Additional Arguments Against Brexit

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union was taken several years ago after the referendum. However, disputes between supporters and opponents of this decision continue, since its consequences for the country are still uncertain and can be evaluated years after Brexit. However, the opposition to Brexit is a more appropriate position as the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU could damage its trade, investment, and cause labor shortages.

Supporters of Brexit argue that it will benefit the UK by reducing immigrant inflows, cutting costs due to canceling contributions to the budget of the EU and strengthening state sovereignty. The first advantage is justified by the fact that, at the moment, residents of the EU countries have the right to work in the UK, which increases the number of migrants from Eastern Europe (The Week Staff, 2020). Consequently, abolishing this right will reduce the flow of migrants and provide jobs for residents. A second advantage Brexit proponents see is the fact that Britain will no longer need to contribute to the EU’s initiatives; therefore, this money will remain in the state budget. At the same time, the UK will also have greater freedom in making decisions without coordination with other members of the EU, which will strengthen its sovereignty. However, all these arguments have weaknesses that can be challenged.

Firstly, a decrease in the number of migrants can lead to a labor shortage and change working conditions for residents of the UK. Most often, migrants are employed in a job with lower wages or working conditions; therefore, if they leave the country, the UK may experience a shortage of workers (The Week Staff, 2020). Moreover, even for high-paying jobs, less competition will lead employers to raise wages, and, hence, the prices of their products, to restore the balance. Brexit will also reduce the investment of foreign companies in the UK and can lead to the relocation of their headquarters to the EU to leave the opportunity for free trade and business activity (The Week Staff, 2020). Consequently, even if the UK keeps part of the budget without paying the EU, it will lose profit due to the reduction in companies’ business activity.

Moreover, Brexit could also mean the end of free trade between countries, which will create high trade tariffs and taxes. Thus, Britain can reduce the volume of trade, and the citizens of the country can lose some of the EU’s goods (“Arguments against, ” 2017). Finally, Brexit does not mean that the UK will be able to make any decisions it wants, since, in any case, they must be coordinated with the norms of international law. Consequently, the strengthening of sovereignty will practically not change the United Kingdom’s political decisions, since, within the EU, it had the same sovereign rights limited by laws.

Therefore, Brexit is a harmful decision for the United Kingdom as it has negative consequences for the country. While Brexit supporters believe the decision contributes to the labor market, economy, and state sovereignty, their arguments do not consider the harmful impact of the change. A decrease in the flow of migrants can cause a shortage of workers and create imbalances in the labor market that will lead to a shift in the economy. The abolition of free movement, business relations, and trade between states will lead to a decline in the country’s business activity. At the same time, the state’s sovereign rights will remain practically unchanged, which will not affect the UK’s policy if it applies the principles of democracy. Hence, opposing Brexit makes more sense than supporting this decision.