BRITAIN AFTER BREXIT

The world is now on the verge of breakdown and pollutions, wars, lack of recourses are going on
their way to threaten our planet. Nowadays, people are becoming more and more fragile; therefore,
the United Kingdom must stand together as a country and not fall apart. When a nation separates,
numerous problems can affect it people deeply to the core when making a decision like Brexit.
The British Exit alternatively known as the Brexit is a debated topic and conclusion forged by the
Britons to leave the European Union and have a chance to re-establish themselves as a new land
with fewer restrictions that the EU had made them follow for many years. For the United Kingdom,
a fresh start of Brexit can lead to major effects on anyone who was included with anything
concerning both the EU members and Brexiteers who now stands alone. In this paper, I will use
economic, political and cultural reasoning to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness to help
validate my claim that Brexit has generally immense negative effects on Great Britain.

Brief history and background about Brexit

Member states have the right to withdraw from the Union under the 2007 Treaty on European
Union, Article 50, which states that: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union
in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." (Brexit, 2018) With that being said, the
referendum held on 24th June 2016 was not the first time they decided to withdraw from the EU.
After the conservative prime minister, Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Accession in 1972, the
UK became a member of the EC (European Communities) on 1 January 1973 with Denmark and
Ireland. Not long after that, the first national referendum on whether the UK should remain in the
European Communities in 1975 concluded that they stay and here we are now.
David Cameron who was a prime minister of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2016 set date for
a referendum, which he did not really support, of 2016 and this was a gamble for him to re-elect.
However, the new prime minister Theresa May announced that the government intention is not to
seek chronic single market out of European and give a word to cancel the European Communities
Act of 1972. Here is the result of the EU vote.
Leave: Remain:
17,410,742 (51.9%) 16141241 (48.1%)
After the panic actually settled and the agitated reactions to the referendum shifted to grudging
approval, many economic researchers in the UK involving employment have rebounded to their
pre-Brexit states and in some cases have since exceeded them as discussed further below.
Furthermore, the country is scheduled to depart at 11 pm UK time on Friday 29 March 2019. The
UK and EU have provisionally agreed on the three “divorce” issues of how much the UK owes
the EU, what happens to the Northern Ireland border and what happens to UK citizens living
elsewhere in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK. Talks have now moved on to future relations
– after the agreement was reached on a 21-month “transition” period to smooth the way to post-
Brexit relations.

Economic reasoning
As the author Rafal Kierzenkowski stated in the economic consequences of Brexit, Brexit would
be a major negative shock to the UK economy, with the financial fallout in some European
countries. Financial markets have increasingly begun to price in the risk of Brexit, while economic
uncertainty has also risen and started to hurt confidence and business investment, weakening UK
growth. Were Brexit to happen in 2019, the shock would be carried through many ways, the
direction of which would depend on the time horizon such as long term and short term. However,
Lauren Houghton, the author of the pros and cons of leave vote, argues that Brexit will result in
an immediate cost saving, as the country will no longer contribute to the EU budget and be free to
establish its own trade agreements.

Near term: Brexit is assumed to be followed rapidly by negotiations to withdraw from the EU,
suggesting the possibility of a formal exit in late-2018. This would be followed by new trade
negotiations with the EU over 2019 and possibly by measures to reduce immigration. The
following channels would operate:
 Increased economic vulnerability would lower certainty, keeping down spending choices,
and tighten money related conditions by lifting hazard premia, along these lines increasing
the cost of fund and reducing its accessibility. A danger is that capital outflows, or a break
in inflows, may debilitate the financing of the record-high current record deficiency of 7%
of GDP.
 After the UK leaves the EU, unhindered access to the Single Market would be lost. UK
exchange would then at first be represented by World Trade Organization rules, prompting
higher taxes for products and to different obstructions in getting to the Single Market,
prominently for monetary administrations.
 Concluding a Free Trade Agreement with the EU, like the one between the EU and
Canada, would give an incomplete balance to UK exchange by 2023. However, the
expenses of getting to the Single Market would at present be higher than they are currently
after that time. The UK would likewise keep on facing extra barriers on third-country
markets to which particular access was lost because of EU exit. Arranging new exchange
bargains would require some investment.
 Immigration represents one-portion of UK GDP development since 2005, with in excess
of 2 million occupations made. Checks to the free development of work from the EU and,
all the more vitally, a weaker UK economy after exit, would step by step decrease the
motivations for financial relocation to the UK and would be a cost to the economy.
 Brexit would produce a financial trauma over the UK, amplified by the valuation for
different monetary forms against sterling.
Longer term: Brexit would keep on generating significant auxiliary changes in the economy,
reflecting the new association with the EU and new arrangements more than 2024-30. The
accompanying channels would emerge:
 Access to the Single Market is essential for outside direct venture (FDI). Brexit would cut
FDI inflows, remarkably from the EU, bringing about lower UK business venture and a
decrease in the capital stock after some time. This, thusly, would adversely weigh on
exchange, development and diminish administrative quality.
 Trade and speculation are critical drivers of long-term GDP development. Brexit would
bring about lower receptiveness and development, debilitating specialized advance and
profitability in the UK.
 Long-term GDP development would be additionally decreased through a smaller pool of
aptitudes, coming from bring down immigration and lessened FDI, diminishing
administrative quality.
 The UK work and item showcases are among the most adaptable in the OECD, which
proposes that EU controls are not a critical hindrance. In any case, it is conceivable to seek
after further administrative advancement, despite the fact that this would challenge since
directions are similarly low and the increases would be restricted.
 Fiscal funds from halting net exchanges to the EU spending plan are probably going to be
0.3-0.4% of GDP for each year, which is a moderately little sum. Lower GDP development
would weigh on the monetary position essentially, constraining the extension to utilize the
net EU spending funds to unwind financial approach.
 By 2030, in a local situation, UK GDP would be more than 5% smaller than if the UK had
remained a member of the EU. The expenses would then be proportionate to GBP 3200 for
every family (in the present costs). In a more negative situation, these future significantly
higher, at GBP 5000 for each family unit. In the more drawn out term, the effect on the rest
of the EU nations would be little given the moderately low UK share in worldwide
exchange and the extension for different arrangements to balance the shock.
Should the UK conclude successfully a new free trade and investment policies with the rest of the
world, it is a very positive outcome for both EU and UK. In spite of this possibility, the future of
the economy is looking bad for Great Britain.

Political reasoning
Robert Ford claims that the vote for Brexit sent shockwaves around the world, rocking financial
markets and rekindling global debates about the power of populism and nationalism, as well as the
long-term viability of the EU. Beside pointing out difficulties to standard liberal majority rules
system and global reconciliation, the vote in favor of Brexit additionally features the extending
political partitions that cut crosswise over conventional partisan divisions in Britain and now
debilitate to additionally destabilize an as of now disintegrating two-party framework. In the
1960s, the dominant group of the UK was workers (more than half) who preferred the traditional
parties like Labour. (Anne Applebaum, Robert Ford, Matthew Goodwin, Tom Gallagher, Adrian
Guelke , 2017) However, by the 2000s a third of voters were graduates and the working class had
dwindled to around a fifth of the employed electorate. These changes gradually altered the electoral
calculus for the historically dominant Labour and Conservative parties, whose traditional dividing
line had been social class.
Cultural rather than economic
Rehashed disappointments by both primary gatherings to react to open requests for controlled
relocation fed a prominent and profoundly polarizing talk about that push idle clashes over
character and patriotism, social qualities and social change, into the focal point of British
legislative issues. Especially from 2010 ahead, these contentions were activated by the U.K.
Freedom Party, which crusaded constantly to combine these nerves with the subject of Britain's
EU enrollment. This has been profoundly problematic for a political framework in which
appointive fights for in any event the previous two decades had concentrated rather on inquiries of
monetary stewardship and the administration of open administrations, with the two primary
gatherings split principally finished redistribution and the relative parts that ought to be played by
the state and the market. The 2016 referendum and the vote for Brexit exposed and deepened a
newer set of cleavages that are largely cultural rather than economic.
The trigger
Moreover, the immediate reaction to the result was chaotic. Britain’s currency and government
bonds went into freefall, yet the financial instability was dwarfed by the extraordinary political
fallout. Within hours of discovering that his great gamble had failed, David Cameron announced
his resignation, leaving the task of implementing Brexit to his successor. (Anne Applebaum,
Robert Ford, Matthew Goodwin, Tom Gallagher, Adrian Guelke , 2017) Days after the outcome,
a wave of resignation and a vote of no confidence in Jeremy Corbyn's authority by Labor MPs
frustrated at his inability to battle adequately for EU participation set off an emergency in the
Labor resistance that would keep running for the whole summer.
The next week, the leader to succeed Cameron, previous chairman of London Boris Johnson,
pulled back from the authority race after his Conservative partner in the Leave crusade, Michael
Gove, out of the blue reported that he would keep running for the activity. Gove himself pulled
back the next week subsequent to neglecting to secure adequate help among his kindred MPs.
Similarly, as things appeared to calm down, Nigel Farage out of the blue surrendered as UKIP
pioneer, setting off a moving interior fight for control of the gathering that had done most to drive
the Euroskeptic plan. Ten days after the nation had voted in favor of Brexit, the three biggest
gatherings in England were altogether entangled in synchronous initiative emergencies.
New leader
The request was bit by bit re-established as the mid-year wore on. New Conservative leader
Theresa May, who had sponsored Remain yet had been to a great extent truant amid the battle, was
chosen unopposed in mid-July after her final rival, vocal Brexiteer (individuals who bolster Brexit)
Andrea Leadsom, pulled back after a few errors and slips. Work pioneer Jeremy Corbyn was
reelected by the Labor enrollment in September after a wounding interior challenge, while the
UKIP's inside quarreling proceeds at the season of this composition (November 2016), as the
gathering, having accomplished its establishing objective, tries to concede to a new direction. As
the clean settles, every one of the gatherings are attempting to deal with a political scene that was
significantly changed by the occasions of June 23 and with a political motivation set to be
dominated for quite a long time by the most perplexing and high-stakes universal arrangement in
present day British history.
Whatever approach the administration seeks after in actualizing the submission decision, the vote
in favor of Brexit has quickened the polarization of qualities, standpoints, and political needs that
undeniably isolates college instructed cosmopolitans from inadequately qualified nationalists. The
coming period of difficult and protracted negotiations between Britain and the EU will most likely
entrench the divides separating England’s socially liberal youth from its socially conservative
pensioners, and its diverse and outward-looking big cities from its homogeneous and introspective
small towns and declining industrial heartlands. (Anne Applebaum, Robert Ford, Matthew
Goodwin, Tom Gallagher, Adrian Guelke , 2017)
The 2016 vote uncovered the profundities of the divisions between these gatherings and set them
on inverse sides of the characterizing political choice for an age. Both conventional representing
parties presently need to grapple with inside clashes amongst Leavers and Remainers, and between
the individuals who currently need to organize single-market get to and the individuals who need
to organize more grounded controls on free movement and migration.

Cultural reasoning
The report, the impact of Brexit on international cultural relations in the European union written
by Stuart MacDonald, describes the current status of international cultural relations between
Germany and the UK and assesses how that will be impacted both directly and indirectly by Brexit.
He continues that there is a lot of shared view and existing coordinated effort amongst Germany
and the UK in the primary zones of worldwide social relations: culture and imaginative ventures;
training and youngsters; co-activity on research and advancement; in scholarly and metro life. This
joint effort is bolstered by a scope of instruments, some of which are subject to EU subsidizes and
are hence in danger from Brexit, some of which are respective, and some of which happen between
non-state and sub-state on-screen characters in the economy and common society and are not
specifically affected by Brexit.

These instruments take place within an overlapping set of frameworks:

 EU approaches and finances which specifically effect on, or support, joint effort in
particular areas;
 The remote arrangements of the UK and Germany, and the External Relations Strategy of
the EU;
 Economic and trade arrangements which are influenced by EU legislation and regulation;
 The arrangements, strategies, and activities of sub-state performing artists which work at
different degrees of independence from EU strategies and activities, and from national
foreign policies, but are in any case essential for relations between the UK and Germany.
The impacts of Brexit can be understood therefore in two ways:
 It impacts on characterized territories of activity, which may occur inside the greater part
of the above structures, requiring an all-encompassing perspective of the area being
referred to, and
 It's effect on strategies which will require being changed in the light of Brexit keeping in
mind the end goal to meet more extensive approach objectives which have importance
past particular sectoral concerns.
At the time of writing, it is conceivable to describe a standard of the principle regions of existing
activity, however there are deficient information to depict the entirety of action.
For the UK there are risks:
 A decrease in a free movement for social and inventive industries and in Higher Education
could seriously affect the UK's worldwide notoriety and economy;
 There could be an adverse effect on divisions which have a significant level of reliance on
EU-supported exercises;
 Domestic policy (e. g. on immigration), could be as damaging to the UK as an unfavorable
outcome to negotiations with the EU;
  Higher Education could lose access to EU stores for research, versatility and strategic
collaboration bringing about a serious erosion of the UK's science and innovation base; and
 The notoriety and intensity of the UK's cultural and inventive businesses is the primary
driver of the UK's worldwide engaging quality – if Brexit impacts unfavorably on the
division and its reputation, it would reduce the UK's soft power (which is to a great extent
in view of the apparent "cool" produced by the part), when the UK needs it most.

The UK way to deal with Brexit negotiations stays unclear and will be influenced by the result of
the General Election, due to happening on 8 June 2017. There are indications, but the UK will
organize the support of cooperation on research and development, and endeavor to discover good
plans for particular segments, (for example, cultural and creative industries) which are believed to
be significant to the UK's economy and reputation.
For the EU, there are risks of:
 Loss of access to the UK’s research and innovation base;
 Reduced opportunities for study and work in the UK;
 A loss of capability, expertise and networks in the theory, and practice of international
cultural relations.
For Germany, questions are:
 The extent to which Germany wishes to keep up current strategies and projects which
support worldwide cultural relations with the UK, and the degree to which Germany is set
up to take a active part in doing as such in the Brexit negotiations
 How that might relate to Germany’s desire to strengthen the future development of the EU
through creativity and innovation, civilian power, and in external relations, possibly
involving non-EU partners;
 The extent to which Germany would wish to keep up, or create, reciprocal courses of action
with the UK post-Brexit; and
 The potential expenses of loss of EU assets to help proceeded with communitarian
movement with the UK.

Brexit was a noteworthy piece of an international upsurge of anti-cosmopolitan, anti-globalizing,

anti-immigration assumption filled by imbalances, and a feeling of loss of (national) personality
and control. These emotions were for the most part felt by older and less well-educated people.
Young people, especially in the UK, will be worst affected by Brexit. They will suffer most from
any loss of EU funds for exchange or study in 27 other countries. Their exposure to other cultures,
to opportunities for study, work and exchange will be reduced. (MacDonald, 2016)

Conclusion
The monetary results of leaving the EU will rely upon what approaches the UK receives following
Brexit. Be that as it may, bring down trade because of decreased combination with EU nations is
probably going to cost the UK economy much more than is picked up from bring down
commitments to the EU spending plan. Brexit would likewise keep down GDP in other European
economies, especially in the close term coming about because of uplifted vulnerability would make
negative consequences for UK's economy. Despite the fact that the choice was made by Britons
concerning social perspectives, considers found that there would be numerous difficulties and
defeats in the way of life and global correspondences. Because of the whole concept of Brexit split
Britons into Brexiteers and Remainers, biggest parties in Great Britain also divide into groups. I
say all these different major consequences would weight down Great Britain when the time of the
“known unknown” comes around.

Bibliography
Anne Applebaum, Robert Ford, Matthew Goodwin, Tom Gallagher, Adrian Guelke . (2017). Britain Atfer
Brexit. A Nation Divided, 15.

Brexit. (2018, May 12). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit#Background

Houghton, L. (2016, June 24). Brexit reaction: Event planners outline pros and cons of leave vote.
Retrieved from Citmagazine: https://www.citmagazine.com/article/1400091/brexit-reaction-
event-planners-outline-pros-cons-leave-vote-updated

Jonathan Wadsworth, Swati Dhingra, Gianmarco Ottaviano, John Van Reenen. (2016). Brexit 2016 Policy
analysis. Brexit and Impacts of Immigration on the UK, 34-53.

MacDonald, S. (2016). The Impact of Brexit on International Cultural Relations in the Eiropean Union.
Culture and Foreign Policy, 71.

Rafal Kierzenkowski, Nigel Pain, Elena Rusticelli . (2016). The Economic Consequences of Brexit: A Taxing
Decision. Economic Policy Papers, 37.