About Brexit and its Consequences

At least one benefit of Brexit was felt by the European Union. The conversation about how to move forward, how to deal with the current crisis in the Union's development, which is related to the rise of Euroskepticism and the sluggishness of decision-making on the most crucial problems, was significantly intensified by him. The 27 remaining EU members continue on their current track, which entails minor, seamless modifications to how the union operates. With this scenario, "growth will be made step by step." National governments will agree to "build up certain common military forces, speak with one voice on foreign issues, and enhance the establishment of a single market. The key authority for border control will remain in the hands of national governments. The focus of the EU's work is the development of a single market. Plans for joint work on migration, security, and defense are postponed until better times. The White Paper states that this can lead to increased checks on citizens and companies at national borders. The free movement of labor and services will not be fully guaranteed. Find a job abroad will be more difficult. EU members will return to building foreign policy on a bilateral basis, and the conclusion of trade agreements will become more complicated (Gilse, 2016).

The EU as a whole will continue to operate on current grounds but will allow willing member states to form coalitions and closely cooperate in such areas as defense, internal security, justice, taxation, social sphere. Relations with external countries, including trade negotiations, will remain under the jurisdiction of EU institutions. The document of the European Commission notes that such a model can lead to differences in the rights of citizens and will not promote the unification of fiscal policy in the euro area (Pettifor, 2017).

The EU will focus on the shortened agenda, where it will achieve clear achievements: technological innovation, trade, security, fighting terrorism, border control, immigration regulation, and the formation of common defense structures. The EU's activities in such areas as regional development, health, employment, social policy are curtailing; their management is concentrated in the hands of national governments (Hozić, & True, 2017). Members of the EU agree to expand the role of the Union, to transfer its institutions more authority in decision-making and resources in all areas. The expansion of the euro area and the strengthening of monetary regulation are becoming central points in this scenario, as is the role of single EU legislation. The European Union will also receive more powers to speak on behalf of all members in matters of foreign and trade policy and the humanitarian sphere. The document of the European Commission notes that with such a development model, decisions and actions will be taken faster, but there is a risk of alienation of social groups, from which the EU has taken too many powers from the national authorities. In fact, the fifth scenario paints the way for the federalization of Europe. Probably, for Brussels, it is the most preferable, but there they realize that in the practical plan it is the least realized (Pettifor, 2017).

Very quickly it turned out that the leading EU states consider the scenario of "Europe with different speeds" to be the most appropriate under current conditions. In some respects, the EU is still an organization "with different speeds." Only 19 countries of the Union from the current 28 have introduced the euro, not all members of the organization are members of the Schengen zone. However, about the future development of the EU, this idea at the official level has not yet been proclaimed (Gilse, 2016).

Large countries of old Europe, the founders of the European project, in recent years, have grown tired of the intractability of the states of Central and Eastern Europe, primarily Poland and Hungary. The newcomers of the European Union that joined in 2004 are net recipients of financial assistance from the EU budget, but, from the point of view of the European grandees, do not adhere to the policy of Euro-solidarity, refuse to make a fair contribution on a number of important issues, first of all, in locating refugees from the Middle East and North Africa. The irritation of the old-timers is also caused by the domestic policy of the right-populist authorities of Poland and Hungary, which contradicts the traditional values ​​of European democracy. Western European leaders perceived the fixation of the idea of ​​"Europe with different speeds" in the document of the European Commission as a way to bypass the barriers to the close interaction that politicians are building in the east of the continent (Hozić, & True, 2017).

The President of France at the meeting called for the unity of the 27 remaining members of the EU but stressed that unity does not mean uniformity. He spoke in favor of new forms of cooperation that would allow those who wish to move faster on issues such as defense, deepening economic and monetary union or tax harmonization. And those who do not want cannot participate in measures to deepen integration.

The results of a statistical sample demonstrating the negative attitude of Brexit supporters to such socio-political trends and phenomena as multiculturalism (39%), globalization (36), social liberalism (35), migration (54), ecology (26), feminism (22) and, finally, capitalism (43%) . Thus, the average proponent of the UK exit from the EU is a native of the province with a traditional value system, a blue collar that does not accept the liberal agenda. The results of Brexit, which expressed the position of the "previously ignored" working class, anticipated and the results of the election of the US President in 2016, marking growing dissatisfaction with the globalist, liberal-democratic development project and subsequently - the call to abandon it.

The catalyst for such sentiments was largely the British media. Although in the UK the majority of mass media remain the platform of the liberal intelligentsia with the appropriate political orientation, they successfully contributed to the polarization of the population, so Brexit became possible. Both the traditional media and the communities that picked up the trend in social networks quickly divided the subjects of the United Kingdom into supporters of EU membership and its opponents. In the information space, the dichotomies In / Out (according to the names of English pretexts - literally 'in' (meaning the EU) and 'won') were launched and successfully promoted, as well as Camp Remain / Camp Leave (the "Stay" and the "Leave" command) (Gilse, 2016).

On the Youtube video hosting, the primary Sky News and Vice News channels posted videos in which British citizens were asked how they plan to vote in a referendum, and many activists in different color forms with the inscriptions Remain and Leave distributing propaganda brochures and leaflets can be seen on the shots. In such a semi-game form with the help of the media, the establishment realized the principle of "divide and rule," supporting the association with the riot of the British blue-collar workers against liberal-minded elements and distant political elites. As the British media researcher M. Berry writes, this category of citizens was offered simple messages that fit into the formula "regain control" - the derivative of the classical media strategy KISS (Keep it simple, stupid) , i.e., "do it simply, stupid and primitive "in order to achieve support for the widest possible audience coverage. Also, such a message allows for a wide range of interpretations, which also works for its popularity. A similar strategy was used by conservatives during the election campaign of 2015 and proved successful (Pollitt, 2017).

In other words, the media motivated those who feel themselves to be "disadvantaged," politically passive citizens to come to the polling stations and "finally" determine the future of Great Britain, "force" the establishment to hear their voice, form an "alternative" future. The rate on the conformal population brought dividends in the form of support for Brexit: for example, a high turnout of rarely attending British elections was recorded at the referendum. According to statistics, 7 out of 10 voters for the withdrawal of the Kingdom from the EU are accustomed to treating the election process skeptical (Seaton, 2016).

Mass media willingly provided a platform for discussions about the issues of British / British identity. The topic of national identity formed the basis for agitation campaigns of both opponents of Brexit and its supporters in many ways because it is intimately connected with one of the most pressing issues in modern Europe - the problem of poorly controlled migration. In such conditions, UKIP (the British Independence Party and its ex-leader N. Faraj) gained special popularity, using the Youtube platform for campaigning in support of the country's exit from the EU, where she laid out clips of patriotic, pro-English content. The video also included chronicles of the Second World War, symbols of the royal dynasty, shots from the Falkland Islands, images of football, cricket, plants, and rural landscapes. Under the slogan "Brexit - Independence Day!” Such videos appealed to the English audience, undermining the narrative of the "all-British" and "all-European" unity. Recall that more than 60% of those who voted for the withdrawal of Britain from the EU have identified themselves as "the British, rather than the British” (Hozić, & True, 2017).

Although Brexit's supporters did not receive a significant advantage (52% voted in favor, and 48% voted against), nevertheless it was enough to realize a truly historic decision on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. Apparently, most British media, traditionally supporting liberals, were able to adapt to changing realities, catching and popularizing the Eurosceptic sentiments prevailing in British society and among conservatives and UKIP. It can be concluded that without the influence of the media conglomerate of Great Britain Brexit would hardly have taken place (Hozić, & True, 2017).

The main consequences of "Brexit" for the existing system of foreign economic relations of Great Britain are examined in the article. The United Kingdom, being a highly integrated state in the world economy, is to a large extent characterized by the state of foreign economic relations, primarily with continental Europe, the countries of North America, and the former colonies of the empire. Some believe that the outcome of the referendum can be considered a "call to motivation" for the leadership of the united Europe, whose ideals of integration is finding less support among the participating countries. Others, such as Dean Baker, one of the leaders of the Center for Economic and Political Studies, see the positive side in the current situation: Brexit will undoubtedly return Europe to the path of high employment and rising living standards of the population ". In fact, the procedure for secession from the EU is extremely complex and rather risky. According to M. Emerson, one of the leading British and European economists, such a decisive step will resemble a "prolonged and costly divorce” (Dhingra et al., 2016).

According to the now-former Prime Minister, D. Cameron, Brexit will mean a lost decade for the UK, "since lengthy negotiations on the release and signing of new trade agreements with all countries whose relations were regulated earlier under the EU agreements, not for one year. The fall of the pound provoked the fall of other market instruments, currencies, raw materials, indices, stocks, and a substantial increase in the Swiss franc, Japanese yen, and gold. Against the backdrop of news about an increase in the number of supporters of Brexit - companies from the FTSE 100 lost about 100 billion pounds in price. Sterl. And the index itself fell by 8 %. In general, this kind of capital outflow has become the largest in the country in the last three years. The head of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, said that as a result of these phenomena, British banks raised their capital by 130 billion pounds and now have more than 600 billion pounds. High-Quality liquid assets (Hozić, & True, 2017). Nevertheless, despite the measures taken, the prices of the shares of the five largest British banks fell by an average of 21%, the morning after the referendum (Hozić, & True, 2017).

Bank analysts have already calculated that in the short term, the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union will lead to the next containment of financial expansion for such large banks as JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup, whose profits will decrease, and expenses, on the contrary, will increase due to costs associated with the movement of their offices and staff. Do not forget about financial obligations to the EU. According to the German business magazine, the UK's exit from the EU will be blocked until the country pays its multi-billion dollar debt to the EU. To be more precise, we are talking about the amount of 21 billion pounds. p. Despite the results of the referendum, the United Kingdom is still officially a member of the EU, and like all other countries will continue to have obligations to pay contributions to the pan-European budget until the time of actual withdrawal. Thus, in the period until 2020, Britain undertakes to pay another 45.3 billion pounds. Erased. But it is possible that the UK will have to make contributions and even longer - in 2015. D. Cameron signed a seven-year budget plan, which also takes into account contributions from the European institutions to the sub-financing of local government bodies, research, and development of the national agro-industrial complex. In the event of termination of contributions to the European budget, the country will remain, in turn, without European subsidies, which cannot fail to affect the development of these industries in the short and medium term, because now the Foggy Albion is a nonconditional beneficiary in joint projects on R & D, regional policy, etc. (Pettifor, 2017).

Analysts believe that the task facing the British government is extremely serious - it is necessary not only to do a very significant amount of work on agreeing on terms of withdrawal and signing of relevant documents, but also to do it quickly in order to prevent the formation of trade and economic uncertainty, which is fatal as for a country emerging from European integration, and for the EU itself. Also, we will not forget about the reputational risks and leverage that Britain will lose. However, despite this position, many researchers of the UK exit from the EU tend to hold the belief that trade relations with the Foggy Albion are the Achilles' heel of the European Union. In this context, the dynamics of the pan-European currency, which demonstrates a trend similar to the British pound, looks very obvious.

Another reason for concern is the fact that some investors, in the face of uncertainty, withdraw their assets from developing economies (Hozić, & True, 2017). According to some estimates, Brexit has resulted in an outflow of $ 210 million from developing countries, which can have a particularly significant impact on South Africa, Nigeria, Mauritania, Kenya, Ghana, and Zambia. Although Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, and India are also at risk, the much more strong external position of these countries and territories in the sphere of finance will compensate for the impact of changes on the national currency rate. At the same time, Brazil can be the most acutely aware of the consequences of the decline in FDI flows from the United Kingdom. At the same time, developing economies can benefit from price changes for specific categories of goods, cheaper imports from the UK, and the opportunity to make the most of new trade agreements. Partly in light of the results of the referendum vote, gold prices on international exchanges reached a two-year record. Ghana, South Africa, Côte d'Ivoire and Mali are among the largest exporters of precious metal. The short-term benefit from reducing the cost of imports from Britain and exports to this country can be derived and producers of sugar, coffee, and cocoa.

References

Pettifor, A. (2017). Brexit and its Consequences. Globalizations, 14(1), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2016.1229953

Gilse, C. (2016). What are the economic consequences of Brexit? Financial Times. Retrieved from https://next.ft.com/content/70d0bfd8-d1b3-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377

Pollitt, M. G. (2017). The economic consequences of Brexit. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33(S1),. S134–S143. https://doi.org/10.1787/5JM0LSVDKF6K-EN

Seaton, J. (2016). Brexit and the Media. Political Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-923X.12296

Dhingra, S., Ottaviano, G., Sampson, T., & Van Reenen, J. (2016). The consequences of Brexit for UK trade and living standards. Voxeu, 1–6. Retrieved from http://voxeu.org/article/economic-consequences-brexit

Hozić, A. A., & True, J. (2017). Brexit as a scandal: gender and global trumps. Review of International Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2017.1302491