

ambiguity in this relationship. Although it could prove as a

positive change for the European Union to lose its most ‘awkward’

partner, the withdrawal as evidenced, can impact a major change

that could potentially hinder the EU’s future in the global

community.

UK obligations under treaties signed by the EU

This section of the essay will address the scenario of the

obligation of the UK under treaties signed by the EU in the

hypothetical situation that the UK withdrawal would have occurred.

It will be discussed by introducing the EU as an international

legal personality comparatively to the United Nations. It will

evaluate the meaning of state responsibility within international

law furthermore, the role of customary law by examining the Vienna

Convention on law of Treaties for the obligations. Henceforth, it

will provide examples of treaties signed by the EU such as the

Fisheries Act to evaluate its obligations.

International legal personality

The European Union is an intergovernmental organisation that

is considered an international legal personality comparatively to

the United Nations as an international organisation. An

international legal personality is defined according to Article

2(a) of the International Law Commission of 2011 on the Draft

articles on the responsibility of international organisations,

‘International organisation means an organisation established

by treaty or other instrument governed by international law

and possessing its own international legal personality.

International organisations may include as members, in

addition to States, other entities.’23

The EU by acknowledging itself to have international

responsibility it adopts a legal personality. This legal

personality enables it to create international relations with

other states or international entities. The EU officially adopted

this responsibility in the Lisbon Treaty article 47. Furthermore,

in the Declarations Concerning Provisions of the Treaties,

Declaration 24 concerning the legal personality of the European

Union stated, ‘the Conference confirms that the fact that the

European Union has a legal personality will not in any way

authorise the Union to legislate or to act beyond the competences

conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties.’24

Complementary to this, the UN acting as an international legal

personality also can come to agreements on behalf of its member

states. This was highlighted in the UN Charter in Article 104,

‘The Organisation shall enjoy in the territory of each of its

Members such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise

of its functions and the fulfillment of its purposes.’25

23 International Law Commission on the Draft articles on the responsibility of international organisation [2011]24 Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008] art 2425 Charter of United Nations (UN) [1945] 104

In contrast, Article 4 (3) of the TEU expressed that, ‘The

Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or

particular, to ensure fulfillment of the obligations arising out

of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of

the Union.’ These provisions on these fundamental treaties of

these international legal personalities demonstrate that as their

role of legal authority on behalf of the states, they can come

into agreements with other entities in order to fulfill its

purpose. Crawford further expresses that if the organisation has

come into an agreements, all its members are bound to the treaty.

However, as the organisation is articled to its organs, ‘member

states are not as such bound due to their separate legal

personality.’26

Vienna Convention - Rebus Sic Stantibus

It is important to establish that the EU has the power to

sign treaties on behalf of its member states. This is part of one

of the fundamental laws outlined in the TEU Article 4 (3).

Nevertheless, if the UK withdraws it still indirectly obligated to

those treaties. In the case there is no exit clause of in the

treaty the EU has signed with another entity on behalf of its

member states, customary law could be used in order to determine

its obligation. The Vienna Convention on the law of Treaties is the26 James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public international Law (8th edn, Oxford 2012) 180

treaty that illustrates the principles of customary law

furthermore; it highlights Rebus Sic Stantibus, which is an important

term that can counter play when determining the UK’s obligation.

Rebus Sic Stantibus promulgates that if a fundamental change has

occurred, a party has the possibility to withdraw or invalidate

the treaty. Article 62 Section 3 of Vienna Convention on the law

of treaties on Fundamental Change of Circumstance notably states,

‘A party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a

ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also

invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the

treaty.’27

To elaborate, if the UK withdraws from the Union it will

create a fundamental change to EU treaties. Thereby, allowing for

the suspension of the law of that particular law. Dr. Clements

hypothesised that, the member state leaving the EU would be freed

from its obligations from treaties following the secession

agreement having been put into effect, or alternatively two years

from the time of the member state’s notification of withdrawal to

the European Council.28

State Responsibility

27 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [1969], s 6228 Ben Clements, ‘Britain outside the European Union’ IEA Brexit Prize (London, 31 October 2013) 89

The United Kingdom is a subject of international law because

of its statehood therefore it has international responsibility as

customary. Hence, it is withdraws from the EU, the treaties -

agreements signed by the EU for its member states will be

challenged. The UK has to uphold to its obligations due to its

international responsibility. In Spanish Zone of Morocco Judge

Huber expressed that, ‘responsibility is the necessary corollary

of a right. All rights of an international character involve

international responsibility. If the obligation in question is not

met, responsibility entails the duty to make a reparation.’29 Judge

Huber was correct in expressing the responsibility to honor the

treaty by making reparations. Furthermore, the UK is presented

with the obligation to abide with the treaty; this was also

expressed in Article 12 of the ILC Article on Responsibility of

States for Internationally Wrongful Acts of 2001. Article 12 on

the Existence of a breach of an international obligation states,

‘There is a breach of an international obligation by a State when

an act of that state is not in conformity with what is required of

it by that obligation, regardless of its origin and character.’30

By establishing the legal background on the state

responsibility of the UK it can be expressed that it does have to

29 Crawford 54130 General Assembly A/RES/56/83 on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts [2002], annex

abide with the agreements with other entities in the case that

customary law cannot support its withdrawal from the treaties.

However, in the EU withdrawal the UK is no longer bound by its

responsibility as a state. This is because under Article 50 (3) of

the Lisbon Treaty highlights that a member state once it has

notified the European Council of its intent, the EU treaties will

cease to apply to the member state two years after the

notification.

Fisheries

The EU has established a fisheries partnership with non-EU

countries. The EU provides financial support in exchange for the

right to fish in their territory. The chart bellow indicates the

contribution to EU budget contribution to each fisheries

agreements with non –EU states.

Country Expiry date TypeTotal contribution

from the EU budget peryear

Earmarked forfisheries policy

development

Cape Verde No protocol in force since 31.8.2014. New protocol initialled on 28.8.2014 but not yet in force.

Comoros 31.12.2016 Tuna 600 000 € 300 000 €

Côte d'Ivoire 30.6.2018 Tuna 680 000 € 257 500 €

Gabon 23.7.2016  Tuna 1 350 000 €  450 000  €

Gambia No protocol in force

Greenland 31.12.2015 Mixed 17 847 244 € 2 743 041 €

Guinea Agreement and Protocol provisionally applied during 2009 but subsequently withdrawn.

Guinea- Bissau 23.11.2017 Mixed  9 200 000 € 3 000 000 €

Equatorial Guinea No protocol in force

Kiribati 15.9.2015 Tuna 1 325 000 € 350 000 €

Madagascar 31.12.2014 Tuna 1 525 000 € 550 000 €

Mauritania Protocol expired on 15 December 2014

Mauritius 27.1.2017 Tuna 660 000 € 302 500 €

Micronesia No protocol in force since 25.2.2010

Morocco 27.02.2015 Mixed 30 million € 14 million €

Mozambique 31.01.2015 Tuna 980 000 € 460 000 €

São Tomé andPrincipe 22.5.2018 Tuna 710 000/675 000 € 325 000 €

Senegal No protocol in force since 1.7.2006

Seychelles 17.1.2020 Tuna 5 350 000 € in 2014 To 5 000 000 in 2019 2 600 000 €

Solomon Islands No protocol in force since 9.10.2012

Chart Provided by European Commission31

As seen as the chart above, the UK is part of these

agreements. For example the largest contribution by the EU is

fisheries partnership with Morocco. The United Kingdom is entitled

according to Article 2 of the Council Regulation No 764/2006 on

the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the

European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco to 2 500 t licenses

per quota for industrial fishing for pelagic species. Article 7

(a) on the financial contribution of the Fisheries Partnership

expresses that ‘a financial contribution for access by Community

vessels to Moroccan fishing zones, without prejudice to the fees

due by Community vessels for the license fee.’32 As a result, if

31 European Commission – Fisheries, ‘Bilateral agreements with countries outsidethe EU’ (European Commission, 26 November 2014)  <http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm> accessed 28 January 201532 Council Regulation (EC) 764/2006 on the conclusion of the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Morocco [2007] art 7

the UK withdraws the agreement will be challenged and they might

have to potentially create an individual agreement with the

Kingdom of Morocco that can prove costly since they will have to

pay for licenses.

The above analysis is a simple glance at what would be the

obligation the UK under treaties signed by the EU if they were to

withdraw. It has been shown that, the obligations of the UK under

treaties signed by the EU are questionable. Since the EU

international legal personality, it has the power to sign treaties

on the behalf of its Member States. However, due to the separate

legal personality member states have, they are not entitled or

obligated to follow that treaty. This is also due to the

principles of customary law outlined in the Vienna Convention on

the Law of Treaties. Notwithstanding, the state does have to

comply with its obligations as a country therefore in order to

conclude its obligations; it will have to be charter according to

the Lisbon Treaty on state withdrawal from the EU.

Outcome on the UK’s hypothetical withdrawal from the EU

It has been shown that the United Kingdom is legally able to

withdraw from the European Union. The withdrawal can cause major

impacts to the European Union in a positive or negative way and

that although it is does have obligations to treaties signed by

the EU, they are not obligated to them. This essay has analysed

the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU to be legally

feasible. Furthermore, the impacts the withdrawal on the EU and it

has addressed UK obligations to EU-signed treaties.

This was evaluated by first exploring the legal justification

of the withdrawal by looking at the historical background of the

relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. It

highlighted that the Treaty of the European Union did not include

withdrawal clause and it was not until the Reforming treaty of

Lisbon in 2009 where Article 51 was incorporated for a withdrawal

process. For that reason, if the UK expresses its wishes to

withdraw pre-Lisbon treaty it would have to address its withdrawal

through customary law, the Vienna Convention of the Law of

Treaties and the Greenland Treaty. Thus, the UK can withdraw

because of customary law and it will not have to break the

relationship since according to Article 51 of the Lisbon treaty it

will make arrangements for a future relationship.

Secondly, the possible impacts the withdrawal on the EU where

assessed both negative and positive outcomes. It was highlighted

that during the two-year negotiation period set out by Article 218

of the TFEU, the UK will most likely follow the Norway or

Switzerland model for a relationship with the European Union.

Moreover, there were three impacts identified that included the

budget and monetary policy, free movement and the losing of the

‘awkward partner’. In the budget and monetary policy, it was

identified that the UK was one of the biggest contributors to the

EU budget hence, if they withdraw it could impact the goals and

budgets of the EU for its projects. The UK could potentially also

impose taxes on the EU goods that can lead to higher spending. The

withdrawal can also impact the free movement of persons since EU

citizens will have new labour laws and it could make it difficult

to move to the UK, as immigration will be restricted. It could

prove beneficial for the UK to withdraw since the EU will lose its

‘awkward partner’ as the British have always been reluctant to

embrace the EU and have Eurosceptical views towards the union.

Thirdly, the UK’s legal obligations under treaties signed by

the EU were discussed by identifying the EU to have an

international legal personality similar to the United Nations. By

identifying this, it became legally justified for the EU like the

UN to make agreements on behalf of its member states as

highlighted in Article 4 (3) of the TEU. It then explained the

significance of Rebus Sic Stantibus as part of customary law and the

Vienna Convention to determine the UK’s obligations if the Lisbon

Treaty would not allow to withdraw. However, it was also

identified that the UK is bound by its state responsibility to

carry out with its treaties yet in the case of withdrawal by the

Lisbon Treaty, state responsibility can be ceased. Furthermore, it

provided the example of a treaty signed by the EU and the role of

the UK in the fisheries act was discussed to determine what would

be its obligations if the withdrawal occurs.

Bibliography

BBC ‘1975: UK embraces Europe in referendum’ <http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/6/newsid_2499000/2499297.stm> accessed 15 January 2015

Ben Clements, ‘Britain outside the European Union’ IEA Brexit Prize (London, 31 October 2013)

Charter of United Nations (UN) [1945]

Consolidated Texts of the EU Treaties as Amended by the Treaty of Lisbon [2008]

Consolidated version on the Protocols annexed to the EU Treaty, the EC Treaty and the EAEC Treaty [2003]

Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2008]

Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2008]

Council of the European Union 5602/14 on the system of own resources of the European Union (Council Decision) [2014]

Council Regulation (EC) 764/2006 on the conclusion of the

Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the European Community and

the Kingdom of Morocco [2007]

European Commission – Fisheries, ‘Bilateral agreements with countries outside the EU’ (European Commission, 26 November 2014)  <http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/index_en.htm> accessed 28 January 2015

European Council session of the European Council 1975-1990 [1984]

General Assembly A/RES/56/83 on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts [2002], annex

Greenland Treaty [1982]

I Murray and R Broomfield, ‘Cutting the Gordian knot: A road map for British exit from the European Union’ IEA Brexit Prize (London, 31 October 2013)

International Law Commission on the Draft articles on the responsibility of international organisation [2011]

James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public international Law (8th edn, Oxford 2012)

M Horspool and M Humphreys, European Union Law (8th edition, Oxford 2014)

Tim Congdon, ‘Our net contribution to EU budget ma be well over £8.6bn’ Financial Times (Gloucestershire, 27 October 2014)<http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b90e39c-5b92-11e4-a674-00144feab7de.html#axzz3PP3DBM46> accessed 10 January 2015

The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, British andother EU migration <http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/britains-70-million-debate/5-british-and-other-eu-migration> accessed 15 January 2015

Treaty on European Union, [1993]

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [1969]