The term “Brexit” is the fusion of two words “British” and “exit”. In the recent June 2016 referendum held in UK, 51.9% people of the UK voted to leave the European Union (EU), resulting UK to withdraw from the EU and making it a complex separation phenomenon which has caused severe economic and political changes for the UK and other countries. The result which was announced on the morning of 24 June showed that 51.9% voted in favor of leaving the European Union whereas 48.1% voted in favor of remaining a member of the European Union as shown in the table: It is for sure that the UK and the other EU would be directly or indirectly affected by Brexit. According to a survey, it is found that many businesses in UK are already worried about the …show more content…
So it certain that due to the sharing of the land border with each other, Ireland has a deep connection with the United Kingdom in relation to trade, supply, language, migration and culture. Ireland exports billion worth of goods and services from the UK. According to a survey done in 2013, Ireland exported €14.8 billion worth of goods and €5.8billion of services to the UK. This is equivalent to almost around 12% of GDP which is relatively higher than any other member states .Likewise, Ireland’s relationship with the UK is deep and is highly expanded. According to the survey held in 2013, Irish firms have invested over €13 billion in the UK with the earnings of more than €800 million which is equivalent to almost 0.5% of GDP. However, Ireland has a small investment compared as to the UK. The UK has invested around €51.2 billion in 2o13 which is nearly equivalent to 30% of Irish GDP. Similarly, financial links between these two countries are powerful. Several international banks in operations which located in Dublin are closely integrated with each other. Also many private equity funds are in operation in and out of Dublin which are in close relation with UK will be forced to take down their business from London as a result of Brexit. Thus the UK and Ireland are instinctive collaborators with each
I think the author's purpose is showing how it is unfair how britain is leaving the EU when it is in already poor shape. There perspectives shows how they most likely don't like what the EU is doing to countries.
Others argued the opposite, in a letter to The Times Royal Society fellows commented that Brexit would be a “disaster for UK science”. The main reasons being: “increased funding has greatly raised the level of European science as a whole and of the UK in particular” and “we now recruit many of our best researchers from continental Europe, including younger ones who have obtained EU grants and have chosen to move here with them.”
The European Union has been helped economically ever since World War II. Right after World War II’s end, Europe was struggling to hold on. The countries of the modern-day European Union thought it would be a good idea to come together and help each others struggling economy. To this day, this decision has had a very positive outcome on the EU’s economy. As shown in Diagram 1, the European Union combined together has the world’s highest GDP at 18.3 Trillion USD as compared to the United States’ 17.4 Trillion USD GDP and China’s 10.4 Trillion USD GDP. The idea
The Brexit campaign was based on fear of Middle Eastern migrants entering the country due to the EU’s free movement of Europeans and promises to spread refugees amongst European countries. Activists declared “We want our country back’. This sentiment was echoed by various British citizens. One citizen, Clive a taxi driver from seaside Margate saw his country as changing too much. Clive described that foreigners were filling his towns schools and declared that the neighboring town Cliftonville was so filled with migrant gypsies it was like being in Romania. These concerns over changing ethnic identity catapulted the leave campaign to victory. This caused opponent of Brexit Prime Minister David Cameron to resign and be replaced by Theresa May (League of Nationalists 2016, 4-5). May now has the task of leading the United Kingdom after Brexit. May must now decide if she will continue economically beneficial trade agreements at the expense at allowing immigration (Mind Your Step 2016, 1). The situations in the United Kingdom and Hungary have parallels to German nationalism of the 19th
As the European Union (EU) has changed from an economic entity to also a political one, so has the public opinion towards the EU. While support for the EU used to prevail among its citizens, Euroskepticism has spread across Europe nowadays. This change in public attitude became most apparent when the referendum on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe failed in the Netherlands and in France in 2005. Many studies have been conducted to understand the attitude formation towards the EU. Basically, there exist two different approaches: economy- and identity-based theories. In general, the economic position takes a cost-benefit perspective, in which people who benefit from the EU you are more supportive. Some researchers have focused on individual-level economic characteristics such as education and income (see Inglehart 1970; Gabel 1998), others on macro-level economic predictors like inflation and unemployment rate (see Anderson 1998; Eichenberg/Dalton 2007 to be discussed).
The EU (European Union) has gone thru many changes. For some countries it has been a blessing and a huge success. For others adapting to a single currency and marketplace has been quite a struggle. The EU hopes to expand even further with the introduction of more states and become one of the largest marketplaces in the world. But will the EU survive in the long term? Is it really of benefit to its members?
These are very exciting times for our country, we are now part of the largest economic community the world has ever seen, opening the doors of opportunity for us, the Irish citizens, everywhere we look. Ireland's membership of the EU is seen by most to be of great benefit to the country as it will solidify the foundations of our economy as well as increase the awareness of Ireland as an investment opportunity for multi national companies; however, some will argue that the change would be detrimental to our nation in the long run.
Ireland is a small, modern, European trade-dependent economy with an estimated GDP of US$ 186.7 billion in PPP terms (US$208 billion when the official exchange rate is used) in 2012. With a population of 4,775,982 (2013), this translates into a GDP per capita of US$ 40,700. Prior to the onset of the global financial meltdown in 2008 which has severely dented Ireland’s economic prowess – at least in the short term – Ireland, then famously labelled “Celtic Tiger” enjoyed almost four decades of extraordinary success where it was transformed from being a poor country on Europe’s periphery into one its richest countries. Between 1970 and 2000, the Irish economy grew at an average annual rate of 8.7 percent. From a GDP per capita of US$ 2000 in 1970, it boasted of income levels similar to the United Kingdom, Germany and France by 2006.
...matters. To summarise, the EU act 2011 does not alter the situation but it does allow the UK citizens to vote on whether there should be any further transfer of powers to the EU. Alongside treaty amendments through a referendum.
The Lisbon treaty followed the disastrous Constitutional Treaty of 2004 that was rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands. After a period of reflection, negotiations began for another treaty (Laursen, 2013:9). These negotiations continued for months, after which it was left to the Portuguese presidency to complete the Treaty, and thus the Treaty became known as the Lisbon Treaty. It was signed in Lisbon on 13 December 2007, but only entered into force on 1 December 2009 following ratification problems, particularly in Ireland (Cini and Borragen, 2013:51). Attitudes towards the Lisbon Treaty differ widely (Laursen, 2013: 9). For some, the Treaty simply sets out incremental reforms designed to make the EU more accountable and efficient (Berman, 2012:3). This is demonstrated largely through institutional changes, particularly to the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Council, but also through the Citizens’ Initiative. However, others have attacked it as merely reinforcing the control of the elites over member states and conversely restricting transparency and encouraging secrecy. Furthermore, some believe that such changes have hardly wholly transformed the EU and that the new Union has remained remarkably similar to its predecessor (Cini and Borragan, 2013:51). They argue that the EU is “too distant” from citizens to ever be considered efficient. Once both sides of the argument have been considered, it can be seen that the Lisbon treaty has improved efficiency to a reasonable standard, however the level of transparency in the EU appears to have reduced.
With the introduction of the Euro Zone allowed the Anglo and INBS to compete in the Irish market. Unfortunately, this resulted in the willing...
Various studies have scrutinised the overall impact of Brexit including the implications for jobs prospect, the effects on the public finances , its influence on the UK and also the possible risk it imposes on global economy. In conjunction with that, a plethora of analyses have also been attempted to quantify the economic impact Brexit primarily have on the UK , its region and also the rest the world. UK’s departure from the European Union , informally known as Brexit , bears an unswerving capacity to cut across the broad prism of economic constructs in both regional and global levels despite the wider claims that mentioned it is a risky step toward regional destabilization as EU loses its second largest
The main arguments to leave are to control immigration, reject the excessive bureaucracy (and associated cost) of Brussels and to lower prices for goods and services in the United Kingdom. I will focus on the economic argument to leave: leaving the European Union will save money by lowering prices and abstaining from "membership fees."
Because it could be quite complicated to look at the EU model from a point of classical democratic nation-state, it seems to be reasonable to discuss this problem, not by abstract reasoning, but by focusing on a concrete case. European Union is the best case available, which in recent decades has developed into a new type of political system with enormous consequences on democracy and governance in its member states. Despite repeated attempts for major institutional reforms, this system is likely to persist in its basic structures for the future and is unlikely to develop into a federal state or to disintegrate into a classic international organization. The present state of democracy and governance in the EU is therefore worth to be analyzed, as it is not a mere transitory state.
As mentioned before, the EU is the first of its kind; therefore it is natural for there to be some issues. The first major issue of the EU is its legitimacy. The European Union “still lacks widespread support and legitimacy among the citizens of Europe”. (page 315) This could be caused by the “democratic deficit “that has formed in the EU. The European Union is often blamed for having its institutions and operations too remote and “inaccessible to ordinary citizens”(315). The voter turnouts at for the last European parliament elections on saw “43 percent of eligible voters casting a ballot”(315), the lowest ever. This movement has been labelled “Euro-scepticism”, which is described as an opposition to the process of Europe’s integration. According to the BBC, Eurosceptics in the EU’s parliament have more than “doubled their representation [as] about one-third of the 751 MEPs are Eurosceptic” (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28107633). One major reason for this “Eurosceptic” movement is the economic issues that presented themselves during the 2009 and the 2011 recession. Europe, like the United States, was hit especially hard by this crisis and many flaws in the EU’s economical system were brought forth. The major issue resided with the common currency of the Euro. Countries with weak economies could not print more money to “devalue their currency to pay their debts and make their exports more competitive”. As the German economy was still “functioning reasonably well, the value of the Euro did not drop sufficiently to give a boost to the weaker economies in southern Europe”(314). This caused countries like Greece and Spain to be bailed out by the European Central Bank, but in return were forced to impose strict austerity measures which led to “soaring unemployment rates reaching over 25%” (314) . Riots