Aspects for a post-Brexit Trade Deal

Aspects for a post-Brexit Trade Deal What are the most important aspects of a post-Brexit trade deal with the EU, from a UK perspective? Brexit, the abbreviation of the two words Britain and Exit, is the result of the June 23rd referendum in 2016 which decided the fate of Britain and its position to leave the Economic and political union – the European union. The unexpected result led to the sudden turmoil and uncertainty of the future of Britain and let to the resignation of the then current Prime Minister David Cameron, and the subsequent ‘fall in the value of the Pound to its lowest level in 30 Years’ (Connington, 2018).   In this essay, I will help ascertain and breakdown the impacts that ‘Brexit’ will have for Britain, mainly focusing on trade and how this will affect not only consumers and businesses, but the economy as a whole. From there, alternative trade models will be analysed to help decide a viable future that has Britain’s best interests at heart, before coming to a conclusion. The EU and Trade Theory Trade is the action of how economic partners interact with each other while exchanging commodities. (Economies of Trade 1970-1979).   The European union is based on the proposition of ‘Free Trade’ an argument proposed by David Ricardo a 19th century Economist who first developed the thought of comparative advantage whereby each country produces what it specialises regardless of its absolute advantage, thus as a result world output is increased, and each country benefits the most it can out of the situation. Free trade encourages economies of scale and reduces the formation of oligopolies due to market liberalisation and the ability to sell to a wider market outside of their domestic space. Current EU implications The process to leave the EU, is a long and arduous one, taking many years and possibly even as long as a decade before the process is complete, during that time the UK can still take advantage of its benefits until new terms and conditions are met. The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2016, UK exports to the EU were  £236 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were  £318 billion (54% of all UK imports) (Ward and Webb, 2018). Evidently this is hugely significant as the UK relies on its trading strengths with the EU to be able to generate and sustain its economy. The EU has over 500 million people living in it, and accounts for 23% of the global GDP. Over a decade (1993-2003) the free market agreement has expanded the EU’s GDP by over  £588 billion, this equates to  £3,819 extra income per household (Webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk, 2018). The Free movement of people act, has created the emergence of a flexible economy. Labour shortages, for example the manual jobs in Ireland and UK have been met due to the migration of eastern European workers. Migration has aided countries to reach productive capacity preventing wastage of raw materials, these migrants are often young people who are less of a drain on the health service and can contribute to the tax revenue of the host country. EU migrants cost the UK government  £408.12 per second in public expenditures and contribute  £463.35 per second in revenue (Dustmann and Frattini, 2014) – this figure is set to rise as more and more educated migrant workers choose to work in the UK, a prospect now able to happen with the help of the Erasmus programme., where students can complete studies abroad and be able to utilise previous qualifications in the UK where they will be recognised universally (Webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk, 2018).   The possibility to study abroad is considered positive by 84% of EU citizens Furthermore, inward investment grew by almost 8x in just over a decade reaching  £106.5 billion – the UK now being the 5th largest source of inward investment and its attractiveness from Japanese firms largely being created by its involvement in the single market. However, there is an opportunity cost in the UK’s involvement in the EU, and subsequent drawbacks. Firstly, the UK contributed in 2017 a net contribution to the EU of an estimated  £8.9 billion (Keep, 2018). This in simplest terms means the direct monetary value the EU receives from the UK is less than we receive – this immediately presents a large opportunity cost that could be better spent elsewhere.   This leads onto the fact that in order to generate such a large sum of money, the government will have to raise it from most likely consumer and corporate taxes, as of today spending per head is currently at  £126 per capita (BBC News, 2018). Inefficient policies are another criticism EU membership faces.   Around 40% of the total EU Budget is spent on the common agricultural policy (EPR Service, 2018), which ensures farmers continue to produce and survive through both volatile weather and market conditions – this is mostly done via annual direct payments., the setting of minimum product prices, the buying of any over-supply and the setting of import tariffs. This has caused farmers to produce far more than is necessary, with prices remaining at a set minimum and eventually the EU having to purchase the oversupply, this has led to an increasing budget with it now totalling  £200.2bn, the period 2014-2020 with the UK receiving  £20bn over the course of the seven-year period (Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society, 2018). Consumers, especially on lower incomes are faced with now having to purchase farm goods at set minimum prices, even if there is over supply – causing income inequality. The annual cost of the burden EU regulations has brought to the UK now stands at an estimated  £7.4bn per annum. Red tape regulations have severely taken away the sovereignty of individual decision making from host countries., even more so by the introduction of Qualified Majority Voting, a process by which decisions can be made often against the public interest of a particular country, for example, in EU decision making, Luxembourg has one vote for every 200,000 inhabitants whist for Germany to get the same number of votes, 8 million people are needed (Euro-know.org, 2018). The current alternatives The Government have a tough decision to make in the process of leaving the EU, it is paramount that the UK still benefits from many of the EU’s current offerings to stay competitive. There are two options, adopt existing trade relationship models or create a bespoke model. The first option, is the Swiss model, whereby bilateral agreements have been negotiated between the EU and Switzerland. This entitles the country to be a part of the single market for goods, but not services. Switzerland also has to negotiate extremely frequently with the EU, regarding matters such as the 2014 immigration quota, to ensure Switzerland’s rules are in line with the EU’s from enforcement via the European court of justice. London accounts for 51% of the financial service income for the UK economy (Tyler, 2018), so entering into an agreement with the EU that does not allow for it to be part of the single market for services is extremely     unlikely as it would damage the economy of the capital far too greatly. The joining of the customs union, much like Turkey has done, comes with the same drawbacks as the Swiss arrangement. Not only would the UK not have any access to the service markets, but it would not have any in the setting of the tariffs it is bound to., furthermore any arrangements the EU forms with other parts of the world would remain inaccessible. A perhaps more likely situation, however not without its problems is a Free Trade Agreement. A free trade agreement is simply an improved version of the World Trade Organisations rules i.e. lower tariffs. However free trade agreements such as the Canada template offer very little access to the service market, and do not set our regulatory procurement guidelines for the country to follow. If the UK was to somehow create a more developed agreement, EU member nations would insist on ensuring the UK’s adoption of European rules. Furthermore, ‘The recently leaked UK government analysis concludes that, under such a deal, UK gross domestic product might be 5 percentage points lower than it would otherwise be, after 15 years — a loss of about a fifth of the potential increase in output by that time’ (Tyler, 2018). Trade under the WTO rules would mean that the UK would be subject to the common external tariff. and UK firms would lose their comparative advantage. Domestic firms such as the construction, aerospace and retail would find costs would rise dramatically causing cost push inflation for the consumers. Even though that accounts for only 20% of the UK’s GDP, it is still a dramatic effect. The WTO has also made very little progress in the deconstruction of the EU’s service industry, so again free market access for the UK would be hindered. Bespoke Models The â€Å"cake and eat it† model was first proposed by Boris Johnson and Theresa May. Its focus was on a deal that â€Å"allowed preferential access to the EU market, but with clear compromises over issues like immigration and the role of European Courts† (Ft.com, 2018). This model would allow the UK to benefit from both goods and services free trade, be able to help cut the detrimental ‘red tape’ bureaucracy that is costing the UK economy almost  £8 billion a year and banish membership payments to the EU. Its success however was short lived, Brussels chief negotiator Michel Barnier told a conference in the Belgian capital that the â€Å"EU wants to offer its â€Å"most ambitious free trade agreement† to the UK but warned that there was no question of Britain â€Å"cherry picking† elements of the single market which it wanted to keep† (Porritt, 2018). The Florence Model refers to the speech that Theresa may’s speech and proposed options given in September 2017. The model outlines that the UK will ensure that payments into the EU budget up until 2020 will still be paid as well as honouring any commitments in that time. EU citizens living in the UK and vice versa, will have their rights protected and the European Court of Justice will still have considerable weighting. Canada plus model follows the same ideas as the ‘Comprehensive economic and Trade Agreement’ i.e. the Canada model, however it has been altered and expanded to cater for the UK’s needs. The removal of goods tariffs, access to the single market is granted, but at the same time control of immigration rules and not having to contribute to the EU’s budget. Theresa may hailed this model quoting â€Å" This agreement should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services between Britain and the EU’s member states. It should give British companies the maximum freedom to trade with and operate within European markets† (Martin, 2018). The final bespoke approach is a â€Å"strongly mitigated no deal†. This is whereby no deal is reached, and both parties cannot come to a ‘compromise’, instead the UK would no longer have access to the single market and trade under WTO rules. Oxford economics have recently published that his would be a detrimental outcome, and the â€Å"UK stood to lose an estimated  £75bn in trade directly from exports and another  £50m from supply chain impacts by 2020† (Supply Management, 2018). The government is looking for every possibility to not adopt this model, however with the looming 29th of march 2019 getting closer, with the EU rejecting appeals to extend it, it may be an option that the UK is forced to take. Conclusion The UK is in a difficult position, with the UK economy almost completely founded on the service sector currently, it is vital that a deal can be met that allows for access into the single market in terms of services. Secondly, with the UK being a consumer nation, with very little manufacturing, the retail and food industry relies upon the current EU agreement to maintain competitive price and supply levels. Without this, the consumer would be faced with ever increasing expenditure on goods, as the UK is forced to pay tariffs. Whilst current immigrants living in the UK will have their rights protected future immigrants and their ability to work and live in the UK is uncertain. This could impact skills transfer into the UK economy and lead to future labour shortages. Foreign direct investment is another big issue, with many foreign firms locating to London in order to benefit from access to the single market, if this was taken away, attractiveness of future and current firms in London will be diminished potentially leading to relocation. Swiss Banking Giant UBS has recently stated that â€Å"As many as 15% of EU companies with operations in Britain plan to move all of their UK staff out of the country after Brexit† (Martin, 2018) The two-scenario’s looking most likely (Switzerland/Canada) are not the best situation for either the UK or the EU, on the on hand, moving towards a Switzerland type approach creates a loss of democratic control, whilst taking a Canada route, would mean restriction of market access, therefore a balance between sovereignty and EU laws needs to be met to be in the best interests of the UK. Word Count: 2192 Reference List (Connington, 2018) Connington, J. (2018). From $5 to $1.22: the 200-year journey of the pound against the dollar. [online] The Telegraph. Available at: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/special-reports/from-5-to-122-the-200-year-journey-of-the-pound-against-the-doll/ [Accessed 3 Apr. 2018]. Ward, M. and Webb, D. (2018). Statistics on UK-EU trade. [online] Researchbriefings.parliament.uk. Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851 [Accessed 3 Apr. 2018]. Webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk. (2018). European Union Membership The Benefits DTI. [online] Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dti.gov.uk/europeandtrade/europe/benefits-eu-membership/page22676.html [Accessed 4 Apr. 2018]. Dustmann, C. and Frattini, T. (2014). The Fiscal Effects of Immigration to the UK. The Economic Journal, 124(580), pp.F593-F643. Webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk. (2018). The Benefits and Achievements of EU Single Market   | Policies | BIS. [online] Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/europe/benefits-of-eu-embership [Accessed 4 Apr. 2018]. Economics of Trade. (n.d.)  The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition. (1970-1979). Retrieved April 7 2018 from  http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Economics+of+Trade Keep, M. (2018). The UKs contribution to the EU budget. [online] Researchbriefings.parliament.uk. Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7886 [Accessed 8 Apr. 2018]. BBC News. (2018). How much does the EU Budget cost the UK?. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35943216 [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018]. Service, M. (2018). How the EU budget is spent: Common Agricultural Policy. [online] European Parliamentary Research Service Blog. Available at: How the EU budget is spent: Common Agricultural  Policy [Accessed 11 Apr. 2018]. Civitas: Institute for the Study of Civil Society. (2018). Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). [online] Available at: Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) [Accessed 12 Apr. 2018]. Euro-know.org. (2018). A Concise Encyclopedia of the European Union Q. [online] Available at: http://www.euro-know.org/europages/dictionary/q.html [Accessed 14 Apr. 2018]. Tyler, G. (2018). The financial sectors contribution to the UK economy. [online] Researchbriefings.parliament.uk. Available at: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06193 [Accessed 14 Apr. 2018]. Ft.com. (2018). Britain’s road to becoming the EU’s Canada. [online] Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/e72bf154-1566-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44 [Accessed 17 Apr. 2018]. Porritt, R. (2018). Have our cake and eat it? ‘No’ says Barnier. [online] The New European. Available at: http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/have-our-cake-and-eat-it-no-says-barnier-1-5288165 [Accessed 17 Apr. 2018]. Martin, W. (2018). MORGAN STANLEY: Britain is heading for a Canada-plus Brexit deal. Business Insider. Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/morgan-stanley-on-brexit-uk-canada-plus-2017-1 [Accessed 18 Apr. 2018]. Supply Management. (2018). Hard Brexit could cost EU economy  £100bn. [online] Available at: https://www.cips.org/supply-management/news/2018/january/hard-brexit-could-cost-eu-economy-99bn-by-2020/ [Accessed 21 Apr. 2018]. Martin, W. (2018). UBS SURVEY: 15% of eurozone companies plan to move everyone out of the UK after Brexit. [online] Business Insider. Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/ubs-survey-eu-companies-move-all-staff-out-of-uk-brexit-2017-9 [Accessed 21 Apr. 2018].

AP US History †Factors of the Immigration Act of 1924 Essay

Although the Immigration Act of 1924 was mainly the unfortunate result of discriminatory racial theories of nativism and antiforeignism, other factors influenced also Congress to pass the restrictive act, including the rising Red Scare and the spread of the new Ku Klux Klan. The largest factor in the Congressional passing of the Immigration Act of 1920 was the fundamental American belief that native Americans were superior to foreigners, including the 800,000 immigrants who flooded the country in 1920-1921. About two-thirds of them were from southern and eastern Europe. The one-hundred-percent Americans, recoiling at the sight of this resumed New Immigration, were disgusted at the influx of sickly Europeans. Senator Ellison D. Smith expressed his nativist concerns in his 1924 Congressional Record by stating, I think we now have sufficient population in our country for us to shut the door and to breed up a pure, unadulterated [Anglo-Saxon] American citizenship It is for the preservation of that splendid stock that I would make this not an asylum for the oppressed of all countries. Congress temporarily plugged the breach with the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which restricted European immigration in any given year to a definite quota of 3 percent of the people of their nationality who had been living in the United States in 1910. However, this national-origins system was relatively favorable to the immigrants from southern and eastern Europe, for by 1910 immense numbers of them had already arrived. According to the United States Bureau of the Census, southern and eastern European immigration reached 1,250,000 in 1905 and a considerable 700,000 in 1910. Thus, the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 was replaced by the Immigration Act of 1924. The United States Bureau of Immigration explained in its Annual Report of the Commission-General Immigration of 1924 that the number of each nationality who may be admitted annually is limited to 2 percent of the population of such nationality resident in the United States according to the census of 1890 (when comparatively few southern Europeans had arrived). Southern Europeans bitterly denounced the device as unfair and discriminatory, but their complaints were drowned out by the triumphant cheers of the nativists who believed that blue-eyed and fair-haired northern Europeans were of better blood. The purpose was clearly to freeze Americas existing racial composition, which was largely northern European. A flagrant discriminatory section of the Immigration Act of 1924 slammed the door absolutely against Japanese immigrants. Henry P. Fairchild explained in Immigration that the new immigrants come because they believe that the wage which they can receive in America can establish a higher standard than the one to which they have been accustomed and this wage for which they are willing to sell their labor is in general appreciably below that which the native American workman requires to support his standard which means that the American workman is continually underbid in the labor market by vast numbers of alien laborers. So antiforeign were the Americans that they virtually hung a No Vacancy sign on the Statue of Liberty, claiming that the nation was filling up. Antiforeignism grew to an unparalleled height when the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 spawned a tiny Communist party in America. Tensions were heightened by an epidemic of strikes that convulsed the Republic at wars end; upstanding Americans jumped to the conclusion that labor troubles were fomented by bomb-and-whisker Bolsheviks from red Russia. A general strike in Seattle in 1919, though modest in its demands and orderly in its methods, prompted a call from the mayor for federal troops to head off the anarchy of Russia. In the same year, the Philadelphia Enquirer printed a political cartoon depicting an evil-looking bearded man wielding a large sword labeled BOLSHEVISM and a flaming torch labeled ANARCHY, burning the United States flag. Apparently, the evil Bolsheviks posed an immediate danger against the very core of Americas beliefs. Threatened by the Red Scare, evangelist Billy Sunday described a Bolshevik as a guy with a face like a porcupine and a breath that would scare a pole cat and stated that he would fill the jails so full of them that their feet would stick out the window. The American Legion, superpatriotic voice of veterans, even joined the anti-Bolshevik chorus by zealously attacking political leftists in the United States as enemy reds. In 1924 Mr. Moran Keaton sent a telegram to Honorable John E. Raker expressing his 100 percent [support] in your fight to make this coast a white mans country. Naturally,  the American Legion was listed as an organization in favor of the bill to limit the immigration of aliens into the United States in the 1924 Congressional Record; other groups included Native Sons of the Golden West and the Patriotic Order of the Sons of America. A 1920 editorial from The Saturday Evening Post stated that [Americans] see the negro problem; but they cannot grasp the Russian problem. They do not understand that many of these alien peoples are temperamentally and racially unfitted for easy assimilation. It seemed that fear was fueling the close-mindedness of a large section of America. Unfortunately, the inflamed antiredism and antiforeignism translated into a bigoted aversion to immigrants, contributing significantly to the passing of the Immigration Act of 1924. Spawned by the postwar reaction, a new Ku Klux Klan mushroomed fearsomely in the early 1920s. Spreading anti-foreign, anti-Catholic, anti-black, anti-Jewish, anti-pacifist, anti-Communist, anti-internationalist, pro-Anglo-Saxon, pro-native American, and pro-Protestant sentiments, the Klan led an extreme, ultraconservative uprising against many of the forces of diversity and modernity that were transforming American culture. The KKK spread with astonishing rapidity, especially in the Midwest and the Bible Belt South, wielding potent political influence and an attachment of nearly 5 million dues-paying members. As Hiram W. Evans explained in The Klans Fight for Americanism from The North American Review, we are intolerant of everything that strikes at the foundations of our race, our country or our freedom of worship. Evans felt threatened by any attempt to use the privileges and opportunities which aliens hold only as through our generosity as levers to force us to change our civilization. The Klan was indeed an alarming manifestation of the intolerance and prejudice plaguing people anxious about the dizzying pace of social change in the 1920s; the last thing they wanted was unrestricted immigration. The Ku Klux Klans spread did not reach the North and the East as much as it reached the Midwest and South, as revealed in the 1924 Congressional Record. Of the sixty-two members of the House of Representatives who voted nay on the Immigration Act of 1924, only one was from the South (W. Turner Logan from South Carolina). American sectionalism unsurprisingly showed its patchy  face; the North has usually been more morally superior and tolerating of different cultures, so naturally the North would vote against an anti-immigration act. The fear of Communists and the degradation of one-hundred-percent Americans far outweighed the desire to be hospitable. The passing of the Immigration Act of 1924 demonstrated that the Red Scare, combined with nativism, could produce barefaced bigotry. Ironically, the Americans attempt to preserve their splendid stock resulted in the blatant violation of the fundamental American principle of welcoming foreigners. Genuinely frightened for their livelihood, the American people switched into survival mode and tried to save themselves with little disregard for the immigrants, whose welfare was not a priority. The poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty may be etched in stone, but even such prominent idealism becomes trivial when Americans feel that their well-being is at risk. Sources: * The American Pageant Textbook* 1973 DBQ

Argumentative Essay About The Influence Of Vegetarian Diets On Body

Vegetarianism: Pros Cons As the recent studies showed, more than 3% of the US adult people are vegetarians; 10% of others claim that they got used to follow vegetarian diet; 5% of them claim they are interested in vegetarian diet sometime in the future. Usually people become vegetarians because of a number of set reasons. Almost all of them are related to the state of their health. 53% of people who gave up meat say that they follow vegetarian diet in order to improve their health condition. Among the rest of the reasons there are: animal safety, environmental cases, weight loss, weight upholding, etc. The point is that along with the fans of such lifestyle there are also those people who are very critical about vegetarianism. What about experts and doctors? What do they say about vegetarian way of life? Is it a good way of health improving? Can it cause any harm to our health? Or is it something in between? Let’s first take a look at the advantages of being vegetarian. A lot of experts claim that there’s nothing bad in having vegetarian way of life. According to them, it is even good. As it was claimed by the American Dietetic Association, once you decide to follow vegetarian diet, you get a guarantee of heart diseases’ low rate, get an opportunity to avoid high blood pleasure, diabetes and some cancer forms. Moreover, vegetarians usually do not have problems with the cholesterol level and overweight. Vegetarian diet is the right way to strong immune system. The most important fact, however, is – vegans live up to 10 years longer than the people who eat meat. Thus, we may draw a conclusion that people can live without meat. It is possible to get all the necessary food elements from the meatless products and substances.

Things Fall Apart Eurocentrism - 1113 Words

Leonardo Da Vinci once said, â€Å"Nothing can be loved or hated unless it is first known. Chinua Achebe takes this idea into account when he wrote Things Fall Apart. He shows in this novel that unless you know about African culture, you can’t love it or hate it. He shows that Africans aren’t savages like the world thinks they are, and that the Eurocentric world that we live in isn’t correct. Eurocentricism is the idea that the world revolves around Europe and western civilization. This idea has been the focus point of Achebe and has driven him to prove the universe does not revolve around European culture and it is equal to all other cultures. The idea of Eurocentricism pushed the nations toward imperialism by saying that it was the ruling†¦show more content†¦He sees that the natives to the land have been forced into slavery for the company and are overworked and treated baldly. Marlow’s friend, Kurtz, died before they made it back. Kurtz, being ill and convinced he was a native god, said his last words as â€Å"The horror! The horror!† Kurtz means that he has seen too many horrible things in his life, and he refuses to see any more. He has seen people turn into nothing by the hands of the Europeans. Chinua Achebe says that Conrad does not hint, clearly and adequately at an alternative frame of reference by which we may judge the actions and opinions of his characters. Achebe says that Marlow is saying Conrad’s thoughts and believes. Those who think that â€Å"Heart of Darkness† is racist, say that many books of the time period are influenced by experiences of the author. This novel says that the Africans are savages and are good for nothing unless there is a white man to rule over them. In response to this statement Chinua Achebe has written â€Å"Things Fall Apart†. This novel shows that the Africans not only have order in their communities, but family, music, economy, laws, a class system, religion, farming techniques, and is a patriarchy system, like the Europeans. But Achebe doesn’t present his culture as a perfect society, like Europe is presented. He shows the flaws in societyShow MoreRelatedEthnic Reproduction and the Amniotic Deep: Joy Kogawas Obasan13316 Words   |  54 Pagesextent, most relationships are ‘arranged’. As Duck (1999) says: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Many of us would perhaps not recognize – or accept – that marriages are actually ‘arranged’ by religion, social position, wealth, class, opportunity and other things over which we have little control, even within our own culture 430 CH028.indd 430 Conversely, parentally arranged marriages in some cultures are gladly entered into, and are considered perfectly normal, natural relationships that are anticipated