What's on this page?
This page is an extra to the rest of the site. It draws together the geopolitical changes that have occurred over the period of 2015-16 with reference to
- multi-governmental organisations (the EU)
- non-state organisations
- migration
- international agreements
Brexit: why will the UK leave the EU?
The EU was formed under its current name in 1993, but the organisation goes back to 1957 and the Treat of Rome, signed by six European countries. The United Kingdom joined in 1973. A British exit, or 'Brexit' from the European Union is one of the biggest stories of 2016. On June 23rd, the British electorate vote to decide whether the United Kingdom should stay in the European Union, or leave entirely. This section of the page discusses why Britain voted to leave, and how this decision reflects current geographical issues.
Why did some people want the UK to leave?
A physical barrier: The English Channel
Historically, the UK has always been part of Europe but separated physically as the country is largely on two islands: the island of Great Britain, and the island of Ireland. Though the majority of the island of Ireland is now a separate nation-state (known as Eire or the Republic of Ireland) there remains a sense that the UK is isolated from the rest of Europe by the English Channel. In centuries past, this narrow stretch of water was a barrier to invasion while also providing ample trading possibilities. The physical barrier of the channel also prevented the spread of physical disease such as rabies as contagious animals would have to be imported by humans, rather than simply spreading over their own territory. To some of those advocating a Brexit, it is nothing more than returning the UK to the safety of isolation that the country enjoyed in the past.
European over-reach
Many who voted to leave recognise that the European Union has led to a long period of peace in Europe. However, they argue that the scope of the EU gradually increased beyond what was necessary and has taken elements of national decision making away from sovereign governments. Several examples are discussed here, such regulating how airlines apply for take-off and landing rights at airports across the EU.
An unfulfilled promise of economic development
Since the UK entry into the EU (then the European Economic Community) the benefits of access to a single market have been hotly debated. Those in the 'Vote Leave' camp argued that the benefits could be achieved without having to be part of such a large organisation that has such extensive reach into many areas of life. The failure of the Euro currency to provide stability in continental Europe intensified the sense that the economic benefits are not what they were promised to be.
An ever-closer union
One of the main arguments against the continued membership of the EU was that of the stated ideal of 'ever closer union' among member states. Anti-EU campaigners argued that this meant eventually national sovereignty would be completely eroded.
These are just four areas in which the argument can be understood; further ideas are here and here.
A physical barrier: The English Channel
Historically, the UK has always been part of Europe but separated physically as the country is largely on two islands: the island of Great Britain, and the island of Ireland. Though the majority of the island of Ireland is now a separate nation-state (known as Eire or the Republic of Ireland) there remains a sense that the UK is isolated from the rest of Europe by the English Channel. In centuries past, this narrow stretch of water was a barrier to invasion while also providing ample trading possibilities. The physical barrier of the channel also prevented the spread of physical disease such as rabies as contagious animals would have to be imported by humans, rather than simply spreading over their own territory. To some of those advocating a Brexit, it is nothing more than returning the UK to the safety of isolation that the country enjoyed in the past.
European over-reach
Many who voted to leave recognise that the European Union has led to a long period of peace in Europe. However, they argue that the scope of the EU gradually increased beyond what was necessary and has taken elements of national decision making away from sovereign governments. Several examples are discussed here, such regulating how airlines apply for take-off and landing rights at airports across the EU.
An unfulfilled promise of economic development
Since the UK entry into the EU (then the European Economic Community) the benefits of access to a single market have been hotly debated. Those in the 'Vote Leave' camp argued that the benefits could be achieved without having to be part of such a large organisation that has such extensive reach into many areas of life. The failure of the Euro currency to provide stability in continental Europe intensified the sense that the economic benefits are not what they were promised to be.
An ever-closer union
One of the main arguments against the continued membership of the EU was that of the stated ideal of 'ever closer union' among member states. Anti-EU campaigners argued that this meant eventually national sovereignty would be completely eroded.
These are just four areas in which the argument can be understood; further ideas are here and here.
Why did some people want the UK to stay?
The need to integrate in a global world
Pro-EU people argued that the UK was no longer a powerful enough country in its own right and that it needed to ally with others to continue to exert power worldwide. There is no doubt that the UK has a higher than proportionate influence on world affairs considering its size but it can be argued that this is due to history, not current strengths - such as the permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (along with France, Russia, China and the USA, while all other countries have to take turns). For the UK to continue to prosper, it must have access to the advantages of the European Union such as the co-ordination of foreign policy when dealing in large international negotiations like the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. They argued that outside of a group of countries, the UK would be sidelined.
EU regulations have helped the country
The EU regulates many areas such as beach cleanliness, labour law, freedom of movement and consumer issues such as mobile phone roaming charges. The UK was 'regulation compliant' meaning that the UK government (like all member states) could still set its own regulations but these had to be within the rules from the EU. Fishing quotas is one area where the co-ordination of policy at the EU level has been environmentally helpful (preventing overfishing).
Economic benefits of staying in
The UK contributed about GBP13bn per year to the EU, and gets back about GBP4.5bn. However, it was possible that the UK gets far more benefit than that in 'invisible' things such as extra trade, tourism and inward investment. This was the crux of the issue: no-one could definitively work out whether the economy was better off in the EU, compared to being out of the single market. Turkey, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are all examples of countries which have single-market arrangements with the EU without being full members. However, they are much smaller economies and it was unclear whether the UK would be able to negotiate such arrangements.
The need to integrate in a global world
Pro-EU people argued that the UK was no longer a powerful enough country in its own right and that it needed to ally with others to continue to exert power worldwide. There is no doubt that the UK has a higher than proportionate influence on world affairs considering its size but it can be argued that this is due to history, not current strengths - such as the permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (along with France, Russia, China and the USA, while all other countries have to take turns). For the UK to continue to prosper, it must have access to the advantages of the European Union such as the co-ordination of foreign policy when dealing in large international negotiations like the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. They argued that outside of a group of countries, the UK would be sidelined.
EU regulations have helped the country
The EU regulates many areas such as beach cleanliness, labour law, freedom of movement and consumer issues such as mobile phone roaming charges. The UK was 'regulation compliant' meaning that the UK government (like all member states) could still set its own regulations but these had to be within the rules from the EU. Fishing quotas is one area where the co-ordination of policy at the EU level has been environmentally helpful (preventing overfishing).
Economic benefits of staying in
The UK contributed about GBP13bn per year to the EU, and gets back about GBP4.5bn. However, it was possible that the UK gets far more benefit than that in 'invisible' things such as extra trade, tourism and inward investment. This was the crux of the issue: no-one could definitively work out whether the economy was better off in the EU, compared to being out of the single market. Turkey, Canada, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are all examples of countries which have single-market arrangements with the EU without being full members. However, they are much smaller economies and it was unclear whether the UK would be able to negotiate such arrangements.
Summary: why is this 'Geography'?
Geography is the study of people and places. The Brexit issue links to many issues:
Geography is the study of people and places. The Brexit issue links to many issues:
- Has the UK lost sovereign power through the EU?
- Is it possible for any country to exist outside of the modern economic imperative of the single market?
- How much do nation-states reflect the need to be different from 'others' who are 'outside' the nation-state, compared to how much are nation-states outward looking?
- If the UK leaves the EU, what does that say about the power of multi-governmental organisations?
- Is the entire possibility of Brexit a nationalist reaction, or something else?
Non-State Organisations: islamic state - is, isil, isis, or something else?
ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, is also known as
The group aims to create a caliphate, or Islamic state. As the map (right) shows, the group has been successful beyond national borders and therefore this raises several questions that are related to the geography of globalization, such as the extent to which sovereignty of nation-states is a valid concept. The current name preferred by the group is IS. The US and British governments have refused to use the name IS on the basis that it suggests a legitimate state. They continue to use ISIS or ISIL, while other governments use alternative names. This distinction is important. Firstly, by refusing to identify the group by their preferred name, they are also rejecting the group's claim to any sovereignty or independent authority. Second, by including the -IL or -IS, it suggests a geographically limited territory which is still bound by the concept of the nation-state, which have fixed borders. Thirdly, it prevents the group distilling their message and being simply 'Islamic' - and so stopping it from appearing to speak from followers of Islam, and limiting the group to Muslims from a specific area. (Of course, this is still an over-simplification of how people identify their position amongst complex religious and political issues.) Meanwhile the French government uses the term Daesh. The French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said “This is a terrorist group and not a state. I do not recommend using the term Islamic State because it blurs the lines between Islam, Muslims and Islamists". However, Daesh is a loose translation of "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", albeit with negative connotations. |
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#mediaviewer/File:Syria_and_Iraq_2014-onward_War_map.png
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034
|
Why is this 'Geography'?
The HL unit includes several references to concepts such as sovereignty and the nation-state. The status of IS links very much to these, not only because of the discussion above as Western nation-states such as France, the UK and the USA refuse to recognise IS as being a similar entity, but also because of the actions that IS carries out and how it is linked to other geographical issues.
For example, the ability of IS to control oil supplies (see map below) has direct links to the Core 4 syllabus. Also, the territory controlled by IS (see maps above) does not conform to existing boundaries between recognised nation-states and may be seen as evidence of the disintegration of the nation-state. However, it still is regionally contiguous (i.e. IS claims territory in a defined part of the world, rather than a post-territorial entity such as the peaceful Empire of Atlantium which has 'citizens' spatially dispersed outside of conventional borders).
The HL unit includes several references to concepts such as sovereignty and the nation-state. The status of IS links very much to these, not only because of the discussion above as Western nation-states such as France, the UK and the USA refuse to recognise IS as being a similar entity, but also because of the actions that IS carries out and how it is linked to other geographical issues.
For example, the ability of IS to control oil supplies (see map below) has direct links to the Core 4 syllabus. Also, the territory controlled by IS (see maps above) does not conform to existing boundaries between recognised nation-states and may be seen as evidence of the disintegration of the nation-state. However, it still is regionally contiguous (i.e. IS claims territory in a defined part of the world, rather than a post-territorial entity such as the peaceful Empire of Atlantium which has 'citizens' spatially dispersed outside of conventional borders).
Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27838034
THe 2015-16 Migration Crisis in Europe
Facts from the ODI (UK thinktank): http://www.odi.org/publications/9993-migration-migrants-eu-europe-syria-refugees-borders-asylum
General wikipedia info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis
Really interesting and useful graphics: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911
Human Rights Watch minisite: https://www.hrw.org/tag/europes-migration-crisis
Source of the crisis in Syria: http://time.com/3833333/ian-bremmer-europe-migrants-deaths/
EU Feb 2016 Syria crisis bulletin: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/syria_en.pdf
General wikipedia info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis
Really interesting and useful graphics: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911
Human Rights Watch minisite: https://www.hrw.org/tag/europes-migration-crisis
Source of the crisis in Syria: http://time.com/3833333/ian-bremmer-europe-migrants-deaths/
EU Feb 2016 Syria crisis bulletin: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/syria_en.pdf
International trade: TTip and TPP
TTIP and the TPP are also covered in 7. Local against global: in practice and in theory were they are discussed as part of the anti-globalization movement responses. The following links are for interest:
Dire predictions: http://economyincrisis.org/content/tpp-and-ttip-two-different-trade-agreements-have-the-same-purpose-and-will-give-us-the-same-disastrous-results
General key terms explained: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/05/20-trade-terms-explained
Final TPP agreement: http://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/trade-negotiators-reach-deal-on-tpp-eyes-turn-to-ttip/
TPP versus TTIP: http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/why-the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-is-more-important-than-tpp/
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5bde5a48-6bda-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a.html#axzz42q1Qh7Mw
Dire predictions: http://economyincrisis.org/content/tpp-and-ttip-two-different-trade-agreements-have-the-same-purpose-and-will-give-us-the-same-disastrous-results
General key terms explained: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2015/05/20-trade-terms-explained
Final TPP agreement: http://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/trade-negotiators-reach-deal-on-tpp-eyes-turn-to-ttip/
TPP versus TTIP: http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/why-the-transatlantic-trade-and-investment-partnership-is-more-important-than-tpp/
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5bde5a48-6bda-11e5-8171-ba1968cf791a.html#axzz42q1Qh7Mw