SDE

TABLE OF CONTENTSINTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………. 2WHY BREXIT …………………………………………………………………… 3ADVANTAGES OF BREXIT …………………………………………………. 3-5DISADVANTAGES OF BREXIT ……………………………………………. 6-7NO-DEAL BREXIT …………………………………………………………… 7HARD BREXIT ……………………………………………………………… 7-8CURRENT SITUATION …………………………………………………… 8-10CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………… 11REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………. 12 INTRODUCTIONBREXIT is an abbreviation for ‘British exit’. Which refers to the United Kingdoms (UKs) decision in a June 23rd referendum to leave the European Union (EU). BREXIT is defined by the English dictionary as: The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.The European Union is an international organisation that comprises of twenty-eight (28) European countries which includes the United Kingdom. It governs common economic, social and security policies. The European union was created by the Maastricht treaty, which entered into force on November 1st, 1993. It was designed to enhance European political and economic integration by creating a single currency (Euro), a unified foreign and security policy and common citizenship rights and by advancing cooperation in the areas of immigration, asylum and judicial affairs. The EU have formal control of community policies on development, education, public health and consumer protection and an increased role in environmental protection, social and economic cohesion and technological research. It also established the EU citizenship (citizens to vote and to run for office in local and European parliament.WHY BREXIT (BRITAIN EXIT)The EU originally started out as a customs union that dismantled trade barriers between nations post-World War II. This was a logical response to the tariff war climate of the 1930s that played a significant role in igniting World War II. Unfortunately, EU officials had other things in mind once the EU’s tariff policy was consolidated. As Ron Paul notes, corruption and political ambition got the best of the EU, turning it into “an unelected bully government in Brussels, where the well-connected were well compensated and insulated from the votes of mere citizens.”The Britons decided to vote ‘leave’ during the referendum because of numerous reasons ranging from: questionable immigration policies, concerns over Brussels micromanaging British affairs, and whether remaining in the European Union was in the best economic interests of the UK. ADVANTAGES OF BREXITEscaping illiberal values: The European Union views concepts such as decentralization with disapproval. For “progressive” institutions like the EU, classical liberal concepts of limited government and smaller political units checking bigger units are toxic roadblocks that keep it from realizing its universalist vision. The British Isles, on the other hand, have historically been the cradle for classically liberal practices such as federalism, free speech, and property rights.Recent developments have indicated that the EU is hell-bent on discarding basic civil liberties. For a start, the European Court of Human Rights has been fining and prosecuting people for making unsavoury remarks about certain religious figures and in the same vein, Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive has raised concerns due to its anti-free speech implications. Freedom of expression has been part and parcel of Anglo-Saxon traditions that have been passed down for generations and transplanted to Britain’s former colonies in Australia, Canada, and the United States. For the sake of maintaining a cherished civil liberty such as free speech, leaving the EU would be a wise move for the UK.Increased free trade: Research shows that the EU is gradually becoming less of a trade priority for Britain. The UK is optimally positioned to trade with many other countries outside of the EU bailiwick. Even if Britain does not reach a favourable Brexit deal with the EU, she should consider a bolder alternative which is the ‘pure free trade’. Meaning zero tariffs and import quotas goods coming from EU countries and the rest of the world.In such an environment of free trade, the UK could re-negotiate trade deals with members of the Commonwealth of Nations such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Singapore which share a common culture, language, and legal system. Free trade will only strengthen those bonds. Despite the hand-wringing from the pro-EU crowd, the UK has plenty of opportunities to thrive outside of the EU’s jurisdiction.However, claimed benefits include:• Increased independence of action.• Increased political and economic nationalism.• Lower immigration.• Less ‘red tape’.• Lower contributions to European budgets.• Being able to make trade deals.• Laws are proposed by people elected by the people• ‘Rebalancing’ the economy away from financial services.• Lower house prices, more tourists, and other consequences of a weak currency/economy.• Less competition for European companies.• Jobs for lawyers.Cutting European union tariffs: The European union imposes high tariffs on food stuffs and also some other areas including clothing and textiles, where applied tariffs on third-countries imports are 6%-8%. UK tariff revenue from these items totals about E1 billion per year but gains to consumers from the abolition of tariffs on these items could be much larger than that as domestic prices for clothing and textile products generally (not just the imported item) would likely fall. With textiles and clothing spending at E82 billion per year even a 3% price fall would boost consumer incomes (and potentially spending) by E2.5 billion. More broadly, the Ifs has estimated that the abolition of all EU tariffs would cut consumer prices by up to 1.2%. with UK consumer spending at E1.3 billion in 2017, this implies gains for consumers of up to E15 billion.Reducing benefits payments to EU immigrants: A targeted immigration policy could keep the fiscal benefits accruing to the UK from high skilled immigrants while cutting the burden associated with the lower skilled. The immigration advisory committee suggests the fiscal ‘break even’ point for EEA immigrants is a salary of around E30 000 per year while government figures suggest benefit payments to EEA nationals of around E1.6 billion per year. This latter figure could be reduced to near zero by appropriate immigration rules.Striking trade deals with third countries: An EU assessment of the benefits of striking free trade deals with a range of third countries including the US and Asian economies suggested these could boost EU GDP by 1.2% and up to 2% if productivity effects are allowed. For the UK alone this would represent an annual gain in GDP of E25- E40 billion. But the figures could easily be higher for the UK due to the UKs bigger trade with non-EU countries.Reducing regulatory burdens: The cost of EU regulations is hard to calculate but the EUs own estimates suggest the cost to business is large as much as 4%- 6% of GDP. Removing all of this unrealistic, but even reducing the burden by 25% would potentially yield savings of 1%-1.5% of UK GDP or E20-E30 billion per year in business costs. And the positive impact on GDP could be even bigger.Abolishing the common agricultural policy (CAP): The cap costs British tax payers twice over-once through subsidies paid to farmers and twice by keeping food prices artificially high. EU farm prices are around 5% above world prices and our estimates based on this data suggests UK consumers pay around E2 billion per year in a higher price due to the CAP.Fishing: the UK fishing industry could potentially double in size after Brexit as the UK takes full control of a natural resource which currently is mostly harvested by the European union boats. Estimates by Napier (2008) and others suggest a rise in catch of up to E700m-E800m per year which with positive supply chain effects could see a total boost to output. Already offsetting a third of the possible trade losses.Ending budgetary payments to the EU: Over the last three years, net contributions to the EU have totalled E10 billion per year, or around 0.5% of UK GDP. Ending these payments alone essentially cancels out the possible trade related losses. Trade barriers: trade barriers will go up as well as the bilateral trade volumes between the UK and EU will go down to some extent in a WTO scenario. UK exports will be diverted to the home market and other destinations, and EU imports will be displaced by UK production and imports from third world countries because of these off-setting shifts in sales patterns, the net effect on UK GDP of a WTO Brexit will be a small fraction of the effect on UK-EU trade. DISADVANTAGES OF BREXITLoss of freedom of movement. – There has been much talk about immigration putting a strain on the UK, but with a huge post referendum reduction in EU applicants for jobs in the health service, leisure industry and seasonal work, it is clear that the UK economy and service provision is suffering the ‘Brexit effect’ already. UK citizens are also already finding opportunities for them in the EU to be much reduced. Travel and work overseas will not shut down with Brexit, but it will be more complicated and costly. In purely territorial terms losing freedom of movement means British passport holders losing free access to 94.4% of current EU territory.Less opportunities for young people. -. For the young people, it means shutting down opportunity. Erasmus has been a boon for students allowing them to study in different countries. Sectors such as science are especially concerned. (The UK has benefitted hugely from EU funding for sciences). EU graduates from UK universities are now not thinking of staying in the UK and contributing to our society and economy as before, while UK graduates face an ever more uncertain future.Social damage. – Families are being torn apart by Brexit. A climate of xenophobia surrounding Brexit is hurting many, both EU citizens and British. Anyone speaking a foreign language or who is thought not to look British may find themselves the subject of abuse. Whilst bigots have always abused others Brexit has made them believe that a tribal nationalism is now the accepted model for the UK. In our multicultural Britain this is deeply dangerous.Economic cost. – The Bank of England says we are already £900 per household worse off because of Brexit. HMRC says that new customs arrangements might cost £20bn. The big red bus suggesting £350 million a week could be ‘taken back’ and given to the NHS was a huge lie. Projections aside, it is clear we will be much worse off, and that public services will suffer further as a result. Austerity created a fertile climate of discontent for the Leave voter. What they voted for will only deepen the austerity we suffer,Insecurity. – The EU evolved from a fervent post-war desire for close collaboration between countries to further the cause of peace. Environmental challenges will only grow in the future, and mother nature pays little heed to frontiers. We can only mitigate and combat climate change working together with other nations. Britain on its own will diminish rapidly in international stature. We need to play a significant part in the EU to have a hope of retaining real influence.No apparent advantage! – ‘Take back control’ is an empty slogan. An interconnected world is all about negotiating agreements and standards. The UK has always had plenty of ‘control’ of borders as it is not in the Shengen passport-free travel area. Immigration can be controlled by merely applying rules which already constrain EU freedom of movement. This already means those unable to support themselves and without work do not have any indefinite right to remain. Separation from the institutions of the EU means the UK will have no say in how it develops, yet will inevitably have to play by the rules it sets in any area where there is exchange.Brexit has not been through yet because the authorities are negotiating for a hard Brexit instead of a no deal Brexit: NO-DEAL BREXIT:A no-deal Brexit means that the U.K. would no longer be a member of the EU and it would have no trade agreement. It would eliminate Britain’s tariff-free trade status with the other EU members. Tariffs would raise the cost of exports. That would hurt exporters as their goods became higher-priced in Europe. Some of that pain would be offset by a weaker pound. Tariffs would also increase prices of imports into the U.K. One-third of its food comes from the EU. Tariffs are as high as 74% for tobacco, 22% for orange juice, and 10% for automobiles. Higher import prices would create inflation and lower the standard of living for U.K. residents.A hard border would require all imports to go through customs. Delays at the border could create food shortages. The U.K. will be vulnerable because heat waves and droughts caused by global warming have already reduced local food production. Trade and travel on the island of Ireland would become more complicated under a no-deal Brexit.Northern Ireland would remain with the United Kingdom. The country of Ireland, with which it shares a border, would stay a part of the EU. The EU favours a customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Britain would have to pay its outstanding EU bills of $51 billion. It would also have to find a way to guarantee rights to EU citizens living in the U.K.A HARD BREXITA hard Brexit is like a no-deal Brexit but would include a trade agreement. A hard Brexit could be disastrous for The City, the U.K.’s financial center. Companies would no longer use it as an English-speaking entry into the EU economy. The City of London reported that 5,000 jobs could be lost. That could lead to a real estate collapse. There are many new office buildings under construction that would sit empty. Housing prices have already started to fall. Many businesses have already left. The City’s reputation as a bastion for business is permanently damaged.The United Kingdom would lose the advantages of the EU’s state-of-the-art technologies. The EU grants these to its members in environmental protection, research and development, and energy. Also, U.K. companies could lose the ability to bid on public contracts in any EU country. These are open to bidders from any member country. The most significant loss to London is in services, especially banking. Practitioners would lose the ability to operate in all member countries. A hard Brexit could raise the cost of airfares, the internet, and even phone services.A hard Brexit would hurt Britain’s younger workers. Germany is projected to have a labor shortage of 2 million workers by 2030. Those jobs will no longer be as readily available to the U.K.’s workers after Brexit.London has already lost many nurses and other health care professionals. In the year following the referendum, almost 10,000 of them quit. The number of nurses from Europe registering to practice in Britain has dropped by almost 90%.Under a hard Brexit, the U.K. could lose Scotland. It could join the EU on its own, as some countries within the kingdom of Denmark have. It may even have a referendum to leave the United Kingdom. CURRENT SITUATIONWithdrawal from the EU has been advocated by both left-wing and right-wing Eurosceptics, while pro-Europeanists, who also span the political spectrum, have advocated continued membership and maintaining the customs union and single market. When in 1992 the Maastricht Treaty, which created the European Union (EU) and the single market and guaranteed the four basic freedoms (the free movement of goods, services, capital and people around the EU) was brought before Parliament, there were divisions within the Conservative Party, leading to a rebellion over the Treaty. The UK Independence Party (UKIP), formed in 1993, grew strongly in the early 2010s and the influence of the cross-party People’s Pledge campaign has also been described as influential in bringing about a referendum. The Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, pledged during the campaign for the 2015 general election to hold a new referendum—a promise which he fulfilled in 2016 following pressure from the Eurosceptic wing of his party. Cameron, who had campaigned to remain, resigned after the result and was succeeded by Theresa May, his former Home Secretary. She called a snap general election less than a year later but lost her overall majority. Her minority government is supported in key votes by the Democratic Unionist Party.On 29 March 2017, the Government of the United Kingdom invoked Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Theresa May announced the government’s intention not to seek permanent membership of the European single market or the EU customs union after leaving the EU and promised to repeal the European Communities Act of 1972 and incorporate existing European Union law into UK domestic law. Negotiations with the EU officially started in June 2017. In November 2018, the Draft Withdrawal Agreement, negotiated between the UK Government and the EU, was published. The House of Commons voted against the agreement by a margin of 432 to 202 (the largest parliamentary defeat in history for a sitting UK government) on 15 January 2019, and again on 12 March with a margin of 391 to 242 against the agreement. On 14 March 2019, the House of Commons voted for the Prime Minister, Theresa May, to ask the EU for such an extension of the period allowed for the negotiation. Members from across the House of Commons rejected the agreement, with the leadership of the Labour Party stating in the House of Commons that any deal must maintain a customs union and single market, and with a large percentage of Conservative Party members rejecting the Irish backstop as it was drafted in the EU withdrawal agreement. Opponents of the EU Withdrawal Agreement expressed fears that the agreement as drafted could plunge Northern Ireland into a conflict and spark a return of The Troubles.The broad consensus among economists is that Brexit will likely reduce the UK’s real per capita income in the medium term and long term, and that the Brexit referendum itself damaged the economy. Studies on effects since the referendum show a reduction in GDP, trade and investment, as well as household losses from increased inflation. Brexit is likely to reduce immigration from European Economic Area (EEA) countries to the UK, and poses challenges for UK higher education and academic research. As of July 2019, the size of the “divorce bill””