Passing Brexit was a Mistake for the United Kingdom

Outline:When considering the resolution, it is important to remember that both sides have to prove what is better for the United Kingdom, the nation, as a whole.Argument 1-Economic Effects: When considering policy it is of utmost importance to always consider the economic effect. Nations typically thrive when their economies do. However, Brexit will almost certainly hurt the British economy. The British economy is heavily dependent on trade with the EU. Trade with the EU accounts for half of Britain's exports and imports; moreover, Britain's exports to the EU account for 15% of its GDP. (1) The main reason for this was due to the limited, if any, trade barriers the British experienced while in the EU. So, it can be observed that being in the EU gave markets for the UK to export its goods and also allowed it to import goods for cheaper. This is obviously good for Britain as a whole, as it creates demand for their products overseas (creating more jobs in areas where British products and services would be in high demand) and also allows the people to purchase goods for cheaper (due to avoiding tariffs, border control, etc.) The London School of Economics’ Centre for Economic Performance, created a model showing two possible outcomes for Britain. One scenario is if the UK makes its own free trade agreements with the EU (like Switzerland and Norway) and the other is if the UK is unable to make such agreements, and thus faces much higher trading costs and barriers. Both result in British national income dropping. If Britain is able to negotiate such deals the expected decline was calculated to be 1.1% of GDP, but if they are not, the expected decline was calculated to be 3.1% of GDP. (1) The study also accounts for the common counter-argument that the UK will save money that currently goes to the EU, which will stimulate the economy. However, not only is this a very miniscule amount, 0.53% of the national income, the study also showed how Switzerland and Norway pay on a per capita basis 41% and 83%, respectively, what the British currently pay to the EU, just to have such trade deals. (1) One may argue that the British will simply be able to negotiate new trade deals with other nations. However, this argument is weak seeing as there is currently nothing stopping the British from currently doing so. In fact, it may be more difficult now that the UK has left the EU. The EU is currently negotiating two major trade deals with the US and Japan (the world’s largest and third largest economy, respectively). The study calculated that these trade deals likely would have saved British households a total of £6.3B. (1) Finally, another benefit Britain gains from being an EU member nation is it is highly integrated with other European economies. One of the benefits of this is that Britain receives a lot of direct foreign investment. Currently, Britain is beat only by the US in the amount of direct foreign investment. This is because, in the EU, the UK is well integrated with European markets and can act as “export platform” to the rest of Europe. (1, 2) However, many international banks are considering moving some of their business from London to Frankfurt in response to Brexit, as Germany is another major economic power in the EU. (2) This could become a trend, especially if the British are unable to negotiate new trading deals with the EU, as the UK will become much more economically isolated than its continental counterparts. Not only that, but Britain will also not be integrated with EU policy, that could affect their business in other ways. Jacob Funk Kirkegaard lays out this argument as such: “If you are Nissan or some other car producer with major production in the UK, today, the same safety standards and environmental standards allow you to sell everywhere in the European market,,,[but if the UK leaves] you would no longer be able to sell into other European markets, not because you face a small tariff but because you'd have to go through another set of safety certifications. This kind of thing would be repeated in every industry you can think of.” (3) The argument here clearly displays how Britain’s reduced integration would make it harder for companies to sell to Britain and EU nations, simultaneously. When one considers that the EU is a much bigger market than the UK, it is reasonable to conclude that companies would rather adjust to EU standards over British standards. Thus, the UK will also suffer from its reduced integration with the rest of Europe. Overall, it is clear that Britain greatly benefited from its trade deals and integration with the rest of Europe as an EU nation, thus leaving will hurt their economy. Another common argument for Brexit is that the EU forces Britain to take in migrants who leach welfare and hurt the economy. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the British will now implement a more restrictive immigration process. However, this will also hurt the British economy in the long run. The main thing to consider is that the reputation of the lazy migrant is unfounded. For instance, over a ten year span, migrants contributed a net £20B to British public finances. (4) Also, immigrants were also found to be 43% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits. (4) Not only that, but one only needs to consider that the UK is facing an aging crisis. Due to relatively low fertility rates and increased lifespans, Britain will be facing an increased strain on its pension services and healthcare, while also seeing a decline in productivity (less people of working age). (5) For this reason, it is important to consider how the British economy will look in the following decades, because without increased immigration/migration, the British will undeniably see its workforce shrink and public spending increase. To conclude, from an economic perspective, Britain is in desperate need of immigrants. Overall, it is abundantly clear that Brexit will be a negative force on the British economy. Britain will lose several benefits it gained from being an EU nation, as well as likely facing restrictive immigration laws which will only hurt the country in the long run. Argument 2-Scotland: It doesn’t take much convincing to realize that a country is better off unified than divided. However, the passing of Brexit threatens to literally break up the country. A little less than two years ago Scotland voted to stay in the UK. One may assume then that, that would be the end of the issue; Scotland will remain part of Britain. However, during the Brexit vote Scotland voted heavily, 62% to 38%, in favour of staying in the EU. (6) Also, in response to the Brexit vote, polls are now showing support for Scottish independence to be at 59%. (7) In fact, following Brexit, Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said that it is “highly likely” that Scotland will have another vote to leave the UK. (8) Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the passing of Brexit will likely lead to a literal dividing of the UK, which would undoubtedly be a mistake for the UK. Conclusion:To conclude, one only needs to look at the stats to realize that Brexit will hurt the British economy and could likely lead to the nation breaking up. These two points are more than enough proof that passing Brexit was a mistake for the UK, as it will undeniably hurt the nation more than help it. Sources: 1-http://cep.lse.ac.uk...2-https://www.ingwb.com...3-http://www.vox.com...4-https://www.ucl.ac.uk...5-https://www.theguardian.com...6-http://www.telegraph.co.uk...7-http://www.scotsman.com...8-http://www.bbc.com...