Printer Friendly



On June 24, 2016, the world awoke and learned the United Kingdom voted by referendum to leave the European Union, or "Brexit." (1) Responding to the result of the referendum vote, the world financial markets entered a new era of uncertainty. (2) Additionally, that morning the United Kingdom's Prime Minister David Cameron resigned, requiring the formation of a new executive government. (3) The United Kingdom, in the weeks and months that followed, insisted the referendum would go into effect by instigating proceedings under Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon. (4) This occurred despite calls for the resolution never to come before Parliament, calls to avoid haste, and even calls for a new referendum. (5)

This Note evaluates the formation of the modern European Union, reviews the treaty provisions the Union's Member States are subject to, and discusses the future landscape of the United Kingdom and European Union, should the Brexit Referendum go into effect. (6) Part II of this Note focuses on the history and development of the European Union, including the entrance of major political actors, and the evolution of efforts within the United Kingdom to leave. (7) Part III evaluates current and future political strains between the United Kingdom and the remaining European Union Member States, as well as other world powers, including likely economic effects. (8) Part IV explores current litigation pending in British courts surrounding the referendum, Brexit's potential effect on social and political issues, and evaluates the different forms Brexit may take. (9) Part V concludes the risks associated with Brexit outweigh the reward and, if Brexit is inevitable, advocates for caution in forthcoming negotiations. (10)


Today's European Union represents a major evolution in international relations over the last few centuries, from a frequent state of war between nations to a mostly continual state of cooperative support. (11) The historical reality of war in Europe, from the 1500s through 1945, resulted in roughly a seven percent loss of the average population per century. (12) In fact, during the past five centuries in Europe, relative peace has only existed while nations actively committed to cooperate with each other. (13) Europe's first major peace treaty occurred in 1648 with the Peace Treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of France and their Respective Allies, known as The Treaty of Westphalia. (14) Later, during the post-Napoleonic era, the European Monarchies came to a general, though volatile, consensus to preserve the status quo through the Concert of Europe. (15) Despite this consensus, war erupted again in Europe, from 1915 through the end of World War II (WWII) in 1945. (16)

A. Evolution of the European Economic Community to the Establishment of the European Union

In 1950, Robert Schuman announced the "Schuman Plan," entailing cooperation in the coal and steel industries between European countries, laying the foundation for the modern European Union. (17) Europe's first foray into a twentieth century cooperative accord occurred in 1951 with the Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steal Community (ESCS Treaty), between West Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. (18) In 1957, these nations agreed to further co operative provisions via the Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community (Treaty of Rome). (19) The Treaty of Rome established, in part, the European Common Market and European Atomic Energy Commission. (20) Doing so created the modern European Economic Community (E.E.C.). (21) The E.E.C.'s Common Market established the free movement of goods, the free movement of services, and the free movement of people, which effectively removed barriers to trade between Member States. (22)

The continued economic success of the E.E.C.'s Common Market lead to substantial growth, both in the E.U.'s economic strength and membership. (23) The United Kingdom attempted to join the European Community in 1961 after seeing the short-term successes among the founding Member States; however, France blocked the United Kingdom's entry. (24) The United Kingdom eventually overcame the opposition and entered the E.E.C. in 1973. (25)

The 1980's acted as a catalyst for change within the E.E.C. (26) The social changes in Europe, coupled with the expanding European frontier, caused many Member States to consider significant expansion. (27) In 1992 Member States ratified the Treaty of Maastricht, thus officially creating the modern European Union. (28)

B. Campaigns for the United Kingdom to Leave the European E.E.C. and the European Union

1. First Attempt to Exit European Union

The 2016 "Brexit" movement was not the first attempt for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. (29) The first attempt was to leave the E.E.C. in 1975, prior to the formation of the European Union. (30) The 1975 referendum on leaving focused on concerns of some who believed membership in the European Union robbed the United Kingdom of critical sovereignty rights. (31) The 1975 vote affirmed the decision to remain within the E.E.C., despite being the result of a slightly smaller subset of the electorate. (32)

During the late seventies, for unknown though highly theorized reasons, the British developed significant skepticism and mistrust of mainland Europeans. (33) Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom grew during the 1980's due, in part, to concerns over a stronger European Parliament extending its influence and eclipsing British sovereignty. (34) These concerns found root in the conservative Tory Party. (35) The United Kingdom developed stronger ties with Europe throughout the 1990s and early 2000s; however, Euroscepticism was already so entrenched in the Tory Party that the stronger relationships grated on the people. (36)

2. Present Referendum

By the present decade, the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, invited Prime Minister David Cameron to address the United Kingdom's concerns as the strain between the United Kingdom and the European Union was at a tipping point. (37) Cameron's November 10, 2015 letter outlined four major concerns, namely (1) the balance of economic governance between the United Kingdom and the portion of the European Union using the euro, also known as the Eurozone; (2) The competitiveness of the United Kingdom in the single market; (3) The balance of Member State's sovereignty versus the authority of the Union; and (4) Immigration concerns. (38) The European Union responded on February 19, 2016, in a European Council Conclusion and essentially agreed to all Cameron's requests. (39) Regardless of the conclusion's concessions, Prime Minister David Cameron believed the only way to silence the euro-sceptics was to hold a referendum vote, similar to the 1975 vote, to remain in the European Union or leave. (40) Finally, on June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom held its second referendum vote in the culmination of the Brexit movement. (41)

3. Evolution of Human Rights

The Magna Carta, in 1215, was one of the first known recorded political acknowledgement of human rights. (42) The rights originally granted under the original Magna Carta extended only from King John to the English land barons, not to the commoners. (43) The Magna Carter indicates a need for cooperation between parties, namely the king and the land barons; furthermore, George Washington's farewell address expressed these same cooperative ideals again during the infancy of the United States. (44) Evolution of these now basic human rights, recognized in Western culture, took several hundred years. (45)

Notable additions to the evolving writings on human rights include the 1689 Bill of Rights produced by the United Kingdom, the 1776 Declaration of Independence by the United States of America, the 1789 Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen by France, and the 1791 Constitution and Bill of Rights by the United States. (46) These ideals evolved in ebbs and flows until the United Nation's declaration of human rights, in the shadow of WWII. (47) Early after the creation of the United Nations, it added to the human rights conversation by publishing the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (48) The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the first cooperative international attempt to define Human Rights. (49) In 1950, the E.U. Member States collectively joined the human rights discussion by enacted its first provisions on human rights through the European Convention on Human Rights (E.C.H.R.). (50)

The European Union built upon the same principles, evolving in part from the Magna Carta and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, through the E.C.H.R. (51) Although amended multiple times, the original 1950 version and present 2002 version reflect the evolution of social outlook since 1215. (52) The fifty-nine Articles within the original E.C.H.R. addressed basic human rights, such as the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly, as well as establishing the European Court of Human Rights. (53)


A. Legality of Treaty Withdrawal

Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is essentially the treaty governing the international enforcement of treaties, suggests the United Kingdom leaving the European Union does not violate international law. (54) Article 54 governs a country's ability to withdraw from a treaty. (55) The Article only permits withdrawal from any treaty in a few specific ways; one avenue is in adherence to the withdrawal provision of the treaty in question, should the treaty allow. (56) Despite Article 54, general international consensus is to maintain and preserve existing treaty relationships. (57) Yet, if the treaty provides an exit clause, withdrawal may occur despite international disproval. (58) Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, the presently governing treaty regarding European Union withdrawal, allows a European Union Member State to withdraw so long as the Member State adheres to the provisions of Article 50. (59)

B. Current Legal Challenges to Brexit

In 2016, the first legal challenge involving Brexit came before the British High Court in the form of a constitutional question, namely which branch of government could begin the Article 50 provisions. (60) On November 3, 2016, the British High Court ruled on the first challenge to Brexit in R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, (61) holding Parliament must vote on whether to invoke Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, rather than rely on the royal prerogative of the present government. (62) The Court reasoned the existing limits on the prerogative powers prevented the Crown from entering the European Union by its own decision. (63) Thus, Parliament was required to pass the European Communities Act of 1972 in order to begin the accession process. (64) Therefore, it is only by an act of Parliament the United Kingdom may withdraw. (65)

The High Court's decision and interpretation of the constitutional issue was not final; the government appealed the High Court's ruling and on January 24, 2017 the United Kingdom's Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court. (66) There was some concern Parliament would not bring the Article 50 question to a vote. (67) Others were concerned that, if they do vote, the partisan vote would significantly diminish the call for a total and complete withdrawal. (68) These concerns existed because most members of parliament (MP's) are opposed to leaving the European Union. (69)

C. Immediate Economic Effects of the Brexit Vote

Since the vote, socio-economic concerns have increased regarding the stability of both the European Union and the United Kingdom. (70) The structural stability of the United Kingdom, namely the inclusion of Scotland and Northern Ireland, is now uncertain because both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the European Union. (71) Economically, the United Kingdom is the second largest economy in the European Union; however, since the Brexit vote British Pound Sterling has dropped and remained at its lowest point in decades. (72) Other concerns include London's position as one of the Unions largest cities specializing in Union banking and law among the Member States, and the effect of future economic models like the Norwegian or World Trade Organization (W.T.O.) models on the British economy. (73)

Similarly, the loss of the second largest economy within the European Union causes significant concern regarding the Union's survival. (74) One need only observe the recent history regarding the declining euro (EUR) and pound (GBP) to see the effects of the economic unrest. (75) At the same time, the Brexit movement has emboldened anti-Europe sentiment within other Member States, most recently causing Italy's Prime Minister, Matteo Rezzi, to offer his resignation. (76) Should anti-Europe politicians become more prominent in the next government, many are concerned that Italy will be the next nation to withdraw from the Union. (77) The loss of other large economies, coupled with the recent Greek bailout and concerns with destabilization of the Eastern European region, present further threats to the stability of the Union. (78)

D. Human Rights, Immigration, and Deportation

A significant issue for the United Kingdom's Eurosceptic citizens is immigration. (79) There are approximately 1.2 million British expatriates living in other Member States. (80) Conversely, approximately 3.3 million European Union Expatriates live inside the United Kingdom. (81) One of the major logistical questions raised by the Brexit vote is the future legal status of these expatriates living abroad. (82) Additionally, Eurosceptic citizens are concerned that the open borders created by the free movement of people provision, within the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (T.F.E.U.), makes it harder for natural born British citizens to find employment. (83)

Another concern for the United Kingdom, especially among the Eurosceptic wing, is a desire to deport foreigners convicted of crimes. (84) The European Court of Human Rights and the British Courts refuse to allow some of these deportations due to the poor conditions in foreign prisons, despite what several British citizens believe is an infringement on sovereign rights. (85) Both courts interpret placing someone in these conditions as a violation of human rights. (86) Thus, the implications of Brexit lead to questions going beyond questions of immigration, striking the very core of the meaning of British Human Rights. (87)

E. Will Brexit Go into Effect?

1. Will Brexit Actually Happen?

The United Kingdom voted; however, the referendum is not binding. (88) Despite potential political fallout, British politicians have every right to ignore the vote and continue with business as usual. (89) In light of the continued support of Brexit in England, excluding Scotland and Northern Ireland, Parliament did not completely ignore the vote. (90) Support in England remained strong for six months following the vote. (91) Thus, the legal, political, and economic consequences are determining the type of Brexit to materialize, rather than if Brexit will materialize. (92)

2. Different Forms of Brexit

a. Hard Brexit

A "Hard Brexit" is the severest option that the British and European negotiators could enforce. (93) Hard Brexit means a complete, or mostly complete, break between the European Union and United Kingdom. (94) The cold reality is that a Hard Brexit would result in significantly more work for the British Government on the backend after negotiations, because of the mountain of legislation Hard Brexit would require the government to pass. (95) A clean break will leave uncertainty for years as new agreements make their way through both the political and judicial systems. (96)

b. Soft Brexit

Contrary to a Hard Brexit, a "Soft Brexit" allows significantly more flexibility by taking an almost infinite number of forms. (97) Short of removing Brexit from the negotiation table, a Soft Brexit would significantly address many of the legal, political, and economic concerns Brexit raises, such as a second Scotland Referendum. (98) Politicians may be able to negotiate terms that address citizen's concerns but protect most of the benefits the T.F.E.U. provides because of the flexibility of a Soft Brexit. (99) Despite this benefit, Prime Minister Theresa May, who became Prime Minister after David Cameron resigned, recently pushed back against a Soft Brexit, because it seems nothing short of a Hard Brexit reclaims sufficient sovereignty for those skeptical of membership in the European Union. (100)


The effects of Brexit's looming threat are already rippling across the international landscape. (101) Detangling the United Kingdom from the European Union leaves hundreds of thousands of British expatriates living throughout other Member States, formerly protected under the free movement of people clause of the T.F.E.U., suddenly unsure of their legal ability to remain. (102) Likewise, the hundreds of thousands of citizens from other Member States now living in the United Kingdom face a similar conundrum. (103) Furthermore, the legality of the way in which the present British government pursues Article 50's execution, in conjunction with the human rights questions prompting the Brexit vote, will produce numerous legal suits over the coming two years. (104)

A. The Legal and Economic Consequences of Enacting Article 50

1. Consequences for the United Kingdom

a. Legal Consequences

The vote in support of Brexit, coupled with the present government's work towards executing Article 50, resulted in significant immediate consequences for the United Kingdom. (105) Miller set up a contentious constitutional question regarding the scope of the Monarch's exercise of the prerogative power via the Executive Government. (106) This constitutional question granted, upon appeal, the people with a newly clarified power. (107) The final resolution of this constitutional question set a significant legal precedent indicating the people, rather than the executive government or Parliament, otherwise defined as the embodiment of the British Monarch and the British People respectively, hold the balance of power in the United Kingdom. (108)

b. Human Rights Consequences

Brexit will also require the present generation to redefine Human Rights in the United Kingdom because all present Human Rights legislation in the United Kingdom falls under E.U. law. (109) Presently the bulk of the United Kingdom's Human Rights laws come from the E.C.H.R., European Communities Act of 1972 (E.C.A.), and the Human Rights Act of 2000. (110) A repeal of the E.C.A., as advocated for by the government, requires Parliament to pass new legislation defining Human Rights in the United Kingdom. (111) Such legislation could grant more rights, the same rights, or fewer rights as presently protected; however, the potential outcome is presently unclear based on the statements of government leaders. (112)

The United Kingdom, as part of the United Nations, signed onto the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights; however, because it is not a treaty, and assuming it does not become a jus cogens, or peremptory, norm, it is not legally binding. (113) While the Declaration represents broadly accepted human rights principles, a country's adherence to these principles usually requires treaty agreement such as the E.C.H.R. (114) Should the United Kingdom leave both the European Union and the E.C.H.R. and then attempt to restructure its human rights laws contrary to the U.N. Declaration, a legal battle may ensue before the International Court of Justice. (115) It is possible, but unlikely, the United Kingdom will create such a scenario because of the harsh international consequences that would accompany such action. (116) A more realistic outcome, despite the additional legislative effort required, is an imitation of the European Convention of Human Rights. (117) In recognition of the present circumstances, the most prudent of paths would be to either engage in a "Soft Brexit," where the United Kingdom remains bound to the provisions of the E.C.H.R., or copies the majority of its provisions. (118)

c. Political Consequences

The repercussions of Brexit will echo through the United Kingdom's politics, as well as its political structure because the manner in which the United Kingdom exits the European Union will largely determine the future makeup of the United Kingdom. (119) The sharp divide between England and Wales verses Scotland and Northern Ireland push the nations towards a possible political reorganization of the British Isles. (120) In 2014, Scotland held a referendum vote to leave the United Kingdom. (121) Scotland voted to remain with the United Kingdom. (122) Since the Brexit vote, there have been increased calls for Scotland to hold another referendum vote to leave the United Kingdom due to Scotland's strong support for remaining in the European Union. (123) Presently, Scotland's First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, is willing to withhold a second referendum depending on the type of Brexit negotiated, despite vocal support for the new Scottish vote. (124)

d. Economic Consequences

The devaluation of the British Pound since the Brexit vote is only the beginning of the economic repercussions of Brexit because, as of yet, the reality of Brexit it undefined due to pending negotiations with the European Union. (125) Though most par ties agree the United Kingdom's economy will eventually recover, it will do so at a cost. (126) The likely economic costs the United Kingdom will face include its new position in the international market place and the internal costs of separating from the European economy. (127)

Moreover, there exists a significant likelihood the United Kingdom will miss the economic benefits derived from negotiating trade in a large bloc of countries. (128) It is true, as argued by proponents of Brexit, once divorced from the European Union the British may focus on only their national benefits in trade negotiations. (129) Much like a divorce, though, the newfound freedom comes with lost benefits; likewise, missing the benefits of the European Union's free movement of goods will likely balance any dramatically improved economic benefit the United Kingdom could negotiate in the international market place. (130)

Experts are discussing different economic models the United Kingdom may adopt; discussion seems to focus on the Norwegian and World Trade Organization Model. (131) The Norwegian Model allows access to the European Union's Single Market through the EEA, while retaining the unilateral ability to set trade policies with non-EEA countries. (132) The W.T.O. Model allows informal access via individual agreements with Member Countries, but under the W.T.O. umbrella. (133)

2. Consequences for the European Union a. Human Rights Consequences

Human rights will likely remain the same in the European Union after Brexit negotiations have concluded; however, Brexit will likely affect the citizens of the European Union living in the United Kingdom. (134) At present, there are only three options for these E.U. citizens: (1) to remain in the United Kingdom and become citizens there, (2) remain in the United Kingdom in a newly illegal capacity without the present protections of the T.F.E.U., or (3) move to an E.U. Member State. (135) Each option opens the door to several questions requiring answers from the forthcoming Brexit negotiations; such as, who can remain in the United Kingdom and with what rights? (136)

b. Political Consequences

The political consequences of Brexit will result in a recognition of the potential time bomb Article (50) presents. (137) Prior to the Treaty of Lisbon in 2007, there was no exit clause from the T.F.E.U., suggesting admittance to the European Union was permanent and, therefore, protecting the cooperative structure from internal destruction. (138) We have already seen the anti-Eu rope sentiment spread to other parts of the

Union, including major players such as Italy and France. (139) French Presidential Candidate Marine Le Pen promised a referendum on membership in the European Union should she win the April 2017 election. (140) Italian Prime Minister Mateo Renzi's resignation in December 2016 put Italy one-step closer to a similar vote as power shifted to its anti-European faction. (141) A continued loss or original and early members would destabilize and reshape the European Union. (142)

c. Economic Consequences

The ongoing concerns for the remaining Member States will be mostly financial because of the financial vacuum the United Kingdom's exit will cause. (143) One major concern will be the remaining member's ability to sustain temporarily the economies of weaker incoming members. (144) The transition through integration and recovery must outpace the anti-cooperative sentiment, which naturally builds under these circumstances, if the Union hopes to survive. (145) In addition, Europe must determine how and where the European Union's banking system will work post Brexit, as its present hub is in London. (146)

3. Benefits and Fall Out from an Actualized Brexit a. Benefits of Brexit

There are some benefits to both the United Kingdom and the European Union from Brexit. (147) First, the United Kingdom has loudly complained about the Union since it joined. (148) This divorce will likely chill these complaints and, assuming Brexit provides the British with a greater feeling of independent sovereignty, may actually lead to greater overall cooperation. (149) Second, depending on the economic agreements reached, England's confidence in its financial allocations will improve. (150) Third, in the eyes of Brexit supporters, they will be able to live free of European oversight and without immediate implications via agreement with the other member states. (151)

b. Consequences of Brexit

Prime Minster Theresa May's recent statement, that "Brexit means Brexit," complicates future relations with other Member States because it indicates the Executive Government prefers a Hard Brexit to a soft one prior to the beginning of any negotiation. (152) The Hard Brexit option, though popular with some Eurosceptic groups in Britain, is likely to decline in attraction as the discussed implications of Brexit continue to evolve. (153)

A clean break will force further negotiations regarding the economic future of the United Kingdom, which may eventually benefit England but at a potential cost to the region overall. (154) European Union membership is not about strengthening a single countries economic standing plus fringe benefits of free movement plus standardized recognition of human rights; rather, the cost and true value of membership is the overarching economic and political stability, coupled with united regional strength, such cooperative systems engender. (155) Brexit supporters fail to realize that, in the shrinking world we live in, the international community regulates State's actions, making a cooperative external voice like the European Court of Justice a much friendlier check on power than international sanctions or more. (156)

V. Conclusion

The actualization of Brexit causes the United Kingdom to disentangle itself from the past forty-four years of cooperative association with the European Union. (157) Brexit risks social restructuring of human rights within the United Kingdom and places the futures of the 3.3 million European Union citizens legally living in the United Kingdom in legal uncertainty. (158) This international divorce puts the United Kingdom's future, and the cooperative future of the other twenty-seven European Union Member States, at risk. (159) The more prudent course of action was to work cooperatively on improving relations with other Member States. (160) Despite the United Kingdom presently ignoring its former desire for international cooperation, its political leaders must be mindful during Brexit negotiations of the overarching effects Brexit will have on British citizens and millions of other lives across Europe. (161) If Brexit must happen, let it occur in a way that prevents the loss of economic, political, and human rights. (162)

(1.) See Steven Erlanger, Britain Votes to Leave E.U.; Cameron Plans to Step Down, N.Y. Times (June 23, 2016), britain-brexit-european-union-referendum.html (indicating campaign to leave winning 52% versus 48% for campaign to stay). With the vote, the United Kingdom becomes the first country ever to leave the international union. Id. The final vote tally indicated a difference of 1,269,501 votes between both campaigns. Id. The 33,551,983 votes cast represented a 72% voter turnout. Id. Additionally, the campaign to leave succeeded despite majorities in London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland voting to remain part of the European Union. Id. The etymology of the word "Brexit" derives from combining the words "Britain" and "Exit" into a single word, which now represents both the movement and the vote regarding the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. Id.

(2.) See Herbert Lash and Edward Krudy, World Stocks Tumble as Brittan Votes for E.U. Exit, Reuters (June 24, 2016 4:46 pm EDT), us-global-markets-idUSKCN0Z92MZ (detailing massive, worldwide, losses in world markets less than twenty-four hours after Brexit vote). Reuters reported a worldwide loss of approximately USD2 trillion. Id. The markets in mainland Europe suffered anywhere between 7% to 24% losses. Id. London's stock exchange roller coaster throughout the day; however, England's three major banks, lost about 15%, or around USD50 billion. Id. The United States suffered its own losses of approximately 3% to 4% in the major markets. Id. At one point, the Dow Jones lost 655 points marking its most severe decrease in almost a year. Id. Also,
   [economists had predicted that a vote to leave the [European Union]
   could do more substantial damage to the British economy ... [f]or
   the European Union, the result is a disaster, raising questions
   about the direction, cohesion, and future of a bloc built on
   liberal values and shared sovereignty that represents, with NATO, a
   vital component of Europe's postwar structure.

Erlanger, supra note 1. Further complicating matters, the results of the Brexit referendum, in contrast to the overwhelming vote to remain from Scotland, raise the likelihood of another referendum for Scottish independence and question how united the United Kingdom will be when the dust settles. Id.

(3.) See id. (announcing Prime Minister David Cameron would step down shortly after results were published). In his early morning remarks, Cameron stated, "I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers this country to its next destination." Id. Cameron, who originally called for the referendum despite a belief the United Kingdom should remain part of the union, knew the gamble he engaged in while attempting to quiet members of his own party who have been skeptical of European Union membership for decades. See Heather Stewart, Rowena Mason, and Rajeev Syal, David Cameron Resigns After U.K. Votes to Leave European Union, The Guardian (June 24, 2016), available at politics/2016/jun/24/david -cameron-resigns-after-uk-votes-to-leave-european-union (detailing recognized risks associated with Cameron calling for Brexit referendum).

(4.) See Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art. 26, June 7, 2016, 2016 O.J. (C202) 43 [hereinafter T.F.E.U.] (detailing mode of withdrawal from European Union). Article 50 states:

1) Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2) A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3) The Treaty will cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decide to extend this period [...].

Id. at art. 50. No similar exit clause existed in previous versions of the T.F.E.U. Id. See also Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Dec. 27, 2006, 2016 O.J. (C321) E/l [hereinafter T.F.E.U. prior to 2007] (lacking withdrawal clause).

(5.) See Erlanger supra, note 1 (mentioning calls from pro-Brexit leaders against hastily leaving European Union); Guy Falconbridge, Brexit Forever? Brittan Keeps World Waiting for E.U. Divorce Papers, Reuters (Sept. 23, 2016, 8:06 EDT), http:// article/us-britain-eu-idUSKCNUTlAP (contrasting slow movement from British Parliament with assurances Brexit will happen). Now Brexit has passed by referendum; political leaders are calling for a slow exit. Id. See Erlanger supra, note 1. New British Prime Minister, Theresa May, insisted she would not file formal paperwork invoking Article 50 in 2016. Id. So far, the British government has refused requests for a second referendum, despite petitions reaching over 4 million signatures. See Harry Cockburn, Brexit: Government Rejects Second E.U. Referendum Petition Signed by 4.1 Million, Independent (July 9, 2016), http://www. government-rejects-eu-referendum-petition-latest- a7128306.html (reporting rejection of second Brexit referendum).

(6.) See infra Parts II-V (discussing past, present, and possible future international relationship between United Kingdom and European Union).

(7.) See infra Part II (reviewing creation and history of European Union and United Kingdom's inner turmoil surrounding it).

(8.) See infra Part III (evaluating current and likely future legal and economic repercussions).

(9.) See infra Part IV (exploring litigation surrounding Brexit vote and how post-Brexit relations may crystalize, if at all).

(10.) See infra Part V (suggesting multilateral alternative to Brexit).

(11.) See David Keys, Will the EU Referendum Mark the Demise of Post-war European Stability?, Independent (June 19, 2016), will-the-eu-referendum-mark-the-demise-of-post-war-european-stability-a7089986 .html (suggesting Brexit could eventually return Europe to its historical propensity for war). A minimum of 4 million people lost their lives during at least ten wars on the European continent during the 16th century (1500-1599). Id. These lost lives represented about five percent of 16th century Europe's population. Id. The 17th century (1600-1699) saw fewer conflicts, but higher rates of death. Id. 17th century Europe lost over ten million people, translating to roughly ten percent of the population, in wars taking up almost half the century. Id. During the 18th century (1700-1815 to include completion of Napoleonic Wars) Europe lost nine and a half million people, representing around six percent of the population, in nine wars. Id. From 1815 to 1914, Europe experienced significant peace, significantly credited to the Concert of Europe. Id. See also Concert of Europe, Encyclopedia Britannica, available at (last visited Oct. 17, 2016) (detailing Europe's collective desire to preserve "territorial and political status quo"). The four years comprising World War 1 during the early 20th century resulted in just over 37 million total European casualties, per the current estimates of most experts. See WWI Casualty and Death Table, PBS, casdeath_pop.html (last visited Oct. 23, 2016) (outlining military deaths caused by World War I). See Readers Digest, The World at Arms (Reader's Digest, 1st ed. 1989) (discussing lives lost during World War II). World War II brought about the death of an estimated 64 million. Id. Since 1945, the end of World War II, Europe has existed in relative peace due, in part, to the commitment to cooperation fostered in the European Economic Community (E.E.C.) and, later, the European Union. See David Keys, supra-, The History of the European Union, European Union, https:// european-union/about-eu/history_en (last visited Oct. 17, 2016) (reciting brief, decade-by-decade, history of European Union).

(12.) See supra note 11 and accompanying text (displaying increased loss of life and population loss per century).

(13.) See David Keys, supra note 11 (discussing how periods of historical peace have correlated to international European commitments); Concert of Europe, Encyclopedia Britannica, available at (last visited Oct. 17, 2016) (explaining need for peace agreement in light of regularity of war in Europe).

(14.) Peace Treaty between the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of France and their Respective Allies, Oct. 24,1648, available at 2009 1102214822/ (last visited Dec. 1, 2016) (establishing and defining terms of peace between European nations). This series of treaties ended the thirty and eighty year wars occurring in Europe between the Catholics, plus their allies, and the Protestants, plus their allies. Id. The treaty established a freedom to exercise one's religion. Id. at art. 49. The treaty also established a required tolerance of the religion of others by stating parties "shall be [obliged] to defend and protect all and every Article of this Peace against any one, without distinction of religion [...] ." Id. at art. 123.

(15.) See Concert of Europe, Encyclopedia Britannica, available at https://www (last visited Dec. 7, 2016) (emphasizing preservation of status quo as major reason for agreement). The purpose of the consensus was protecting the "territorial and political status quo." Id. The Concert of Europe successfully suppressed rebellions in Italy and Spain during the early 1800s. Id. The original consensus became obsolete through the revolutions of France, Poland, Italy, Germany, and Greece, during the 1830s. Id. See also Revolutions of the 1830s, Encyclopedia Britannica, available at Revolutions-of-1830 (last visited Dec. 7, 2016) (illustrating dissolution of original consensus). An altered version of the Concert of Europe existed after the revolutions and survived for much of the 19th century. See Concert of Europe, supra.

(16.) See Keys, supra note 11 (indicating relative peace during 19th century).

(17.) The European Union Explained: How the European Union Works, European Commission 3-4 (2014), available at HTEUW_How_ the_EU_Works.pdf (condensing basic function and structure of European Union). Robert Schuman, a German born French lawyer and statesman, held several prominent ministerial positions in the French Government. See Who was Robert Schuman, European University Institute, (last visited Nov. 15, 2015) (offering brief biographical details of Robert Schuman's life). In 1950, Schuman "[...] launched the 'Schuman Plan' proposing a supranational Community [sic] for coal and steel, based on a new European order." Id. The "Schuman Plan" was the genesis leading to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, which evolved into to the E.E.C. and eventually became the European Union. See id. Schuman's vision, through both his plan and as the first President of the European Parliament, helped mold the Europe known today. See id.

(18.) See Treaty Establishing the European Coal and Steal Community, Apr. 19, 1951, 261 U.N.T.S. 140 (outlining broad international community cooperation post WWII). Due to the devastation from World War II, the six founding members of the community (West Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) "united, 'pooling their resources to preserve and strengthen peace and liberty,' and augering [sic] economic prosperity and political stability to the region." See Liane M. Keister, EU Enlargement and Admission into the Schengen Zone: Once a Fait Accompli, Now a Moving Target, 36 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. 117, 119 (2013) (quoting Treaty Establishing European Coal and Steal Community, Apr. 19, 1951, 261 U.N.T.S. 140) (discussing formation and purpose for ESCS Treaty). One of the major components of the treaty developed a common European market, as well as attempted coordination of the economic policies of Member States. Id. The European Coal and Steal Community remained in force throughout future iterations of European cooperation, until dissolved in 2002. Id. See also Matthew Gabel, European Community (EC), Encyclopedia Britannica, available at https://www.britannica .com/topic/European-Community-European-economic-association (last visited Oct. 17, 2016).

(19.) Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, Mar. 25, 1957, 298 U.N.T.S. 11 [hereinafter Treaty of Rome] (establishing further economic and political cooperation between European nations); Matthew Gabel, European Community (EC), Encyclopedia Britannica, available at association (last visited Oct. 17, 2016) (explaining establishment of European Community via Treaty of Rome). The decade following the creation of the E.E.C., via the signing of the Treaty of Rome, was a time of economic resurgence. See The History of the European Union, supra note 11 (outlining the predecessors to, and creation of European Union). Eliminating custom duties between Member States, and working in unison to ensure stable food production enforced the cooperative spirit of the agreement and substantially supported the economic growth. Id.

(20.) See Treaty of Rome, supra note 19 (establishing Common Market and European Atomic Energy Commission). See also T.F.E.U., supra note 4, at arts. 26, 79 (establishing E.U.'s international marking and free movement principles). Eliminating custom duties between Member States, and working in unison to ensure stable food production enforced the cooperative spirit of the agreement and substantially supported the economic growth. Id. See also The History of the European Union, supra note 11 (theorizing economic and political cooperation providing basic needs lead to economic growth).

(21.) See Treaty of Rome, supra note 19 (detailing creation of E.E.C.). The E.E.C.'s chief political purpose included ensuring the continued peace between France and Germany, and create a sense of continental harmony following World War II. See Gabel, supra note 19 (discussing purposes and goals of European Community). The E.E.C. enacted these political intentions through supranational institutions, including the European Parliament and the European Court of Justice. Id. The United Kingdom joined the community in 1973. Id.

(22.) Treaty of Rome, supra note 19, at art. 3 (a), (c) (detailing creation of free movement provisions). See also Gabel, supra note 19 (outlining application of E.E.C.'s free movement provisions). The foundation of the E.E.C.'s Common Market revolved around four principle freedoms, namely: 1) "[T]he free movement of capital," 2) "[T]he freedom to provide services," 3) "[T]he free movement of goods," and 4) "[T]he free movement of people." See Keister, supra note 18, at 119; see also Treaty of Rome, supra note 179, art. 9-11, 48-73; The History of the European Union, supra note 11 (laying out brief overview of each free movement principle). These four principles lived on as the foundation of the European Union upon its creation in 1993. See Keister, supra note 18, at 119 (explaining foundational principles of European Union). See also T.F.E.U., art. 26 (enshrining free movement principles into core European Union policy).

(23.) See The History of the European Union, supra note 11 (outlining growth of European Union via new Member States during 1970s). See also Keister, supra note 22, at 119-20 (discussing how boarder expansion lead to long-term prosperity and stability).

(24.) See Sam Wilson, Britain and the EU: A Long and Rocky Relationship, BBC, (last visited Oct. 21, 2016) (highlighting strains on relationship between United Kingdom and remaining European nations collectively). The United Kingdom's economy was slow in its post war recovery. Id. Once it saw the economic success Germany and France were experiencing, the United Kingdom decided it wanted to be part of the E.E.C. Id. France vetoed the first application for admission of the United Kingdom into the E.E.C., twice. Id. The President of France, Charles de Gaulle, distrusted the motives of the United Kingdom and "accused Brittan of 'deep-seated hostility' towards European construction, and of being more interested in links with the [United States]." Id.

(25.) See The History of the European Union, supra note 11 (outlining United Kingdom's eventual admittance to E.E.C.); Gabel, supra note 19 (discussing admission of United Kingdom after overcoming French veto). The 1973 ratification and addition of the United Kingdom, as well as Denmark and Ireland, increased the total number of Member States to nine. See The History of the European Union, supra note 11 (tallying total Member States after 1973 ratification). The addition of Norway, unmentioned previously, brought the total number of Member States to ten. See Treaty Concerning the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Kingdom of Norway, and the Kingdom of Great Brittan and Northern Ireland to the E.E.C. and to the European Atomic Energy Community, Mar. 27, 1972, 1972 O.J. (L 73) 1, 5 (noting addition of new members). Through accession, the European Union incorporated the new nations into the original agreements entered by the six initial Member States. Id. at 14. The United Kingdom was granted, upon accession, 36 seats in the European Parliament bringing the total membership of Parliament to 208 and granting the United Kingdom slightly more than seventeen percent representation within the body. Id. at 15. The accession was not without controversy; despite the overwhelming sixty-seven percent support on the United Kingdome's referendum to enter the European Union, there was some stanch opposition within the far right of the conservative party. See Wilson, supra note 24 (presenting overview of opposition to accession). Brittan's far right fought against membership in the E.E.C. for years, at one point stating "[s]ome may argue that the fundamental conflict in post-war British politics is not so much between left and right as between those who believe that Britain's future lies with Europe and those who believe it does not." Id.

(26.) See The History of the European Union, supra note 11 (noting changes within European Union during 1980s). Roughly 1,600 Polish shipyard workers began striking in an attempt to achieve further political freedoms and improved economic conditions. Id. See also 1980: Shipyard Poles Strike for Their Rights. BBC News, http:// hi/dates/stories/august/14/newsid_2802000/2802553.stm (last visited Oct. 21, 2016) (exemplifying upheaval across Europe in 1980s). The Single European Act, signed in 1986, addressed problems with free-flowing trade through European Union nations over a multi-year period, effectively creating a single market. See The History of the European Union, supra note 11 (discussing single market evolution in 1980s); see also Single European Act, 1986 O.J. (L 169) 1. Europe evolved through further change with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. See The History of European Union, supra note 22 (discussing reunification of Germany).

(27.) Id. The 1990's saw communism fall across most of Europe. Id. The European "Single Market," based on the original principles of the Treaty of Rome, came into full effect in 1993 with the fulfillment of the Single Europe Act. Id. See also Treaty of Rome, supra note 22 and accompanying text (outlining free movement of capital, services, goods, and people as foundational principles of treaty).

(28.) Treaty of the European Union, July 29, 1992, 1992 O.J. (C 191) 1 (establishing modern European Union). The treaty set forth several objectives, including creating "economic and social progress," establishing economic and monetary development through a single currency, "implementation of a common foreign and security policy," and establishing citizenship in both Member States and the overall Union. Id. at art. B; see also European Commission, supra note 17, at 3. Essentially,
   [a]t the core of the EU are [sic] the Member States--the 28 states
   that belong to the Union--and their citizens. The unique feature of
   the EU is that, although these are all sovereign, independent
   states, they have pooled some of their 'sovereignty' in order to
   gain strength and the benefits of size. Pooling sovereignty means,
   in practice, that the Member States delegate some of their
   decision-making powers to the shared institutions they have
   creates, so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest
   can be made democratically at European level The EU thus sits
   between the fully federal system found in the United States and the
   loose, intergovernmental cooperation system seen in the United

Id. (emphasis added).

(29.) See Matthew Elliott, Seven Lessons from Britain's 1975 EEC Referendum, The Telegraph (June 5, 2015), available at eureferendum/11652504/Seven-lessons-from-Britains-1975-EEC-referendum .html) (noting history of attempts by England to leave European Union). On June 5, 1975, the United Kingdom voted two-to-one to remain in the European Union. Id.

(30.) See Chris Cooke & Mary Mother Francis, The First European Elections: A Handbook and a Guide 75 (1979) (recounting first vote to leave E.E.C.); see also A Timeline of Britain's EU Membership in Guardian Reporting, The Guardian (June 25, 2016), available at guardian-reporting [hereinafter Guardian Timeline]. Faced with a poor economic situation and growing distrust of the growing strength of the E.E.C., Britain's first referendum vote resulted in overwhelming support to remain with Europe. Id. See also Wilson, supra note 24 (evaluating result of first referendum vote). Then Prime Minister Harold Wilson succeeded in keeping the United Kingdom in the E.E.C. against the wishes of his own party. See Guardian Timeline (June 25, 2016), politics/2016/jun/25/a-time line-of-britains-eu-membership-in-guardian-reporting.

(31.) See Cooke and Francis, supra note 28, at 75 (detailing conditions during first vote to leave E.E.C.); Letter from David Cameron, Prime Minister, United Kingdom, to Donald Tusk, President, European Council (Nov. 10, 2015), available at https:// upioads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/475679/Donald_Tusk_letter.pdf) (last visited Oct. 22, 2015) (enunciating sovereignty as major relationship concern).

(32.) See Wilson, supra note 24 (reporting 67% of voters in favor of remaining); see also Guardian Timeline, supra note 28 (discussing 1975 referendum results); Elliott, supra note 27 (outlining history behind 1975 referendum on E.U. membership).

(33.) See Wilson, supra note 24 (highlighting issues developing between United Kingdom, Europe). Some have theorized the issue arises from "Britain's island mentality, combined with [an] imperial hangover, that is at play - Britain is used to giving orders, not taking them." Id. Others theories include one in which the British suspicion towards Europeans stems from historical conflicts with France, Germany, and Russia. Id. Despite these reasons, many called for a united Europe shortly after World War II. See European Commission, supra note 17 (highlighting desire for united cooperative effort at conclusion of World War II). Even Winston Churchill advocated for a "United States of Europe." See Wilson, supra note 25 (outlining historical relationship between United Kingdom and Europe); Sir Winston Churchill, former Prime Minister, United Kingdom, Something to Astonish You (Sept. 19, 1946), available at (calling for united Europe, similar structured to United States of America). Churchill did not envision the United Kingdom as part of a united Europe, as evidenced by his call that the British Commonwealth, America, and Soviet Russia "be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe...." Id. Regardless of Churchill's view of the United Kingdom's role, he reasoned a cooperative Europe would provide greater patriotism plus a unified citizenry to "take its rightful place with other great groupings" of nations. Id. Importantly, Churchill noted, "[t]he structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by their contribution to the common cause." Id.

(34.) See Wilson, supra note 25 (discussing growth of Euroscepticism in United Kingdom). Margaret Thatcher's view of the European Union's "common cause" differed from Winston Churchill's in that she negotiated a standing rebate on the United Kingdom's contributions to the European Community. Id. Jacques Delors ascension to leading the European Community caused a further divide between the United Kingdom and the European Community as he attempted to establish a single European currency and a more federalized Europe. Id. In 1988, Margaret Thatcher announced to the European Community that she "rejected 'a European super-state exercising a new dominance from Brussels...."' Id. (internal citation omitted). Thatcher's speech became the clarion call for euro-sceptics. Id. See also Kristen Archick, The European Union: Current Challenges and Future Prospects, Congressional Research Services, at 11 (June 21, 2016), available at row/R44249.pdf (discussing Euroscepticism in United Kingdom).

(35.) See Wilson, supra note 224 (discussing rise of Euroscepticism). Originally, opposition to Europe developed within the liberal Labour party. Id. One of the Labour leaders when so far as to issue a manifesto "promis[ing] withdrawal from the E.E.C." Id.

(36.) See id.(referring to political discord in United Kingdom regarding membership in European Union). The signing of the Treaty of Maastricht inflamed eurosceptics who felt it undermined the sovereignty of British Parliament. Id. The treaty did involve a significant power transfer to the new European Union; however, Britain still retained many of its sovereign powers, as well as its currency. Id. Tony Blair's 1997 election as Prime Minister allowed the United Kingdom to become part of the social protections granted through the European Union Human Rights Act. Id. After this victory, Blair turned his attention to adopting the euro. Id. Unfortunately, Blair did so as the euro sharply declined, fueling distrust in further participation in the European Union in the Eurosceptic wing of Britain's Conservative Party and the country. Id. Other people blame growing social inequality resulting in the core of "the anger and [sic] extremism and [sic] protectionism and [sic] xenophobia, and worse that we're seeing growing in the world today" resulting in movements like Brexit. See Don Tapscott, CEO, Tapscott Group, How the Blockchain is Changing Money and Business, Address at June 2016 TEDSummit, available at https://www.ted .com/talks/don_tapscott_how_the_bIockchain_is_changing_money_and_business#t-57 0031 (suggesting social issues and extremism as reason for Brexit, as opposed to patriotism).

(37.) See Letter from David Cameron, Prime Minister, United Kingdom, to Donald Tusk, President, European Council (Nov. 10, 2015), available at https://www uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/475679/Donald_Tusk_letter.pdf (last visited Oct. 22, 2015) (evidencing invitation in attempt to repair relationship). The previous year, Leading Britain's Conversation (LBC) Radio sponsored a debate over European Union membership between Nigel Farage, British representative in European Parliament (E.M.P.) and member of the United Kingdom Independence Party (U.K.I.P.), and Nick Clegg, British M.P. and member of the Liberal Democrat Party. LBC Radio, LBC Leaders Europe Debate, Great British Politics (Mar. 26, 2014), farage.html (documenting debate on European Union membership). During the debate, two of the four major political parties within the United Kingdom argued the pros and cons of leaving the European Union. Id. Farage argued remaining in the European Union costs the country too much money, forced laws upon the United Kingdom that Parliament could not avoid, prevented the United Kingdom from making its own trade deals, and caused unwanted immigration through open borders with other Member States. Id. Conversely, Clegg argued that leaving the Union would erase the recent economic recovery in Britain, thereby making it poorer, weaker, and less safe. Id. Farage's open boarder arguments have immigrated to America during the 2016 presidential race. See Roger Cohen, The TrumpFarage Road Show, New York Times (Aug. 26, 2016), available at road-show.html?_r=0 (commenting on similarity between arguments against open borders in both countries). The 2016 Presidential Election in the United States resulted in a victory for Donald Trump, the proponent of closed border policies similar to those Mr. Farage espouses. Id. The election in the United States differed in many ways from the Brexit vote; of particular interest, per the independent Electoral Commission of the United Kingdom, the Brexit vote saw record high turnout, unmatched since the 1992 Parliamentary elections. See The 2016 EU Referendum: Report on the 23 June 2016 Referendum on the UK's Membership of the European Union, The Electoral Commission, at 6, https:// pdf_file/0008/215279/2016-EU-referendum-report.pdf (last visited Nov. 15, 2016) (reporting on Brexit vote totals). Conversely, the turnout for the 2016 Presidential Election in the United States was at a twenty-year low with only 55.4% of the electorate participating in the election. See Gregory Wallace and Robert Yoon, Voter Turnout at Twenty Year Low in 2016, CNN, (last visited Nov. 15, 2016) (comparing previous presidential elections). Another notable difference is that Mr. Trump, unlike the Brexit vote, did not win the popular vote, but lost by roughly three million votes; however, Mr. Trump was successful in the United States' Electoral College. Id. Presidential Results, CNN, (last visited Nov. 15, 2016) (discussing results of United States' 2016 presidential elections).

(38.) See Letter from David Cameron, supra note 31 (presenting major concerns for European Union consideration). Cameron's first concern articulates the United Kingdom's desire for success within the Eurozone. Id. Cameron stated, "we do not want to stand in the way of measures Eurozone countries decide to take to secure the long-term future of their currency. But ... these changes [must) respect the integrity of the Single Market, and the legitimate interest of non-Euro members." Id. Cameron advocated for legally binding monetary principles to protect Member States and provide a mechanism for enforcement. Id. These principles include: 1) Recognition the EU has multiple currencies; 2) That a business should not be discriminated nor disadvantaged based on its countries currency; 3) Protect the Single Market; 4) Voluntary acceptance of Eurozone changed for non-Euro countries; 5) Prohibition from non-Euro countries being "financially liable for operations to support" Eurozone currency; 6) Recognition of non-Eurozone national banks competency in "financial stability and supervision;" and 7) Open discussion of any issue affecting all Member States. Id. The second concern suggests cutting superfluous regulations by aggregating all Single Market agreements and proposals and creating regulations narrowly tailored to a "clear long-term commitment to boost the competitiveness and productivity ... and to drive growth...." See id. Cameron's sovereignty concerns were three-fold: 1) To formally and irreversibly end the "obligation to work toward an 'ever closer union;'" 2) Give national parliaments the ability to act concurrently to prevent unwanted legislative proposals; and 3) Establish within the European Union the ideal of "Europe where necessary, national where possible." See id. Lastly, Cameron's letter addressed the speed and scale of immigration into the United Kingdom. See id. Per Cameron, the United Kingdom's population will crest 70 million over the next ten years. See id. Likewise, experts forecast that the United Kingdom, by 2050, will "become the most populous country in the EU." See id. Those predictions, coupled with a net migration greater than 300 thousand per year, become unsustainable. See id. Cameron's immigration concerns revolve around the access to jobs, as well as the access to social welfare benefits. See id. Proposals included allowing a four-year waiting period for immigrants to the United Kingdom prior to access to social benefits, mandating the free movement of people within the European Union is restricted for newly admitted members until their economies become more reflective of existing Member States, and cracking down on those who abuse free movement by means including stronger deportation authority and the ability to crack down on marriages of convenience. See id.

(39.) See European Council Conclusion (EUCO) No. 1/16 of 19 February 2016, 2016 O.J. (C 69) 1 (outlining European Union's acquiescence to requests in letter from David Cameron). The Council's response addressed all issues presented in David Cameron's letter, but were predicated on the United Kingdom voting to remain part of the European Union. Id. at 1-2. In response to Cameron's concerns regarding the Eurozone, the council stated that the current treaties already protect the United Kingdom. See id. at 3. Likewise, the United Kingdom is not required to adopt the euro and may maintain its currency. See id. Additionally, the United Kingdom was not required to participate in Protocol 21 areas. See id. In addition, the United Kingdom received permission not to participate in most acts regarding police and judicial cooperation passed prior to the Treaty of Lisbon, while continuing participation in thirty-five. See id. Finally, the council affirmed the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union does "not extended the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union or any court or tribunal of the United Kingdom to rule on the consistency of the laws and practices of the United Kingdome with the fundamental rights that it reaffirms." See European Council Conclusion (EUCO) No. 1/16 of 19 February 2016, 2016 O.J. (C 69) 1 (affirming significant independence from significant European judicial oversight). Regarding economic governance, the Council held that economic and monetary changes within the Union would be voluntary for non-Euro states. Id. at 4. Likewise, the Council stated emergency safeguards protecting the euro are not the financial responsibility of non-euro Member States. Id. at 5. The Council addressed Cameron's concerns regarding competitiveness by promising significant work on better regulation geared towards "lowering administrative burdens and compliance costs ... especially small and medium enterprises, and repealing unnecessary legislation" while maintaining the established consumer, employee and environmental standards. Id. at 6. The council further provided a stronger role for national parliaments and protections regarding the free movement of people; namely greater deportation powers, safeguards preventing the overpayment of social benefits to families outside the Member State, and new deterrents on marriages of convenience. Id. at 6-9.

(40.) See Stewart et al., supra note 3 and accompanying text; see also Wilson, supra note 25 (reviewing reasoning behind 2016 Brexit vote). The 1975 vote saw a 64.5% voter turnout, a 7.7% lower turnout than the 2016 Brexit vote. See Electoral Commission, supra note 37, at 131. Additionally, the vote to remain part of the European Union prevailed with 67% of the vote, a difference of 18.9% from the 2016 remain vote, now the losing side of the referendum. Id.

(41.) See Erlanger, supra note 1 and accompanying text (referencing results from the June 23, 2016, Brexit vote) (exploring outcome of Brexit vote and resulting implications).

(42.) See Magna Carta, Encyclopedia Britannica, available at https://www .britannica .com/topic/Magna-Carta (last visited Mar. 5, 2017) (detailing origin and history of Magna Carta) (examining Magna Carta's creation and scope). The 1215 version of the Magna Carta served to keep the peace between King John and the land barons. Id. The parties reissued the charter in differing forms in 1216, 1217, and 1225. Id. The Magna Carte was "a symbol in the battle of oppression" between the King and the barons. Id. Historically, in 1066, William I, or William the Conqueror, gained control of England by banding the country barons and the clergy. Id. In 1100, William I s son, Henry I, granted a promise of good government of the state and church via the Charter of Liberties. Id. In 1136, King Stephen, Henry I's successor, granted "even more generous promises of good government in church and state" through another solemn promise. Id. In the beginning of King Henry II's reign, in 1154, he issued a similar solemn promise "promising to restore and confirm the liberties and free customs King Henry ... had granted." Id. Over the following sixty years, the barons become increasingly concerned with their standing against the centralized monarchy. Id. The baronage was concerned with its financial liability to the crown, "the rights of justice they held over their [sic] own subjects," and its weakened position against "agents of the crown." Id. The Magna Carta, though originally only granting rights to the baronage, was one of the founding documents from which the human rights codified in "17th-century England or 18th-century America" sprung. Id.

(43.) See Magna Carta, supra note 42 (detailing evolution of human rights from Magna Carta). The original rights of petition and habeas corpus were grants only from the king to the barons to prevent civil war. See id.

(44.) See George Washington, President, United States, Farewell Address to the People of the United States (Sept. 19, 1796) Senate document No. 106-21, Washington, 2000. Washington articulated that the new nation, the United States, should recognize "[t]he independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint effort. Id. at 7 (emphasis added). Washington recognized that the people "must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together." Id. at 9-10.

(45.) See Magna Carta, supra note 42 (discussing evolution in England and America). The United States of America drew from several sources, including the Magna Carta, while drafting its constitution. Id. The English common law developed on these principles, enshrining significant human rights for the people during the 1800's. Id.

(46.) See id. (discussing evolution of human rights principles arising from Magna Carta). The charter laid the foundation for many of the basic rights western society recognizes today, including the concept of due process, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. Similarly, the basic right to petition the government and concept of habeas corpus can be traced back to Article 39 of the Magna Carta, which states:
   No free man shall be arrested or [sic] imprisoned or [sic]
   disseised or [sic] outlawed or [sic] exiled or [sic] in any way
   ruined [sic], nor will we take or order action against him, except
   by the lawful judgment of his equals and according to the law of
   the land.

Id. at art. 39.

(47.) Compare Constitution of the United States, art. 1, [section] 2 (holding African American's were tallied as three fifths for purposes of population and Congressional representation), with Constitution of the United States, Amendment 13, 14 (ending slavery and establishing equal protection under law); see also Jim Donnelly, The Irish Famine, BBC (last visited Mar. 5, 2017) .shtml (detailing English mistreatment of Irish).

(48.) See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations, available at (last visited Mar. 5, 2017) (expressing united worldwide attempt to define Human Rights). This thirty-article document encompasses the ideals of freedom and equality, abolishment of slavery, due process, privacy, freedom of assembly and association, and "a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration can be fully realized." Id. Though not binding, the proclamations stands as "a common standard of achievements for all peoples," and sets out "fundamental human rights to be universally protected." Id.

(49.) See id. Created in the shadow of World War II, the newly formed United Nations attempted the establishment of worldwide human rights, rather than the differing definitions found in individual countries. See id. The existence of worldwide human rights in the international ethos is not unnoticed, despite not becoming a binding provision of United Nations membership, and could one day become a universally binding jus cogens norm. Id. See also Anthony D'Amato, It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Jus Cogens.', 6 Conn. J. Int'l. L. 1 (1990) (discussing creation and strength of jus cogen norms). A jus cogens, or preemptory, norm is one determined so universally accepted that the entire international community is bound to live in conformity with it. See D'Amato, supra (discussing "supernorm" status of jus cogens norm). Notable jus cogens norms include "the prohibitions against torture and apartheid." Id.

(50.) See Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 Nov. 1950, ETS 5, available at [hereinafter E.C.H.R ] (affirming protected human rights within European Union). The E.C.H.R. affirms protected rights for all citizens of the European Union. See id. at 7-14. The E.C.H.R. also establishes the European Court of Human Rights. See id. at 14-30. The E.C.H.R. evolved and now consists of thirteen protocols, each consisting of multiple articles outlining individual and group rights. See id. at 53.

(51.) Compare e.g. E.C.H.R, supra note 50 (expressing founding human rights principles in European Union) with G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1048), available at (outlining human rights principles recognized by United Nations).

(52.) See E.C.H.R., supra note 50 (discussing Human Rights as grant from humankind to each other); Magna Carta, supra note 42 (establishing human rights as grant from King to the Barons); U.S. Const, amend I-X (expressing human rights as endowment from God). The evolution from the Magna Carta to the United States Constitution and from the United States Constitution to the E.C.H.R. demonstrates a global shift in human rights from King to gentry, to God's endowment to humankind, to humankind's recognition of each other. See Magna Carta, supra note 42; U.S. Const, amend I-X, supra; E.C.H.R., supra note 50.

(53.) See E.C.H.R., supra note 50, at art. 9, 11, 14-27 (establishing rights of fair trial, expression, and creation of human rights court). The right to a fair trial under the E.C.H.R. encompasses the right to a speedy public trial while protecting rights of privacy, a presumption of innocence until guilt is proven, a trial in a language the defendant understands, the right and time to prepare a defense, right to self-representation or free representation when the defendant can't afford it, right to examination of adverse witnesses, and right to a free interpreter. E.C.H.R., supra note 50, at art. 6. Freedom of expression under the E.C.H.R. means "the freedom to hold opinions and the right to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers." Id. at art. 10. The E.C.H.R. permits "the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." Id. at art. 11.

(54.) See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art 54, Jan. 27, 1980, 1155 U.N.T.S. 311, 8 I.L.M. 679 [hereinafter Vienna Convention] (establishing international laws on treaties); T.F.E.U. art. 50. See also Kearney & Dalton, The Treaty of Treaties, 64 Am. J. Int'l. L. 495 (1970) (affirming Vienna Convention's governance over international treaties). The original purpose of the Vienna Convention was the codification of international law; however, it eventually became "concerned with the law of treaties." Id. When drafting the articles regarding withdrawal and avoidance, the authors intended to create "a variety of safeguards to protect the treaty structure." Id. at 526. The authors specifically wanted to ensure "the validity and continuance in force of a treaty [as] the normal state of things which may be set aside only on the grounds and under the conditions provided [...]." Id.

(55.) See Vienna Convention, supra note 54, at art. 54 (detailing scope of article).

(56.) See id. (detailing modes of treaty withdrawal). Article 54 permits withdrawal so long as it occurs "[i]n conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or [] [ajt any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting States." Id. Other methods of avoiding treaty obligation include treaty denunciation, treaty suspension, a new treaty, impossibility of performance, "fundamental change of circumstance," and emergence of a new jus cogens norm. Id. at arts. 55-64; see also D'Amato, supra note 49 (discussing creation of jus cogens norms).

(57.) See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Judgment, 1996 I.C.J. 91 (July 11, 1996) (recognizing binding nature of treaties, with limited ability to withdraw).

(58.) Id. at 105 (providing withdrawal clause trumps international preference of non-withdrawal).

(59.) See T.F.E.U., supra note 4 art. 50 (outlining withdrawal provisions from European Union).

(60.) See Owen Bowcott, Theresa May Does Not Intend to Trigger Article 50 This Year, Court Told, The Guardian (July 19, 2016), available at politics/2016/jul/19/government-awaits-first-legal-opposition-to-brexit-inhigh-court) (articulating theoretical timeline proposed by Prime Minister May). The court fight questions whether Prime Minister Theresa May can unilaterally invoke Article 50, or if both houses of parliament must also weigh in. Id. While the High Court ruled on the case, the government was likely to appeal the decision to England's Supreme Court. Id. The main challenger within the seven-person suit revolves around the sovereignty of British Parliament. Id. A secondary claim raised is that,
   [t]he result of the referendum is not legally binding in the sense
   that it is advisory only and there is no obligation [on the
   government] to give effect to the referendum decision.... The
   extract from [Cameron's] resignation speech ... makes it clear that
   [the government] is of the view that the prime minister of the day
   has the power ... to trigger article 50 without reference to

See id. The Article 50 requirement indicates, "[a] Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention." T.F.E.U., supra note 4, at art. 50. The side supporting the Prime Minister, or government, states "its powers are based on the royal prerogative." See Bowcott, supra (articulating argument for Executive Government). The counter argument is that such a view is "beyond the legitimate power of the government--because under the UK's constitutional requirements, notification to the EU council of withdrawal 'can only be given with the prior authorization of the UK parliament.'" Id. (internal citation omitted).

(61.) R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 [109][111] (Admin) [hereinafter Miller I] (defining government's lack of ability to unilaterally trigger Article 50).

(62.) See id. (holding prerogative power does not extend to triggering Article 50).

(63.) See id. [paragraph][paragraph] 24-25 (noting Crown could not enter European Union without Parliament's assent). The court reiterated that the prerogative powers reflect the remaining legal authority the crown may exercise. Id. [paragraph] 24; see also Burmah Oil Co (Burma Trading) Ltd v Lord Advocate [1965] AC 75, 101 (discussing extent of Crown's prerogative power). "The prerogative is really a relic of a past age, not lost by disuse, but only available for a case not covered by statute." Id. at 101. See also Paul Daly, The Brexit Litigation: Statutory Interpretation and the Prerogative, Admin. L. Matters (July 25, 2016), 25/the-brexit-litigation-statutory-interpretation-and-the-prerogative/ (articulating arguments associated with either side of prerogative debate). Further explanation of the prerogative theory is that it was by executive prerogative power the United Kingdom acceded into the European Union; thus, the exercise of the executive prerogative allows for withdrawal. Id. Conversely, the other side argues that although accession occurred via the executive prerogative power, Parliament's 1972 European Communities Act manifesting intent that the United Kingdom would join the European Union makes European Union membership a question of domestic law. Id. Thus, the side advocating for Parliament's vote insist the executive exercising prerogative power would override Parliament's intentions and leave citizens bereft of numerous individual rights. Id. They further argue that any exercise of prerogative would only effect the international sphere, leaving intact all European Union law and rights now integrated in British law. Id. Resolving these issues will revolve around statutory interpretation. Id. The question effectively becomes, when the European Communities Act refers to treaties, does it refer to those entered by the prerogative power or those assented to by Parliament? Id. There is also debate regarding the effects of triggering Article 50. Id. Once triggered, is it an irreversible process or may the United Kingdom change its mind prior to the fulfillment of Article 50 requirements? Id. These are just some of the issues the high court takes up. Id. Should international law be a guide, the International Court of Justice opines that, because of the international desire that treaties remain in force, the party withdrawing from a treaty may suspend withdrawal at any time prior to finalization. Id. Furthermore, the author of Article 50 recently indicated that both the European Union and the T.F.E.U. permit a reversal on Brexit, even after submitting the letter triggering Article 50. See 'Brexit is Reversible,' Says Man Who Wrote Article 50, The Guardian (Nov. 10, 2017), available at (affirming ability to revoke Brexit at last moment). "As new facts emerge [regarding Brexit] people are entitled to take a different view, and there is nothing in Article 50 to stop them." Id. Lord Kerr's speech outlined four major facts Parliament should as Brexit negotiations continue. Id. Namely: 1) that the United Kingdom could withdraw the Article 50 letter without legal or political difficulty, 2) the inability to reach an agreement is not a remedy to the problem, 3) the United Kingdom will face a difficult road should it ever wish to rejoin the European Union post Brexit, and 4) the two-year clock is stoppable should Parliament decide to hold another referendum as details come to light. Id.

(64.) See R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 [57]-[66], [95] (Admin) (noting necessity of Parliamentary vote prior to joining European Union). The Court found the European Community Act of 1972 (ECA), allowing the United Kingdom to join the E.E.C., did not contain authority allowing the Crown to "change domestic law and nullify rights" under the Act. Id. [paragraph][paragraph] 95-96. "[T]he ECA 1972 confers no ... authority on the Crown, whether expressly or my necessary implication. Absent such authority ... the Crown cannot through the exercise of its prerogative powers alter the domestic law ... the Crown cannot give notice under Article 50(2)." Id. [paragraph] 96.

(65.) See id. [paragraph][paragraph] 106, 111 (affirming necessity of Parliamentary vote to withdraw United Kingdom from European Union). Discussing the 2015 Referendum Act, the Court holds "a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act." Id. [paragraph] 106.

(66.) See R (on the application of Miller and another) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2017] UKSC 5 (appeal taken from N. Ir.) [hereinafter Miller II]; see also Stephen Castle and Steven Erlanger, 'Brexit' Will Require a Vote in Parliament, U.K. Court Rules, N. Y. Times (Nov. 3, 2016), available at 2016/11/04/world/europe/uk-brexit-vote-parliament.html?_r=0 (stating case to go to Supreme Court and possibly European Court of Justice); see also Brexit Court Defeat for UK Government, BBC (Nov. 3, 2016), available at (last visited Nov. 28, 2016) (reporting on Executive Government's defeat and likelihood of appeal). The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, released its decision regarding Miller II's constitutional questions on January 24, 2017. See R (on the application of Miller and another) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EIJ [2017] UKSC 5 (appeal taken from N. Ir.) (expressing decision of highest court in United Kingdom regarding Parliament's role in exiting European Union). The Miller II Court upheld the decision of the lower court and mandated the U.K.'s Parliament vote on triggering Article 50. Id. [paragraph][paragraph] 92-93.

(67.) See Castle and Erlanger, supra note 66 (discussing potential vote in Parliament). Prime Minister May has promised to consult lawmakers; however, there is concern this will occur to late and a new structural relationship will already exist. Id. u[I]f Parliament is given a chance to vote on an exit agreement at the end of the twoyear period, lawmakers may be forced to choose between endorsing a deal they oppose or leaving the bloc without any formal relationship with it." Id.

(68.) See Kamal Ahmed, What Does 'Hard' or 'Soft1 Brexit Mean, BBC (Sept. 29, 2016), available at (discussing different versions Brexit may take). A "soft" Brexit would involve a marginal withdrawal from the European Union, yet retain significant ties and benefits. Id. Conversely, a "hard" Brexit would be a clean break. Id.; Alexandra Sims, What is the Difference Between Hard and Soft Brexit? Everything You Need to Know, Independent (Oct. 3, 2016), news/uk/politics/brexit-hard-soft-what-is-the-difference-uk-eu-single-market-freedom- movement-theresa-may-a7342591.html) (discussing differences between hard and Soft Brexit); Brexit: What are the Options?. BBC (June 12, 2017), available at .com/news/uk-politics-37507129; see also Vaughne Miller and Arabella Lang, Brexit: What Happens Next?, in Briefing Paper, at 8-14, 16 (House of Commons Library No. 07632, 2016) (discussing possible effect of Brexit); Paul Bowers, Arabella Lang, Vaughne Miller, Ben Smith, Dominic Webb, Brexit: Some Legal and Constitutional Issues and Alternatives to EU Membership, in Briefing Paper, at 26-35 (House of Commons Library No. 07214 2016) (expounding different alternatives to European Union membership).

(69.) See Bowcott, supra note 60 (discussing concerns over Parliament's power over Brexit); see also, EU Vote: Where the Cabinet and Other MPs Stand, BBC (June 22, 2016), available at (noting majority of Parliament favors remaining in European Union). Although the vote passed fifty-four percent to forty-eight percent, as of June 22, 2016, M.P.'s backed remaining in the Union by a margin of about seventy-five percent to twentylive percent, or 479 against 158. See Erlanger, supra note 1. Similarly, Prime Minister David Cameron's cabinet consisted of eighty percent opposition to Brexit; however, new Prime Minister Theresa May has built a strongly pro-Brexit cabinet since her election. See EU Vote: Where the Cabinet and Other MPs Stand, BBC (June 22,2016), available at (last visited Oct. 23, 2016); Angela Dewan, British Leader May Builds Brexit Army, CNN (July 14, 2016), (reporting restructure of Britain's Executive Government with pro-Brexit supporters); see also Richard Allen Greene, Brexit Poll: Six Months On, Brits Stand By EU Referendum Decision, CNN (Dec. 19, 2016), (establishing continued long term support for Brexit).

(70.) See Miller and Lang, supra note 628 (discussing Brexit's effect on immigration and national budget); Assessment of the UK Post-Referendum Economy, Off. for Nat'l Stat. (Sept. 21, 2016), uksectoraccounts/ articles/assessmentoftheukpostreferendumeconomy/september2016 (assessing post-referendum economy).

(71.) See Steven Morris, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland Could Demand Vote on Brexit Terms, The Guardian (July 22, 2016), available at https://www.theguardian .com/politics/2016/jul/22/brexit-scotland-wales-northern-ireland-eu-referendum; Kylie MacLellan, UK PM to Offer Scotland, Wales, N Ireland Talks with Brexit Minister, Reuters (Oct. 23, 2016), 12N0Z7 (considering likelihood of Scotland and Northern Ireland leaving United Kingdom and rejoining European Union). Leaders of the three devolved governments demanded Parliament hear their voices weeks after the Brexit vote. See Morris, supra. The leaders agreed the government would not trigger Article 50 until an agreement existed between all four governments. Id. Northern Ireland expressed concern with a potential "hard border" with Ireland, yet was unsure how the free movement of people would work moving forward. Id. Prime Minister Theresa May promised a minimum of two formal discussions between the devolved governments and Britain's Brexit minister, David Davis. See MacLellan, supra. Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland's First Minister, stated her government "is preparing for all possibilities including independence after Britain leaves the EU," while May touts input and a united front in Brexit negotiations. Id.; see also Libby Brooks, Scottish Independence: Draft Bill Published on Second Referendum, The Guardian (Oct. 20, 2016), available at ence-referendum-bill-published (reporting on first steps of new Scottish independence bill); Steven Swinford, Nicola Stugeon: I am Not Bluffing About Second Scottish Independence Referendum, The Telegraph (Jan. 8, 2017), available at http://www pendence-referendum/ (holding Scotland's First Minister serious about not leaving European Union's Single Market). Despite the concerns from two of the devolved governments, May promises a "one-size-fits-all Brexit deal on behalf of the whole United Kingdom." Id.

(72.) See Ian Bond, Sophia Besch, Agata Gostynska-Jakubowska, Rem Korteweg, Camino Mortera-Martinez and Simon Tilford, Europe After Brexit Unleashed or Undone?, Centre for European Reform (Apr. 2016), available at https://www.cer (discussing stability of European Union post Brexit); see also Dominic Webb, Brexit: Trade Aspects, in Briefing Paper, at 3-5 (House of Commons Library No. 07694, 2016) (discussing present trade relations with European Union states and possible future models). Approximately fifty percent of all trade conducted with the United Kingdom occurs with Member States of the European Union. See Webb, supra at 3. Presently the United Kingdom enjoys the financial benefits of the Union's Single Market. Id. This includes the elimination of tariffs and duties, plus the removal of "non-tariff barriers, such as technical specifications and rules on labelling of products." Id. Further concern exists with the hefty price tag affixed to Brexit, between GBP18-25 billion upfront with GBP4.5 million annually without a trade deal. See Jennifer Rankin, How Much will Brexit cost Britain, The Guardian (Oct. 13, 2016), available at https://www politics/2016/oct/13/brexit-britain-cost-divorce-bill-questions-answered-uk (last visited Jan. 3, 2017) (discussing upfront costs for Brexit); see also Ben Chu, Brexit, True Cost of UK Leaving EU Without a Trade Deal Revealed, The Independent (Sept. 23, 2016), available at news/brexit-latest-cost-uk-leaving-eu-without-trade-deal-exports-negotiations-david davis-a7325326.html (discussing annual cost of Brexit without trade deal); see also Patrick Wintour, UK Officials Seek Draft Agreements with EU Before Triggering Article 50, The Guardian (July 22, 2016), available at https://www.the politics/2016/jul/22/brexit-talks-uk-limbo-sequence-negotiations-eu (last visited Jan. 10, 2017) (extoling economic problems arising if Brexit occurs without future trade agreements).

(73.) See FAQs about the city, City of London, uk/ business/economic-research-and-information/statistics/Pages/research-faqs.aspx (last visited Dec. 29, 2016) (expounding London employment statistics); see also Hetan Patel, Leaving Europe? Why the United Kingdom Needs a Unique Trading Arrangement with the European Union that Transcends the Deficient European Models, 41 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. (forthcoming June 2018) (advocating for development of unique economic model between United Kingdom and European Union). The United Kingdom's present problem is navigating the negotiations timetable. See Jennifer Rankin, Divorce Bill Impasse Stifles Hopes for Brexit Talks Breakthrough, The Guardian (Oct. 7, 2017), available at 07/divorce-bill-impasse-stifles-hopes-for-brexit-talks-breakthrough. The United Kingdom wants to deal with the pending economic landscape post Brexit; however, must make progress on "citizens rights, the financial settlement [with the European Union] and Ireland [negotiations] - before discussing trade." See id.

(74.) See Bond et al., supra note 66, at 7 (theorizing loss of second largest economy will affect trade). Economic size matters regarding international bargaining power. Id. Reduction in size reduces the ability for the European Union to negotiate with Asia. Id.

(75.) See GBP to USD Chart, XE Currency (Oct. 17, 2016), currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=lY; EUR to USD Chart, XE Currency (Oct. 23, 2016), view=10Y (expressing volatility of economic market via devalued currency post Brexit). The decline of both the British pound and the E.U. Euro indicates global concern over the future of both economic markets. Id.

(76.) See Susan Capelouto, Italy's PM Matteo Rezi to Resign After Constitutional Referendum Defeat, CNN (Dec. 5, 2016), voting/index.html (noting rise of nationalistic anti-Europe movements destabilizing European Union stalwarts). Many consider the defeat of the Italian constitutional referendum as a win for Eurosceptics. Id. The change in Italian leadership may pave the way for an Italian Brexit. Id.

(77.) See Capelouto, supra note 76 (discussing fears of an Italian Brexit). International observers are concerned that, if a new Prime Minister comes from Italy's populist and nationalist parties, Italy will first withdraw from using the Euro and possibly push to leave the Union. Id.

(78.) See Ben Wedeman, First Brexit, then Trump, Now Italy Faces its Political Shockwave, CNN (Dec. 2, 2016), http://www.cnn.eom/2016/12/02/opinions/italy-referendum-preview/index.html (opining the loss of an original Member State as crippling European Union); Bruce Cremley, French Rightwing Mayor Creates 'Rue de Brexit' in Honor of British Vote, The Guardian (Dec. 27, 2016), available at https://www tional-beaucaire (detailing French Presidential Candidate's call for "Frexit"); see also Bond, supra note 72, at 13-14 (discussing post-Brexit free trade agreements and access to jobs); Rachael De Orio, Seeking Sanctuary Across the Sea: Why the Influx of Refugees and Asylum Seekers to Greece Requires Major Policy Changes, 41 Suffolk Transnat'l L. Rev. (forthcoming Mar. 2018) (discussing impracticality but potential possibility of Greek style Brexit). The call for a French version of Brexit are, at present, defeated through the election of Emmanuel Macron as President of France, defeating Marine Le Pen. See Angelique Chrisafis, Emmanuel Macron Vows Unity after Winning French Presidential Election, The Guardian (May 8, 2017), available at idency-marine-le-pen (suggesting Macron's victory dampened immediate prospects of France leaving European Union).

(79.) See Bond et al., supra note 66, at 15 (discussing crises bringing refugees into European Union); see also LBC Radio, supra note 357 (highlighting statement from Nigel Farage concerning immigrants). Immigration, according to Brexit supporters, causes a lack of jobs and a dilution of opportunities for present citizens. See LBC Radio, supra note 357 (debating effect of immigration on opportunities for present citizens of United Kingdom).

(80.) The British in Europe - and Vice Versa, Migration Watch UK (Mar. 23, 2016), (highlighting migration statistics at time of Brexit vote). Of the 1.2 million, the majority live in larger nations: 309 thousand live in Spain, 255 thousand live in Ireland, 185 thousand live in France, and 103 thousand live in Germany. Id.

(81.) Id. The nations representing the largest numbers of immigrants include 883 thousand from Poland, 411 thousand from Ireland, 297 thousand from Germany, 229 thousand from Romania, and 204 thousand from Italy. Id.

(82.) Id. A vast number of the British expatriates are retirees who have immigrated. Id. Some 400 thousand expatriates receive benefits from the United Kingdom's Department for Work and Pensions totaling 1.4 billion BPS, or 3.5 thousand BPS per person. Id. [paragraph][paragraph] 3-4. Additionally, other Member states charge British National Health Service 580 million BPS, or approximately 1,450 BPS, for costs incurred by these pensioners. Id. [paragraph] 5. The United Kingdom received GBP12 million in return for similar pensioner medical expenses; however, there is no accurate reflection of the number of expatriate pensioners within the United Kingdom. Id. The British Office for National Statistics estimates 2.1 million of the 3.3 million Union Expatriates in the United Kingdom are working. Id. [paragraph] 7. While concerns exist for what happens for future expatriates, the government of the United Kingdom believes current expatriates will experience little to no change. Id. [paragraph] 8. The government theorizes that the Vienna Convention suggests, "[Wjithdrawal from the treaty releases the parties from any future obligations to each other but does not affect any rights and obligations acquired under it before withdrawal." Id. II 8 (emphasis added).

(83.) See LBC Radio, supra note 357 (debating open borders policy's effect on employment); see also Miller and Lang, supra note 628, at 15-16 (discussing future of free movement rights and employment opportunities for immigrants). Politicians leading the pro-Brexit campaign stated that immigrants in the United Kingdom would not be deported due to the free movement rights. See Miller and Lang, supra note 628, at 15.

(84.) See David Barrett, The Terrorist We Can't Deport Because of His Human Rights, The Telegraph (Aug. 15, 2013), available at news/uknews/ terrorism-in-the-uk/10245907/The-terrorist-we-cant-deport-because-ofhis-human-rights.html (discussing Court deciding convicted terrorist remains in United Kingdom for fear of persecution in Algeria); see also Robert Mendick, Human Rights Act Has Helped 28 Terrorists to Stay in UK, The Telegraph (Jan. 21, 2015), available at Human-Rights-Act-has-helped-28-terrorists-to-stay-in-UK.html (alleging Human Rights Act prevents deportation of international criminals).

(85.) See Mendick, supra note 84 (discussing Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights Act); see also Joshua Rozenberg, Human Rights Legislation in the UK, A Cut-Out-and -Keep-Guide, The Guardian (Sept. 1, 2014), available at (discussing distinctions between human rights responsibilities of United Kingdom).

(86.) See Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 3, Nov. 4, 1950, ETS 5 (preventing violations of human rights). Article 3 states, "No one shall be subject to torture or inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment." Id. Courts have interpreted this to mean criminals may avoid deportation to countries with poor human rights records, if ill-treatment would occur should they return. Id.

(87.) See Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Human Rights Implications of Brexit, 2016-17, HL 88, 1 10 (UK) (discussing Brexit's potential effects on Human Rights). The joint committee, comprised of a bipartisan force drawing membership from both the House of Lords and House of Commons, articulates three types of rights Brexit puts in question. Id. These are defined as: 1) rights which may be replicated post Brexit (including "residency rights of EU nationals in the UK," worker's rights, rights preventing discrimination, and equality rights); 2) rights which may remain in force post Brexit for United Kingdom expatriates residing within the European Union (including those presently protected by the T.F.E.U., i.e. "rights of free movement of persons, capital and establishment"); and 3) rights impossible to replicate post Brexit (including participation in European elections and petitioning the European Commission). Id. at 9-10. The United Kingdom's modern human rights acknowledgement began after WWII with the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Dec. 10, 1948), available at .htm: see also Sophie Walker, Brexit will be Disastrous for Women Unless We Fight the Rollback of Our Rights, The Guardian (Apr. 14, 2017), available at https://www (discussing disproportionate effect of recent laws against women and minorities).

(88.) See Earlanger, supra note 1 (reporting non-binding nature and results of Brexit vote).

(89.) Id. The non-binding nature of the Brexit vote permits Members of Parliament to vote how they wish. Id. This potentially allows the politicians to ignore unilaterally the will of the people, expressed through the referendum vote. Id. This was an unlikely outcome, though, because general opinion considered it potential career suicide to go rogue on such a contentious issue. Id. But see Stephen Castle, U.K. Parliament Approves Theresa May's General Election Call, N.Y. Times (Apr. 19, 2017), available at 2017/04/19/world/europe/uk-generalelection.html (relating Parliament's approve for an unscheduled election during Brexit negotiations). Though Prime Minister May called for the election in an attempt to bolster the pro-Brexit majority, the future of Brexit negotiations becomes uncertain should she lose seats or potentially lose the majority. Id. See also Ismail Einashe, A New Vote on Brexit Resurfaces Racial Anxieties Among Black Brits, NPR (Apr. 18, 2017) anxieties-among-black-brits (expressing concerns of mounting racial tensions surrounding Brexit). According to some "[t]he Brexit referendum has put a spotlight on racial divides in Britain, and has led to a marked rise in racism that is making many black Britons fell like they are no longer welcome at home." Id. These sentiments are not unique to the black British community. Id. While nationalism, in part, drove the country towards Brexit, Brexit caused some minorities to question, "Just how British [they] are." Id.

(90.) See Greene, supra note 69 (outlining strong support for Brexit six months after vote); see also Earlanger, supra note 1 (hypothesizing will of people will not be ignored). When Parliament eventually voted on Article 50, "the House of Commons voted by 498 to 114" in favor of advancing the Article 50 bill to the House of Lords. See Laura Smith-Spark, Article 50: UK Parliament Votes in Favor of Starting Brexit Process, CNN (Feb. 1, 2017), (discussing advancement of the Brexit process).

(91.) See Greene, supra note 69 (announcing continued support of Brexit). Support levels bolster the government's resolve to push forward with the Brexit bill. Id. While Brexit maintains strong support, pro-Brexit parties lost a significant number of seats during the 2017 elections. See Election 2017 Results, BBC (June 8, 2017), available at news/election/2017/results/england.

(92.) See Greene, supra note 69 (recognizing Brexit likely to occur); Earlanger, supra note 1 (suggesting Parliament cannot ignore implied responsibility to leave European Union). Where Brexit is likely to occur, the concerns turn to how it will occur. See Greene, supra note 69 (focusing on mode of Brexit implementation). The United Kingdom's future will be different depending on how Brexit unfolds. Id. See also Severin Carrell, Scottish Parliament Votes for Second Independence Referendum, The Guardian (Mar. 28, 2017), available at mar/28/scottish-parliament-votes-for-second-independence-referendum-nicola-sturgeon (detailing Scotland's Parliament granting permission to negotiate another referendum to leave). Prime Minister May, hoping to increase her majority in Parliament, called for an election in June 2017. See Anushka Asthana, Rowena Mason, and Jessica Elgot, Theresa May Calls for UK General Election on 8 June, The Guardian (Apr. 18, 2017), available at apr/18/theresa-may-uk-general-election-8-june. In doing so, Prime Minister May asked the people of the United Kingdom to place their trust in her to deliver a strong result on Brexit. See id. Prime Minister May's Conservative Party ended up losing twenty-two seats and the United Kingdom Independence Party (U.K.I.P.) lost all seats in Parliament. See Election 2017 Results, BBC (June 8,2017), available at news/election/2017/results/ england.

(93.) See Ahmed, supra note 68 (defining different types of Brexit). Hard Brexit is the most severe form of Brexit. Id. See also Bowers et al., supra note 68 (listing multiple alternatives to European Union Membership).

(94.) See Ahmed, supra note 68 (discussing definition of Hard Brexit). A complete break means the United Kingdom no longer participates in the European Parliament. the European Court of Justice no longer has oversight, and the United Kingdom no longer benefits from any of the economic, social, and political freedoms granted by European Union membership. Id. The United Kingdom could compensate for these losses; however, any benefits, such as the free movement provisions, protected by Union membership require separate bargaining agreements. Id. The structure of any future agreements between the European Union and United Kingdom remains known until Article 50 negotiations are well under way. Id. See also loannis Glinavos, Brexit Negotiations: A Greek Tragedy, Forbes (Apr. 13, 2017), available at (theorizing unproductive negotiations as both sides grasp for upper hand). Theoretically, "Theresa May cannot legitimately assert the right to take the U.K. out of the single market (violating a Conservative manifesto commitment), never mind to revert to trade with Europe on WTO terms" due to a lacking mandate from the people. Id. Brexit appears to be like Pandora's Box, once unleashed it is impossible to control. Id.

(95.) See Miller & Lang, supra note 68 (explaining administrative burden regarding aspects of Hard Brexit).

(96.) Id. See also Laura Smith-Sparks, Brexit: UK Publishes 'Great Repeal Bill' Plan to Replace EU Laws, CNN: World (Mar. 30, 2017), 03/30/europe/brexit-great-repeal-bill-eu-laws/(discussing amount of legislation required post Brexit). The British Government found around 12,000 regulations imposed via E.U. law, about 7,900 government orders originating from E.U. law, and roughly "186 acts of Parliament" influenced by E.U. law. Id. The attempt to solve the legislative crisis with one sweeping bill, though effective, is sloppy and allows for a broad power grab by the Executive Government. See Peter Walker & Heather Steward, 'Great Repeal Bill' Will Create Sweeping Power to Change Laws for Brexit, The Guardian: World News (Mar. 30, 2017), 2017/mar/30/great-repeal-bill-will-create-sweeping-powers-to-change-laws-after-brexit (evoking potential for executive power grab).

(97.) See Ahmed, supra note 68 (discussing "Soft Brexit"). Under a Soft Brexit, the United Kingdom could better negotiate a level of interconnectivity with the European Union that would allow the Eurosceptics to regain what sovereignty they feel was lost over the past decades, yet allow the citizens to enjoy the economic and social benefits that come with Union membership. Id.

(98.) See Miller & Lang, supra note 68 (suggesting burden of starting fresh); Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87 (condemning use of individual rights as bargaining chip); Swinford, supra note 71 (discussing Scotland's referendum threat). First Minister Nicola Sturgeon suggests the present chaos surrounding Brexit negotiations only strengthens the case for Scottish independence. See Elisabeth O'Leary, Scottish Independence Case Helped by "Brexit Chaos": Sturgeon, Reuters: World News (Oct. 8, 2017), chaos-sturgeon-idUSKBN1CD0B2 (detailing First Minister's Brexit based argument for independence). Fiercely advocating to remain in the single market, First Minister Sturgeon stated,
   People watch the chaos that is engulfing the UK right now and
   people look ahead and see the damage that is likely to be done by
   this unfolding disaster that is not just Brexit but this
   incompetent and chaotic approach to Brexit being presided over by
   (conservative Prime Minister) Theresa May ... I think the case for
   Scotland's future in Scotland's hands (...) is becoming greater and
   stronger by the day.


(99.) See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87 (advocating for retention of rights). Negotiations could, among other things, allow for citizens of the United Kingdom to retain or individually opt in to the free movement provisions. Id. Regardless of the outcome, negotiators must make meaningful headway. See Jill Lawless & Raf Casert, Where is the Ball? UK and EU Exchange Volleys over Brexit, The News & Observer (Oct. 9, 2017), article 177805841 .html (noting lack of negotiation progress and advocating for renewed efforts).

(100.) See Sims, supra note 68 (indicating May's preference for full withdrawal). Prime Minister May is quoted saying, "Let me be clear ... [w]e are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again. And we are not leaving only to return to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice." Id. May believes "those wanting to do everything possible to preserve access to the single market were looking at Brexit the 'wrong way.'" Id.

(101.) See Miller & Lang, supra note 68, at 14-16 and accompanying text (discussing application of European Union law post Brexit and effect on immigration); see also Webb, supra note 72, at 3, and accompanying text (compiling different trade agreements for consideration post Brexit). European Union law will remain in effect until the separation has occurred. Miller & Lang, supra note 68, at 14. Post Brexit, the United Kingdom faces two options: 1) repeal all laws which came into effect via European Union directive (with possible exceptions), or 2) leave the laws as they are and repeal/revise specific areas of concern. Id. Likewise, the devolved legislatures of Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales would also have to make similar adjustments to their respective laws. Id. Brexit's greatest impact will likely be on the trade relationships between the United Kingdom and European Union Member States. See Webb, supra note 72, at 4. In 2015, British exports and imports were valued at 222 billion BPS and 291 billion BPS respectively. Id. at 8.

(102.) See Migration Watch UK, supra note 80 and accompanying text (detailing present concerns of United Kingdom citizens living abroad in European Union); see also Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87 (discussing impact of Brexit on those living within and outside of United Kingdom). The rights of United Kingdom citizens living abroad is one of the primary issues negotiators must face. See id.

(103.) See Migration Watch UK, supra note 80 and accompanying text (detailing present concerns of European Union citizens living abroad in United Kingdom). See also Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87 (discussing impact of Brexit on those living within and outside of United Kingdom).

(104.) See R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 [109]-[111] (Admin) (holding government's prerogative power does not extend to execution of Article 50); R (on the application of Miller and another) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2017] UKSC 5 (appeal taken from N. Ir.) (upholding lower court in Miller I and requiring parliamentary vote prior to triggering Article 50); Council of Europe, supra note 86 and accompanying text (preventing human rights violations); see also Barrett, supra note 84 (discussing human rights preventing deportation); Mendick, supra note 84 (arguing intersection of sovereign rights verses human rights). Miller II did not erase all potential legal issues surrounding Brexit; rather, it merely confirmed the 1972 Act of Parliament to enter the European Union required the vote of Parliament to withdraw from it. See R (on the application of Miller and another) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2017] UKSC 5 [78]-[80] (appeal taken from N. Ir.) (detailing narrow effect of decision). The ruling did not alter the royal prerogative regarding treaties. See id. [paragraph] 55. Miller II actually clarified to which treaties the prerogative applies. See id. The Miller II court noted, "the general rule is that the power to make or unmake treaties is exercisable without legislative authority and that the exercise of that power is not reviewable by the courts." See id. (internal citations omitted). The Miller II court distinguished between international treaties having no impact on domestic law and treaties that do. See id. [paragraph][paragraph] 57-58.

(105.) See Miller & Lang, supra note 68, at 14-16 and accompanying text (discussing application of European Union law post Brexit and effect on immigration). See also Webb, supra note 72, at 3 and accompanying text (compiling different trade agreements for consideration post Brexit).

(106.) See R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 [109]-[111] (Admin) (detailing constitutional question being decided); see also Article 50 'Brexit' Appeal, The Supreme Court, html (last visited Dec. 29, 2016) (detailing schedule of R (Miller) appeal). The appellate arguments occurred December 5-8, 2016. See Article 50 Brexit' Appeal, The Supreme Court, html (last visited Dec. 29, 2016). The United Kingdom's Supreme Court announced Miller II in late January of 2017 and clarified the reach of the two sovereign powers. See R (on the application of Miller and another) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2017] UKSC 5 (appeal taken from N. Ir.). The Miller II court held,
   One of the most fundamental functions of the constitution of any
   state is to identify the sources of its law ... the 1972 Act
   effectively constitutes EU law as an entirely new, independent and
   overriding source of domestic law he 1972 Act [acts] as a conduit
   pipe by which EU law is brought into the domestic UK law. Upon the
   United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union, EU law will
   cease to be a source of domestic law for the future....
   [Withdrawal] will constitute as significant a constitutional change
   as that which occurred when EU law was first incorporated in
   domestic law by the 1972 Act.

Id. [paragraph][paragraph] 80-81. Therefore, the U.K.S.C. found that a Parliamentary vote was required for withdrawal. See id. [paragraph][paragraph] 92-93.
   Thus, the continued existence of the new source of law created by
   the 1972 Act, and the continued existence of the rights and other
   legal incidents which flow therefrom, cannot as a matter of UK law
   have depended on the fact that to date ministers have refrained
   from having recourse to the Royal prerogative to eliminate that
   source and those rights and other incidents.

Id. [paragraph] 93.

(107.) See R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2016] EWHC 2768 [95]-[96] (Admin) (discussing rights not conferred to Monarch under ECA 1972). The question over whether the Government must wait for Parliament to act prior to executing Article 50 arises from an intersection of the Monarch's right, delegated to the executive government, to deal in international relations through the "making and unmaking of treaties" and the restrictions to the Monarch's prerogative power over altering domestic law. See id. [paragraph][paragraph] 24-30. Changing the United Kingdom's domestic law is the purview of Parliament as outlined in British common law and Brittan's Bill of Rights. See id.

(108.) See id. [paragraph][paragraph] 18-31 (discussing boundaries of Crown's prerogative power and Parliament's sovereignty); see also Bowcott, supra note 50 (defining arguments for both Crown and Parliament). Any outcome of the court will redefine the line between the powers of the Crown and Parliament. Id.

(109.) See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 81, [paragraph][paragraph] 8-9 (acknowledging lack of clear vision from Britain's Government regarding Brexit and human rights). People should take pause when their government minister, tasked with protecting and preserving the human rights of the citizens, is unable to detail a clear vision regarding how those rights are to be protected. See id. "[T]he mass rewriting of [the United Kingdom's] laws post-Brexit has been claimed ... as a job too time-consuming to allow for input from opposition parties." See Walker, supra note 87 (detailing lack of input allowed from non-plurality parties in Parliament regarding post-Brexit rights). The present make up of British law, coupled with the upheaval surrounding Brexit causes women disproportionate disadvantages moving forward. Id. "Tax and benefit changes introduced since 2010 have been paid for largely by women, who by 2020 will have shouldered 86% of welfare cuts, with black and Asian women suffering the most." Id. The failure to work together, despite disagreement over how post-Brexit Britain should look, is likely to result in a marginalized minority with its national standing reduced by regulation. See id.

(110.) See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87, [paragraph] 1 (explaining Brexit dissolves responsibility to comply with human rights obligations under European Union treaties). Despite plans to create a new "British Bill of Rights," the committee notes that Brexit does not automatically mean withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Id. [paragraph] 2. Regrettably, the Executive Government did not meet with the Joint Committee to outline a clear vision for the future of human rights in the United Kingdom. Id. [paragraph] 9. This indicates a concerning disconnect between the two branches of government. See id. [paragraph][paragraph] 8-9, [paragraph][paragraph] 18-22. Questions also exist regarding the effect and legality of any new human rights legislation departing from ECHR. See Rozenberg, supra note 82 (discussing impact of withdrawal or elimination of different human rights laws).

(111.) See Rozenberg, supra note 82 (outlining steps following a repeal of ECA). Any new human rights legislation must comply with the ECHR. Id. The further away from the ECHR new human rights legislation gets, the more likely the European Court of Human Rights will have to act against the wishes of the United Kingdom. Id.

(112.) See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87, [paragraph][paragraph] 18-22 (discussing possible different levels of rights new legislation may include). The present government's inability to do more than assure the people they will fight for their rights does little to explain the process or indicate a plan. Id. Prime Minister May's recent call for a new Parliamentary election in June 2017 compounds the government's presently vague response in an attempt to gain a greater pro-Brexit majority in the House of Commons. Id. See also Castle, supra note 89. Prime Minister May's call for an election is a gamble. Id. During passage of the resolution, leaders were already involved in electioneering by bringing up the most contentious issues facing the United Kingdom. Id. Leaders brought up "the clarity of Britain's break with the European Union, the stark inequality among the country's regions and the future of Scotland, where there are growing calls for a new referendum on independence." Id.

(113.) See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 87 (outlining international human rights recognized by United Nations). Adoption of the declaration in 1948 did not make it part of any United Nations treaty. Id. See also United Nations Treaty Collection, Glossary, United Nations, glossary/pagel_en.xml (last visited Apr. 21, 2017) (defining "declaration"). The United Nations defines a declaration as "clarification] of a state's position and ... not always legally binding." Id. Although a declaration could be a treaty, "[t]he term is often deliberately chosen to indicate that the parties do not intend to create binding obligations but merely want to declare certain aspirations." Id. While the principles encapsulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are generally accepted, it has not become binding international law. See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 87; D'Amato, supra note 49 (expounding status of jus cogens norms); compare Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 87, with Constitution of the United States, Amendments 1-33 (highlighting similarity of rights protected).

(114.) Compare E.C.II.R., supra note 46 (providing agreed upon European Human Rights standards) with Universal Declaration of Human Rights, supra note 87 (outlining non-binding recognition of human rights).

(115.) See Rozenberg, supra note 82 (discussing consequences of restructured human rights laws); see also Walker, supra note 87 (pleading for equal protections post-Brexit). Ironically, a spokesperson for one marginalized group drew attention to the lack of ability to act for one's self and the parallel with the reasons the pro-Brexit movement wants to leave the European Union. See Walker, supra note 87. "Brexit was supposed to be about taking back control and 'protecting our own.' [Government's] taking control ... rather than letting it reside in the Commons, [means] the Women's Equality party will work ... to assert the rights and choices of women who are every bit as much the UK's 'own' as men." Id.

(116.) See Rozenberg, supra note 82 (believing United Kingdom will not ignore all semblance of Human Rights). The U.K.'s Government continues to explore what rights will exist post-Brexit, and how to fill in the gaps Brexit creates. See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87, [paragraph][paragraph] 18-22 (discussing potential structure of human rights in United Kingdom post-Brexit).

(117.) See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87 (discussing retention of rights through ECHR); see also Bowers Et Al, supra note 66 (considering potential acquired rights Brexit cannot divest); but see Walker, supra note 87 (warning of human rights dangers post-Brexit); Einashe, supra note 89 (discussing Brexit's disproportional impact). The conflict between a desire to maintain the status quo but protect already disenfranchised minorities will prove to be a difficult task. Compare Bowers et al., supra note 68, with Walker, supra note 87 (setting up contrast between the social British majority and minority).

(118.) See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87 (alluding to prudent nature of retaining majority ECHR rights); but see Sims, supra note 66 (indicating Prime Minister May's desire to remain apart from Union post Brexit).

(119.) See Morris, supra note 65 and accompanying text (discussing potential political consequences of Brexit on United Kingdom). Dissatisfaction with England's handling of Brexit may lead to another Scottish Independence referendum. See id. Should Prime Minister May not make some meaningful concession for Scotland during the Brexit negotiations, a reenergized Scottish independence movement will mobilize. See id.

(120.) See Morris, supra note 65 (discussing relations with Scotland and Northern Ireland). Scotland's desire to remain with the European Union, coupled with its lack of involvement in shaping the post-Brexit United Kingdom, risks a "Scottish Brexit." Id. See also MacLellon, supra note 65 (detailing concerns from Scotland's political leaders).

(121.) See MacLellon, supra note 65 (discussing previous Scotland Independence Referendum). Many parties closely watched the Scottish Independence Referendum. Id.

(122.) See Morris, supra note 65 (outlining Scottish vote to remain part of United Kingdom). Although the referendum was defeated, the relatively small margin of defeat allowed hope of another referendum to remain with the pro-Scottish independence movement. Id. A politically unlikely second referendum became a political possibility due to the Brexit referendum and hard-lined talk of negotiations. See id. See also MacLellon, supra note 65 (discussing Scotland's previous referendum vote).

(123.) See MacLellon, supra note 65 and accompanying text (outlining calls for new referendum). The new referendum call accompanies the belief that the European Union will grant Scotland membership. Id.

(124.) See Swinford, supra note 68 (reporting Sturgeon not bluffing). First Minister Nicola Stergeon adamantly asserts she is not bluffing regarding a new independence referendum. Id. See also Brooks, supra note 68 (discussing new Scottish independence referendum draft). Work on the new draft referendum began shortly after Brexit passed. Id. See also Carrell, supra note 92 (detailing Scotland's approval for second vote). Miller II complicated the tensions between England and the devolved nations of Scotland, North Ireland, and Wales. See R (on the application of Miller and another) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the EU [2017] UKSC 5 [150] (describing appeal taken from N. Ir.). The Miller II Court noted that Scotland, North Ireland, and Wales do not have a "legal veto" regarding European Union withdrawal and will likely increase tensions over England and the British Parliament hearing their respective voices. See id.

(125.) See GBP to USD Chart, supra note 72 (expressing devaluation of GBP since Brexit); see also Webb, supra note 69, at 3-5 (detailing Brexit's effect on current economic structure). The GBP has not recovered since the Brexit vote in the summer of 2016. See GBP to USD Chart, supra note 75. A weakened economy does not promote global confidence. See Webb, supra note 69, at 3-5. The United Kingdom cannot expect to reemerge as a global economic leader from such a weak position. See id. The general outlook, from the pro-Brexit camp, is that the U.K.'s economy will sort itself out over the course of a few years, with the United Kingdom enjoying a position of global prominence in the near future. See id. See also LBC Radio, supra note 37 (highlighting pro-Brexit economic beliefs as outlined by Nigel Farage).

(126.) See Webb, supra note 69, at 6-8 (discussing stability of future United Kingdom economic models); Rankin, supra note 69 (discussing immediate cost to leave the European Union). The eventual recovery of billions of pounds will take significant time plus a healthy economy. See Rankin, supra note 72 (evaluating lost capital from Brexit).

(127.) See Chu, supra note 69 (expounding changed economic situations for United Kingdome because of Brexit). The greatest potential setback for the United Kingdom comes from a new economic model. See id. See also Webb, supra note 69, at 12-20 (relaying different economic models).

(128.) See LBC Radio, supra note 37 (debating pros and cons of Brexit between Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg). Clegg points out that any future trade relations will require negotiation with the very people with whom the United Kingdom essentially just broke ties. Id. Negotiating with the European Union as a whole, instead of engaging in prohibited individual countries, a practice prohibited by non-Union members, will require some significant and elusive bargaining chip to make up with the United Kingdom's newly decreased bargaining power. Id. Furthermore, there is a significant risk to the United Kingdom's international goodwill as countries may become more hesitant to engage in economic agreements after seeing them walk away from one they determined was not beneficial enough for them. See id.

(129.) See id. Separation from the European Union allows for individualized trade negotiations with several countries previously unable to conduct trade with the European block, or negotiate with countries severely hampered by the Union's stringent import standards with non-Union states. Id. Despite this new opportunity to trade for goods with countries previously unavailable, the lower quality of goods resulting from lower importation standards may not be worth the savings. Id.

(130.) Id. The United Kingdom's loss in bargaining power and goodwill places it in a precariously weak position when negotiating new deals. Id. Other deals may occur under the umbrella of the United Nations, but even Security Council membership may not be enough of a status booster to bolster international confidence in a nation willing to walk away from one major cooperative agreement instead of attempting to fix it. Id.

(131.) See Webb, supra note 69, at 12-19 (arguing pros and cons of both W.T.O. and Norwegian Models). The World Trade Organization (W.T.O.) essentially holds that the nation with the most favorable tariff agreement is the model upon which other trade agreements are drafted. Id. at 12. Theoretically, doing so prevents the European Union or the United Kingdom from overtly high and unreasonable tariffs. Id. In so doing, though, the United Kingdom effectively reduces the competitive prices for which the United Kingdom sells its goods. Id.

(132.) See Webb, supra note 69, at 15-19 (discussing Norwegian EEA trade option). Under the Norwegian trade model, the United Kingdom would retain access to the common market. Id.

(133.) See Webb, supra note 72, 12-14 (defining British application of W.T.O. model). These models, however, may not provide the United Kingdom with the unique relationship with the European Union it wants and needs; therefore, Brexit negotiations may need to develop a unique trade model over the remaining negotiation period. See Patel, supra note 73 (discussing efficiency of now existing trade models).

(134.) See generally E.C.H.R., supra note 46 (outlining European human rights). Questions abound regarding current E.U. citizens living in the United Kingdom and their ability to retain their rights without displacement. See id.

(135.) See Miller and Lang, supra note 68, at 15-16 (suggesting several possible issues with immigration due to Brexit). Although no final agreement exists at the publication of this note, theoretically British and European governments want a solution protecting persons who have relocated under their free movement rights. Id. at 15. This will, hopefully, be the outcome due to "the widespread disruption and administrative burden that retrospective changes could cause." Id.

(136.) See id. at 15-16; see also Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87, at 9-10 (suggesting residency rights may be retained through ECHR). The United Kingdom would do well to heed the warnings from George Washington when he said, "[t]he government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition ... and pernicious motives." Washington, supra note 44, at 23-24. Reason dictates that the block of European countries are stronger together as a conjoined union. See id. National pride and political ambition are substantial undertones of the Brexit movement. See id. See also Wilson, supra note 18 (noting rise in European hostility during eighties, and rise of Euroscepticism generally); Tapscott, supra note 36 (suggesting social inequality led to anger and animosity underscoring Brexit movement).

(137.) See Capelouto, supra note 76 (indicating Italian Brexit-like movement); Cremley, supra note 78 (highlighting calls for French Brexit-like vote); see also Wedeman, supra note 78 (highlighting similar political movements occurring through Europe). Brexit threatens a sea of change in the collective outlook of present Europe. See Wedeman, supra note 78 (noting increase in anti-Europe sentiment since Brexit). The example Brexit displays indicates a willingness by the United Kingdome to walk away and ignore the comingled interests of those around you in order to pursue its own interests. See id. This outlook stands in defiance of the post WWII recognition that we are stronger together than alone. See Kiester, supra note 18 (highlighting recognition of cooperative collaboration as foundation for E.S.C.S).

(138.) Compare T.F.E.U., supra note 4 (highlighting addition of Article 50 via Lisbon Treaty) with T.F.E.U. prior to 2007, supra note 4 (lacking treaty withdrawal terms). Under the original T.F.E.U., the lack of withdrawal provision meant any attempt to withdraw was governed by the Vienna Convention. See Vienna Convention, supra note 52, at art. 54. The United Kingdom's only exit strategies, under the original treaty, were for the other countries to violate the treaty so significantly that an international court would not enforce the treaty provisions, or if the other Member States agreed to allow the withdrawal. See id. Where neither option was likely to occur, becoming a European Union Member State was a permanent agreement. See id.

(139.) See Capelouto, supra note 76 (highlighting changes in Italian government towards anti-European party); Cremley, supra note 78 (warning of anti-Europe sentiment becoming prominent in upcoming French elections).

(140.) See Cremley, supra note 78 (reporting Le Pen's call for French referendum). Marine Le Pen lost the French election with a vote of 34% to Emmanuel Macron, who garnered 66%. See Chrisafis, supra note 78 (outlining results of 2017 French elections). Despite losing by 32%, France's anti-Europe forces declared a victory by earning double the number of votes they received in 2002. See id. Le Pen argued that, despite losing the election, her party is now a mainstream opposition force in French politics. See id. During his victory speech. President Macron promised to work on uniting the country. See id. The French election does not mean anti-Europe sentiment is dwindling. See id. Unlike the Brexit vote, turnout for the French election was at a forty-year low. See id. Macron's election, though a barrier to the anti-Europe right, still follows the anti-establishment trend. See id. Macron, a political independent, campaigned on "shak[ing] up the French political system." Id. His supporters took his election as "holding back the title of populism after the Brexit vote and Donald Trump's victory in the US election." Id. What the Macron supporters seem to ignore is that the independent's election follows the pattern of Brexit and election of President Trump because it bucks the establishment and status quo. See id. In so doing, France picked a political novice "to do battle with the far right." Id.

(141.) See Wedeman, supra note 78 (discussing Italian anti-Europe sentiment); Capelouto, supra note 76 (detailing Renzi's resignation and future consequences).

(142.) See Wedeman, supra note 78 (posturing reshaping of European Union without curbing anti-European sentiment).

(143.) See Archick, supra note 34, at 5-9 (evaluating economic and political issues within modern European Union). The addition of poorer nations to the European Union only presents a threat to the Union's stability if the financially secure nations begin to withdraw. See id. If withdrawals continue to occur, the financial burden will become too great and cause the Union's financial structure to collapse. See id. If the European Union's economy suffers, the political backlash will only increase the economic problems, threating the future existence of the Union. See id.

(144.) See id. at 8-9. Withdrawal of the financially wealthy countries destabilizes the economic structure of the Union. See id. When functioning properly the Union functions as a block, with each country supporting the others. See id. The introduction of new poorer countries to the block transforms it into a pyramid, with the wealthier established countries on the bottom supporting the newer additions at the top until their economies pick up. See id. Once these economies are functioning properly, the pyramid structure returns to a block shape. See id. Now if the European Union continues to admit less financially secure countries, while at the same time losing wealthy Member States, the block transforms into an upside-down pyramid; thereby, losing the ability to support the structure and resulting in a collapse. See id.

(145.) See id. If integration and economic recovery do not outpace the ebb and flow of anti-European sentiment, then the Union's survival is at stake. See id.

(146.) See City of London, supra note 73 (detailing specialized nature of London's banking system within European Union). London could remain the financial hub of the European Union if negotiations become favorable; however, the more likely result is the relocation of significant resources and personnel from central London to another major European country. See id.

(147.) See LBC Radio, supra note 37 (relaying pro-Brexit benefits argued by Nigal Farage); see generally supra notes 29-36 (detailing Britain's rocky relationship with Union, suggesting more efficiency from separation).

(148.) See Wilson, supra note 24 (expounding issues between Thatcher and European Union plus future evolution); Archick, supra note 34 (explaining growing historical tensions between United Kingdom and European Union); see also Letter from David Cameron, supra note 37 (detailing present concerns leading to Brexit vote).

(149.) See LBC Radio, supra note 37 (expressing belief of UKIP leader in Brexit eventually leading to greater international cooperation).

(150.) Id. (recording Eurosceptic views Union membership wastes taxpayer's money). There is a high financial cost to membership in the European Union. See id. The pro-Brexit faction believe these "dues" would have a greater impact invested at home, rather than the international community. See id. The anti-Brexit faction's belief, that this international investment repays itself in dividends through the cooperative economic and social impact the European Union provides, is exactly what Sherman and the European Coal and Steel Community envisioned during the 1950s. See id. See also European Commission, supra note 17 (discussing purposes of founding European Union organizations).

(151.) See LBC Radio, supra note 37 (detailing sovereignty concerns). The pro-Brexit camp believes the European Parliament and courts have too much influence over the domestic policies of the United Kingdom. See id. This faction fails to realize or accept that any collaborative method of government requires some distant and unfamiliar party have significant influence in local life. See id. See also Magna Carta, supra note 42 (recognizing consolidation of power from land Barons in King).

(152.) See Sims, supra note 68 (discussing executive governments position pre-negotiations). Such a dominant aura pre-negotiation put the U.K.'s Government in a precarious position for two reasons. See id. First, it sets a highly adversarial tone towards negotiations with a powerful international force that is already displeased the United Kingdom wishes to withdraw. See id. Second, it places a significant burden on the United Kingdom's Brexit negotiators to succeed, because anything less than what the government presently demands becomes a loss in the eyes of both the government's constituents and the international community. See id.

(153.) See Ahmed, supra note 68 (discussing difficulty of effectively selling Hard Brexit); see also Swinford, supra note 71 (detailing threat of second Scotland referendum should Britain leave Single Market). At present, a Hard Brexit is potentially the worst option for both the United Kingdom and the European Union; however, Hard Brexit is a real possibility if negotiators cannot reach a reasonable agreement. See Brexit: What are the Options?, supra note 68 (detailing many options with Brexit negotiations); see also Lawless and Casert, supra note 99 (reviewing potential outcomes for Brexit negotiations). At present, negotiators in both camps, appear to expect the other party to budge first. See Lawless and Casert, supra note 99 (noting negotiators assert ball is in other party's court). This international game of chicken does nothing to solve the problems at hand and little to calm the concerns of the watching world audience. See id.

(154.) See Wintour, supra note 72 (expressing concern trade agreements taking years of post-Brexit negotiations); see also European Commission, supra note 16 (detailing how regional cooperation works). Countries engaged in regional cooperation will not take kindly to those who snub them for national benefit. See id.

(155.) See European Commission, supra note 17 (extoling virtues of European Union); see also LBC Radio, supra note 35 (recording recognition by Nick Clegg that Europe is stronger together).

(156.) See Barrett, supra note 84 (highlighting British Courts deportation refusal for fear of rights violations in sub-standard prisons); Mendrick, supra note 84 (discussing interference of European Union Human Rights provisions with deportation). A nation can retain its sovereign nature while a part of a cooperative system, like the European Union. See European Commission, supra note 17 (extoling virtues of European Union); see also LBC Radio, supra note 35 (recording recognition by Nick Clegg that Europe is stronger together).

(157.) See The History of the European Union, supra note 11 (detailing United Kingdom's entrance into European Union's cooperative association).

(158.) See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87, HI 18-22 (discussing uncertain nature of British human rights post Brexit); see also Migration Watch UK, supra note 80 (estimating number of Member State citizens currently residing in United Kingdom).

(159.) See See Archick, supra note 34, at 5-9 (outlining economic and political issues within European Union); Capelouto, supra note 76 (indicating Italian Brexit-like movement); Cremley, supra note 78 (highlighting calls for French Brexit-like vote); see also Wedeman, supra note 76 (highlighting similar political movements occurring through Europe). The European Union is not solely at risk, the United Kingdom faces major economic losses. See FAQ's about the City of London, supra note 73 (detailing specialized nature of London's banking system within European Union); GBP to USD Chart, supra note 72 (expressing devaluation of GBP since Brexit); see also Webb, supra note 69, at 3-5 (detailing Brexit's effect on current economic structure and stability of future economic models). Brexit threatens the political stability of the United Kingdom by alienating Scotland and Northern Ireland. See Morris, supra note 65 and accompanying text (discussing potential political consequences of Brexit on United Kingdom including another Scottish referendum); Vidal, supra note 65 (detailing concerns from Scotland's political leaders).

(160.) See Rozenberg, supra note 85 (discussing consequences of restructured human rights laws); Washington, supra note 44, at 12-13 (advocating for cooperative government). Present day leaders in the United Kingdom and throughout Europe should heed the words of George Washington, who was not a supporter of general alliances; however, he advocated and believed it would
   be in their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages
   on the Union by which they were procured.... To the efficacy and
   permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is
   indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between parts can be
   an adequate substitute. They must eventually experience the
   infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have
   experiences. Washington, supra note 44, at 12-13.

(161.) See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87 (expressing concerns regarding future framework of British human rights); Miller and Lang, supra note 68 (debating future impact of Brexit); Bond et al., supra note 70 (relaying concerns about Europe post Brexit). On the surface, the Brexit controversy deals with the issue of sovereignty; however, under the surface and regardless of the intended or unintended consequences, the Brexit controversy deals with the reshaping of British societal norms and the alienation of its international neighbors. See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87 (assessing British human rights post Brexit); Miller and Lang, supra note 68 (analyzing Brexit's future consequences); Bond et al., supra note 70 (positing potential European issues occurring post Brexit).

(162.) See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87 (arguing for human rights protection during Brexit process); Morris, supra note 71 (outlining rocky relationship between England and devolved countries of Scotland and Wales); Webb, supra note 69, at 6-8 (reviewing potential future economic models for United Kingdom); Rankin, supra note 69 (discussing immediate cost of Brexit). With the severe political polarity behind the opposing Brexit factions, politicians must put politics behind on focus on what best benefits their respective citizens. See Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 87 (discussing human impact of Brexit on human rights); Morris, supra note 71 (suggesting human impact of rocky relationship between England and devolved countries of Scotland and Wales); Webb, supra note 69, at 6-8 (reviewing potential future economic models for United Kingdom and human impact); Rankin, supra note 69 (discussing immediate cost of Brexit).
COPYRIGHT 2018 Suffolk University Law School
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Eddington, Benjamin J.W.
Publication:Suffolk Transnational Law Review
Date:Jan 1, 2018

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters