The Legal Ramifications

The United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union is a good time to reflect on the grouping, its evolution and legal framework and its partial unraveling. What does this mean for international trade?

- Shaan Katari Libby

THE Treaty of Rome of 1957 established the European Economic Community (EEC) with a view to trading and never repeating the horrors of war. The United Kingdom (UK) applied to join in 1963, but France vetoed this believing that the British would never “play the game of Europe” as they were too much with America.

Ten years later, they were accepted, but two years ago a referendum was held asking whether the UK should stay in the EEC (sounds familiar?) This returned a Yes vote, and the UK stayed on then, although Marga ret Thatcher in the 1980s did negotiate a better deal by reducing British payments to the EEC considerably.

The European Union (EU) was born via the Treaty of Maastricht (1993) and the EEC was subsumed within it. More than just trading, the role was expanded to include foreign policy, citizenship rights, and a single currency. Britain decided not to join the single currency, which in hindsight was probably a good decision as several countries who are tied to it are unable to devalue their currencies even though they need to.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ), headquartered in Brussels, has been the final decision-maker on inter-country disputes. It interprets EU laws to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries, and settles legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions. It can also, in certain circumstances, be used by individuals, companies or organisations to take action against an EU institution, if they feel it has somehow infringed their rights.