Answer to Question
British Referendum Results to Leave the European Union
(Translated)

Question

A referendum took place in Britain on 23/06/2016 about remaining in the European or leaving it. The result was approximately 52% in favour of leaving. Following that the British Prime Minister Cameron announced his resignation on the basis that his government would remain for three months... So was the result of the referendum the opposite of what Cameron had wanted? And what is the economic and political impact of Britain exiting from the EU? And is Britain's exit from the EU become a definitely decided matter, meaning does Britain not have a plan to return?

Then (in addition) is there an American role within the issue? Jazaakallahu Khairan

Answer

To clarify the picture and to make evident the preponderant view in relation to the matters that the question has provoked, we will examine the following:

1 - Britain has since the economic crisis of 2008 continuously put the spotlight upon its problems with the EU and how the EU does not function in Britain's favour. David Cameron, the Prime Minister explained the British position towards the EU in the speech he gave at Davis in January 2016. He said, “The European Union has become increasingly unpopular in Britain... And we also need the referendum in order to address the concerns that people have in Britain about Europe. The idea that there is too much rule making and bureaucracy. The idea that this could become too much of a single-currency-only club. The idea that Europe is really about a political union, a political union that Britain has never been comfortable with...

Britain has never been happy with the idea that we are part of an ever-closer political union. We’re a proud and independent country, with proud, independent, democratic institutions that have served us well...We would be absolutely clear that, for us, Europe is about independent nation states coming together to cooperate, to work together for their mutual benefit, but it is not an ever-deepening political union which the British people do not want and would not sign up to...” (Gov.uk 21st January 2016) Based upon that he entered into negotiations during last February with the Europeans and accomplished most of what Britain had wanted: He achieved the preservation over Britain's national identity where it would not be integrated politically into the Union; it would therefore preserve its independent entity from the Union and the Schengen agreement would not be applied upon it.

Therefore, its borders remain outside of restrictions that are undesirable to it, the EU acknowledges its Stirling currency so that it does not enter the Eurozone, and the restriction for those Europeans coming to Britain have the right to attain specific assistance and free housing after they have completed 4 years of residency in Britain... Cameron had declared at the signing of the agreement his accomplishment of the results that had been hoped for, saying that “The deal reached with EU leaders grants Britain a special status within the Union” (BBC 20/02/2016). Cameron had requested the EU to “Grant national parliaments of the member states greater powers where the parliaments, including the English parliament, would have the right to oppose or veto the decisions of the European council”. However, the EU did not agree to this demand... Britain had achieved a lot however it had wanted to make the decisions and laws of the EU non-binding upon Britain, so that it could oppose what it wished and accept what it wished, where the EU would not have any authority over it. This is what the English wanted in order to make the Union very weak and having no authority over its members. Britain, as is customary for it, wanted to benefit from the EU without being restricted or tied to the Union’s laws and it was using the issue of the referendum and exit from the EU as a means to apply pressure and as blackmail to attain special privileges...

And as it known, Cameron, in his election campaign, had promised to conduct a referendum in the case of his victory in the 2015 elections. This is in accordance to the custom of Britain to beckon a referendum in order to accomplish special privileges. That is by frightening the EU and the other member states about the political and economic chaos that the decision of the referendum to exit from the EU would bring about!

The British policy of threatening a referendum to secure gains from the EU is not a new matter but rather it has done this since the early years of Britain’s entry into the European structure. Britain had become a member of the European Economic Community (EEC) since January 1973. Its keeping of the “Pound Sterling” currency unit and its remaining outside of the Schengen zone represented two prominent signs of the special status that Britain enjoyed in spite of its membership of the EU. It had used the idea of the “referendum” about remaining in the EU as a means to blackmail the European states in order to achieve more privileges for Britain inside of the EU. It held a referendum in 1975 to improve the conditions of its remaining in the Union which the British people went on to vote in favour of remaining within the EEC...

This current referendum is not an innovation in respect to the utilisation of British referendums to accomplish its ends even if their ends were dirty! The conservative party had proceeded in it with shrewdness and so the (prominent) men of the party managed two campaigns, a campaign to stay and a campaign to leave, at the very same time!! At the head of the campaign to stay was the British prime minister himself whilst the head of the exit campaign was led by parliament member Boris Johnson who had been the former mayor of London and resigned from his post to take a seat within the conservatives within parliament within the London catmint area, and that was with the purpose of the likelihood of becoming the prime minister in the future. The current justice minister Michael Gove also led the leave campaign... Cameron had declared, “That the date of the referendum about remaining in the EU has been set for the 23rd of June 2016 and that was decided following a government meeting.” (Monte Carlo 20/04/2016). In spite of his support for the agreement he was adamant to not compel his party to support it. So at the time when Cameron said: “The decision to leave the EU in the referendum next Thursday will represent “a great mistake” that will lead to a lack of certainty that could last a decade”. Justice Minister Gove said to the Sunday Telegraph that Britain will become “a progressive beacon to the world” if it left the EU and Gove said, “People should vote for democracy and Britain should vote for hope” (BBC 19/06/2016). And so in this way the British prime minister and a group of his party’s leadership represented a camp in support of Britain remaining in the Union, whilst the Minister of Justice Gove and a group of other ministers from Cameron’s cabinet were coordinating the Brexit campaign alongside the former mayor of London Boris Johnson, the well-known leader within the conservative party.

By scrutinising the policy of the ruling conservative party that Cameron leads in respect to the issue of the mentioned referendum, then it indicates that Cameron had expected the results to be inconclusive, like if it would be tied, so that it would be a matter of accepting or rejecting so that there would be room for a repeat (re-run) or to take such inconclusive results as room for new negotiations with the EU. It is for this reason that the conservative party itself was managing the campaign to remain in the Union in addition to the campaign to exit from it... Neither of the campaigns were actually serious about staying or leaving, as much as they were both serious about the referendum representing a path to achieve extra concessions from the EU. That is most likely because Cameron, despite his support for the agreement, nevertheless not compelling his party to support it. If he had been serious in respect to remaining he would have requested his party to support him and to vote to remain, in which case, the result would have strongly been in favour of remaining. However, he left it divide upon itself within the voting and that is because the intention was not to attain a majority to leave or stay in accordance to what we mentioned above... That is also most likely due to what appeared in respect to Johnson, the leader of the exit campaign. Had he been truly or really serious in his campaign and then the result was to leave, had he been serious, that would have appeared in his statements by continuing, as he had done during his campaign before the referendum, against the Union.

However, the stress and tone of his statements differed and became closer to the remain policy! So Johnson said in his Monday speech after the result of the referendum that the United Kingdom is “part of Europe” and that cooperation with neighbouring states will “intensify” whilst he directed attention to Britain’s departure from the Union “never being completed in a rush” (www.almodan.com/arabworld/2016/6/28). Indeed, his partner in the exit campaign, Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party who had previously split from the conservatives and had been of the biggest supporters of Britain leaving the EU, said in his first speech in the European parliament following the referendum: “Why don’t we be grown up, pragmatic, sensible, realistic and let’s cut between us a sensible tariff-free deal and thereafter recognise that the United Kingdom will be your friend, that we will trade with you, cooperate with you, we will be your best friends in the world. Do that, do it sensibly, and allow us to go off and pursue our global ambitions and future.” (Telegraph, 28th June 2016). All of which indicates to what the Conservative party had been planning with its two sides, one supporting the exit and the other the remain, is snot about leaving or staying as much as it is about generating a condition of pressure upon the EU in order to negotiate more concessions. That would be by the result of the referendum being inconclusive, like if it was equal, so that it would be open to taking or rejecting to provide space for a re-run or to take the results to open space for new negotiating with the EU.

However, the predicted calculations did not turn out as expected as the result came with a majority of 52% to leave, and it was here where the shock lay! That is because Britain wants to remain in the EU benefiting from its advantages and specifically the economic ones whilst at the same time not being under the discipline of its laws! For that reason, and throughout its time within the Union, it was troublesome, and so it threatens by the referendum, procrastination, objections and creating problems. Many of its manoeuvres had been successful...

However, this time it didn’t work out well! Britain cannot actually exit from the EU by cutting its relations with it because if it did so it would be approaching its death... At the same time in sings the praises of the opinion of the majority which according to the referendum obliges them to exit... For that reason, it is in a shambles and it falls under (or counts as) one of its worst actions!

The shock spread and covered Britain and Europe and indeed beyond due to the result of British “BREXIT” referendum that took place on Thursday 23/06/2016 and that was after opinion polls had indicated that the British voters would agree to remain within the EU. And even though the result of the referendum has a severe impact that goes beyond Britain to the EU itself and to others, the greatest impact is nevertheless upon Britain economically and politically:

- As for the economic impact, confidence in Britain and its economy was shaken within minutes of the announcement of the result. That was as the value of the Sterling against the Dollar fell by 10% and 7% against the Euro. Tremors were felt in the European and Asian financial markets where Reuters mentioned on 28/06/2016 that “The result of the referendum led to $3 trillion being wiped from the value of global stocks and fluctuations are still characterised by volatility and even after the pledge of policy maker to protect their economies”. Britain then brought out the governor of the Bank of England in order to calm the situation by saying “To support the functioning of markets, the Bank of England stands ready to provide more than £250bn of additional funds through its normal facilities... In the future we will not hesitate to take any additional measures required to meet our responsibilities as the Unite Kingdom moves forward (BBC 24/06/2016). The international credit rating agencies: Standard and Poors, Moody’s and Fitch downgraded the British credit rating issuing statements which mentioned “The British credit rating has been downgraded from “AAA” to “AA” meaning that it has gone down to levels... This the first time it has happened to Britain. These agencies indicated to “the lack of certainty that will follow the result of the referendum will lead to a big slowdown in the short term... and the political environments do not permit the developments to be predicted and they are less stable and effective... The possibility of a referendum being held for Scottish independence” (AFP 27/06/2016).

The IMF had warned about a fall in property prices. As for the British treasury, it said “The treasury has said house prices could be hit by between 10% and 18% over the next two years compared to where they otherwise would have been” (BBC 24/06/2016). And the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Treasury Minister) George Osbourne declared “that Britain would have to raise taxes and cut spending to deal with the economic challenge posed after Britons voted to leave the European Union...” He said we are absolutely going to have to provide fiscal security to people... Companies have announced the freezing of new hiring along with the probability of losing staff which has shattered the hopes of the electorate that the British economy would flourish outside of the EU” (Reuters 28/06/2016). Some companies immediately announced urgent plans to transfer their braches from London to other cities within the EU. The FTSE 100 plunged by more than 8% immediately upon opening and “It is its biggest loss in a single day since 2008” (Al Jazeera Net, 24/06/2016).
All of that means that Britain has been detrimentally harmed by the result of the referendum and represents a bad indicator for it if it was to leave the EU indefinitely. It has already in origin been suffering from the repercussions of the financial crisis that exploded in 2008 whilst it benefits greatly from the EU as was mentioned in our answer to question dated 02/05/2016: “Britain also benefits economically from the European Union. This benefits its corporations and wealthy elite.

Britain's economy is dominated by services whilst the main services in Britain are its financial services. Britain produces a few goods, but it depends on financial services for income, and capital and foreign exchange. The unified EU market means that Britain could produce without trade restrictions to all of Europe, which benefits big companies and the rich elite. For that reason, leaving the EU will make it lose this position and lead to political problems within the country... And because the EU is the main trading partner for Britain, so leaving the Union when it is a European country weakens its position in Europe... This is also the situation that will need to challenge the EU from the outside and this weakens its standing within Europe. As for its influence from the inside, then it is stronger and more effective...” And we said in the same answer: “In March 2015, the UK won the lawsuit against the European Central Bank in the European Court of Justice, the ECB attempted to transfer the role of clearing the euro zone transactions within the EU, such a move would have allowed to exclude London, leaving Paris and Frankfurt as more attractive financial centres, which would weaken the economic situation in Britain...” If we were to add this to what resulted from the leaked Panama documents in respect to the reduction in British tax havens as was explained in the answer to question about the leaked documents dated 05/05/2016... then all of that makes, Britain after the referendum for its exit from the Union, like the one who has opened fire upon his own two feet! And if the exit was actually implemented, then Britain will lose the distinguishing feature of representing a financial capital whilst Frankfurt, the financial capital of the EU, will be more attractive than London as a financial centre. In this way the losses to Britain are grave and disastrous.

- As for the political impact, then the British referendum has brought about a wide ranging impact upon the holding together of the people of Britain itself. That is because the Scottish people had voted in a decisive manner to remain within the EU, just as Northern Ireland did. And now the peoples are demanding a referendum in regards to remaining within Britain which means that the very unity of Britain itself (As an entity) has become a point of contention or doubt. This is a matter that Britain had not planned for as the success in preventing Scotland from gaining independence from Britain in the referendum of 2014 had been one of the most prominent accomplishments of Cameron. Britain had thought that the Scottish issue had been closed for a long period of time however after the British referendum on 23/06/2016 it returned to the fore in a powerful manner. The Scottish First Minister Sturgeon stated immediately upon the appearance of the referendum’s result, that the circumstances had changed since the referendum in 2014 when Scotland voted in favour of remaining within Britain and that Scotland will take the initiative to negotiate with the EU in respect to its remaining inside of the Union, which is hard to accomplish without gaining independence from Britain. “The Britain that Scotland voted to stay a part of in a 2014 referendum does not exist anymore whilst indicating that it is “very likely” for a new referendum to be conducted following Britain’s vote to leave the EU” (Middle East Online 26/06/2016). As for Northern Ireland, which is the most vulnerable flank to Britain, then “The Sinn Fein party, considered to be the political face of the IRA (Irish Republican Army), called Friday morning for a referendum of a united Ireland. And this call came following the British people voting to leave the EU, according to the official results. And the Republican party reiterated that the referendum about the EU has “huge consequences for the nature of the British state” (France 24, 25/06/2016) ... As such, the British referendum to leave the EU has made the breakup of Britain the talk of the politicians once again in Northern Ireland and similarly in Scotland.

Therefore, the results of the referendum have generated pressures that threaten the breakup of Britain in addition to economic losses. All of that confirms that the winds of the referendum have come opposite to that which Britain had desired and that it (Britain) has fallen into the trap of its own plots. It has become a victim for its confidence in its own cunning and so the days since the vote have revealed manifestations of political confusion that is unprecedented in the modern political history of Britain. That is alongside the severe instability that has struck the government and the opposite to the extent that the New York Times ran the headline on 27/06/2016: "A country renowned for its political and legal stability is descending into chaos". That was a comment reflecting what Britain is suffering following the referendum!

3 – For that reason it is expected that Britain stalls leaving in the short-term and indeed it could be extended to a number of years. That’s if it leaves whilst it skilful in the use of dirty tricks and deception... And in respect to what is apparent and evident from the comments... and what the media outlets have carried in terms of statements... All of that makes stalling in respect to implementing the referendum most likely. But even further like twisting and turning moves in respect to the referendum itself. What makes this stalling, twisting and turning around most like are the following matters:

A – The provisions of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty signed in 2007 gives room for prevarication and procrastination which Britain can utilise via its dirty politics and cunning. This article states that for the purpose of beginning the procedures for withdrawal Britain must inform the European Council, consisting of the heads of states and governments of the member countries, of its intention to leave the EU, and that it would negotiate after that over a two-year period, as a maximum, over the “terms or agreement of withdrawal”. Cameron said before the British parliament: “The government will not begin negotiations for leaving the EU in the current stage.

Before we do that we need to determine the kind of relationship we want with the EU, before implementing article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty” (Binaa 27/06/2016). And Cameron said in his speech to the House of Commons... reiterating that it is Britain alone that will decide when the exit negotiations will begin: “We have discussed the need to prepare for the negotiations and in particular the fact that the British government will not be triggering Article 50 at this stage from the European treaty related to states leaving the Union” (Al Jazeera Net 27/06/2016).

In this way it is possible to extend the presentation of Britain’s request to exit until the negotiations begin! Not only that, but Cameron did not make his resignation immediate and rather made it after a period of three months after which a new government will be formed followed by presenting the request for withdrawal when it wishes. That means that the negotiations will be entrusted to the new prime minister following Cameron in September 2016 when the Conservative party will gather to choose a new leader for the party. Cameron explicitly mentioned this matter in his speech after announcing the results of the referendum when he said that he would resign from his post in October and leave the matter to his successor in order to decide when to implement article 50 (http://elaph.com/Web/News/2016/6/1096000). Likewise, “the British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osbourne assured that negotiations will not go ahead for Britain’s exit from the EU until the formation of a new government” (Jazeera Net 27/06/2016) ... This was elaborated upon by one of the legal commentators: “The fact is that the longer the Article 50 notification is put off, the greater the chance it will never be made at all. This is because the longer the delay, the more likely it will be that events will intervene or excuses will be contrived” (“Why the Article 50 Notification is Important”, David Allen Green, 25th June 2016). And it is for that reason that the European diplomats viewed that Britain will never activate the mechanism of its exit from the EU regardless of the British people’s vote in favour of that that took place Thursday. A diplomat who requested anonymity said, “My personal belief is that they will never notify the EU of their intention to leave” and the diplomat added: “We want London to engage in Article 50 now so that matters can be made clear. And as we are unable to coerce them to do that I expect that they will take their time” and he added: “I don’t rule out, and that is my personal belief, that it will ever do it” (Arabi 21 27/06/2016).

B – It is also possible for them to twist and turn in respect to the referendum subject itself like searching for legal ways to repeat it or to negotiate about its conditions. Even though a repeat of the referendum would be a source of embarrassment for the state, which considers itself to be a bastion of democracy and that it does not go against the opinion of the people, nevertheless the cunning of the British politics and its dirtiness will not be incapable of finding escape routes.

What indicates to that is the following:

A – There is an online petition to collect signatures for a re-run “The petition on the British Parliament online site requesting a re-run of the referendum for the UK’s exit from the EU gathered 3.8 million signatures as of 28/06/2016 requesting a repeat of the referendum. The petition, authored 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 70% there should be another referendum”” (cited from the British Telegraph Newspaper 27/06/2016).

B – Due to the consideration that a re-run of the referendum would shake the democracy that Britain lauds... Some of the British legal experts have begun to make mention of exit routes by saying that the Parliament (House of Commons and House of Lords) can prevent the Prime Minister from giving the notification to the EU. Barron Pannick QC (a leading specialist in public law) said: “However, without such legislation, the prime minister cannot lawfully give a notification” (www.bbc.com.news/uk-politics-uk-leaves the-the-eu-36671629).

C – There is an external factor that concerns Britain’s remaining in the EU in order to weaken it and to remain as a source of tension within it. That external factor is America “Obama was visiting London last April and urged the British to vote in favour of remaining as part of the EU” (Al Jazeera 24/06/2016). That is because America had wanted Britain to remain within the Union so that the Union would remain brittle. That is because the US perceives that Britain does not work for the well-being of the EU or for a European Unity, and that it obstructs that, disturbs many of its decisions and does not think about anything other than its own interests. As such it acts as a destructive element (within the Union). All of that works in the favour of America that does not want to see Europe strongly united so that it will challenge and compete with her on the world economic and political stage. If the breakup results from Britain’s exit from the EU then that would be in America’s interest... For that reason, after the result of leaving became apparent Obama sent his Secretary of State Kerry to Europe to act as an intermediary between Europe and Britain and to lighten the European reaction towards Britain. When Kerry arrived in Brussels on 27/06/2016 he said: “So I think it is absolutely essential that we stay focused on how, in this transition period, nobody loses their head, nobody goes off halfcocked”. And after his meeting with Cameron in London Kerry stated: “Britain’s vote to leave the European Union might never be implemented and that London is in no hurry to go and that Cameron feels “powerless” to negotiate a departure he does not want... The prime minister was very reluctant to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which would trigger a two-year timetable for departure from the European Union... And Kerry made clear that Britain did not want to find itself outside of Europe after two years before signing a new agreement of cooperation... And when answering questions about whether it was possible for the exit decision to be reversed and how that could be done Kerry said: I believe “there are a number of ways” (France 24 29/06/2016).

This external factor has assisted to bring about an opening for a new kind of relationship between Britain and Europe and there is a benefit and interest in that for America as we have explained above.

4 – It appears that Europe has comprehended and realised Britain’s games and so it wishes to make an unofficial deal to protect its interests upon the basis of the Norwegian and Swedish model before resorting to working with Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to begin the separation procedures. However, unlike Norway and Sweden, Britain wants to enter the European market but is against the free movement of people, which represented the main issue for the British electorate. Merkel excluded that possibility categorically as the free-movement of people is one of the freedoms that the EU sanctifies alongside the freedom of exchanging goods, services and capital. The EU perceives the British cunning. As such the President of the European Commission Jean Claude Juncker said: “Let me be very clear; we can’t have secret attempts to take the British Government aside, to become secret, informal negotiations” and he said: “I have made a very clear command to all Commissioners and Commission staff; there can be no secret negotiations, no secret negotiations” (Evening Standard, 28/06/2016).

The European parliament convened on 28/06/2016 to continue its sessions over two days. One of its first demands was for Britain to trigger the process for its withdrawal from the EU immediately according to the Lisbon treaty so as to remove any doubt that could be taken badly and in order to protect the Union, as was mentioned. The President of the European Commission Jean Claude Juncker said before the European Parliament: “I would like the United Kingdom to clarify its position... not today, not tomorrow at 9 a.m. but soon” and he excluded the possibility of there being secret negotiations about the conditions of Britain leaving the EU or that London sets a timetable when he said: “It is we who set the agenda, not those who want to leave the European Union” (AFP Al-Jazeera 28/06/2016).

Cameron went to Brussels to attend the first EU session and then he departed stating: “I very much hope we’ll seek the closest possible relationship in terms of trade and cooperation and security, because that is good for us and good for them” (DPA News, 28/06/2016), which means that he does not want the EU but rather wants to select what Britain requires and that is economic and security cooperation. Merkel, the German Chancellor directed a strong message to London when she said: “Whoever wants to leave this family cannot expect to shed all its responsibilities but keep the privileges” (DPA 28/06/2016)

... That means that the Europeans are taking a resolute position with Britain and want it to withdraw quickly before they are harmed from the procedure of the withdrawal and procrastination or stalling in relation to it.

At the conclusion of the summit, the president of the European Council Donald Tusk said that: “Leaders made it crystal clear that access to the single market requires acceptance of all four freedoms – including freedom of movement. There will be no single market a la carte”. He added that the preliminary discussions after Britain’s decision to leave the EU which took place in Brussels did not reach conclusions. As such, we have decided to hold a consultative meeting for the 27 states and we will meet on the 16th of September in Bratislava (capital of Slovakia) to continue our discussions... and he said: The participants agreed that we passing through a serious moment in our joint history... and one issue came out clearly from our discussion: That the leaders are absolutely committed to remain united” (AFP 29/06/2016).

That does not mean that the EU has not been negatively impacted by the result of the referendum even if the seriousness is not of the same level as that facing Britain. Rather the EU has been effected as it has opened the door for a state to request referendums... So many of the right-wing (political) forces have presented requests to their governments for similar referendums. That includes France, the first nucleus of the EU, and at the same time the European Commission has received 32 requests from European parties for similar referendums in a number of European countries, including France, in a manner that threatens the continuation of the EU as a whole... The founding states of the EU, specifically France and Germany, the two major powers who have the greatest influence moved to declare their resolve in respect to the continuation of the EU, and beside them Italy, Holland, Belgium and Luxemburg, as founding states, also moved in order to convene and emergency meeting... Hollande, the French President said following the meeting: “Britain’s exit from the European Union represents a challenge for Europe” and he expressed “his great regret for this unfortunate decision” and said: “The British vote poses a grave test for Europe, which must show solidity and strength in its response to the economic and financial risks” (AFP 24/06/2016)... Germany, the second founding member, followed a similar path as its Chancellor Merkel spoke about the situation saying: “There is no doubt that this is a blow to Europe and to the European unification process” and she called for Hollande, the French president, and the Italian Prime Minister, Renzi, and Tusk, the President of the European Council, to hold a meeting together in Berlin on Tuesday (27/06/2016) and she said: “What the consequences of this decision will be, depends on whether the other 27 member states will prove to be willing and capable to draw not hasty and simplified conclusions from the British vote that would only divide Europe further... Today is appoint of transformation for Europe, the European Union and European cooperation...

Rather, (they must be) willing and capable to analyse the result with calm and level-headedness and make a joint decision on that basis” (AFP 24/06/2016). The German foreign minister Steinmeier said following the announcement of the referendum result on the ZDF German TV channel: “The British government played (gambled) with the fate Europe and lost”. The German’s have therefore come to perceive the English dirty politics (or methods) and its negative results. That is because the German foreign minister exposed the true reality that Britain had gambled with the fate of the European Union and does not want it to remain sound and strong and he is one of the most aware German politicians about Britain and as such he does not want it to remain in the UK after realising its true reality as a destructive element.

The meetings of the leaders of German, France and Italy in Berlin took place on 27/06/2016 to reiterate their resolve to keep the European Union cohesive and so they opposed any negotiations with Britain about the stage following its exit from the EU whilst Britain has not yet officially presented its withdrawal request. That is to apply pressure upon it so that it presents the withdrawal request and so that the issue does not remaining hanging or suspended, as that would bring harms to the EU. Merkel said: “We are agreed that there will be no formal or informal negotiations about Britain’s exit from the European Union as long as it has not presented the request for leaving from the European Union upon the European Council level” (DBA, 27/06/2016).

However, despite that, they are also aware that Britain’s games and manoeuvres are the cause of this and for that reason their problem rests in their ability to continue in their unity and counter the manoeuvres of Britain whilst it is the most capable of them in respect to political games... In any case, if the Europeans are able to get rid of Britain quickly and work to take new measures to strengthen the Union, then that will be better for them. However, if Britain is unable to bring about a relationship with the European Union, then it will work to shake the Union from the outside. However, it is already confronting a fateful situation because of the debilitating economic situation, the symptoms of which are negative upon it. Similarly, if its internal situation is shaken in the case where Scotland demands the holding of a new referendum to leave Britain, and (Northern) Ireland demands to leave the United Kingdom and join with the Republic of Ireland, then if something like that was to happen, then Britain would have come to an end and will comprise of the parts of England and Wales alone. The holding of the referendum was therefore a losing gamble made by Britain and it could become overcome or overtaken by its bad plotting as is apparent up until now and could appear in its future based upon the points that have been raised above. If the European Union remains aware about the British games, then the following made statement would be affirmed: “It would become like the Island Hong Kong, one of the old British colonies, but on the west coast of Europe and not on the southern coast of China”!

5 – In summary, Britain has come to be in a state of great confusion and a situation that it did not plan for, whilst it is not easy for it to make a decision. Going back against the referendum has legal obstacles and it will show disdain towards the democracy that they sing and go on about. That is whilst completing the path of departure contains harms for British interests and so the age of British exemptions may have passed by. (In this regard) Jean Claude Juncker, the president of the European Commission stated: “It is incumbent upon anyone who wishes to be part of the single European market to commit to its strict rules without exception” (BBC, 29/06/2016). Before all of that it is only natural for Britain to resort to procrastination and stalling and to refuse to present the request to leave, in case the coming months grants it a way out that preserves for it the greatest portion of its interests.

If Britain however finds itself pushed in the path of an inevitable exit and without any relationship with the European Union, whether political or economic, and then after that finds itself upon the path of economic downturn and political disintegration, it is likely that it will employ dirty means to break up the European Union. Some European states may answer it which have a traditional relationship of "loyalty" to it. In this regard the leader of the British Independence party, Nigel Farage, mentioned on 28/07/2016, during an altercation within the European parliament in Brussels, that: "Britain will not be the last to leave the Union" indicating that others will follow Britain upon its exit... It may then find assistance in respect to this breakup from America because the interests of Britain will be completely in line with the interests of the United States of America in respect to that.

Consequently, in this way it is possible to say that the "Brexit" referendum brought results which were the opposite of what Britain had planned for and it has created an atmosphere of uncertainty and opened up all possibilities. Britain could circumvent the referendum in which case it would have suspended its democracy. However, at the same time it contains a complex level of gravity and seriousness that could develop to become Britain’s element or tool of destruction before Europe. And Allah Al-Aziz Al-Hakeem spoke the truth:

(وَلَا يَحِيقُ الْمَكْرُ السَّيِّئُ إِلَّا بِأَهْلِهِ)

“And the evil plot does not encompass except its own people” [Faatir: 43].

30th Ramadan 1437 AH
05/07/2016 CE