لخّصلي

membership in the European Union was to encourage the EU leadership as well as the governments of the leading member states to make concessions to London."A significant part of future attention, including EU forces and resources, will be absorbed by building new relations between Britain and the EU," Umland said [11]. Undoubtedly, Brexit will form many internal problems for the European Union, which will mean that Ukraine may for somee disappear from the spotlight of its partners in the EU. There is no doubt that, with the release of the United Kingdom, Kyiv will lose some of the strong support for its European aspirations within the EU. Britain, as we know, was against the deepening of integration within the European Union, but supported its expansion at the expense of new members. The United Kingdom has long been one of the key players supporting the European aspirations of our state. In addition, Britain is one of the main forces in the European Union, which advocates the preservation of sanctions against Russia. The United Kingdom plays the role of a nucleus in the camp of European countries (Poland, the Baltic States, Romania, Bulgaria, Sweden), which are cautious about Russia after its aggression in Ukraine and are not going to make concessions about sanctions. According to G.Kukhaleishvili, Britain is the only European country that, in its authority and economic influence, can equitably enter into a debate with the Franco-German tandem, as well as with certain political circles of member states that question the expediency of continuing anti-Russian sanctions ( Italy, Greece, Slovakia). As a result, according to O.Riabchina, we will lose one of the strongest friends of Ukraine in the European Union, whose rigid position in counteracting Russian aggression often balances the moderate Franco-German position [1]. As the diplomat, Maidan of Foreign Affairs expert O. Hara, Britain, as a strategic ally of the United States, played an important role in shaping the united position of Washington and Brussels on Russia's containment. Brexit, meanwhile, entrusts the fate of European sanctions to the Franco-German tandem, which reinforces the position of supporters of the "carrot policy".Therefore, the development of policy in this direction can be more likely to unite than to disassociate players in the European arena.According to some calculations, the EU "costs" 430 pounds a year to British households. Eurosceptics believe that this money can be spent more for the benefit of its own state, that is to research and inventions in the fields of science and technology. But, on the other hand, the EU is paying attention to the fact that these households cover their losses, gaining up to 3,000 pounds of benefits from membership in the European Union. And another important reason was standardization. The British do not like the fact that the EU sets standards and standards for sizes, forms of things, and more. EU lawyers are convinced that the availability of one European standard is much more convenient and advantageous than the twenty-eight national standard. In turn, opponents of EU membership believe that the country must have national control of everything, especially on security, employment and health. It is believed that Britain's exit with the EU can create a "domino effect".Under conditions where the opposition will deepen political integration in London, while the elites in Brussels and the national capitals will be scared by the prospect of a collapse of the EU, Europeans can give Berlin a complete map of blanche for quick and decisive integration reforms aimed at making a European Unity is so deep and fundamental that nobody even has the idea of leaving the Union.Under these conditions, Berlin will be able to slow down the implementation of the steps Britain has hampered, namely:

• registration of a pan-European migration policy;
• creation of a single EU army;
• Strengthening the integration of the budgets of the EU member states.The specified requirements can be divided into four blocks [3]:
• Integration and sovereignty: London demanded from Brussels that the main goal of integration - the creation of an "ever closer union" - did not extend to the UK, which allowed the latter not to participate in further political integration.

membership in the European Union was to encourage the EU leadership as well as the governments
of the leading member states to make concessions to London.
On May 28, 2015, the new government of
D. Cameron introduced to the House of
Commons a question regarding the holding of
a referendum by the end of 2017 on further
membership in the European Union. On
November 10, the same year, D. Cameron
informed the President of the European
Council, D. Tusk, of Britain's demands for
reform in the Union. The specified
requirements can be divided into four blocks
[3]:

• Integration and sovereignty: London
  demanded from Brussels that the main
  goal of integration - the creation of an
  "ever closer union" - did not extend to the
  UK, which allowed the latter not to
  participate in further political integration.
  In addition, the British government has
  demanded the creation of a so-called "red
  card" system, which would allow national
  parliaments to cancel or veto the Brussels
  directives;


• Competitiveness: London demanded
  expansion of the scope of the common
  market and the restriction of "Brussels
  bureaucracy";


• social assistance: the Cameron
  government has demanded the
  introduction of a "emergency braking"
  mechanism that would allow Britain, as
  well as any other EU country to restrict
  access to social benefits of migrants from
  other Union countries, if it is substantiated
  that the social system of the state
  concerned is excessive load;


• relations between the euro area and the
  rest of the EU: London, which kept its own
  currency, demanded, first, the veto power
  of the monetary decisions made in the euro
  area, and secondly, guarantees that
  measures to establish a financial union
  would not be third countries that are not
  part of the euro, thirdly, guarantees that
  London will not be obliged to provide
  emergency financial assistance to the
  countries of the euro area. In fact, Britain
  wanted to introduce the principle of
  multicountry of the EU. If Brussels were to
  accept this, it would mean recognizing that
  it is impossible to bring all EU member
  states into the euro area. UK [5].
  It should be noted that if in Brussels and
  the capitals of the leading member states
  these demands were perceived as
  inappropriate and the referendum was a
  threat, then Cameron's party members were
  upset by the fact that the stated demands for
  EU reform were not radical enough. The
  position of most EU member states was
  expressed by German Chancellor A. Merkel,
  who believed that all the countries of the
  Union are seeking to maintain UK
  membership, but not everyone is ready to
  accept its terms. Since all other Member
  States were aware that it was unlikely that
  such preferences received by London would
  have been achieved, no one in the EU resisted
  the conclusion of an agreement between
  Britain and the EU.
  After several months of negotiations, the
  Government of Cameron succeeded in
  concluding an agreement with the European
  Union on the special status of Great Britain on
  19 February 2016.
  On June 23, 2016, a referendum took place
  in the UK, which was of great historical
  significance for the country. The British, by
  voting, decided whether it would make sense
  for the UK to remain a member of the
  European Union, or it would be more
  appropriate to leave it.
  The agreement included three blocks [1]:


• UK introduces restrictions on access to the
  social security system for migrant workers
  from the EU. For four years from the date
  of arrival, new migrants will not receive
  any social assistance. This means that
  labor migrants need to have their own
  savings, as well as secure an employer's
  guarantee of employment for a term of at
  least four years;


• The British financial system has gained
  independence from the European Central
  Bank, but London has not received the
  right to veto monetary decisions of the
  euro area;


• Britain has the right not to participate in
  the processes of European integration, if
  this is contrary to the interests of Britain
  [8].
  Thus, the British government has achieved
  what the supporters of Britain's exit from the
  EU have been struggling with. The agreement,
  which was unanimously endorsed by the
  European Council, was supposed to come into
  effect only on condition that the UnKingdom will remain in the European Union on
  the basis of the referendum.
  The result of the referendum was that
  51.9% of Britons (17.41 million people) voted
  to leave the United Kingdom with the EU,
  while 48.1% (16.14 million people) supported
  European integration [7]. The country will be
  able to exit from the EU only in a few years,
  but the process of divorce between the UK
  and the European Union has already begun:
  British Prime Minister Teresa May officially
  informed Brussels about this and sent a letter
  there.
  Great Britain has been doing this for a long
  time. In 2013, David Cameron, who headed
  the post of prime minister in front of his party
  counterpart from the Conservative Party,
  Teresa May, the current prime minister of the
  country, assured the British that such a
  referendum would be held if his party won the
  election.
  It was simply not possible to hold a
  nationwide referendum, as the conservatives
  also won a part of the party that was skeptical
  about Europe and the ultra-right. The United
  Kingdom's Independence Party exercised
  political pressure on David Cameron [2].
  But this was not the only reason for voting:
  almost the entire British population was
  dissatisfied with the direction of the European
  Union policy, according to which it had been
  moving since 1973. Great Britain has always
  tried to intervene in the first instance of the
  European Community, and then of the
  European Union itself. She was cautious about
  her membership in the European Union,
  remaining almost aloof. For example, the fact
  that the United Kingdom never entered the
  Schengen area and introduced the currency of
  the European Union in the country quite
  convincingly confirms this [4].
  Great Britain often complained about the
  decisions that were adopted by the European
  Union, which it itself did not want to discuss
  because of its inattention.
  Britons consider migration to be the most
  important reason for the termination of
  membership in the European Union. They are
  outraged by the uncontrolled "open door"
  system that prevails in the European Union
  and believes that this could lead to a massive
  influx of migrants from the EU (especially
  from the recently acceded countries - Poland,
  Romania, Slovakia). This issue is one of the
  most important for the British population, as
  more than 2 million migrants are currently
  living in Britain. Many young people, even
  from countries such as Portugal, Spain, Italy,
  move to Britain to find work and a better life
  because of certain economic difficulties that
  have gone through Europe [7].
  Another reason for leaving the EU is
  financial. According to some calculations, the
  EU "costs" 430 pounds a year to British
  households. Eurosceptics believe that this
  money can be spent more for the benefit of its
  own state, that is to research and inventions
  in the fields of science and technology. But, on
  the other hand, the EU is paying attention to
  the fact that these households cover their
  losses, gaining up to 3,000 pounds of benefits
  from membership in the European Union.
  And another important reason was
  standardization. The British do not like the
  fact that the EU sets standards and standards
  for sizes, forms of things, and more. EU
  lawyers are convinced that the availability of
  one European standard is much more
  convenient and advantageous than the
  twenty-eight national standard. In turn,
  opponents of EU membership believe that the
  country must have national control of
  everything, especially on security,
  employment and health.
  It is believed that Britain's exit with the EU
  can create a "domino effect". That is, other EU
  member states will want to leave. That will
  weaken the EU position and strengthen
  Russia's position in the geopolitical arena. This
  should be expected from countries such as
  Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands or even
  Poland and the Czech Republic, because the
  heads of these states are often seriously
  criticizing the EU policy [9].
  It is important to note that the UK's exit
  from the European Union is not a matter of
  days, not even one year. The European Union
  has its own well-established system of ties
  that will be severely disrupted. Take the
  example of the question of money: the EU
  forms its budget for 7 years ahead and
  determines which country and how much to
  get and how much to give. It is impossible to
  break down the work of this mechanism so
  quickly.
  Also, the EU is pursuing a common policy
  with other countries in various areas of vital
  activity of the population. For example,
  consider the agrarian sector. Farmers in
  Britain use agricultural subsidies from the EU.
  The size and procedure for the grant of grants
  is calculated for several years in advance. Tomonths, it takes years. The same applies to
  salaries and pensions.
  Also, the parliament will have to accept at
  least 7 laws relating to the independent life of
  the United Kingdom about trade, finance,
  border and customs issues [6].
  Another important consequence is the
  issue of trade. The European Union and the
  United States have no free trade zone, but
  talks have already begun. It is clear that after
  the release of Britain, it is necessary to
  negotiate with the USA independently, but it
  alone has a much less influence. At the same
  time, thanks to decades of integration with
  the EU, Britain will have nothing to do with
  targeting the European market. Probably not
  such consequences were expected by fans of
  brexit.
  It is obvious that breksit will be a shock to
  the European Union and the West as a whole,
  the consequences of which are extremely
  difficult to predict: if one of the experts
  believes that it will be the beginning of the
  end of the EU, the latter will see it as an
  important step towards unification of Europe,
  because in order to preserve unity, Europe is
  compelled will be consolidated. So, it's
  obvious that Britain's withdrawal from the EU
  will have both obvious consequences and
  those that are hard to predict today.
  Under conditions where the opposition will
  deepen political integration in London, while
  the elites in Brussels and the national capitals
  will be scared by the prospect of a collapse of
  the EU, Europeans can give Berlin a complete
  map of blanche for quick and decisive
  integration reforms aimed at making a
  European Unity is so deep and fundamental
  that nobody even has the idea of leaving the
  Union. Under these conditions, Berlin will be
  able to slow down the implementation of the
  steps Britain has hampered,
  namely:


• registration of a pan-European migration
  policy;


• creation of a single EU army;


• Strengthening the integration of the
  budgets of the EU member states.
  It should also be noted that without the
  participation of London, the EU position in
  international negotiations will be more
  consolidated and unique, which will allow the
  EU over time to reconsider many of the
  previous agreements, based on the "special
  position" of Great Britain, making them much
  more beneficial for continental Europeans.
  It is also clear that the UK's withdrawal
  from the EU and the further consolidation of
  other members of the Union are likely to
  result in the cessation of the recruitment of
  new, poor members, which could be a bad
  news for Ukraine. Before united Europe will
  inevitably raise the question of how to prevent
  the withdrawal from the Union of other states?
  In this regard, it is likely that the Union will
  take measures to punish Britain in order to
  show the other countries that are waiting for
  them to exit. The exit from the EU makes
  sense if guaranteed a more prosperous life.
  However, if the British example demonstrates
  the opposite, then those who want to stand
  apart will greatly diminish. As for Ukraine, the
  success of breksit will create serious problems
  for it in the medium term. First of all, Ukraine
  will lose a strong ally with a tight anti-Russian
  position within the EU. Strengthening internal
  contradictions within the EU will distract
  Europeans from Ukrainian problems. Finally,
  the EU is likely to close the extension issue
  indefinitely [10].
  Brexit will have significant consequences
  not only for the UK and the EU but for other
  key players in the international arena,
  including the United States and Russia. The
  influence of the results of the British
  referendum will also be felt by Ukraine, which,
  in the context of the hybrid war with the
  Russian Federation, has been pursuing a
  consistent European integration policy for the
  last few years. Below, based on the opinions
  of recognized international experts, we will try
  to find out the possible external and internal
  political and economic implications of Brexit
  for Ukraine.
  In general, after the UK's exit, risks to
  remain indefinitely beyond the attention of the
  European Union and of Britain themselves
  increased. Andreas Umland, a political
  scientist and expert in Eastern Europe, said
  that "European politicians, diplomats,
  journalists and experts will be even more
  distracted by what is happening in Ukraine
  and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict" as a result
  of the Brexit referendum. "A significant part of
  future attention, including EU forces and
  resources, will be absorbed by building new
  relations between Britain and the EU," Umland
  said [11]. Undoubtedly, Brexit will form many
  internal problems for the European Union,
  which will mean that Ukraine may for somee disappear from the spotlight of its
  partners in the EU.
  There is no doubt that, with the release of
  the United Kingdom, Kyiv will lose some of the
  strong support for its European aspirations
  within the EU. Britain, as we know, was
  against the deepening of integration within
  the European Union, but supported its
  expansion at the expense of new members.
  The United Kingdom has long been one of the
  key players supporting the European
  aspirations of our state. In addition, Britain is
  one of the main forces in the European Union,
  which advocates the preservation of sanctions
  against Russia. The United Kingdom plays the
  role of a nucleus in the camp of European
  countries (Poland, the Baltic States, Romania,
  Bulgaria, Sweden), which are cautious about
  Russia after its aggression in Ukraine and are
  not going to make concessions about
  sanctions.
  According to G.Kukhaleishvili, Britain is the
  only European country that, in its authority
  and economic influence, can equitably enter
  into a debate with the Franco-German
  tandem, as well as with certain political circles
  of member states that question the
  expediency of continuing anti-Russian
  sanctions ( Italy, Greece, Slovakia). As a
  result, according to O.Riabchina, we will lose
  one of the strongest friends of Ukraine in the
  European Union, whose rigid position in
  counteracting Russian aggression often
  balances the moderate Franco-German
  position [1].
  As the diplomat, Maidan of Foreign Affairs
  expert O. Hara, Britain, as a strategic ally of
  the United States, played an important role in
  shaping the united position of Washington and
  Brussels on Russia's containment. Brexit,
  meanwhile, entrusts the fate of European
  sanctions to the Franco-German tandem,
  which reinforces the position of supporters of
  the "carrot policy". The French Senate, for
  example, recently spoke in favor of the
  phasing out of sanctions. And the Social
  Democratic Party of Germany has always been
  critical of the latter. So without scrupulous
  British intervention, the analyst concludes,
  Russia can quite possibly achieve, if not
  abolition, the weakening of sanctions.
  There are opposing views on this. So,
  according to expert internationalist A.Shelest,
  Brexit will not change the European Union's
  position on Russian aggression, and,
  moreover, will not affect the position of the
  UK, which was one of the strongest in the EU
  in supporting Ukraine. Even Russian experts
  are convinced that it is not worthwhile to
  overestimate Brexit's influence on changing
  the EU's attitude towards Russia. In particular,
  the latter may prove to be the only "threat"
  that will be able to rally countries within the
  European Union and become a kind of
  "anchor" for "pan-European identity".
  Therefore, the development of policy in this
  direction can be more likely to unite than to
  disassociate players in the European arena.