EU Case Study

The population of germany in 2016 is 82.67 m. In 2016, there were 677,614 live births but 878,298 deaths. Therefore there was a natural decrease in population. But Germany made up for this decrease but the net migration of 251,871 people. 51% of the German population is female.The total life expectancy (both sexes) at birth for Germany is 80.1 years. This is above the average life expectancy at birth of the global population which is about 71 years. Seventy five % of the population in Germany lives in urban cities. The population in Germany is distributed mostly in Berlin. The population in Berlin in 2015 was 3.47 m compared to Cologne which had the

The European Union was established as an economic and political partnership between 28 European Countries (European Union, 2015). The UK has been stayed in the EU for over four decades from 1973 to now. In 1975, Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson had ever held a referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU and the voting result is to stay in the European Community. Recently, the article (BBC NEWS, 2015) reported that the UK has a plan to hold the second referendum by the end of 2017 to decide whether or not the UK should stay in or leave the European Union. This might be a significant referendum that may bring lots of impacts on the UK’s economy.

Throughout history, countries have made agreements and alliances in order to improve their economy, their government, and their international trading. Countries must decide whether an agreement will be beneficial for the country in the long run or if it will have more of a negative effect on their economic and trade relations than a positive one. Two of the most significant international agreements that have been made in history are the European Union and the North American Free Trade Agreement. These agreements are two examples of how international agreements positively affect countries and their economic status. The EU is a political and economic union of 28 European members of state, which the United Kingdom is currently departing from.

As well as this, the UK would be able to join organisations that they are currently unable to, such as the World Trade Organisation and The European Free Trade Association. However, it would be ill judged to assume that the UK would be able to dictate terms with the EU simply because it is running a trade deficit. Primarily, the EU buys half of Britain's exports whereas the UK accounts for little over 10 per cent of exports from the rest of the EU, so the UK would be in a weak position to negotiate the best terms by which to continue. Furthermore, it could be argued that the UK's access to many non-EU markets is thanks to its EU membership. On its own, the UK only accounts for 4% of global. Therefore, even trade that is not within the EU is at risk and the UK faces a potential significant reduction in trade that will likely cause a reduction in economic growth unless there is sharp growth in the domestic market. Also, although gaining membership to other bodies might be of some help, joining the World Trade Orginisation would be a purely cosmetic move, as it has 161 member states meaning that the UK would not have that much clout, whilst EFTA is essentially governed by EU regulation as all the companies that operating within the EU must still operate under EU guidelines.

On the other hand, the pro-EU party hold opposite opinions relative to Eurosceptics party. On the political front, the European Union is based on the law. Briton protected by the EU employment laws and social protection. Once UK secede from the EU means that Briton no longer protected by the European Union law (BBC, 2015). Then, EU is an important trading partner to Britain, seceding from EU, Britain have to face trade barrier, which means UK have to pay the tariffs when import and export (BBC, 2015). Furthermore, with the international manufacturers transfer to the low-cost countries inside the EU, UK would lose a large number of employment opportunities.

Investors operating inside Britain, will not have access to the EU Single Market, but would face tariff barriers and higher trade costs. Therefore, the rate of foreign investors investing in Britain would likely decrease. Some businesses currently operating in Britain will choose other countries for their businesses. Many international and national organizations have decided to leave Britain after Brexit, even some of the organizations decided to abandon Britain after the referendum. The New York Times Editorial Board (2017) asserts that “Bank of America had chosen Dublin as its future European Union hub, joining Citigroup and others in making contingency plans for the day when London loses the ‘passporting’ privileges.” Consequently, in addition to negatively affecting the economy of Britain, many British will lose their jobs and job opportunities available for

Britain have got themselves in a messy situation but the way forward is not. There are few alternatives they can choose from. One of the options is the Norway option, the Norway option gives the country full access to the single European market without being a fully paid – up member. The Norway model will also mean that Britain becoming members of two key European organisations, the European Economic Area (EEA) and the European Free Trade Association (EEFA).

Brexit is not a just a political debacle, but also a great financial issue. The author points out that it is considered to be a bigger concern than Scotland’s independence. Bankers and other financial sectors feel that Brexit can cause a huge deal of loss, because Britain is said to be the gateway for the rest of the 28 nation European Union, a market which holds about 500 million more than what is prevalent in the United States and Japan combined. Anderson feels that for most big businesses like Goldman Sachs or Citigroup, London is the financial capital, which provides a gateway for nearly all of Europe. Without the unregulated access, the free flow of capital, resources, talent and goods and services would have to be renegotiated, making it difficult for the European nations. The financial industry is said to be the most affected since it accounts for about 7 percent of Britain’s gross

There are several ways the United Kingdom (UK) could exit the European Union (EU). Differences between a Soft and a Hard Brexit are considerable and each prospect deserves thorough investigation in order to understand how it will affect British businesses. The evolution of the EU allowed years of institutional and political transformation through the creation of the European Single Market which benefited British businesses (Medrano, 2003). However, the UK has always been reluctant to European obligations and stood out rapidly from the rest of the members by keeping their own currency. Following the Article 50, outlining the right to quit the EU, the UK citizens decided to leave in June 2016. This result caused important concerns and uncertainty especially for British businesses. In 2017 negotiations between the UK and the EU will start, however the way it will happen is still very ambiguous. British firms will be able to lobby for their favourable outcome, as they are in a position of power and could possibly influence the government in their negotiations. As firms have a strong impact on decision-makers, it is important to clarify for which outcome they should opt to protect in the best way their stakeholders during and after the transition of UK.

For example, every country has different currency and different legislation. They follow different set of rules and the value of currency differs from one country to another. According to EU’s rule and regulations member states don’t pay extra tax because they are a part of single access market. But for example another country outside of EU needs to pay tax and there is cost involved when the products or goods cross borders. Since Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein are not European Union’s member states they pay higher tax to enter in European Union area moreover they are entitled to follow their rules and regulation and their own tariffs. If UK decides to not to be a part of EEA or single access market they will be subject to trade barriers. As a result Britain will loss vast amount of profit which they made when they were part of EU.

On June 23rd 2016 the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. This referendum is one of the most significant votes of a generation and will have substantial political and economic consequences for the UK and the wider world. Since the result of the vote, very little information regarding the terms of Brexit has been disclosed by the UK government. This has caused considerable economic instability, resulting in fluctuating currency markets and significant drops in consumer and investor confidence. Despite the general consensus that Brexit will have a negative impact on the UK economy in the long term there may be some benefits for the financial sector, such as a decrease in the stringent financial regulation that

There are several benefits that Britain has been enjoying as a member country of the EU. On the contrary, there have also been problems that Britain has been facing due to its membership in the EU and that are why the country is contemplating on its move of trying to distance itself or rather itself from the EU.

The Leave voters argued these institutions not only no longer serve a purpose but also take control away from individual countries. The EU forces every nation state to adopt the same law policy and every law and policy made has to go through a shared decision making process. The Britons want to make its own decisions and to be responsible to lead their motherland to wherever they want. Abandoning the EU is a way for them to retain control over their fates.

Regulations are a concern because the UK’s departure could lead to change in banking regulations (Jackson, 2016). London is known as a huge financial center. With the Brexit looming, that attractiveness could potentially fade (Jackson, 2017). Short-term implications of the UK’s exit of the European Union will likely affect bank profitability, via lower interest rates for longer periods of time (Jackson, 2016). The Brexit also affects living standards. The authors of this article predict that the living standards (income) in the UK will decrease anywhere from -2.61% to -1.28% per capita with an actual range income change being -£1,700 to -£850, or around $2,182USD to $1,090USD (Dhingra, Ottaviano, Sampson, and Van Reenen, 2016). The authors also show that the exit of Britain may affect the living standards of people in other European countries as well. (Begg and Mushovel, 2016). Around 3.3 million jobs in the United Kingdom could be in jeopardy, but aren’t guaranteed to be lost (Begg and Mushovel, 2016). The Brexit could increase employment in import industries as competition would rise (Begg and Mushovel, 2016). The public finances of Britain would improve after the Brexit because of the savings in contributions to the EU, but this is only if Britain’s GDP does not decrease by more than one percentage point (Begg and Mushovel, 2016).

Whether being a member of the European Union is the best thing for the United Kingdom is a very complex issue with many different layers, therefore, making it hard to reach a definite and final verdict without spending