The Roles of Various Arms of Government during the Brexit

The executive arm of the United Kingdom's government lodged a petition with the European Union demanding its exit from the union. The United Kingdom cited Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which allows member states to leave the EU. In June 2016, the executive held a referendum in which the British people voted to leave the EU. The legitimacy of this referendum was called into question when the executive decided to enact the vote's content without consulting parliament ("Brexit Means Brexit – So What Does Brexit Mean?"). In its defense, the executive cited the Royal Prerogative that the UK should uphold immigration restriction, redistribute the monthly and annual contribution to the Union elsewhere, project its commercial prospecting to regions Europe and beyond and free itself from EU regulations. However, an exit of Britain causes more damage than the delusional perception of economic prosperity.

Immigrant population brings with them the unskilled, semiskilled and skilled labor that in combination with the natives has the potential to position the Britain in a greater competitive advantage as it currently is. Such is in contradictory to the peddled lie that immigration, more so from Eastern and Central Europe, has suppressed the British workers’ wages burdening the British taxpayers. Even if we consider the impartial effect of immigration on the general economic well-being of the country, the fiscal implication throws away any doubt. The net immigrant contribution to the public coffers is farfetched than they consume in the form of public service since immigrants come in their prime ages as compared to the aging UK populations (Busch & Jürgen 89). Consequently, they spend most of their productive years working in Britain as compared to their home country.

On the second note, a break from the EU regulations that the exit supporters expect is neither here nor there regardless of the route that the state decides to take after the fallback. That is because the Great Britain falls as one of the least regulated economies regardless of its status in the EU. In deregulation in the product market, for instance, it seconds Netherlands, undisputed member of the EU. The labor market in the Britain, in addition, portrays the same deregulation as those of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, US as per the OECD metrics (Dhingra, Swati, et al. 8). That is to mean the level of regulations will be same unless there is an assumption that the UK markets are more liberal than the rest.

Nonetheless, saving the British contribution to the union would be the only achievement the Brexit proponents can hold onto. But can the saved capital be redirected for other purposes? The positive response depends on whether the country wants to adopt the route of single market access alongside Norwegian or Swiss lines. For that matter, the UK will be forced to contribute some funds to support other EU programs in return for single market access. If the country takes the Norway path and negotiate the same, the net contribution will just fall by a meager 9% (Dhingra, Swati, et al., 12). Further, the country will have no option but to accept regulation and immigration but have no influence on either. The overall effect is muting EU membership only to subscribe again, disguised as single market access, but without any control, i.e., the Britain will be contributing and accepting immigrants only to access a single market but will lose voice as it used to have.

Another argument supporting the exit hold that single market access is insignificant to Britain as there are other options; prospect other regions like the Africa, America, and Asia. Such arguments are ill-intentioned for obvious reasons. First, it assumes that a country can’t trade in EU at the same time access emerging economies. Second ‘underthought’ is that the EU regulations prohibit trading with the dynamic economies. The argument has no basis. Germany, one of the irrefutable EU member, trades within the EU block as well as export to the dynamic economies not to forget the significant role the EU has helped the Germany to succeed in such adventures (Busch & Jürgen 28). The EU possesses one of the best trade bargaining power, secure foreign market access through FTA than a single small European country can do (Busch & Matthes 30). The best is to undertake such an adventure exploiting the advantages the union has if the Britain government has no ill intention for the exit other than economic prosperity for its citizens.

In conclusion, it’s a big challenge to physically lift the UK from Europe since its far and large part of Europe and is more strategic in benefiting inside the union as compared to exclusion. Britain should, therefore, reconsider exit and continue to work with EU for the benefits of its citizens. On the political front, the might of the EU when combined with the outward-oriented, UK, has a mutual gain and will increase the status of EU and Britain in the world standings.

 



Works cited

Busch, Berthold, and Jürgen Matthes. Brexit-the economic impact: A meta-analysis. No. 10/2016. IW-Report, 2016.

Dhingra, Swati, et al. "The consequences of Brexit for UK trade and living standards." (2016).