Category: Brexit

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.

It has been 4 years since the results of the Brexit referendum on June 23rd, 2016 and the world waits with bated breath to see the deal penned down by the negotiations between representatives of the European Union and the United Kingdom. Spurred on by the wave of nationalism and fueled by issues of unrestricted migration, high budget contributions, restrictive trade policies and the bureaucratic nature of the European Parliament, the UK decided to withdraw its membership from the European Union. Uncertainty in the financial and investment market has led to a free-fall in the value of the GBP, as the threat of excessive tariffs and trade barriers looms large in light of a no-deal situation. FDI flow into Britain has slowed down to a trickle, as wary investors wait for 31st December 2020, which marks the end of the Brexit transition period.

Countries like India and Bangladesh, which used Britain as a launching pad for the larger European market, have increased trade with their former coloniser; India now stands as the UK’s 17th largest trade partner (Office for National Statistics Pink Book for 2019 Goods and Services). The large influx of Indian workers into the UK, along with the more than 800 Indian companies which have set up operations there, ensure that signing a Free Trade Agreement with India is a priority for smooth trade to continue. An important aspect of trade between these economic giants is the high demand for premium goods by affluent Indians, and the ability of English luxury brands to satisfy that need.

However, Brexit threatens to derail this trade. According to Walpole, the trade body for the British luxury sector, sales are estimated to grow to between 52 billion pounds and 60 billion pounds if the UK and the EU cannot secure an agreement, in contrast to the value of 65 billion pounds otherwise. The sector is worth 48 billion pounds to the economy, with 38 billion being exports, and provides direct employment to over 150,000 people. The luxury car segment, headed by brands like Jaguar Land Rover (owned by Tata Motors), Bentley and Rolls-Royce, is lobbying to secure open European borders for its outsourced and multi-national manufacturing processes, while fashion brands like Burberry, Harrods and Mulberry vie for easy access to top designers from places like Milan, Paris and Barcelona.

While the underlying economics is static, differences in assumptions and focus of study have led to a dearth of material on Brexit’s impact on luxury markets in other research papers. It is also not correct to correlate economic openness and productivity growth without an empirical backing, which necessitates the requirement of looking at this from a long-term perspective.

The implications of hostile relations with the EU on the luxury goods market are worrisome, as restrictions to the free movement of manpower and materials across the continent severely hamper the ability of companies to enjoy profitable margins. While established brands may escape this conundrum by passing on the costs in the form of increased prices to the customers, indigenous startups serving a critical consumer base have no choice but to double-down their expenditure, in an attempt to increase sales exponentially. A stark reality which faces these brands is the possibility that their primary non-EU importers (USA, China, India) use this recent upheaval in global trade to negotiate better trade terms with the European Union, leaving the UK in a lurch. It is also imperative for London-based companies to locate talent internally, as closed borders may become the new normal soon.

There is also a strong likelihood that the UK might join the European Economic Area, for access to a single market for movement of goods, capital and labour. While this move is beneficial for Indian companies as they retain access to the European market, British companies will continue to be subjected to conservative policies of the Union. The country might also accede to the World Trade Organisation, in hopes of setting its import-export policies. Key companies, especially in the luxury automobile segment, are looking to secure favourable bilateral treaties with major importing countries. More liberal policies (eg. relaxed competition laws) would entice countries like India to contribute higher amounts as FDI, with Indian companies carrying out mergers and acquisitions with UK-based companies.

Finally, the surplus amount tied up in EU budgetary payments can be invested in the enhancement of vocational training institutes, to train skilled designers and workers for manufacturing premium fashion goods. Brexit can therefore, in the long run, pave the way for India’s integration with the rest of Europe and strengthen its trade relations with the UK. Once the dust settles, the UK is likely to overcome the short term recession and emerge as a liberal independent economy.

Today’s most discussed topic all over the world is the fact that UK will possibly leave the EU. On Thursday 23 June 2016 a referendum was held in order to come to a decision if the UK should remain a member of EU and more than 30 million people have voted. Brexit was originally planned to happen on 29 March 2019. That took place two years later when Prime Minister, Theresa May, set off Article 50 and started with the negotiations (BBC, 2019). This, might cause some implications in free trade with businesses. Initially, free trade can be expressed as the movement of goods and services among nations without political or economic barriers. This also means that trade will be without any restrictions, tariffs, quotas or other forms of restrictions. International trade has also an essential importance which is very important form of trade because it plays a very decisive role in the overall economic activity of nations. That type of trade allows countries to exchange goods, services and factors across national borders. International Trade also cause impacts on domestic and global economies too. Moreover, countries have created groups with trade agreements which let countries to have a common external tariff, no internal tariffs and a coordination of laws to facilitate exchange. Some of them are NAFTA and CAFTA. NAFTA is the North America Free Trade Agreement. More specific, is the creation of free trade area and conditions among United States, Canada and Mexico. In 2005, CAFTA or Central American Free Trade has established a free trade zone with Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua.

The European Union is officially the largest trade partner. About half of the UK’s trade is with the EU. So, leaving the EU will probably low the trade between the UK and the EU thanks to the high rise of tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. By merging the future market within the Europe, UK would gain less from the upcoming market. The main economic benefit of leaving the EU would be a lower net contribution to the EU budget (Dhingra et Al., 2016). Obviously, the members of EU have the privilege to importing and exporting goods without any restrictions. The benefit from being member of the EU union is that, all tariff barriers have been taken out and free trade is been accepted by all, as a free movement. Certainly, it is uncertain what is coming by the economic future and it is always hard to estimate these effects.

However, it can be guaranteed that by reducing trade, UK will end up with living standards’ issues. To begin with, there are two possible scenarios, one optimistic and one pessimistic. According to an ‘optimistic’ scenario, which is called also as ‘Soft’, UK will manage to have free access to the EU single market. After analyzing the effect, the result ended up to an overall 1.3% fall in UK incomes, more specific £850 per household (Dhingra et Al., 2016). Dhingra (2016) states that, the EEA association was established in 1994 to give countries that are not members in the EU a way to join the Single Market. Burke et Al (2016), also have agreed with the above statement by adding extra information to this stating that UK after leaving the EU connected with the benefits gained by the maintenance of the UK’s position will be able to contribute in the Internal Market with more free regulatory structure.

By being a member of EEA, UK would widely not discard its privilege of accessing into the Single Market and cherish all of the economic and trading significands with EU. UK will also be the linking part of the four freedoms which Single Market offers. EEA members need to pay some fees to continue being part of the Single Market. By subscribing to the EU budget, UK will continue being the 91% of the levels of the UK contribution. In 2011, Norway’s contribution to the EU budget was £106 per capita which means only 17% under the net contribution of £128 per capita of UK (House of Commons, 2013). As said before, UK through accessing in the areas of the Single Market, is going to adopt EU legislation that is associated with these areas. Participants of EEA have the chance to join the expert games and committees in the initial periods of a legislative proposal even if by that, they cannot take part in elections on legislations in the European Council or European Parliament. Staying in the single market after Brexit would lead to the lowest increase in UK-EU trade costs.

In a ‘pessimistic’ scenario, which is also called as ‘Hard’, every household will have a noticeable drop in income around 2.6% which is approximately £1,700. But the most important part is that, trade will lose its income per capita more than any other savings that the UK government gains from the decrease fiscal contributions to the EU budget. UK through exiting without agreeing any new deal with EU, will have to face the ‘consequence’ that all its trade with the EU will be under WTO terms and policies. Each member of WTO has to allocate exactly the same most favored nation (MFN) market access, for instance, charging the same tariffs to the other World Trade Organization members. If UK conclude to become a WTO member, most probably would no longer have the freedom to tariff-free trade in goods with the EU. In contrast with the FTA agreements, UK as a member of WTO would not have the authority to be bound of the four freedoms. Also, the condition with poorly quantified migrants inside the EU could terminate. However, as opposed to the FTA, no corresponding relaxation will appear in immigration agreements for highly qualified migrants. As a WTO participant, exporting from UK to the EU and to other WTO participants would be an issue to the importing countries’ MFN tariffs. In order to enter to the WTO membership, UK needs to accept the fact that WTO terms are not permitting free movement of labor so the UK will no longer have the ability to labor freely with EU. No deal Brexit means that politicians could not achieve to agree with EU before leaving. Otherwise, the country will walk away with no deal.

Employment will be affected too and the markdown of economic output is clear. Firstly, the short-term effects will fast appear by the fall of available jobs between 1.7% and 2.9% according to hypothesis in 2020. That, will eventually slightly recovering in the long-term. The number of people employed will also reduce by around 3500000 and around 600000 in approximately 10 years’ time (2030) significant to the counterfactual in the FTA and WTO scenarios (Dhingra, 2016). Another issue that has recently assumed increasing prominence is the labor mobility. EU origin workers play a key role in the UK labor market that is now representing over 5% of use.

In both scenarios, the UK unemployment rate is expected to rise peaking in 2020 at around 7% in the FTA scenario and around 8% in the WTO scenario. In the 2020s, unemployment gradually falls back in both scenarios as unemployment has returned to broadly the same level as in the counterfactual scenario (5%). The past decade the size of the British workforce was nearly 2 million people according to Richard Partington (2018), rather than only 820000 people that are going to get a job. That means to a very obvious slowdown in the workforce after UK leave the EU.

After many researches has been made about how migration will change after Brexit, analysts end up thinking that migration will be reduced in the UK. According to the FTA, migration in UK would face a difference between only -0.8% and -1.0% (Jonathan et Al., 2016). On the other hand, under WTO terms, UK migrants will face a slightly increase migration with -1.3% by 2020 and until 2030. The introduction of tighter restrictions on migration is estimated to reduce UK GDP by around 1-1.6% of GDP in the two scenarios due to reduced labor supply.

In summary, it could be argued that by having the UK leaving the UK, equal positive and negative effects will appear. It is generally agreed that Soft Brexit is the least bad option for UK economy whilst Hard is named as the most catastrophic scenario. In my point of view, I think that if UK wants to improve its trade relationships between EU, has to take advantage of Soft Brexit agreements and follow that path that leads to the better UK future regarding not only the economy but also the living standards. Trade will also be treated exactly the same as before Brexit (Piet EECKHOUT, 2018).

References

1. BBC. (2019). Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU. Available: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887 [17 November 2019].
2. Ciarán Burke, Ólafur Ísberg Hannesson, Kristin Bangsund. (2016). ‘Life on the Edge: EFTA and the EEA as a Future for the UK in Europe’ . Available: https://www.kluwerlawow6nline.com/abstract.php?area=Journals&id=EURO2016005 [13 November 2019].
3. Prof. Piet EECKHOUT. (2018). Future trade relations between the EU and the UK: options after Brexit. Available: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/603866/EXPO_STU(2018)603866_EN.pdf [28 November 2019].
4. Richard Partington. (2018). UK businesses told to expect workforce crisis after Brexit. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/mar/29/uk-businesses-workforce-crisis-brexit-young-workers [13 November 2019].
5. Swati Dhingra, Gianmarco Ottaviano, Thomas Sampson, John Van Reenen. (2016). The consequences of Brexit for UK trade and living standards. Available: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/sampsont/TradeLivingStandards.pdf [13 November 2019].

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 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’ 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.

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 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.

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

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?