Euroscepticism Essay

Recently, the European Union (EU) held its Parliamentary Elections amidst growing chaos and rising anti-European sentiment. Euroscepticism delineates the poor relationship other nations have with the EU, including the United Kingdom (UK). Furthermore, it underscores the global community’s diminishing support for UK’s policies on immigration and the economy. In essence, the anti-European sentiment curbs the effective development of the EU, and is responsible for the slowed sustainability within the UK. Unless checked, Euroscepticism is likely to trigger a gradual downfall of the EU economy and reverse the gains made so far in the arena of social standards.

The anti-European narrative has halted the formulation of immigration policy within the EU. Currently, the majority of foreigners do not appreciate being citizens of the UK. Ultimately, the social fabric of the UK has been undermined because many immigrants do not feel part of the country’s stability.

Let experts write an original essay about Euroscepticism now!

The racial issues prevalent in the country has repelled non-citizens who would have otherwise moved to the region. Social unity has reduced, tranquility has faded, and the dwindling diversity has lowered the country’s sustainability (Meijers 2017, p. 420). The negative sentiments have largely spread through Wikileaks and fake news on ethnicity and race, thus minimizing the country’s integration with other global actors. For this reason, many people are hesitant to relocate to the UK because of the isolation fear. The weakening diplomacy ties have had a negative toll on immigration legislation and undermined social unity (Lynch 2015, p. 201). The dissemination of racial comments via social media platforms inflicts fear in non-residents and lowers social solidarity within the country. Indeed, Euroscepticism is responsible for the poor implementation of immigration policies because of the negative perception of other nations towards the EU.

Euroscepticism has also undermined the region’s economy. The negative attitudes towards the UK have reduced the influx of foreigners, thus lowering the labor input and slowing economic growth (Hobolt & de Vries 2016, p. 418). The weakening of the EU economy can be partly attributed to the reduced immigrant population with the right expertise and work experience. UK’s economic outlook would have been more promising than it is today had it not erected numerous obstacles related to the entry of immigrants. Lack of diversity reduces the region’s ability to realize effective division of labor and derails the achievement of economies of scale (Kuhn 2019, p. 12). Unless the UK revisits its immigration policy and opens its doors to more foreigners, its economic future is likely to remain bleak.

The recent past has witnessed the gradual weakening of UK’s legitimacy and reduced acceptance of its policies, thanks to the Euroscepticism wave. Global international conferences held lately hardly consider the input of the EU because of the region’s soiled reputation. The US and several other countries relate poorly with the UK due to the misinterpretation of its regulatory measures. Other states within the EU have also suffered a similar fate. Ultimately, the international recognition of the EU has faded, and the immense respect the global community once had for the bloc has vanished (Hobolt & de Vries 2016, p. 430). Importantly, foreign trading activity between the EU and other states has reduced due to the reconsideration of border laws by countries such as the US. In any jurisdiction, legitimacy defines international recognition and the magnitude of other countries’ concerns. The legislative council of the EU is no longer valuable among global regions, resulting in its disownment in many conferences. This emerging illegitimacy is attributable to the intensification of anti-European views, which has deprived the UK its rightful position at the international front.

The increasing Euroscepticism has its underpinnings in the shortcomings of the EU as an international actor. Other countries are not in a good relationship with the region because UK’s policies and ideas are misunderstood and overlooked (Baute et al. 2018, p. 231). Currently, the UK can hardly project its ideas at the international arena, implying a possible weakening of its social and economic institutions in the foreseeable future. The dwindling recognition is caused by the perceived illegitimacy and the inaccurate perception towards its policy framework (Lynch 2015, p. 188). UK’s indifference to the value of the global economy has undermined the legitimacy of the EU as a global actor.

Overall, Euroscepticism has negatively affected the social and economic standing of the EU. Operations within the UK have been halted, minimizing the region’s economic value and decreasing economies of large scale. Ultimately, the UK and the EU as a whole currently lack the healthy financial muscle that guarantees a secure future. The immigration policing is flawed, legitimacy is poorly considered, international recognition is low, hence limited prospects for either growth or development. Addressing the increasing anti-European sentiment is the only sure approach to redeeming the once enviable ties between the EU and other international actors.

References
Baute, S et al. 2018, ‘European integration as a threat to social security: another source of Euroscepticism?’, European Union Politics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 209-232.
Hobolt, SB & de Vries, CE 2016, ‘Public support for European integration’, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 19, pp. 413-432.
Kuhn, T 2019, ‘Grand theories of European integration revisited: does identity politics shape the course of European integration?’, Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 1-18.
Lynch, P 2015. ‘Conservative modernisation and European integration: from silence to salience and schism’, British Politics, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 185-203.
Meijers, MJ 2017, ‘Contagious Euroscepticism: the impact of Eurosceptic support on mainstream party positions on European integration’, Party Politics, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 413-423.