“After Brexit, we saw the regrets of the British citizens of a very developed state from all points of view. So, we can imagine how great the regret of the Moldovans manipulated by Eurosceptic and Europhobic groups could be, very shortly after a possible failure of the referendum of October 20, 2024. The blocking of the European integration of the Republic of Moldova will isolate the country, caught between the EU and Ukraine, internationally, depriving it of any future prospects...”
---

Democratic alternation in government

The year 2024 is an election one not only for the Republic of Moldova, where presidential elections and the referendum on European integration will be held on October 20. Elections were held or are yet to be held in a number of states with which our country maintains very close relations. Thus, after the European Parliament elections, a general election was held in France and then in the United Kingdom, with parliamentary and presidential elections to be held in Romania and the U.S. All the mentioned elections can produce major political changes that will influence the relations with the Republic of Moldova and its European future.

In connection with the referendum on the European integration of the Republic of Moldova, the results of the general election in the United Kingdom are of particular interest, given that they are the first general election after the withdrawal from the European Union (Brexit). Normally, an alternation in government occurred after the recent general election of July 4 in the United Kingdom. Consequently, the Conservative Party, which has governed the country for the past 14 years, is replaced in government by the Labor Party, which had governed the United Kingdom for 13 years before the Conservatives.

At first glance, it seems that it is a natural alternation in government, in a two-party system, such as the British one. But the situation is much more nuanced and complex. In this regard, British experts highlight concrete impact factors, which influenced the results of the general election, given the concomitant overlapping of a series of crises. That is why a clear delimitation of the period of the conservatives’ government is required – before and after the outbreak of the crises, starting with 2020. These are, in particular, the conservatives’ management of the crises: 1) the COVID-19 pandemic; 2) Brexit, and 3) the one caused by Russia’s war against Ukraine. The results of the recent general election, in particular the distribution of votes and mandates among election contestants, speak about the quality of the management of the aforementioned crises and the miscalculations made by the Conservatives. Obviously, in such circumstances it is necessary to learn particular lessons.

Impact of Brexit

Although the main political parties avoided during the election campaign to make references to the impact of Brexit on various aspects of the social and economic life in the UK, opinion polls showed that this impact was practically decisive for the defeat of the Conservatives and the victory of the Labor Party. First of all, it is worth noting that four years after Brexit, about 2/3 of the British citizens regret having left the EU. Secondly, voters’ dissatisfaction with the Conservative government was also manifested in the low turnout at the polls, of about 60%. In the last hundred years or so, a lower turnout in the general election – 57% – was recorded in the election of December 1918, immediately after the end of World War I. Anyway, there is no way back, at least in the coming decades.

British voters have not forgotten that the Conservative leaders, who campaigned for Britain’s exit from the EU, promised that Brexit would only bring benefits: 1) boost the British economy and trade; 2) will allow for stricter state control against illegal immigration; and 3) improve social protection, in particular health services, after saving the resources paid into the EU budget. The calculations turned out to be wrong. Five years later, the regrets of the British can be understood by examining the answers to the direct question – Please tell us if you think Brexit has generally had a positive or negative impact on the following?

• The United Kingdom (UK) overall: 22% - positive; 48% - negative;
• Companies’ capacity to import goods from outside the EU: 15% - positive; 48% - negative;
• The economy as a whole: 12% - positive; 54% - negative;
• Environment: 11% - positive; 31% - negative;
• Salaries and income: 11% - positive; 40% - negative;
• Personal financial situation: 10% - positive; 35% - negative;
• Capacity to control immigration: 10% - positive; 52% - negative;
• Companies’ capacity to import goods from the EU: 10% – positive; 56% - negative;
• National Health System: 9% – positive; 46% - negative;
• Retail prices: 7% – positive; 62% - negative.   

Citizens’ perceptions are very important to understand the impact of Brexit on the socio-economic situation. That is why the Conservative Party achieved the worst performance in the party’s history in the recent election. But equally important are the statistical data published by specialized institutions. This kind of statistics suggests how much Britain has had to lose from Brexit. For example, if investment in the British economy had maintained its tempo until the 2016 referendum, its volume would have been by 25% higher today. The same statistics show that after Brexit, the number of taxpayers decreased by about 1%, which is not impressive. But the problem is that the UK has experienced an acute shortage of staff in the areas of transport, healthcare, retail, etc.

The comparison with the economies of other Western states also highlights the negative impact of Brexit on the UK. In this sense, the economy of the UK, in the first two years after Brexit, decreased overall by 0.4%, while that of the U.S. grew by 4.3%, of Canada by 3%, of Italy by about 2%, of France by about 1%.

Conclusions 

There is no doubt that a country with the economic, scientific and technological potential of the United Kingdom will overcome the negative effects of Brexit in time. Especially since the new Labor government seems to be leaning towards a status of the country in the economic relations with the EU similar to that of Norway or Switzerland, for example. What matters are the lessons learned from Brexit, which, whatever one may say, has demonstrated that the EU is a free union of states, based on well-drafted legal documents, which are exemplarily respected by the signatory parties.

We also saw that the EU is joined by the states that can, leaving it when they want, assuming the consequences. In this sense, Brexit demonstrates the difference from the experience of the former Soviet republics, which, according to the constitution of the dissolved USSR, were sovereign and had the right to independence. But when they tried to realize their right, based on a special law, they immediately faced separatist movements inspired by the Russian Federation and wars of conquest on its part. 

In the context of the preparation of the referendum on the European integration of the Republic of Moldova, it is very important to combat the disinformation promoted by Europhobic groups regarding the mechanisms of functioning of the European Union, as well as the benefits of the member states. After Brexit, we saw the regrets of the British citizens of a very developed state from all points of view. So, we can imagine how great the regret of the Moldovans manipulated by Eurosceptic and Europhobic groups could be, very shortly after a possible failure of the referendum of October 20, 2024. The blocking of the European integration of the Republic of Moldova will isolate the country, caught between the EU and Ukraine, internationally, depriving it of any future prospects.