Category: Brexit

The British Football Culture And Potential Impacts On The British Football By Brexit

The football culture is big in England and in Scotland. There are many reasons why many people start with football and join different football communities. For instance, in Glasgow Scotland, ethnicity, nationality and history are the reasons why people are joining different football communities. On the other hand, this creates a lot of conflicts between different football teams and their fans. In Glasgow, there are two huge football clubs who are rival to each other, Celtic and Rangers. Celtic does represent an Irish and Catholic football club in Glasgow and Ranger does represent an English and protestant football club. The bigotry and animosity have its roots from hundreds of years ago which creates big threats even today.

The rivalry between Celtic and Rangers is from a battle over 300 years ago in Ireland. A protestant king, King William of Orange, defeated a Catholic army at the battle of Boyne. This made England protestant, but Ireland remained Catholics. The hate between Celtic and Rangers started from the English imperialism, the fact that England dominated the whole British island and the scots got involved when protestants were sent to Ireland to settle the land on behold of the English aristocracy. During the late 19th century the whole of Ireland was poor and corrupt. This time in Scotland, the industries in Glasgow needed workers and the Irish were cheap labour workers. Due to poor circumstances, many Irishmen moved to Scotland for work. The Scottish capitalists often settled the Irish workers in sperate villages just to separate the Catholics from the others. This over time created a huge conflict between the Irishmen and Englishmen in Glasgow, and football became a way to demonstrate against each other.

The English football is about to take a huge hit when Britain’s government cannot come up with a smooth agreement with the European Union for its exit out of the supranational cooperation. The Premier League is considered as “the best league in the world” and its multinational cooperation for world talents are at risk. Freedom of labour movement which the EU countries have an agreement of has hugely benefitted the Premier League. This has led to many footballing talents within the EU countries has signed for English clubs and has made the Premier League very entertaining and competitive league watch. Brexit for obvious reasons could hinder the movement. Premier League teams who are willing to sign players from the EU countries would require more paperwork because the players from the EU countries could be subjected to the same visa and working permit as other players outside of the EU.

The FA, however, see Brexit as an opportunity for the English national team to grow. The number of English players playing in the Premier League has been negatively affected by the appetite for foreign players. English players started just 1/3 of the games, a far less than the proportion of native talents in the other top 5 leagues in Europe (Bundesliga, La Liga, Seri A and Ligue 1). During 2018, the FA published its plan to reduce the current foreign players in a club’s 25-man squad. The FA believes that Brexit would allow English players to receive more game-time and, therefore, better development amongst English players.

However, the Premier League would not be very exciting to watch where most of the world’s best players are gone from the league due to visa restriction, etc. What makes Premier League so entertaining and competitive is best players from around the world (but mostly from the EU countries) are playing in the league such as De Bruyne, Hazard, Leroy Sané, etc. If the UK’s government doesn’t make a good and a smooth deal with the European Union, this will kill the best league in the world and English football.

Alex Ferguson is a name that will forever live amongst the football fans. He managed Manchester United from the late 1980s until 2013 and is known as one of the best, if not the best manager in the Premier League’s history. His success at Old Trafford is unquestioned. Sir Alex has forever changed the way football was played. He invented some unique tactics and formations which gained in popularity immediately and every football club adapted his style in their games. He introduced “fast-paced attacking football” in his first years as a manager, even before his successful career at Manchester United. This new way of playing football, especially in the attack, was a very successful tactic for Sir Alex in his first years as a manager. This tactic leads Sir Alex to win his first major trophy when beating Bayern Munich and Real Madrid on his way to lifting the European Cup trophy.

In his 27 years at Manchester United, he won all the possible major trophies at Old Trafford such as The Champions League, The Premier League, The FA Cup, etc. What makes him an excellent manager is his excellent skills for leadership, motivating the players when they are demotivated and exhausted, adapting his tactics depending who the opponent is, and he’s is a great businessman for negotiation during transfer windows. These characteristics gained him respect and trust from every footballer who played for United. He had an eye for great talents too, and he knew how to develop them into superstar such as Ronaldo, Pique, Ryan Giggs, Rio Ferdinand, etc.

Bobby Moore is one of the greatest defenders in football history. He was England’s iconic captain who led England to World Cup victory over Germany in 1966 World Cup tournament. He is currently England’s only captain to ever lift the World Cup trophy. His ability for reading the game and understanding what is happening is what makes him so good and a legend in the game.

In my opinion, the fact that English and Scottish clubs have the most loyal fans has attracted millions of fans around the world to support an English and Scottish club. Whether it is a big team such as Manchester United and Tottenham or a hometown club, the fans are very loyal towards their favourite club. This kind of love towards the club that they support cannot be found anywhere else. It is enough to watch an unknown club game; the fans are incredible. The bigger games are very special to watch, such as Tottenham vs Arsenal. You can feel the atmosphere from the TV and sometimes it feels like you’re inside the stadium and watching the game. It is that incredibly good fans of football England have!

Brexit and Its Possible Consequences for the UK

Brexit is a term just, like ‘Grexit’ that was utilized for a long time to allude to the probability of Greece leaving the Eurozone. Brexit refers to the possibility of Britain pulling back from the European Union (EU) (The Economic Times). The European Union – regularly known as the EU – is an Economic and political association including 28 European nations. It started after World War Two to cultivate monetary co-activity, with the possibility that nations which exchange/trade together are bound to abstain from doing battle with one another (Alex Hunt, 2016).

A nation is known for the quality of its foundations, the resilience of its populace and an outward-looking and estimated international strategy singularly chose to pull back from the European Union (E.U.) in a close-call referendum (Agust Arnorsson).

The open decision in favor of Brexit was secured prevalently, yet not solely, in regions of the nation that are filled with retired people, low-gifted and less accomplished manual specialists and residents who have been pushed to the edges not just by the financial change of the nation over late decades yet besides by the qualities that have come to rule an all the more socially liberal media and political class (Matthew. J. Goodwin, 2016). It was in England outside London where the choice to leave the E.U. was made. The leave-side won in each district except Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, and Oxfordshire, where the stay side had a noteworthy lion’s share whereas districts like Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, and Bristol showed up a narrow majority (Agust Arnorsson).

The Brexit story uncovers an old truth about the British constitution, that while official authority is on a fundamental level appropriately restricted by law, the genuine furthest reaches of official authority are in the endowment of a Parliament whose lawful ability to vest power in the official is boundless, and whose political readiness to do so frequently knows not many limits (Mark Elliott, 2018).

UK was the main part state in the Union that had the option to successfully guarantee the privilege to have a state in the destiny of English for the EU, they moreover had an impact on how English should be taught and learned in school (Modiano, 2017). With the British gone, nobody will be there to carry on crafted by guarding the auxiliary trustworthiness of British English even with rivalry from American English, yet also from L2 users who progressively use highlights demonstrative of discoursal nativization which are in the procedures of getting efficient across mainland Europe (Modiano, 2017).

The economic effect of Brexit is negative for both the UK, Ireland and the rest of the EU. The primary danger to Brexit originates from hindrances to fares to the UK and more significant expenses for shippers of UK products to Ireland (The Irish Times).

Exiting the European, UK has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages include an extended market, which helped the manufacturers of the UK to trade among various nations apart from the European Union. It helps in creating demand for British products and faster product turnaround time. The UK also faced certain disadvantages such as an increase in cost due to the tariff rates and the change in rules and regulations in the UK led to the migration of workers of the UN.

References

1. Agust Arnorsson, G. Z. (n.d.). On the Causes of Brexit . Center for Economic Studies and Ifo Institute.
2. Alex Hunt, B. W. (2016, December 12). Brexit : All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU. BBC.
3. Mark Elliott, S. T. (2018). Political Pragmatism and Constitutional Principle: The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 . Legal Studies Research Paper Series.
4. Matthew. J. Goodwin, O. H. (2016). MATTHEW J. GOODWIN AND OLIVER HEATH. John Wiley & Sons .
5. Modiano, M. (2017). English in a post-Brexit European Union. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 0883-2919.
6. The Economic Times. (n.d.). The Economic Times. Retrieved from The Economic Times: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/definition/Brexit
7. The Irish Times. (n.d.). The Irish Times. Retrieved from The Irish Times: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/brexit/brexit-the-facts

Brexit and British Liberal Democracy

‘Brexit’ was unprecedented and life-changing for the United Kingdom. It not only exposed weaknesses within British Liberal Democracy, but it also saw an evolution of its more traditional principles, a necessary adaption to the needs of modern times. In reference to British Liberal Democracy, we refer to the form of government and ideology with representative democracy operating under principles of classical liberalism. Fundamental to this system of government are characteristics such as the separation of powers, the protection of human rights and freedoms, rule of law, the market economy and free, fair elections. In turn ‘Brexit’ refers to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, which was put to a national referendum in June 2016, resulting in a slim 52% simple majority of support (UK Electoral Commission). After tedious parliamentary deadlocks and negotiations for a deal, Parliament ratified the withdrawal agreement at the end of January 2020.

Brexit was unlike any general election, especially in the campaign leading up to the referendum. The way in which people receive their news in contemporary times has shifted far from the more traditional forms like print media. Brexit proved just how powerful a tool social media can be in rallying up troops, and spreading messages, without the same standards of accountability held to user. In comparison, traditional sources like journalists are bound to codes of ethics to prevent defamatory comments and the spread of falsehoods. The liberal civil liberties of free speech and press without accountability were extended further, not just by the general public, but by those leading the campaigns. Powerful figures such as United Kingdom Independence Party Member Nigel Farage and the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson perpetuated false messages repeatedly throughout the campaign without facing any legal repercussions. Traditions of British Liberal Democracy surrounding transparency and openness within campaigns and advertising were entirely abandoned within the Brexit debate. A cultural shift rooted in dissatisfaction with unemployment and a rejection of the ‘establishment’ saw voters buy into less conventional messages, even if these were not backed by evidence or openly built on lies. It is evident to say that Brexit is part of the evolution of British Liberal Democracy, swaying away from the once trusted institutions and leaders.

Mechanisms of accountability have become irrelevant in an age of so many ‘alternative truths’ and an overload of information sources. In spite of this, there was optimism in that some institutions, such as the judiciary who intervened to prevent the executive’s attempts to stagnate and limit debate. Brexit also proves the strength and stability of democratic structures such as the referendum, which although is arguably an outdated process, gave the government a strong mandate to carry out the will of the people.

The campaign for Brexit unveiled various points of exploitation within Britain’s Liberal Democracy, in particular for freedoms of speech and press. These civil liberties were exploited carelessly by leading political campaigners, who normalised the hateful rhetoric towards immigrants and ethnic minorities, with unfounded falsehoods to support these. The Remain campaign centred much of their argument around evidence from economists and experts, using more of the traditional institutions if power such as the OECD, IMF, Bank of England and the Institute for Fiscal Studies (Forss, K. & Magro, L, 2016). In comparison, the Leave campaign led with an approach based on the notion that “people in this country have had enough of experts”, as declared by Conservative MP Michael Gove. This campaign message was successful, because the ordinary Brit didn’t feel that in the past any experts or policy makers had catered their needs or addressed their issues. One main campaign message for the ‘Brexiteers’ was that 350 million pounds was going to the EU a week, only for leading Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage to take that promise back hours after the vote, but by that time it had already convinced voters that the EU was a drain on resources. (Forss, K. & Magro, L, 2016).

With these extended freedoms, we also saw the exacerbation of violence and hate speech, especially in inciting hate towards non-British citizens, in the name of British nationalism. British MP Jo Cox (an MP who opposed Brexit) was killed by a self-proclaimed “political activist”, who repeatedly sung in the streets “Britain first”. Richard Whittam QC, prosecuting told the jury it was “a premeditated murder for a political and/or ideological cause” (The Guardian, 2016), thus exemplifying the danger these types of nationalist messages carry.

Brexit is evidence that Britain has joined the US in the rise of post-truth populism in (pluralist) liberal democracies, and has now set a precedent for future general elections for the disregard for the truth in political campaigns, with limited accountable media. Brexit not only shows us the shift away from traditional mediums of news, but also the traditional institutions which make up the ‘establishment’, showing a distrust in experts, economists, scientists, banks and pollies.

The erosion of accountability for institutions such as the media contributed to the weaknening of British Liberal Democracy, whereby voters were misinformed as a result of deceptive, misleading campaign material. With the rise of social media as a means of communicating news, the ethical obligations that traditional sources of information (professional journalists and news reporters) are bound to (to protect civil liberties, discrimination and defamation), are non-existent in the world of social media. This allows falsehoods to spread rampantly, with disregard for the facts in attempt to push political motive. There was a complete lack of control and accountability over political messages spread acorss social media, such as suggestions that 80 million Turks would migrate to the UK if they remained in the EU (European Law Monitor, 2016). Though these claims were completely unfounded, they quickly became embedded in the minds of voters, especially those in deciding to vote to Leave. The checks and balances which are so integral to Liberal Democracy haven’t adapted quickly enough to accommodate for the drastic technological changes in the spread of news and information over the last decades.

This referendum revealed the unprecedented use of technology to strategically target voters directly via the use of social media data analysis. This shift away from ‘old press’ (print advertising, newspapers etc) has opportunity to threaten British Liberal Democracy, in its capabilities to run elections and campaigns which are ‘free and fair’. Data is now being manipulated by companies, not so you are presented with a reliable, factual representation of information, but rather the algorithm presents that information to you which can be “mined, visualised, analysed and interpreted however (these analysts) wish” (Davies, W, 2016)

In a 1774 speech, Irish MP Edmund Burke brought forward the case in opposition to referenda as an institute of change, explaining: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” (McGiffen, Steve 2017). In this quote Burke is upholding the argument of trustee representation, by which the constituents delegate sovereignty to ‘trustees’ or MPs who they best see fit for decision-making on their behalf. Britain was built as a parliamentary democracy, where elected officials represent their constituents on their behalf in their best interests. Referenda and direct democracy play no part in British constitution and don’t play a prominent role in the history of the country.

Direct democracy in the form of referenda allows for the oversimplification of complex political issues to a binary matter. For the case of Brexit, the implications of this vote were too critical for it to be put open to the constituency to decide, who are vulnerable to manipulation, coercion and voter disengagement as a result of the campaign, thus influencing their ability to make an informed decision. Additionally, the issue of democracy asks the question, if 52% of support is large enough of a majority to legitimise the government’s mandate to leave the EU? The other 16 million Remain voters who were left were subject to the tyranny of the slimmest majority. Perhaps a referendum model like Australia’s would have been more democratic which first requires an absolute majority of Parliament, then of the national constituency, and of the states and territories. This issue instead could have been resolved in an alternative manner such as parliamentary democracy in which the issue would have been debated in Westminster with extensive research, committees and debate, so that the country’s fate wasn’t in the hands of voters subject to an emotive campaign.

The decision made by the Supreme Court which overruled the Prime Minister Johnson’s desire to prorogue Parliament for 5 weeks during Brexit negotiations sheds further light on Britain’s independent judicial arm of government holding the executive to account. The Supreme Court’s judgement was effective in blocking the government’s exploitation of executive prerogative powers and was backed by constitutional principles which limit the use of prorogation power. The prorogation was found to be unlawful because of its obstruction to the functioning of parliament without reasonable justification (Aileen McHarg, 2020). The SOP between arms of government is fundamental to liberal democracy, and to see the judiciary uphold this check and balance, is a sign of strength for British Liberal Democracy. Despite this, this decision was still met with criticism from a democratic position in particular, which opposed the ruling on the grounds that it was undemocratic having the independent judiciary make the final decision, rather than elected MPs.

In sum, Brexit tested the limits and institutions of British Liberal Democracy to the limits. Civil liberties, which are granted for the protection of citizens were turned against them, in the inciting of hate speech and falsehoods as scare mongering political tactics. When the executive acted outside of their jurisdiction, we saw the independent judiciary assert authority in granting Parliament the sovereignty to continue sitting. Brexit taught us that perhaps, Churchill was right when he said, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” (Priest, K, 2017). In this case as a result of unaccountable news and political material, strategic voter targeting strategy via data analysis, and deceptive campaign leaders – the average voter did not have the capacity to make an unbiased, accurately informed vote which wasn’t purely fuelled by emotion. However, that is the way of democracy, the ‘will of the people’ must be adhered to by the government, and though that ‘will’ may have been narrow, it was certainly politically legitimate.

Brexit: Potential Risks and Opportunities for the Financial Industry

On the 23rd of June 2016, the United Kingdom held a referendum to decide on the future of Great Britain. As stated in the journal, ‘The economics of international disintegration by Thomas Sampson (2019)’, “Brexit is the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU’s supranational political institutions and will lead to the erection of new barriers for the exchange of goods, services, and people with the remaining 27 member states”. This change has an impact on everything in the UK and the EU, including the financial, economic, political and social landscapes. Therefore, the financial industry has to undergo a transformation to be able to keep up with the change. The role of the financial industry is to keep the functioning of the economy through taking funds from savers and lending it to borrowers.

Brexit is believed to be a slow-moving process; the original vote was in 2016 and it is still not legally confirmed of the separation between the UK and Europe. For those in the financial industry Brexit brings a lot of worrying due to the changes that it can cause in the sector. The most important issue that will arise due to Brexit, in the financial sector is passporting. As explained by the author, Toby Smith, “passporting is the process of British – based financial institutions (e.g. Banks and management firms) are able to sell their goods and services to Europe without requiring a legal license or approval”. Over the years it has been estimated that “nearly 5,000 firms in the United Kingdom rely on passporting to conduct business with the rest of the European Union. More than 8,000 firms in the rest of the European Union trade into the United Kingdom using passporting”. With Brexit now occurring, it looks as though passporting will come to an end and therefore the UK would have two options to move forward from this, they would either need to agree on a Norwegian or Swiss deal. The Norwegian deal would allow the UK to be a member of the European Economic Area and to honour its associated rules. However, the Swiss deal would mainly focus on the bilateral trade agreements. With recent comments made by members of parliament, it is unlikely that the UK would be able to get a swiss deal due to Switzerland originally making the deal when they entered the European Union, however this is different for a country whom is leaving the EU. All of the deals made in the past have taken long periods to take into effect. Although, securing Brexit is a long process, once it is made legal everything in the financial sector will move quickly, meaning that the UK need to be ready with their choice of getting trade in and out of the country without effecting too many UK businesses.

Regulatory is another reason for why Brexit will not affect the financial industry for the better. In previous years regulatory has been the strength of Britain, it is the reason for why London became the world’s financial capital. Regulatory of the UK meant that the labour laws were far more relaxed than other countries. However, with the change of Brexit, Britain will have to make up for over 40 years of European regulations and trade deals. The main reason for the vote of ‘leave’ was so that new regulators could be formed which means that Britain will be free. This therefore requires a lot of time and as stated above, the financial industry do not have the time to wait around once Brexit hits.

Another reason for why Brexit may cause major damage to the financial sector is that there is the possibility that it will set off a dangerous process of brain drain. Brain drain is one of the reasons for how London rose to be the world’s financial capital. With the introduction of Brexit, there could be a change in where the financial capital is. This is due to the possibility of requiring visas and the uncertainty for foreign employees. As the financial industry in London consists of a range of cultures, Brexit can affect those people from entering the UK and therefore not being able to be work in the capital that it is based in.

On the other hand, Brexit can be good for the financial industry as it creates more opportunity for citizens in the UK. It improves the global trade agreements, allowing more selective immigration which can increase the amount of jobs available on the British job market. More jobs increase the economy of the country which increases the financial side of the country. The average person in Britain loses hundreds of pounds a year due to VAT added on by the EU. Being out of the EU would mean that Britain as a whole will save a lot money which can contribute other things including the financial and medical sector of the country.

With Brexit, the UK has the opportunity to expand its businesses to other countries such as Japan, China and America. Meaning that it has the opportunity to expand its financial capital of London to other growing countries.

Brexit: Potential Risks for the UK Economy

Brexit is currently one of the most controversial topics in the world, especially in Europe. From the name ‘Brexit’ we all understand that it stands for the exit of Britain from EU. Britain always a questionable role in European Union. Britain first applied for the membership of the EU at 1973. But at that time, Britain was rejected twice because the President of France at that time Charles de Gualle rejected it twice, because he thought that Britain wasn’t compatible enough to join the EU. His prediction was right in some way because only 2 years after joining the EU, there was a referendum in Britain to leave the EU but it failed. Britain’s position in the EU was always questionable because, Britain didn’t adopt with the common currency and immigration policy of the EU. Britain kept their pound sterling instead of Euro. In case of immigration, Britain didn’t accept the immigration policy. According to this policy, people of the member countries of the EU can live, work and pay taxes in any other EU member countries. Also, there was a huge surplus in the trade. The EU membered countries enjoy the free movement of product and services among themselves without any kind of trade barrier (tariffs, import tax, import ban etc.). As a result, the EU is currently is number one trade organizations in the world. An EU membership will give any country a very good advantage for their trade situations. They can trade with other countries without any kind of trade barriers, which will give any country a significant advantage during trade. Also, EU is also a very lucrative market for any countries. Many of the world’s top economic superpowers are the member of the EU. Also, EU has one of the fairest and easiest trade policies for their members.

Impact of Brexit on Britain

As Britain wants to leave the EU, it will not help Britain that much. The British Currency, pound sterling has fallen down the most in the last 31 years. There is both positive and negative impact of this incident. Since pound becomes cheaper, Britain will become more lucrative for foreign investment since now investment will become cheaper. Also, people coming outside from Britain will also spend more in the country then before, since Britain has a big tourism market. There was also negative impact also. Since Pound becomes weaker, the purchasing power parity (PPP) of British people will also go down. When Britain will try to import goods from outside from their country, they will have to spend more than before, since pound becomes weaker. As a result, import of raw materials and other services and products will fall down severely. Also, as the currency becomes weaker than before, there is a possibility that Britain will face more inflation than expected before.

Britain is still trying to make a trade deal with the EU member countries so that they can make a trade agreement. In this agreement Britain is trying to keep the trade deal like any other EU member countries. If it doesn’t happen, then Britain will face some severe trouble. As a member of the European Union before, they were enjoying free trade like any other member countries in the EU. But, if Brexit happens without any trade deal, then they will lose this advantage. The price of the UK made products will go up since now they have to pay high amount of import taxes. As a result, they will lose their market competencies in the other European countries. As a result, thousands of people will lose jobs. Moreover, companies who are based in the Europe, but doing business in the UK, will also remove their business from the UK since it’s not such a lucrative market than before. The GDP growth rate of UK will be affected most.

The labor market of Britain will also become impacted, since skilled people will not be able to come in UK to work. This might seem like good for the people of UK since less people are coming for work from other countries, but in the long run, they might face problems like worker shortage. It will severely hamper the progress of UK economy. Also, due to Brexit, the other European market will lose interest to invest money in the UK, since investment will be cheaper at the beginning due to weaker pound, but since market access is now much smaller than before, so companies will not be so much interested in investment.

As a member of the European Union, UK was privileged by becoming the member of one of the biggest markets in the world. As a result, they were able to compete with some of the biggest economic superpowers in the world like United States, China and India. But, if Hard Brexit occurs (Leaving European union without any trade deal), then they will have to face severe market competition with countries like China and India since currently they are now one of the fastest growing and also two of the biggest economic superpowers in the world. Moreover, both of these countries have huge landmass and a huge population to fuel their economy. It will be difficult for UK alone to compete with them.

Impact of Brexit on EU Markets

If Brexit takes on full affect, trade imbalance will occur and problems will arise. Since, various British companies are now operating in many of the European countries, due to Brexit, they will not be able to enjoy the free trade facility like any other European countries. They have to pay taxes and tariffs. As a result, they will lose market competitiveness. Also, people who are working in those companies will be at risk of losing their jobs.

Risk factors for companies with branches in each other’s territory:

1. Since there is no trade deal, so the British countries operating in the European countries would have to take permissions and other licenses so that they can do business, in another words, they have to be more bureaucratic than before.
2. Since the currency exchange rate will fluctuate, it will directly impact the product price.
3. As there is no free movement of goods, companies have to reevaluate their supply chain routes and distribution network.
4. Higher customs cost since there is no free flow of goods and long customs clearing procedure.

Risk factors for companies with marketplaces in each other’s territory:

1. Due to Brexit, companies need different kinds of certification and permissions from different areas for doing business.
2. Companies have to pay high import duties which will impact product pricing and marketing strategies.
3. Companies will try to manufacture product in territories where they will sell their product.

Conclusion

Brexit itself is a very controversial situation. Though this issue is still in the early stage, but the impacts can be seen now, though it hasn’t implemented yet. But if it deals, with or without any deal, Britain will take the worst impact of them, Also, EU will lose one of their closest allies in trade.

Brexit: Britain’s Decision to Leave the EU and Its Possible Consequences

The word ‘Brexit’ is a combination of two words ‘Britain’ and ‘Exit’. The United Kingdom decided to leave the EU 3 years on June 2016. There were total of 72.2% voters and 51.9% voted in favor of Brexit and 42.1% vote against the notion. The supporters of Brexit won the margin by 3.8% which was enough for the government to come to the decision of leaving the European Union. The due date of leaving the EU was 29th March 2019 that’s two years after invoking Article 50 of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty. But the deal has been rejected 3 times by the MP’s so the government negotiated with the EU for an extension to the deadline for Brexit. The initial extension was on 12th April 2019 but after the 3rd rejection of the deal, the UK government negotiated another extension of six months. So, the final date for Britain to leave the EU is 31st October 2019.

Reason for Brexit

Reclaiming sovereignty was at the forefront of the Leave campaign. For Leave supporters, European institutions have changed beyond recognition since 1973, and they accuse the EU of becoming a suffocating bureaucracy with ever-expanding regulations.

Immigration was the leading complaint. The number of EU migrants in the UK nearly tripled between 2004 and 2015, from about one million to over three million, almost totally due to an influx of citizens from newer members including Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania.

At the same time, terror attacks in Paris and Brussels involving EU citizens raised fears that the free movement of people leaves the UK vulnerable. With over three thousand EU nationals having traveled to Syria to fight with the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

Economic Effects of Brexit

The government of Britain estimates that in case of strife at the border due to trade or decline in migration, it will lead to a 3.9% decrease in GDP over 15 years. That will result in approximately £100 billion lower national output per year. Reducing border trade issues and a higher rate of migration can help ease the situation to a certain extent.

But if the UK goes with Canada style trade agreement, then the loss of GDP would be around 6.7% and in case of a no deal Brexit, it would decrease by a rate of 9.7%. So, by looking at this estimates a proper deal is the best option that the government has.

15 years is a long period and the estimates are based on the current model. But it is clear from the government evaluation that there will be some negative impact of Brexit on the economy. It will be just for a short time. The economy will recover overtime.

Ways to Tackle the Negative Impacts

It’s indispensable for the UK to rebuild trade relationship with the EU. Trade relations with other major economies have to be reconstructed as well.

Besides, these estimates won’t have an impact on financial stability. Even no deal Brexit will not have an effect on the financial stability of BOE and other financial institutions.

So, the government’s preparedness is the one thing that will have an impact on economic stability and that’s where the focus has to be put upon.

However, it is important to know if the government of UK would abide by the International Trade terms of the WTO after October? This decision would definitely have an effect on economic and financial stability after Brexit.

Impact of Brexit on United Kingdom

Unfortunately, the Brexit result has led to an ugly breed of xenophobia across the country, by a small minority of people who feel that their racist and xenophobic ideas have been legitimized by the vote to leave the EU. Scotland look likely to have another referendum to leave the United Kingdom after a majority of Scottish voters voted to Remain. Northern Ireland is considering a similar idea too, as they are the only nation that share a boundary with an EU country and also voted in the majority to remain. They rely on the EU to play a part in the ongoing peace process between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland – and it’s unlikely that they’re going to risk that fragile peace on the risk of Brexit. If both leave, we’ll be left with England and Wales. Both countries voted to leave the EU (although Wales may have changed its mind) and so will likely remain part of the UK, but losing two countries from the UK will call lots of things into question. Even if Scotland and Northern Ireland don’t leave the UK, the country will be divided up into two camps that are becoming further and further apart.

This side-effect, among others, only serves to enhance and widen the chasm between the two sides of the EU debate – and it’s this chasm that now calls into question the concept of our national identity. Young vs Old. Left vs Right. Remain vs Leave. Us vs Them. With every day, our country is looking less and less like the One Nation. Whichever side of the debate you fall on, it’s becoming clear that the UK is becoming an increasingly fractured society and that’s bound to have long-lasting social affects. Just two weeks in, these effects are almost impossible to predict, but they’re likely to have an enormous effect on the future of those just beginning their adult lives, socially and economically.

The Erasmus program has, for years, allowed UK students to study at institutions across Europe for free. Brexit will have a sever negative impact on the education of the young generation. Also, the universities receive millions of pounds from the EU as grants and from the international students. When all these disappears, it will create a hole in their income that will have a knock-on effect on the quality of education they can provide for students and their international reputation.

It is estimated that approximately 100,000 jobs will be lost as a result of leaving the EU. If the economy is hit or we head into a recession, it’s likely that the burden will fall hardest on young workers at the beginning of their careers.

Travelling will become expensive to Europe for higher airfares. Visa will be required to go to the Europe which was not required when UK was a part of the EU.

The Leave EU camp repeatedly claimed that, due to control of immigration, young people would find it easier to buy houses – as rising immigration has a result on the price of housing.

While this is a possibility, it’s also possible that the opposite will happen – as the economy takes a hit, credit conditions may tighten and make it much harder to get a mortgage.

On top of that, if the economy tanks and younger people find it hard to gain employment, then it’ll be even more difficult to save up for a deposit for a mortgage.

Impact of Brexit on the Diplomatic Strategies

The UK’s departure from the European Union (EU) represents a major shift in the diplomatic strategy of one of Europe’s leading economic, diplomatic and security players. The UK’s future relationship with the EU will condition the UK’s broader diplomatic approach to Europe. But in exiting the EU the ambitions and modalities of the UK’s other bilateral and multilateral relationships in Europe will undergo a recalibration. With the UK government having struggled since June 2016 to provide comprehensive detail on its ambitions for its future economic, political and security relationship with the EU, the development of the broader aspects of the UK’s post-Brexit European diplomatic strategy has been retarded.

However, through analysis of key speeches, government white papers, and other supporting documents and statements (and the experience of negotiating Brexit with the EU27), the outlines of a nascent post-Brexit UK European diplomatic strategy can be discerned. Whether this strategy will be adequate to provide the UK with a significant degree of influence on Europe’s international relations and whether it gives the UK sufficient ability to address the key challenges that it will face in Europe is less certain.

Conclusion

The ultimate fear around the continent is that Brexit could unravel the rest of the EU, especially if the UK economy performs well in its aftermath. Even barring that, Brexit will be a heavy blow to a union that has struggled to maintain a united front maintaining sanctions on Russia and managing the unprecedented wave of migrants. And, in the wake of 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, when France invoked the EU’s mutual defense clause for the first time, Brexit threatens to end Europe’s hopes for a truly common security and defense policy once and for all.

References

1. “Brexit: Everything you need to know”, Witious; Political Economics.
2. Jack Barclay, ”5 issues that may affect young people after Brexit”, 7 July 2016.
3. James McBride, ForeignAffairs.com, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder

Brexit’s Potential Impact on Individuals and Companies

What does Brexit mean to you, me or SMEs? Undoubtedly, Brexit’s impact will affect individuals and companies, whether they are SMEs, multinational corporations, banks or other organizations, in a myriad of different ways depending on the specific nature of the business or person. Certainly, the origin or make up of the SME is key to assessing the potential impact since Article 50 was invoked on Wednesday 29 March 2017. As the two years deadline looms, unless Article 50 is revoked or extended, the UK must brace itself for turbulent times. For some, the consequences are already evident. But will every business and individual be worse off or will there be winners and losers?

The exchange rate changes caused by Brexit have made British services and goods more competitive for international buyers, creating opportunities for SMEs and businesses exporting abroad. SMEs should be considering how any outcome, including a no-deal scenario could impact them, and plan for this and other possibilities.

Brexit is expected to hinder growth for UK companies importing and exporting goods or services to Europe. For example, construction companies reliant on EU workers will struggle. Companies reliant on low skilled workers, e.g. retail, farm laborers, careers, will also be impacted affecting margins, profitability and growth. Whereas the EU labor market has dominated the migrant workforce for the last two decades, following Brexit, the non-EU labor force might get a bigger look in.

UK companies subjected to WTO tariffs will become less competitive in a no deal situation. Trade deals with countries outside Europe will take time to complete increasing costs and hitting profits. Some UK companies are stockpiling parts so they can continue to manufacture and trade in the event of a no-deal scenario but SMEs may have insufficient resources and finance to implement similar strategies. For others, expansion plans and important business decisions are placed on hold pending Brexit outcomes.

What does Brexit mean to individuals? Depending on where you shop, you might have noticed your weekly shop costs more because of rising imports costs as a result of the weaker pound. Europeans living in the UK are stockpiling imported home products amidst fears of huge price hikes post Brexit; many EU workers have returned home; EU citizens feel this country no longer welcomes them and are reconsidering their future plans. A quick weekend trip to Europe will become more expensive, involving queues at immigration. But not everything should be viewed negatively. Perhaps we’ll spend more time exploring the UK on staycations or travel further afield. Plus, surely there’ll be cost benefits for our resources: education, NHS, benefits systems?

As a forward-thinking individual, I’m a believer that challenges present opportunities for change and growth, which should be seized. By embracing change, planning and readily adapting to new situations, as individuals, SMEs and organizations, we can transform and thrive post-Brexit should we have to. Clearly there will be winners but shouldn’t we spare a thought for the losers?

Britain’s Decision to Leave the EU

There are many reasons stating why Brexit was triggered. There are 3 reasons the brits voted for Brexit, economics, sovereignty, political elitism. When it comes to economics most of the British people believe that jobs and financial opportunities are being taken away by immigrants. They also believe that foreign competition is killing their companies and stealing their clients. The second reason for Brexit is sovereignty, the rise of nationalism across the world. There’s a growing distrust of multinational financial, trade, and defense organizations created after World War II. The EU, the IMF, and NATO are good examples of this. Many people who oppose the EU believe that it is of no use to their country and that they are better off alone.

The last reason for Brexit is political elitism the political leadership of Britain faced a profound loss. The ‘leave’ voters rejected both the Conservative and Labor parties. Both parties had endorsed remaining with the EU and saw many of their members go into opposition on the issue. It was a three-way struggle. Two parties wanted to remain in the EU, and a third party separated from both parties, they opposed them. People in this third group saw both of the establishment parties as hostile to their interests. These are the main reasons Brexit was triggered.

Who started and created Brexit? “Brexit is my fault”, – stated Peter Wilding. Peter Wilding, the chairman of British Influence, created the word Brexit. He claims, that he is ‘neither a phile, nor a phobe’, which means he is neutral. He says, that he’s a realist and he isn’t on anyone’s side. On the end of March 2017, the Brexit process began. Prime minister Theresa May stated that by the end of April 2019 Britain will most likely leave the EU. Theresa May is 62 years old and is the prime minister of England. She became PM on the 13th of July, 2016 and served as Home Secretary from 2010 until 2016. Theresa May was first elected in 1997. She was the longest-serving Home Secretary, and is greatly respected in the government.

It is official and set in stone Britain will leave EU on 29th of March, 2019. “I will deliver on my promise and that is a promise!”, – stated Theresa May, before her negotiation deal. The British people wants to keep on moving forward with Brexit, but unluckily Theresa May’s deal has been declined by the EU’s MPs (members of parliament). Theresa May lost the deal vote by a large margin, but she promises to deliver on the British people’s instructions to leave the EU and she intends to do so. Now that the British government now what the EU doesn’t want, they plan on inviting MP’s from all parties to come together creating a new deal.

So, Britain can move forward so as the EU.

Brexit and Its Impact on UK SMEs

Since Britain’s decision to leave the EU, there have been various changes that have already taken place and had both positive and negative impacts on small to medium sized businesses that operate in the UK. These changes will be the one of the two focuses of this essay. The other focus will be on the changes that are likely to take place after the UK has left the EU in March 2019, and the consequences of these changes on UK small to medium sized businesses.

One of the first changes that impacted UK businesses was a fall in the value of the pound. After the Brexit decision, the value of the pound fell significantly. It since has been trading at approximately 15% lower compared to the dollar and 12% lower compared to the euro than was the case previous to the EU referendum (Bowler, 2017). The nature of the effect that this has on businesses depends on whether a business exports or imports a higher volume of goods/services. A fall in the UK’s exchange rate means that UK exports will appear cheaper to consumers overseas. This makes the UK more competitive and will likely mean that more companies overseas will purchase from UK companies. This has proved true for some companies. For example, Cocofina, a coconut product company, have seen a 40% growth in exports since the referendum, which has been caused by the weaker value of the pound. However, they have noticed that new customers are scared about committing to the company because of the uncertainty that customs tariffs and complicated paperwork bring (Pay, 2017).

For companies that import large quantities, the fall in the exchange rate will mean an increase in the costs of running their businesses, due to the rise in the costs of imports from overseas. Baxter Freight, a company with 50 employees, had been impacted by the fall in the value of the pound, and passed the costs onto their customers (Isaac, 2016). The same will have been the case for other UK SME’s who import goods and services. Where higher prices are passed onto the consumer, depending on the good/service in question, they may choose to shop elsewhere or postpone their purchase. SMEs are more likely to be affected by this than larger companies because of economies of scale. Larger companies may be likely to achieve a lower price on their imports than SMEs because they can buy in bulk. Where this is the case, they should be able to charge a lower price than SMEs and so customers will choose to buy from them as opposed to SMEs. However, a limited number of companies had passed the extra costs onto consumers due to the high level of competition they face (Monaghan, 2016). Whether or not SMEs decided to pass the additional costs onto consumers, they will have lost out, either due to lower profit margins or a loss of demand. This shows one of the ways in which the Brexit decision has been damaging to some SMEs.

Another impact of the weak pound to take into consideration is the growth in tourism that it caused after the referendum. Spending by tourists had significantly risen following the Brexit decision. Spending from international tax-free shopping in July 2016 rose by 7% compared to the figure in July 2015 (Rodionova, 2016). Department stores and specialist retailers had reported a successful month for sales (Allen & Monaghan, 2016). It could be the case for some companies that these benefits may outweigh or reduce the impact of the negative effects that have come from the higher costs associated with the weaker pound.

It is unclear whether the positive or negative effect of the fall in the pound has been stronger. It will be different for each SME, depending how they operate day-to-day. However, given Britain’s ongoing trade deficit, it is likely that more SMEs will have experienced a negative effect.

A big issue that SMEs face from now up until the UK leaves the EU is uncertainty. A range of problems have been caused by this e.g. SMEs deciding to postpone investment decisions, and companies fearing that they will lose demand from their customers located operating in other EU countries. Polydron, a 13-person company, were thinking about having an expansion. This was until the outcome of the EU referendum was revealed (Gordon, 2016). Mark Sumners, a UK based aircraft manufacturer, is concerned that his biggest customer may shift their supply chain back within the trading bloc after Brexit (Gordon, 2016). These are just two examples of the problems and many SMEs will have experienced similar. However, Carolyn Fairbairn, CBI’s director general believes that businesses can cope with challenge and can adapt to change (Lysakowska, 2016). Also, many groups questioned by Business West think that the future will be positive and that UK companies are able to get past any short-term problems (Gordon, 2016).

The workforce is a major part of any organization. For UK SMEs, the Brexit decision has left them uncertain of what will happen once we have left the EU. For Tony Hague, chairman of Manufacturing Assembly Network, the ease of access to a skilled workforce is a concern. He fears that the standard of education in the UK has resulted in a small amount of talent in the domestic workforce (Isaac, 2016). Costs of labor are also a concern. A halt in the freedom of movement would raise the competition between businesses for labor, resulting in a wage increase. This is bad news for many SMEs as they rely on low-cost labor (Lemos, 2016). However, the benefits of the potential employment law relaxation when we leave the EU should be weighed up against the effects of losing the overseas pool of labor. Many SMEs are hoping that an end to following EU legislation will bring more flexibility to adjust their future workforce (Isaac, 2016).

Once we have left the EU, the current funding to UK SMEs from the EU will most likely come to an end. There are many SMEs in Wales that receive funding from the EU or use the Jobs Growth Wales scheme, which has been cut due to concerns about future funding. It is unknown whether any funding will be replaced by the central or Welsh government. Because of this, SMEs are at risk of struggling to maintain operations at their current size (Isaac, 2016). The UK also runs other support schemes for SMEs e.g. Innovate UK. However, there is hope. When the UK has left the EU, we will start to save a lot of money which previously would have been spent on EU contributions. It is thought that some of these savings could be used to help fund SMEs (Lemos, 2016), but whether this will happen is unknown.

Arguably one of the biggest advantages of EU membership is the access we have to the single market. This gives businesses direct access to a customer base of around 500 million and is the world’s largest trading bloc. Leaving the EU means we may lose these benefits, which will be damaging to SMEs (Davis, 2015). However, Theresa May has revealed that the UK may form a near identical Customs Union with the EU after we have left, but this may mean that the UK may have so stick to a lot of the bloc’s rules although this may be unlikely to happen due to a Conservative think tank saying that they could stop a final deal unless we leave the Customs Union and the Single Market (Deacon, 2018). A thing to note however, is that the UK, upon leaving the single market, will be free to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world, without being held back by rules and regulations, which could be a huge benefit to SMEs due to the increase in demand that they will gain.

Overall, up to yet, the short-term implications of the Brexit decision have been more damaging than beneficial to UK SMEs. The high level of uncertainty, combined with the fall in the value of the pound have greatly affected the operations of a lot of UK’s SMEs. It is impossible to tell whether the event of Brexit will be more of a benefit or a danger to SMEs because a full deal is yet to be negotiated. However, it is likely that businesses will be able to adapt to the situation once it arises.

Bibliography

1. Allen, K. & Monaghan, A., 2016. UK retail sales rise 1.4% in July as shoppers shrug off Brexit gloom. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/18/uk-retail-sales-rise-july-shoppers-shrug-off-brexit-gloom [Accessed 31 01 2018].
2. Bowler, T., 2017. How has the economy fared since the Brexit vote?. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36956418 [Accessed 02 02 2018].
3. Davis, M., 2015. Brexit: Potential consequences for SMEs. [Online] Available at: https://www.hwfisher.co.uk/brexit-potential-consequences-for-smes/ [Accessed 31 01 2018].
4. Deacon, L., 2018. Corbyn: UK Can’t Stay in EU Single Market After Brexit. [Online] Available at: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/01/09/labours-corbyn-uk-cant-stay-eu-single-market-brexit/ [Accessed 05 02 2018].
5. Gordon, S., 2016. Brexit uncertainty starts to affect small British businesses. [Online] Available at: https://www-ft-com.ezproxy.lancs.ac.uk/content/c5782176-436d-11e6-b22f-79eb4891c97d [Accessed 31 01 2018].
6. Isaac, A., 2016. The impact of Brexit on small businesses revealed. [Online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connect/small-business/impact-of-brexit-on-small-businesses/ [Accessed 31 01 2018].
7. Lemos, A., 2016. Will A Brexit Affect British SMEs?. [Online] Available at: https://www.formationsdirect.com/blog/will-a-brexit-affect-british-smes/ [Accessed 31 01 2018].
8. Lysakowska, S., 2016. The impact of Brexit on SME’s. [Online] Available at: https://www.xperience-group.com/blog/blogimpact-brexit-smes/ [Accessed 02 02 2018].
9. Monaghan, A., 2016. UK trade deficit widens unexpectedly as exports fall despite pound drop. [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/09/uk-trade-deficit-widens-september-exports-fall-pound-drop [Accessed 30 01 2018].
10. Pay, A., 2017. How have small businesses fared since Brexit?. [Online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connect/small-business/how-have-small-businesses-fared-since-brexit/ [Accessed 31 01 2018].
11. Rodionova, Z., 2016. Pound sterling slump after Brexit boosts tourist spending in UK. [Online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-pound-sterling-economy-eu-referendum-effect-uk-tourism-spending-a7204811.html [Accessed 31 01 2018].

Brexit, Donald Trump and the Rise of Populism

Brexit. A word that rolls of the tongue with ease is in fact a heavy, oft-sour topic. The political turmoil caused by a vote passed in 2016 is not going away anytime soon. The media framing of Brexit is polarizing. Citizen discord permeates through social media sites, news outlets, and the streets of cities. The only united front is the frustration at an ongoing struggle with no end in sight. Questions sprout from the foundation of Brexit as quickly as weeds grow. The question I am using to focus to my analysis is centered around the observation made by Irish author Fintan O’Toole, “I realized there’s a bigger question, which is how does a very successful, relatively wealthy, very settled-looking democracy start to imagine itself being intolerably oppressed” (Booth, 2). Beyond this frightening rise of alt-right conservatism in Europe, the tendrils of British politics extend further; creating socio-cultural, economic, and geopolitical implications both domestically and across an ocean. Through the rise of global populism, Brexit was birthed with the advent of President Trump and his xenophobic rhetoric poking light for the alt-right to breathe freely without fear of repercussions. The influx of migrants led to a push for a Leave vote. The economic state of the UK is a status that all three sides of the issue fret over. Vote Remain and two separate Leave campaigns: Vote Leave, and Leave EU, respectively, have framed the issues in light of their agendas.

Since the 1970s, the relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom has been less than amicable. An island nation made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the UK has been withdrawing from central EU policies for decades. Yet its full member status forces adherence to certain policies such as free movement. Free movement of EU citizens is their right to study, live and work in the European Union visa-free. However, an unprecedented, and what former Prime Minister David Cameron called “unsustainable” migration wave of over three hundred thousand people in 2015 drove the decision to hold a referendum to decide the fate of the UK and its membership. “The UK’s situation is unprecedented; no full member of the EU has ever left” (McBride). Despite seeking and gaining EU reforms, the waves of migrants, coupled with devastating terrorist attacks across Europe, was too much for the Eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) to handle. Eurosceptiс is exactly what it sounds like; a political doctrine that promotes disengaging from the EU. With a platform rooted firmly in anti-immigration and broad populism, similar ideologies can be found among conservative American political parties (Roth, 501). This push for strengthened borders and fears of vulnerability to terrorist attacks, Leave won on June 23, 2016, and the messy process of divorce began.

Across the Atlantic, the United States was dealing with its own unprecedented political quagmire. Donald Trump, a former reality television star, had won the 2016 US Presidency. Questions swirled around his rise and ultimate selection with no experience. A podcast discussing Trump, Brexit and the rise of populism help provide answers. Populism, in this case, is a way of doing politics framed as a battle between the people, and a corrupt, nefarious elite. The goal of populist rhetoric is to impose a single popular will. Today this language surrounding the ‘common people’ has become synonymous with hyper-conservative groups. Despite the concepts high association with conservative groups populism can be found on any side of the political spectrum: left, right, and center. On the rise for the past two decades, populism tends to flourish in countries where the people have grievances about the political establishment failing them. What is new, is populist leaders being elected in really big countries with really big populations such as the United States. Both Donald Trump (when scripted), and current Prime Minister Theresa May share populist views, delegitimizing those they disagree with and placing focus on the ‘common people’ experiencing hardship at the hands of the government (Asthana). What this ‘hardship’ is however, is not clearly defined.

Determining what the interest are of the common people is dicey. With three sides to this story, media outlets work to construct multiple frameworks to encapsulate it. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, “Brexit supporters argue that the EU threatens sovereignty and stifles growth, while opponents counter that EU membership strengthens trade, investment, and the UK’s standing in the world” (McBride, 1). Opponents of Brexit have decades of a highly integrated relationship between the UK and the EU that established the terms of migration, trade, and investment on their side. Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics has little faith in the pro-Brexit economic plan. He argues that migration has been a positive influence in economic growth, while belonging to the EU has bolstered the UK’s ability to trade through the larger bloc negotiating desirable deals. The UK’s standing in the world is not only impacted with its relationship with the EU. Ties to outside countries like the United States could be impacted by Brexit. In an interesting point about sides, Former President Barack Obama was against Brexit, arguing that EU memberships aids US interest. The current president however, has praised the Brexit vote (McBride, 10). While there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, the rise of fierce anti-immigration rhetoric among the Independence Party draws concerns about whose voices are being privileged under the guide of an ‘oppressed’ group.

The concept of populism, oppression, and the demographic that makes up the majority of supporters for Brexit draws interesting comparisons to the United States political state. According to Silke Roth in his article, ‘Contemporary Counter-Movements in the Age of Brexit and Trump’, the similarities are too close for comfort, “Second, a closer look at the supporters of the ‘Leave’ campaign and Donald Trump’s candidacy reveals that demographic includes middle-aged and older middle-class, college-educated men and women” (Roth, 502) These supporters of Brexit emphasized that predispositions toward Leave were brought about by socially conservative views, values, and a strong sense of English identity. The accompanying vague slogan to “take back control” dispensed by supporters is MAGA with a cup of tea.

Since Leave won, there has been push from both citizens, and the media outlets to reclaim any semblance of a narrative in this perpetual time of Brexit issue. Mikaela Hellman points out the split in narratives in in her article ‘What’s in a Frame? Media Framing in the 2016 ‘Brexit’ Referendum’. Brexit’s public debate is firmly entrenched between two camps, each with their own arguments: pro-EU supporters pushing an economic agenda while more Eurosceptic citizens focus on arguments related to national identity (Hellman). Ironically, both sides point to the economic risks as the most imperative issue. There is a sense of the truth being pulled from all sides, stretched until it fits the canvas framed in ‘fact’. Americans can sympathize with this divisive split in politics that feels both personal and infinitely larger than ourselves.

These camps spill over into the British papers as each struggle to represent what they believe to be the most salient issue. The politics of the image of Brexit is a bold question asking whose politics are being represented in the first place, via the image itself. Freedan makes a salient point through his analysis of British newspapers through the lens of populism. “Reporting on the High Court judgement regarding Article 50, the pro-Brexit press emphatically evoked a stark populist dichotomy: ‘The judges vs. the people’ was the front headline of the normally austere The Daily Telegraph; while the Daily Mail went one further with ‘Enemies of the People’ under the front-page photograph of the three High Court judges” (Freedan, 6). The Daily Mail is a tabloid paper. The Daily Telegraph is a broadsheet but both are conservative leaning publications. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty was the trigger Theresa May pulled in order to begin leaving the EU, before the process could begin however, the government would need Parliament’s consent in order to begin, which for conservatives filled them with that same old anger at government overreach. The story, typical of hyperbolic tabloid papers was full of misconstrusions and base insinuations about one of the High Court judges sexuality. Flipped over to The Guardian, a recent headline from the left-leaning broadsheet said, “Brexit teens: coming of age during political chaos”. This is who suffers.

The suffering is not limited to the young adults and migrants caught in limbo of Brexit. With the rise of populism, coupled with the schism between news outlets, it is no wonder that real fears of political violence lurk. In the wake of another six month push back to the apt date of October 31, tensions have risen to a breaking point. According to the United States based news outlet The Intercept highlights the indelible fear as ‘Specter of Far-Right Violence Haunts Crisis Talks Over Brexit’. Robert MacKey published the story in early April of this year, revealing nationalists in the streets dragging an efigie of Theresa May through the streets. Parliament members fear for their lives as Members of the House are threatened for their contrary views on Brexit. Congress members in the States can also relate to these fears as the President has stoked xenophobic rhetoric among his nationalist demographic. In a fearful twist, this group utilizes new media logics to spread their hate filled messages. According to MacKey, British soldiers used a photograph of opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn for target practice and posted it on Snapchat. The video was then shared on Twitter by current and former members of the British armed forces. The spark that ignited this anger was Corbyn emerging from talks with Prime Minister Theresa May, aimed at finding a way to allow the stalled British exit from the European Union to proceed (MacKey). In effect the Brexit conversations are stuck in a ‘damned if you do, damned if you don’t’.

Chaos perpetuating this process is dominantly absent from the broader European media landscape. According to a Reuters Institute Report by Alexandra Borchardt, titled ‘Interested but not Engaged: How Europe’s Media Cover Brexit’, the coverage outside of the UK was predominantly fact based. “The biggest share of the reporting is dedicated to the progress of the negotiations and political questions surrounding them. Economic questions dominate the issue-related coverage of Brexit, and the rights and future of EU citizens living in the UK or vice versa play a minor role” (Borchardt, 43). Meanwhile, the citizens in the UK currently living through Brexit are framed in a medical term, that demotivate citizens political motivations and actions, with the idea that they have no political control. According to Degerman, “To paraphrase the political theorist Hannah Arendt, in politics, where we are always dealing with a plurality of ever-changing relationships between people, sovereign control is an illusion” (Degerman). This makes the interactions between media logics and political mobilization even more important for the citizenry if they want a voice in the Brexit proceedings. The Prime Minister has lost control of her power, her government, and her citizens. Already pledging to relinquish her position, the new Prime Minister could change the trajectory of the country within days. Nothing is for certain. Young people can use this as motivation for political engagement in order to ensure that the next Prime Minister represents what they want to change in the current system.

While Americans voiced their discontent with Trump’s presidency through street protests, and a poorly attended inauguration event, the subsequent protests following Brexit were digitally based. According to Roth new media logics play out with increasing importance through social media, “In contrast to the broad-based mobilization against Trump, the protest against Brexit appears so far to play out primarily on social media, for example, on Twitter and Facebook, where one can find and follow groups such as @ScientistsforEU and @The3Million, whereas street protest events appear rarer” (Roth). Populism comes in waves, and both the UK and the Unites States find themselves in the midst of a wave right now. The Guardian’s Paul Lewis speaks on the quantification of populism and how it spreads. He believes that the issue is not only wrapped up in technology but brings awareness to the permanence of technology through all the changes it creates within its internal structure, and the structure of society that social media permeates in a new and dangerous way. “I wonder whether the types of discourse that are being encentived and encouraged by the platforms which are completely dominate Facebook, and Twitter, and Youtube and the like; the sensationalism, the simplification reductionism, the division is becoming part and parcel of the way we do politics now” (Asthana). The use of sensationalism by the British Army reflects the issues that come with the integration of social media and political discourse. There is fear that this wave could turn into an ocean, bringing along the repercussions of populist rhetoric: reduced press freedoms, and extended reach in political offices.

A wave of historical nostalgia is a part of the overflowing Brexit tide. Audiences who are pro-Leave revel in a deep nostalgia for empire. The strength of this empire is highlighted through pop-culture which sanitize violence pasts and rewards nationalist ideologies. Films like ‘Dunkirk’ reinforce the notion that the UK is historically stronger when they stand alone, erasing decades of transnational collaboration between nations in lieu of reclaiming a deeply seeded racism in order to ‘take back control’ of their country. This rhetoric is wholeheartedly embraced by the white elite who pushed for the Leave vote in the UK and elected Donald Trump to his presidency.

What will the UK look like in the wake of Brexit? The question will continue to reveal itself as the October 31 deadline draws ever closer. Until them, citizens of the UK will continue to utilize media, both old and new, to disseminate information about the process of Brexit and the implications of its outcome. The marginalized are recognized. While the elite may have called for this vote, what the course of Brexit has revealed is that the will of some is not the will of all. For now, we can only do what we have done for the past three years. Wait patiently, and actively voice discontent when those that spread ill-will and xenophobia rise into power. The wave of populism may be here for a while, but we can learn how to swim, and help others stay afloat.