Britain after Brexit

In spite of voting leave, many well informed advocates of Brexit would agree that the immediate economic effects of Britain’s leaving of the European Union would not be entirely positive. The less knowledgeable supporters of Britain’s leaving of the EU promote the notion that Brexit will control immigration. Pre and post the referendum, this idea has been giving a voice to racism in Britain.

It is hard to predict today what the future of Brexit will turn out to be in a decade or even five years time, but it is obvious that Britain’s planned exit of the EU is already provoking serious economic consequences. The most infamous, immediate and, arguably, the most important economic fatality of Brexit has been the value of the pound. Having sank to an alarming low against the American dollar and euro, in simple words, it seems as if us Britons have become poorer as a result of Britain’s decision to leave the EU. The pound lost 11 per cent of its value in the short space of two trading days, which raises the question that should have been answered to many less knowledgeable voters before they voted leave: how will Brexit immediately affect our economy?

Having dropped in value by around 13%, the pound, which was worth $1.50 on 23 June, is now trading at around $1.30, which is a new low for this decade, seeing as the sterling has not been at levels this low since the 1980s. On 23 June the pound was worth €1,30, but now trades at about €1,19, another alarming low.

Conversely, as a result of Brexit, the percentage of race hate crimes has vastly increased. In the weeks before and after the vote to leave the European Union, race hate crimes increased by 42%. Reports of racism have been amassing in the media, and this is no surprise. Immigration was highlighted as a common reason for Brexit amongst voters, and with the vote to leave stealing the coveted victory, those who were against immigration for racist reasons were revelling in their success.

With the value of the pound falling and the amount of race hate crimes increasing, the future of Brexit is not seeming as bright as advertised. However, some argue that the pound was overvalued before and there are, in fact, some benefits that come with a devalued pound regarding British exports and its net worth. Though there is no way to justify racism, some people believe that Brexit simply means reports of racism are piling up in the media, not the incidents themselves. Today, many people link racism in Britain with Brexit, albeit the vote for leave triumphing or the ‘problem’ of immigration may not have been the motive for all of the racist acts that have been occurring as of late.

AA

Brexit: Aftermath of the Historic Vote

Waking up on a sunny Thursday morning on the 23rd of June to the news that the Brexit campaign succeeded was simply one word: shocking. I often thought of Great Britain as a conservative country that did not enjoy the idea of change as previously demonstrated in the past; David Cameron was re-elected Prime Minister the previous year and Scotland had voted against a referendum. As a result of this, I had assumed that an issue as huge as leaving the EU- a trading group that Great Britain had involved its affairs with for 43 years- was a mere empty threat.

Once my short grieving process was over (with the help of a cup of tea) and I had finally accepted the truth: Brexit means Brexit. My peaceful morning was short-lived after I quickly learned that David Cameron- one of the strongest campaigners for the Leave Party- had stepped down from his role of Prime Minister. Yet another devastating blow. After my second cup of PG Tips, I realised why Brexit turned out to be the superior decision. Looking back at the month of rivalry and heavy campaigning, I noticed that the Leave Campaign was way more “active” in spreading the message of “British Pride”. Nigel Farage made headlines with the infamous bus that claimed the £350 million “we send to the EU each week” could be used to “fund the NHS instead”. This strategy was more effective than Labour’s somewhat desperate ads on every newspaper that simply stated: “I’m IN”.

We send the EU £350 million a week, let’s fund our NHS instead
Despite the immediate drop to the value of the British pound, the economy seems to be boosting- especially within tourism- as the rest of Europe sees Britain as the next Greece: the new cheap holiday hotspot since the economy has “crashed”. This in turn, has led to a record-rise in August of spending within the services sector- a sector that accounts for approximately 80% of the UK’s economy.

So whilst I initially saw the conclusion of the EU referendum as a disaster, it also suggests hope for the UK- or as my father likes to call it: ‘The New Switzerland’. Who knows, maybe Brexit may be one of the new improvements to the country- a decision that could be as historic and hopeful as legalising gay marriage, Sadiq Khan being voted as London’s first Muslim Mayor, and Theresa May becoming Britain’s second female prime minister.  BJ

Brexit means Brexit

On the 31st August 2016, Theresa May led a “Brexit brainstorm” at Chequers Court. 

Along with the many ideas being deliberated at the meeting, Mrs May wanted to make it clear that “Brexit means Brexit”. Yet, there is no need to fret Remainers, as a legal analysis of Article 50 has recently been published, which would have Brexiters across the UK spilling their brandy all over their country-estate-carpet. May said the UK government will not trigger Article 50 until the start of 2017 at the earliest, which in turn would start the 2-year process of Britain leaving the EU. The proposition suggests that once article 50 is invoked there is no turning back – doomsday for Britain. However, the reality is that Article 50 is a notification of Britain’s “intention” to leave the EU. In law, the word “intention” cannot be interpreted as a final and irreversible decision, therefore the “intention” can be withdrawn. So, hypothetically speaking, if a new government was elected which represented the remain side, the intention to leave the EU would be no more, which would cause a rekindling of relationships between the UK and it’s former partner countries. 

Another issue issued discussed at Chequers was the approach towards a possible deal with the EU. May made the need for a "unique" deal for the UK clear, however, what the deal would be or how it would be ratified was not clarified. The reiteration of the issues is hardly ground-breaking progress and, if anything, it is making the idea of a perfect deal which pleases all seem more unattainable than originally thought. The SNP has accused the government of "breathtaking complacency", Mr Hugo Swire MP, who campaigned for Remain, made it obvious that the government has no idea what they want to achieve, and Ex-Chancellor Lord Lawson (a leave campaigner) wants the government to “stop wasting time trying to negotiate the unnegotiable”. 

Is it possible to achieve the “unique deal”? 

Unlikely! Why would the EU grant the UK a perfect deal that would possibly cause the collapse of the whole system? The most likely outcome is that the UK will remain part of the single market, which makes one question the point of the hassle and financial loss, for a life that practically mirrors one inside of the EU. 

Should Brexit really mean Brexit? FB

Leadsom vs May

As Michael Gove was voted out of the leadership race on Thursday, there are now just two contenders left – Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May. This means that the next Tory leader will be a woman, making her the first female Prime Minister since Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. But the question remains, which of the two is better suited for the role?

In Thursday’s ballot, May received 199 votes whilst Leadsom won just 84. However, it is suggested that she is still able to gain the necessary support to overtake May by September – especially since the vote on September 9^th is opened to all Conservative members.

Leadsom was a prominent figure during the Leave campaign for the referendum, appearing in two TV debates, during which she was highly praised for her well-reasoned arguments. Several MPs, including Nicky Morgan, believe that the best person to lead this country during the upcoming negotiations for Britain’s exit from the EU is a Brexit voter, as they will fully understand the motives for people voting leave and truly want a full exit from the EU. As a result, this favours Leadsom as May was a Remain supporter. However, May believes that Britain does not need a Brexit-supporting Prime Minister, as the exit from the EU will only be a small part of the duties of the next leader. The day-to-day running of the country and domestic issues will still need to be dealt with. Additionally, a pro-EU Prime Minister may help to unite the Conservatives and the public after a divisive referendum, as both Leave and Remain voters will feel as if their wishes are being respected.

May has been in politics for much longer than Leadsom, having become an MP in 1997, whereas Leadsom was elected in 2010. This greater experience may mean that she is better able to cope with the challenges of being the Prime Minister. May has experience of being a senior Tory, as she is one of the longest-serving Home Secretaries in British history, having held this position since 2010. However, she has been criticised for failing to cut net migration down to 100,000 a year as was promised by the government. On the other hand, Leadsom currently occupies a junior position as the Minister for Energy and Climate Change. She claims this is no disadvantage, as she had many jobs in the financial sector before entering politics, including being a Barclays investment banker, working at a fund management company and founding her own charity. This real-world, finance experience could be more valuable, as she understands the needs of businesses. However, this is something May has too as she used to work at the Bank of England.

Andrea Leadsom has been accused of tax avoidance using offshore accounts and as a result she has been pressurised to publish her tax returns. However, she has not said that she will do this if elected. Theresa May, on the other hand, said that she would. This has led to an untrustworthy image being painted of Leadsom, which is particularly harmful in this uncertain time when the public need to feel as if they can trust the leader of the country. She has also previously supported scrapping all workers’ rights for employees in very small businesses. Whilst this contradicts with her current promises to protect workers’ rights, it does lead us to question if the protection of the particularly vulnerable is a priority for her.

A likeable personality and an ability to reassure and persuade the public is needed to lead a country successfully. Critics of Theresa May say that she lacks charisma, making her unsuitable for this role. She has also been criticised for failing to guarantee the rights of EU nationals to stay in Britain following the referendum, when what these people need now is reassurance and certainty.

Overall, I think that May is the candidate more suited for the leadership, as Leadsom’s lack of political experience is a significant issue and May has shown herself to be both capable and competent in holding senior positions in the party.

AE

EU Referendum talk - Tom Brake MP

A Student Report

23rd June 2016, the day where the final decision will be made by the nation on whether or not the UK should stay in the European Union. It has been 41 years since the last EEC (European Economic Community) Referendum, in which the people made the call to remain in the European Economic Community (Now known as the EU). Has time changed the view of the people?

 

On the 28th of April, we are fortunate enough to invite Tom Brake MP (Carshalton and Wallington) from the Liberal Democrats Party to talk about his views on the issue. He, like the rest of his party believe that the UK should stay in the EU. The ‘Stronger In’ Campaign they call it - ‘Britain is stronger, safer and better off in Europe than we would be out on our own.’

 

Firstly, by staying in, it promotes and maintains prosperity of the economy. Britain receives an average investment of £24 billion per year from Europe. In fact, at this time because of the upcoming EU referendum, certain EU based companies have stalled investments for their UK regional developments in fear of Brexit bringing unsettling impacts to its operations, such as limited trade and increasing taxes. Other than direct investments being made by large cooperation, these businesses provide a lot of jobs to residents of the UK. Airbus, as an example of a European company that manufactures aircrafts, directly employs 15,000 workers in the UK with an estimated number of 100,000 other non-direct employees within the country. Not only that large companies contribute to the UK’s economic development, but almost half of the UK’s export is directed to the rest of Europe. Britain’s trade, regardless of export or import is very dependent on the European Union. The EU have well-established trade deals with 50 non-EU countries including the United States, Korea, and Australia ; whilst the UK have not negotiated a deal on its own for more than 40 years. So what will be the future after Brexit for UK’s trading?

 

Secondly, staying in the EU sustains peace both between the UK and other member states and by defending the UK in unfortunate cases of foreign attacks through NATO. Historically, the UK had come into conflict with France, Spain and Germany very frequently. Some say that the crucial reason for peace in recent decades is the formation of the European Union, installing mutually beneficial relationships between European countries. Furthermore, being part of the EU, guaranteed the UK’s membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Known as NATO in short). It is a ‘political and military alliance with the essential purpose of safeguarding the freedom and security of its members through political and military means’. Thus, as a member of NATO, the UK is protected by the organisation within the EU borders and will receive support from other NATO members against terrorist attacks and foreign invasions.

 

Thirdly, being part of the European Union assures freedom of movement. This is a huge advantage to the UK considering it was estimated by the World Bank in 2014 that around 7-8% of the UK population live permanently abroad. In comparison of 3% of Spanish and 3.8% of French, the UK is actually befitting rather than losing from this agreement. Not only so, but it allows easier travelling within the Europe and also for educational purposes especially aimed at students. Additionally, immigration of working people (usually aged 25 - 35) from other countries adds to the diminishing UK working force because of the gradually greying population. This thus boosts productivity and help support the expanding retired population.

 

Lastly, the EU has bounding legislations on the UK (which excludes the UK Parliament) regarding environmental and welfare protection. Currently, most European laws possess the Doctrine of Supremacy, meaning that it has the presence over UK law. Such cases are able to go beyond the ruling of the Supreme Court into the European Court of Justice. This not only restricts the growing amount of power held by the always sovereign UK Parliament but protects certain civil liberties and settles environmental concerns. For example, environmental targets are being set for minimising air pollution, this includes a ’47% reduction in loss of life expectancy as a result of exposure to particulate matter’ and another ’10% reduction in acute mortalities from exposure to ozone’ by the time of 2020.

 

Despite controversial debates concerning arguments on both sides, a lot of people have yet still not made up their minds. How would the nation decide? Is staying in actually better for our security, our economy and our people? Only time will tell.

 

CS

A Politics Student's view on the European Referendum

When David Cameron returned from the European Parliament clutching his ‘new deal for Britain’ it seemed to me that the concessions that had been granted were minor and didn’t address any of the real problems that the British people wanted resolving in the first place. The whole renegotiation process seemed to be a pre-arranged charade agreed by EU leaders which aimed to fool the UK public into rejecting Brexit and stay in a virtually unreformed European Union.

Mr. Cameron knows that anti-EU feeling in the country is growing so he has called for a referendum in just 4 months’ time on the 23^rd June 2016. It’s times like these where we will be seeing the establishment whip out any tactic to sway ordinary people in their favour. “EU exit could threaten jobs” and “sterling could lose another 20% of its value” are just two of the many headlines that will effectively scare Britons into voting ‘remain’ and not thoroughly thinking through the consequences of living under a superstate which is, in the words of the late Tony Benn, on board a ‘federal escalator, moving as we talk, going towards a federal objective we do not wish to reach.’.

The British people are faced with a once-in-a-lifetime decision – are we to be a self-governing nation or not? The so-called trading bloc has grown into much more than just an economic community, we are now dealing with a union which is inherently undemocratic and starves its member states of the power they once had. A fundamental principle of the UK’s constitution is the fact that parliament is sovereign. However, as a member of the EU, Britain must take all EU law over the statutory law passed in Westminster or the common law ruled by judges and it all, in effect, comes to nothing if the European Parliament passes a law that is conflicting.

No doubt, over the next few months we will be hearing endless claim and counterclaim from both sides of the argument, but in reality, no-one can know exactly what will happen if we leave the EU. Brexit will offer Britain a key to the rest of the world as we are relinquished from the harnesses of a powerful few at the top of the European food chain. I only hope that the British public will realise soon enough that we are a strong country, ready to break the status quo and once again trade with the whole world on our own terms, especially with the Commonwealth countries who we so shamefully abandoned when we joined the Common Market.  

The issue of ‘in or out’ rises above party politics and isn’t a question of whether you’re on the right or the left, it’s whether or not you believe in Britain and its people to govern themselves. If we do leave, whatever happens afterwards will be down to us to tackle as a sovereign state once more.

JW