UK Migrant Workers: History and Policies

UK Migrant Workers History and PoliciesIntroductionthither has been a declamatory ontogeny in the function of unsettled workers in the UK in recent eld (McKay, Craw Chopra, 2006). These increases shake been spurred on by globalisation, the gaps opening in the UK tire market and legislative changes that get out some(prenominal) an(prenominal) and varied methods for coming to the UK. While m both migratory workers move into highly happy jobs, there be as well as a signifi locoweedt modus operandi who carry aside low- give, low- acquisitioned jobs in the UK. The pay and conditions in these jobs has sustain the focus of much interest, in expoundicular in the wake of the disgraceful deaths of 23 migratory workers harvesting cockles at Morecambe Bay. This essay, therefore, critically examines the history of migration and current policies, the ways in which migrant workers flip been exploited, wellness and safety risks they face and healthy tributes that crap been put in place.History of migration and migration policiesThe history of migration into and out of the UK is well established (Sriskandarajah Drew, 2006). In the past the depart of this movement has been that mess have more oftentimes than non left the awkward usually heading for Australia, New Zealand Canada. Then, more recently, people increasingly moved out of the UK to Spain and France. It wasnt until the 1980s that the UK became a arena which had a crystalise influx of migrants (Sriskandarajah, Cooley Kornblatt, 2007). Net immigration r distributivelyed its high situation in the UK in 2004 at 222,600 a year later it fell back by around 40,000. There were a number of actors that energised this change. Dobson et al. (2001) explain that one indicate for this change to net immigration was that the highly skilled could command better wages and obtain an modify lifestyle in the UK. In addition there was in addition a full-size increase in the number of asylum appl ications at this time (Home obligation 2006). Further, with the addition of new member states to the EU, there was increasing migration with 605,375 people successfully registering to work in the UK from these new member states (Home Office, 2007). scorn the net immigration to the UK, many do non intend to stay permanently. Spencer, Ruhs, Anderson and Rogaly (2007) found that only one-quarter of those immigrating from East and Central europium intended to stay permanently. Others again, can be considered irregular migrants. These argon people who have come to the UK without the sic authority. Pinkerton, McLaughlan and Salt (2004) estimate there could have been as many as 430,000 il sub judice immigrants in the UK in 2001. This number has been questioned, however, by Dorling (2007) who suggests this figure force incorrectly include US military personnel stationed here, and some new(prenominal)s, thereby artificially inflating the numbers.Whatever the true level of migrants in the UK, some(prenominal) legal and illegal, there have been clear changes in immigration policies over the last few decades. Laws regarding migration into the UK have identicalwise changed rapidly and a large diversity of antithetic ways of entering the UK have been developed (Dench, Hurstfield, Hill Akroyd, 2006). A recent Home Office announce finds that there well-nigh 50 divers(prenominal) methods for people migrating to the UK for both(prenominal) work and theatre of operations (Home Office, 2005). Five objects are identified as especially important by Dench et al. (2006). The first of these is the Seasonal Agricultural Workers intention (SAWS). This was introduced to allow workers nourishment outside the European Economic Area (EEA) to work in the UK carrying out seasonal work in the agricultural industry. Under this scheme 16,250 people each year who are over the age of 18 and in full-time education are allowed to enter the UK for a period of half a dozen month s to carry out mainly unskilled work. This includes picking and packing of crops and the handling of livestock. The regulations allow that workers may move employers in that period to crap into account the disagreement in the harvest. Workers are supposed to be paid the minimum wage and provide accommodation, for which they are allowed to charge 27 a week.A second scheme is the Worker Registration Scheme (WRS) which applies to people from the eight Accession States (those that have just nubed the EU). In order to prevent mass immigration and the warm claiming of benefits, workers moving to the UK are necessary to register, and only once they have worked without a break for 12 months are they entitled to full benefits and other rights. A trey scheme is the Sectors Based Scheme (SBS) which is designed to allow workers to enter the UK to do a casual or short-term job. This only applies to two particular orbits victuals manufacturing and hospitality although it has since been wi thdrawn from hospitality because of abuse (Home Office, 2005). A third scheme is the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme (HSMP) which is designed to allow highly skilled workers to enter the UK. The Home Office (2005) report states that many migrants entering the UK at a lower place this scheme are doctors or are running(a) in the area of health. A fifth category, and the largest method of entry, is through business and commercial work permits. Broadly, this allows companies to recruit from outside the UK if they are uneffective to fill a position with a UK national, or it allows them to move individuals in the midst of countries at heart the same company.Motives for migrationAt the highest level of analysis one of the main reasons for immigration is globalisation. Globalisation refers to a number of forces which includes the increased connections between knowledge centres, easier access to communications, easier and cheaper travel and an increased flow of motor society (Somerv ille, 2007). Generally, thusly, there is much greater integration across large economic areas such as Europe. It has been argued that one of the defining signs of globalisation is immigration (Castles Miller, 2003). Somerville (2007) argues, therefore, that one of the major factors at the heart of globalisation and so migration is economics. As economic pressures change in the UK, so do the types of jobs for which immigration occurs. Salt and Millar (2006) show that in 2005 the industry in which most work permits were issued was health and medical function (26.1%). This was followed by computer services and management and business administration (18.1% and 11.8% respectively). Migrants are, therefore, clearly responding to the particular subscribes that the UK economy presents to them more readily than those already in the UK. This effect has been amplified by the fact that the UK has seen a period of uninterrupted growth of the economy from the mid-1990s until recent years.Thus there are considerable macroeconomic effects affecting the increased levels of migration into the UK. These types of findings are likewise reflected in equivalent microeconomic phenomena. Blauw (2002) has examined the reasons why employers have a tendency to use migrant workers. Blauw (2002) found that while employers tended to look first in the UK labour market, if they couldnt fill the positions they had available they began their search amongst migrant workers. Research carried out in Northern Ireland by Bell, Jarman and Lefebvre (2004) found that migrants were required in particular to fill both skilled and unskilled gaps in the labour market. It has also been found that migrant workers are often seen by employers as being better workers. Reed (2005), for example, investigated migrant workers in the food manufacturing industry. It was found that the use of migrant workers had decreased the amount of sickness reserve as well as the turnover of employees.Many of these findings were okay up by search into employers of migrant workers by Dench et al. (2006). They also found that in the agricultural industry domestic help workers simply did not apply for the jobs that required filling, while in the hotels and catering industry domestic workers were not prepared to work the flexible hours that were required for the job. Dench et al. (2006) points out that it is natural to assume that perhaps employers were not trying really hard to fill their jobs with domestic workers, given that migrant workers frequently provide cheaper labour. This idea, though, was strongly denied by employers who claimed that they had make extensive efforts to recruit domestic workers, but without success. Some employers in the agricultural sector reported that when they tried to recruit from the Jobcentre, potential employees would come for an interview just so that they could prove they had been for an interview, so that could claim benefits. Other employers in the same sector ex plained that domestic workers would often quit after only a few days work. On the other hand migrant workers often worked hard and stayed in the job. Some similar results were seen in the hotels and catering sector. The approach to their work that domestic workers showed was really low compared to the fealty that migrant workers displayed.The amount of skill required for the job was also an important factor for employers (Dench et al., 2006). A good example was in the construction industry where employers especially valued Polish workers who were highly motivated and could fill the gap in skills that were seen in the industry. A similar picture in relation to skills was also seen in other industries. In the Finance and Accountancy sector employers complained that they couldnt get workers with the right qualifications. As a result they had agencies who would search globally for the right candidates. Overall, though, employers understood that the reason that they recruited migrants was that the same amount of money meant more to them than it did to domestic workers.Of course not all employers accepted migrant labour, some state they were unsure exactly what standards impertinent workers were trained up to, and others thought that their lack of fluency in English was a problem (Dench et al., 2006). Despite this, many employers saw considerable advantages in employing migrant workers. Migrant workers were much more reliable and credibly to show up for work than domestic workers some employers even had to remind workers to bear away their annual holiday. Employers also saw much lower levels of turnover with migrant workers. This was probably influenced by the fact that those registered on the WRS have to reregister if they move their employer. Further, employers reported that migrant workers were much more hard-working than domestic workers. This meant they were often prepared to work longer hours and were enthusiastic nearly doing overtime. Although not men tioned by many employers it was also clearly a factor that migrant workers were more likely to be satisfied working for the minimum wage than domestic workers. Similar findings for why migrant workers are employed are also revealed by McKay et al. (2006).There are also considerable incentives from the migrant workers perspectives to come to the UK for work. Unsurprisingly one of the main motivations is the availability of work and the lack of work in their country of origin. Research conducted by Norfolk County Council and YMCA Norfolk (2005) found migrant workers were primarily motivated by the relatively high footsteps of pay in the UK compared to their country of origin. Many were oddly interested in learning English, especially those who were from countries that had recently joined the EU.Exploitation of migrant workersThe motives for migration in damage of globalisation and its specific effects on the labour market clearly set up a situation in which exploitation is a possibi lity. A recent Trades Union Congress (2007a) report looked at whether migration hurts migrants. They conclude that despite the advantages for employers and the immediate advantages perceived by some migrant workers, there are also significant problems faced both at the macro- and microlevels. The world Bank (2005), for example, has examined the effects on worldwide economics of the international flow of labour. This finds that migrant workers themselves are certainly better off working outside their birth country, however, migrants who stay in the same country actually do worse over the long-term.Looking more specifically at the situation in the UK, though, reveals a much more mixed picture about the question of migrant workers. A variety of studies have attempted to look at the actual working conditions of migrant workers. A report from the Health and Safety Executive has looked closely at the types of risks to which migrant workers are exposed in the workplace (McKay et al., 20 06). These authors point out that some previous evidence suggests that migrant workers face significant levels of exploitation in the workplace. Lawrence (2004), for example, has pointed to how the food industry has apply migrant workers in order to take in down be and increase productivity. There have also been a series of high profile cases in which migrant workers have been injured at work. In the worst of these at Morecambe Bay in 2004, 23 Chinese workers lost their lives while picking cockles when they were caught in rising tides.Evidence from the Citizens Advice Bureau (2004), though, suggests the abuses of migrant workers are more systematic. They provide evidence from a number of different sectors about the conditions under which migrant workers are employed. In the care home sector it has been found that many well-qualified workers from other countries, such as nurses, have been promised work of a similar level in the UK but end up in positions that are significantly bel ow their level, such as carrying out cleaning or other menial tasks. Employers result also frequently handgrip onto the migrant workers passport so as to be able to intimidate them. As a result of this sort of intimidation, many migrant workers report finding it difficult to make any kind of complaint against their employer as they are reliant on the money earned to send back home to their families. because there is unlikely to be any change in the migrant workers position.Within the cleaning sector, the Citizens Advice Bureau (2004) report that there are a number of ways that migrant workers have been exploited. They report on migrant workers who have been recruited to clean motorway service stations for 600 a month, of which 200 is deducted for living costs of a shared room in a house. These workers did not receive a contract of employment, a topic Insurance number or a payslip. The Citizens Advice Bureau (2004) also report on the recruitment of foreign nationals at universiti es in the UK who are given cleaning jobs after being told they impart be paid in arrears then they are simply not paid at all.Within the hospitality sector more abuses have been seen. Again, the Citizens Advice Bureau (2004) report that workers are hired for cleaning or working in restaurants but are not given National Insurance numbers, or contracts, and are paid below the National Minimum Wage. In the agricultural industry, the Citizens Advice Bureau (2004) report that migrant workers negotiate with gangmasters who present themselves as employment agencies. Workers frequently face very poor accommodation as part of the agreement for which they pay relatively high rates from their wages considering the accommodation provided. The Citizens Advice Bureau (2004) have authorized complaints on a number of common themes. These include very low rates of pay, no provision of payslips, non-payment of National Insurance contributions, very poor accommodation that is often overcrowded and the risk of dismissal from the job without going through the proper procedures.The findings of the Citizens Advice Bureau (2004) were also echoed by Dench et al., (2006). These authors found reports of many of the same problems, as well as stories that some gangmasters in East Anglia were only paying migrant workers 1 per hour. This was done legally be paying the minimum wage but then claiming back a huge proportion for accommodation. Migrant workers are not just taken advantage of by employers. There are reports of some people charging migrants for the privilege of finding them accommodation and work. Considering the reports from the Citizens Advice Bureau (2004) and other anecdotal evidence, it seems likely that migrant workers well-being would be significantly affected by their working conditions. Shields and bell (2003) examined the psychosocial well-being of migrant workers in the UK in relation to different labour market outcomes. They found, perhaps unsurprisingly given the evidence reviewed so far, that the health of the badly hardened migrant workers is particularly poor. In addition they have significantly lower levels of psychological well-being.Health and safety risks of migrantsConsidering the many reported disadvantages which migrant workers face in the workplace, it is useful to examine the risks to which they are exposed. McKay et al. (2006) carried out a study of 200 migrant workers who were interviewed across five different areas in both England and Wales. One of the aims of the study was to assess whether migrant workers were placed at any greater risk than other workers who were of domestic origin. McKay et al. (2006) point out that one of the key issues in health and safety is the provision of training. One-third of those who were interviewed in this study indicated that they had not received any training. There was, however, a considerable difference depending on the sector in which people worked. Those who worked in the public sector w ere significantly more likely to receive training than those who worked elsewhere. It was thought that private sector employers attitudes were that once migrant workers had obtained enfranchisement they would choke for better jobs.Clearly one of the problems in training is language. Shellekens and Smith (2004) found that communication was made particularly difficult through the use of put one over and technical terms. Some employers did provide instructions in different languages but these translations were not always reliable, or were reliably read by migrant workers. train was also limited in the sense that while there was sometimes induction training, there was unlikely to be any ongoing training. There was also considerable confusion about who was responsible for providing the health and safety training in the first place. For example in cases where migrant workers were employed by an agency, respondents to the research were unclear whose responsibility the training was. Ove rall McKay et al. (2006) argue that migrant workers are likely to be at a disadvantage in terms of adapted training in their jobs compared to other workers. Consequently it is understandable that around half of the migrant workers McKay et al. (2006) interviewed had no knowledge of health and safety procedures in their workplace. In terms of equipment there was some confusion uncovered in the study about whether adequate cling toion was provided migrant workers often claimed they werent given full equipment while employers claimed they did provide it.A similar level of contradictory messages was received when migrant workers and employers were asked about the number of mishaps that occurred in the workplace. A quarter of migrant worker respondents indicated that they had suffered or witnessed an accident a relatively high proportion (McKay et al., 2006). Many also verbalize that accident were not reported for fear of endangering their jobs. On the other hand, employers stated that accidents were uncommon and that all accidents, even the most minor, were reported and recorded. Employers did say, though, that they knew migrant workers were brought up in a culture of blame and so would be unlikely to report accidents. Despite the confusing picture, McKay et al. (2006) conclude that levels of accidents are probably higher amongst migrant workers. This is part due to the fact that employers who agreed to be interviewed were probably more likely to have good procedures in place along with the fact that migrant workers who have experienced problems are also more likely to come forward for the interviews. This might partly explain the gap in reporting.The general welfare of workers was also examined by McKay et al. (2006) who looked at the temperature of working conditions, the breaks, noise and chemicals. They found, again, that there was confusion over breaks with employers in general saying that breaks were allowed, while migrant workers saying that they o ften werent or at least that their pay was docked if they did take a break. Similar differences were seen on the question of temperature many migrant workers worked in the extremes of temperature. For noise and chemicals there were few differences seen between migrant and other workers. Other types of complaints about working confirmed the findings of the Citizens Advice Bureau (2004) report that migrant workers work long hours and often did not have written terms of employment.As a result of these findings the Trades Union Congress (2007b) have made a number of recommendations to improve the working conditions of migrant workers. They argue that all accidents should be reported, that there should be sufficient provision of first aid and welfare, that the correct protecting(prenominal) equipment should be provided along with adequate training and information. This training and information should be accessible and therefore translated into the relevant language should this be requ ired. Finally the TUC recommends that migrant workers should join a workmanship union so as proper support and organisation can be provided.Legal protection for migrant workersSince migrant workers are so susceptible to exploitation it is natural to ask what legal protection is in place to improve their working conditions. Since, as McKay et al. (2006) point out, migrant workers are amongst the most vulnerable, they certainly require extra protection. One particular problem identified by McKay et al. (2006) is the behaviour of some gangmasters and how it has been addressed by extra legal protection. A gangmaster is someone who is responsible for the payment and supervision of a whole group of workers. While some gangmasters behave properly, others have been identified as the cause of serious problems. Anderson and Rogaly (2005) have found that the employment relationship can be seriously confused in the case where migrants are employed through gangmasters. Surveys of gangmasters ha ve found that only 10% of them follow the law on employment and 40% were breaking the law in at least six different ways (Lawrence, 2004).To attempt to combat some of these problems the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 introduced extra protection for those working in the fisheries and agricultural sectors. This purported to introduce the criminal offence of contracting with gangmasters who had not followed the proper licensing procedures. These licensing procedures are an attempt to check agencies and gangmasters follow the proper employment procedures such as refering the relevant health and safety standards. The Act has been bad criticised, however, as since it came into force the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has been very slow to draw up the regulations. Also, since the regulations have been drawn up it has commence clear that the original powers of the Act have been significantly reduced (Davies Freedland, 2007).One of the clearest ways in which this legal protection is limited is that it simply doesnt cover the grand majority of migrant workers, who work in industries other than agriculture or fisheries. But even in the industries that it does cover, there is a level of scepticism about whether it will make a huge impact (McKay et al., 2006). Employers pointed out that the actual standards required in the licensing were relatively low and that much more stringent measures need to be put in place. The coverage of the system across the country also appears to be patchy. There was evidence that gangmasters had moved from one part of the country to some other in order to avoid regulation. In addition, many felt that the audit itself didnt look too closely into the actual past working practices of the gangmasters and agencies themselves. Finally, there were also questions about how well these new laws would be enforced.ConclusionThe motives for migration appear to be strong in the current labour market situation globalisation , skill shortages and the sheer availability of certain jobs in the UK mean that migrant workers are in demand. Changes to immigration policies have meant that there are now a variety of schemes available for migrant workers to come to the UK. Overall the point should be made that the effect of migration on both the host and home countries is probably positive. Unfortunately it has become clear, due to recent studies, that a significant proportion of migrant workers, particularly those working in low-paid, low-skilled occupations, are being exploited. This exploitation appears to run right from the truthful bending of rules to the complete flouting of standard UK employment practices. Both Health and Safety and TUC investigations have uncovered serious shortcomings in the treatment of migrant workers. New rules have been introduced by Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to try and curb the illegal practices of gangmasters and agencies. Despite this, and despite the young age of the o rdinance, these rules have been roundly criticised for failing to provide adequate protection for migrant workers. Not least of these criticism is that the legislation doesnt cover the majority of migrant workers. Clearly much greater levels of regulation are required to protect those migrant workers who are at the highest risk of being exploited in the UK labour market.Brexit Causes and ConsequencesBrexit Causes and ConsequencesOn June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom votingd to leave the European Union in an event dubbed Brexit (Britain + exit).This paper will explore the events leading up to the vote, the reasons for andagainst Britain leave the EU, the immediate and long-term fallout, the stepsto implementation, and the current discussions regarding implementation. First, recognizing the distinctionbetween the Euro Currency and the European Union is important. The EuropeanUnion is an economic and political partnership that began after WWII with sixfounding members to foster econom ic co-operation. The EU has steadily grown to28 countries. The idea was that countries that trade together are less likelyto go to war with each other. The Treaty on the European Union states that anyEuropean country can apply for membership if it respects the democratic valuesof the EU and is committed to promoting these values. Countries wishing to joinmust have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, a functioning marketeconomy, and the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligationsof membership. Financial and transitional arrangements for new members must benegotiated. The EU has its own currency, the Euro, which is used by 19 of themember countries (Wheeler, 2017). TheEuro was adopted in 1999 and is now the second most traded currency after theUnited States dollar. Some sovereign states that are not part of the EU havealso adopted the Euro, as well as many territories, departments, and states ofEuro-zone countries. The Brexit campaign kicked off in2015, when a pledge was spark off to hold a referendum, or public vote, on theUKs membership of the EU. David Cameron made this promise under immensepressure from Eurosceptics and when the Conservative political party appearedto be losing votes to the UK Independence Party. Cameron then toured EUcapitals seeking to renegotiate the terms of Britains membership, vowing tocampaign to keep Britain a part of the EU. When Britain went to vote, all pollsindicated that the UK would rest in the EU (Financial Times Brexit timeline). There were many reasons for andagainst leaving the EU. In 2016, Britain paid in over 13.1 burdenion to the EU compute, but alsoreceived 4.5 billion worth of spending. Determining whether the 8.6 billionnet contribution is worth the other advantages of EU membership can bedifficult. The EU is a whiz market, meaning no tariffs are imposed on importsand exports between the 28 members. The UK shortly conducts more than 50% ofits trades with other members of the EU. Britain also benefits from trade dealsbetween the EU and other world powers. Leaving the EU causes them to lose someof that negotiating power. Following Brexit, the UK could seek membership ofthe European Free Trade Area, which includes the 28 members of the EU sumNorway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. However, joining the FreeTrade Area means that the UK would remain bound by almost all EU regulations,while losing their input on those regulations. give way Europe conducted a studywhich found that the worst-case scenario is that the UK economy loses 2.2% ofits total GDP by 2030. They also found that GDP could increase by 1.6% if a drop by the wayside trade deal can be negotiated. Supporters of Brexit think that it would bein the best interest of other European countries to re-establish free trade.However, opponents believe that the EU would require to discourage further exitsby making life hard for Britain (Brexit). For proponents of Brexit,sovereignty was seen as a major reas on to leave the EU. Few disagree that EUmembership involves giving up control over its own affairs. Those thatadvocated for remaining in the EU said that leaving would weaken the UKsposition by taking away the power to influence events in an increasinglycomplex and interdependent world (Riley, 2016). British politician DouglasCarswell wrote that, The European Union has lost control, and is unable torespond. Being part of the EU means that we can be outvoted by the Euro blockon economic mattersThe safest thing we can do is vote to take back control,(Carswell, 2015). He goes on to add that the UK could spend more on their ownpriorities, such as scientific research, if they left the EU. Carswell alsowrites that the UK could be a greater influence for free trade and cooperationas part of the human race Trade Organization. Immigration is another topic of discussion.Under EU law, the UK cannot prevent anyone from another EU member state fromimmigrating to the UK. Britons benefit from the ability to live and work in anyof the 27 other member countries. Consequently, there has been a large increasein immigration into the UK. While the recent pace of immigration has led toconcerns with housing and service provision, the overall outcome has beenpositive. Some believe that immigration should be cut and control of theborders should be regained. A decrease in immigration would mean more jobs forthe people who remain, but with a current unemployment rate of around 4.5%, theUK does not appear to be suffering in this manner. Those that support stayingin the EU estimated that there are three million jobs linked to trade with theEU. If trade and investment falls following Brexit, some of these jobs wouldundoubtedly be lost (Brexit). However, it is not clear exactly how many ofthese jobs are dependent on the UK being a part of the European Union. On theflip side, if trade were to rise after Brexit, new jobs would likely becreated. A writer for the capital of the United Kingdom School of Economics said that limiting freedomof movement between EU countries discourages the brightest and the best fromcoming to Britain, and it reduces the pool of potential candidates for jobs(Brexit). Security was another point of contention. Thoseis esteem of Brexit argued that remaining in the EU is leaving the door open toterrorist attacks, because the open border does not allow them to know who isentering and exiting the country. However, several cured military figuresargued that the EU is an increasingly important pillar of our securityespecially in light of instability in the Middle East and Russia. MichaelFallon, Defense Secretary, said that they needed the collective power of the EUto work together on counter-terrorism. However, Colonel Richard Kemp, formerhead of the international terrorism team at the Cabinet Office, said that itwas absurd to assume that the EU would put citizens at risk by reducingcooperation (Brexit). Despitestrong arguments both for and against Brexit, the referendum to decide thefuture of the UK as part of the EU was held on Thursday, June 23, 2016. Over 30million people voted, for a turnout of 71.8% of the voting eligible population.The UK voted to leave the EU by a vote of 51.9% to 48.1%. Across the UK, therewere significant differences in the percentage of the population voting toleave. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU by votes of 62%to 38% and 55.8% to 44.2%, respectively. England and Wales voted to leave theEU with votes to leave tallying 53.4% and 52.5% (Wheeler). Thevote on Brexit came with political consequences. The day after losing thereferendum, David Cameron resigned as Prime Minister. Theresa whitethorn, the formerhome secretary, took over, becoming Prime Minister without cladding a fullConservative leadership contest after the key players from the Leave sidewithdrew from consideration. May was against Brexit during the referendumcampaign but is now in favor of it because the British people voted for it. Herposition is that Brexit means Brexit, and she began the process of leavingthe UK on exhibit 29, 2017 when she invoked name 50, a plan for any countrythat wishes to leave the EU. Article 50 was created in 2009 as part of theTreaty of Lisbon, becoming the first formal mechanism for a country to leavethe EU. This short, five-paragraph article spells out that any member statedeciding to quit the EU must notify the European Council and negotiate itswithdrawal with the EU. Countries wishing to leave have two years to reach anagreement and cannot participate in EU internal discussions about its departure(Wheeler). TheArticle 50 process lasts two years. Accordingly, the intention is that the UKwill leave the EU on March 29, 2019, two years from the date that May began theprocess. This date can be extended if all 28 members agree, however currentlyall sides are focusing on this date as the key one. EU law still stands in theUK until it is no longer a member. There is currently uncertainty about howfinal the break will be on this date. Many prominent figures support atransition period of up to three years to allow a smooth implementation. Althoughall ties could technically be cut on this date, May and others would like toavoid such a cold turkey exit where current regulations on things like tradeand travel ends overnight, as this could harm the economy (Wheeler). In aspeech in Florence, May confirmed her administration will pursue an implementationof around two years after the formal point of departure scheduled for March2019. Under her deal, relations between Britain and the EU would remain similaras before, with the UK contributing to the EU budget to settle its divorcebill, and remaining within the unity market until 2021 (Theresa). Alongwith political consequences, Brexit also had several economic consequences. DavidCameron and many other figures who wanted to stay in the EU predicted animmediate economic crisis if the UK voted to leave. They were partiallycorrect the pound slumped the day after the referendum and remains about 10%lower against the dollar and 15% down against the euro. However, the UK economywas estimated to have grown 1.8% in 2016 and has keep backd to grow at almostthe same rate in 2017. The drop in value of the pound means that exports shouldget a rising as UK goods will be cheaper, but imported goods will get moreexpensive (United). Inflation has risen since the vote to stand currently atapproximately 4%, but unemployment has also continued to fall to a 42-year lowof 4.3%. House prices have fallen from 9.4% in June 2016 to 5% in sumptuous 2017(Wheeler). Pensions,savings, investments, and mortgages are also affected by Brexit. The UK has a tercet lock for state pensions, which is an agreement by which pensionsincrease by the highest of the level of earnings, inflation, or 2.5% each year.Cameron said this policy would likely be threatened by a UK exit, and May hadproposed ditching the 2.5% pa rt of the law. However, as part of thepost-election deal with the Democratic Unionist Party, the triple lock remains guaranteed. all expats who rely on UK income, like pensions, will be impacted by currencychanges. Additionally, more than a million pensioners living in Spain arecurrently being paid annual cost of living rises by the UK government. There isconsiderable concern regarding whether this policy will continue (Connington,2017). Savingsrates dropped to record lows following the vote, partially driven by the Bankof Englands decision to halve Bank Rate in sublime 2016. Other factors alsoplayed in to the drop, including investors who feared instability and sought-after(a) asafe haven in government bonds. Prices were pushed up and their yield wasconsequently decreased. Pessimism in the immediate aftermath of the referendumhas subsided and savings rates have begun to bounce back. However, it isexpected that rates will remain volatile until Brexit talks are settled and itcan b e determined what policies will be in effect. The Brexit referendum alsoimpacted mortgage rates. Experts were wrong, however. While it was predictedthat rates would initially rise following the vote, they actually fell. Again,this was partly due to the cut of the Bank Rate. It was also caused byincreased competition in the mortgage market. Towards the end of 2016, ratesbegan to creep back up, and this pattern of dawdling increases is predicted tocontinue (Dyson, 2016). TheUK and EU negotiating teams met for the first time on June 19, 2017. They meetface-to-face for four days each month in Brussels to try to reach an agreementon the rights of UK and EU citizens after Brexit, a figure for the amount ofmoney the UK will pay upon leaving, and what will happen to the NorthernIreland border. These negotiations are complex, as it is complicated to unpick43 years of treaties and agreements. The UK team is led by David Davis, aveteran Conservative MP who is Secretary of State for Exiting t he EuropeanUnion. On the EU side, Michel Barnier, a former French foreign minister and EUcommissioner, is leading the charge (Wheeler). Since this has never been donebefore, a great deal will have to be improvised as the negotiations continue. Barnierhas not been hesitant to remind the UK side that the clock is ticking on thenegotiations. EU summits in March and June 2018 will be important in theprocess, but the real time crunch is expected to come in the fall of 2018. If adeal is to be okay by Parliament, the European Parliament, and the EUstates, it will need to be agreed upon by this point to meet the Article 50deadline. 72% of the EU states will have to vote in favor of the deal for it topass. Although the UK could leave before March 2019 if an agreement is reachedsooner, that is highly unlikely at this stage. May says leaving the EU with nodeal in place is preferred to signing a bad one (Wheeler). If Brexit occurswith no agreement on trade, the UK would operate under World Tr ade Organizationrules. Onemain topic of discussion in the negotiations is the type of trade deal the UKwill have with the UK following Brexit. Studies by the National Institute forEconomic and Social Research suggest that leaving the single market could causea long-term reduction in UK trade with Europe between 22% and 30%, unless theysign exactly the same free trade deal they have currently. Many in the EU havemade it clear that they do not support this. This significant drop in tradereflects the purpose of the single market as reducing tariff and non-tariffbarriers within the EU. The government believes that a portion of the tradeimpact can be offset by creating new free trade deals with countries outside ofthe EU, but that could take a while (Wheeler). Theother major problem involving trade is immigration and labor mobility. Internationallyoperated businesses often require moving key staff in and out of the countryseamlessly, and certain sectors such as agriculture and food prep aration relyon thousands of EU workers. This issue is one that would be particularlyimpacted by a cliff-edge exit and would greatly benefit from transitionalarrangements. While it has yet to be agreed upon for sure, at this time, itseems that all EU nationals legally living in the UK for at least five yearswill apply for settled status and be able to bring over spouses and children.Any deal on future legal status and rights must also be reciprocal and givecertainty to the 1.2 million expats living elsewhere in Europe. Barnier hasdemanded more clarity and ambition from the UK government, saying that thisproposal does not go far enough and he wants the same level of protectioncitizens have under current EU law. May has said one of her key takeaways fromthe Leave vote is that the British people want a reduction in immigration. Shewould like the net migration, or difference between the amount of peopleentering and leaving the country, to reach a sustainable level of below100,000 per ye ar. The rate of increase in population has slowed since the vote,largely driven by an increase in emigration from the UK by citizens of manyEast and Central European countries (Wheeler). Anothervery important facet of the Brexit negotiation is how to avoid a hard borderbetween Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, who have been living mostly in recreation since the Good Friday Agreement twenty years ago. The invisible landborder has been crucial to economic development and has been of huge symbolicimportance. Neither side wants Brexit to result in new barriers, but the UKgovernment has not yet produced a realistic proposal on how to avoid physicalborder controls. The EU worries that leaving this border unpoliced creates aconduit for goods to flow illegally between the UK and the EU via Ireland(Financial Times Brexit risks).Thefinal contentious topic of discussion is how much the UK will owe the EU forits exit. Barnier wants the UK to cover their liabilities and budgetarycommitmen ts. A Commission spokesman likened it to still needing to pay your tabeven if you leave the bar. The divorce bill could include pension payments toEU officials, guarantees on loans such as the bailout of Ireland, and spendingon infrastructure agreed on but yet to be financed. The EU wants Britain torespect the obligations resulting from the entire period of their membership,referencing the seven-year budget period that runs through 2020. The estimatesas to how much this bill could end up totaling range from 5 billion pounds toover 100 billion euros. Once Britain leaves, the EU will have to fill a void inits budget of about 10 billion euros, which could mean increasing contributionsfrom the remaining 27 members, acerb spending, or finding alternative revenuesources (Kennedy, 2017). Ideally, this issue would have been addressed first,but the British preferred to address everything at the same time so trade-offsand compromises could be made. This approach is part of the reason why lit tleheadway has been made. Twomore current issues are affecting the talks surrounding implementation. The UKgovernments EU Withdrawal Bill, formerly known as the Great Repeal Bill,reached committee stage in the House of Commons in November 2017. This billaims to ensure that European law will no longer apply in the UK followingBrexit, by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Any existing EUlegislation will be carried over into domestic UK law to help with a smoothtransition. This bill will be one of the largest legislative projects everundertaken in the UK, presenting a unique challenge because the body of EU lawis found in many different places and in many different forms. Many UK lawswill also no longer work upon exit, since they refer to institutions of the EU.Since not all of this can be accomplished through the repeal bill, thegovernment plans to create powers to correct statute where necessary, withoutfull Parliamentary scrutiny (Wheeler). The passing of this bill is fur thercomplicated by the ongoing negotiations with the EU. Anothernew development affecting Brexit is suppuration evidence that thousands of fakeaccounts may have been used to influence the Brexit vote. Britainsintelligence watchdog is facing demands to examine whether Russians interfered.Academics in the UK have found that at least 419 Twitter accounts operatingfrom the Kremlin-linked Russian Internet Research Agency tweeted about Brexit.Additionally, thousands of other Russian twitter accounts posted more than45,000 times about Brexit during last years referendum, in a span of just 48hours. Approximately 13,000 accounts that tweeted about Brexit during thecampaign disappeared after the vote. Theresa May has declined to say whethershe believes Russia had interfered, encouraging the position that there is noevidence yet. Putin also has denied Russias role, saying the day after thevote that, We closely followed the voting but never sought to influence it,(Booth, 2017). The impacts of the Withdrawal Bill and possible Russian interventionhave yet to be seen, but will definitely affect the proceedings of the talkssurrounding implementation. Theyear and a half following the Brexit vote has been a contentious time in theUK. The full economic impact is unknown, and markets will likely be volatile asdiscussions continue and Brexit plays out fully. It is yet to be seen exactlywhen and how the UK will exit the European Union. Further complicating the exitdate is Mays promise that Members of Parliament will vote at the end of thetwo year process to approve whatever deal is agreed to. They could potentiallyvote to send the UK back to renegotiate. Andy deal that is made also must beapproved by the European Parliament. With so much uncertainty regarding thepolitics, economics, and other implications of Brexit, discussion on this topicis far from over. Once a deal is finally agreed to, it will impact the UK andthe EU for years to come. ReferencesBooth, R., & Hern, A. (201 7, November 15). Intelligence watchdog urged to look at Russian influence on Brexit vote. Retrieved from https//www.theguardian.com/uk- intelligence service/2017/nov/15/intelligence-watchdog-urged-to-look-at-russian-influence-on-brexit-voteBrexit What are the pros and cons of leaving the EU. (n.d.). Retrieved from http//www.theweek.co.uk/brexit-0Carswell, D. (2015, October 09). Douglas Carswell Why Im backing Vote Leave in the EU referendum. Retrieved from http//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11922172/Douglas- Carswell-Why-Im-backing-Vote-Leave-in-the-EU-referendum.htmlConnington, J. (2017, March 10). How Brexit will affect your money investments, currency and more. Retrieved from http//www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/isas/brexit-will-affect-money-investments- currency/Dyson, R. E. (2016, June 24). Brexit how will your savings and mortgages be affected? Retrieved from http//www.telegraph.co.uk/personal-banking/savings/brexit- outcome-what-it-means-for-savings/Fin ancial TimesBrexit risks destabilizing Irelands flimsy peace. (n.d.). Retrieved from https//www.ft.com/content/046ce872-c30a-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39656Financial Times Brexit timeline key dates in UKs divorce with EU. (n.d.). Retrieved from https//www.ft.com/content/64e7f218-4ad4-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89bKennedy, S. (2017,July 14). Explaining Brexits Costs and Whether Britain Will Pay Up. Retrievedfrom https//www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-14/brexit-s- costs-and-whether-britain-will-pay-up-quicktake-q-aRiley-Smith, B. (2016, June 16). Leave or Remain in the EU? The arguments for and against Brexit. Retrieved from http//www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/leave-or-remain-in-the-eu-the- arguments-for-and-against-brexit/Theresa May Seeks2-Year Brexit Implementation Period. (n.d.). Retrieved from http//time.com/4952988/britain-theresa-may-brexit-two-years-implementation- period/United Kingdom. (n.d.).Retrieved from https//atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/What are the ke yissues for the Brexit negotiations? (2017, March 29). Retrieved from http//www.bbc.com/news/uk-39196315Wheeler, A. H.(2017, November 13). Brexit all told you need to know about the UK leaving theEU. Retrieved from http//www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887