UK Migrant Workers: History and Policies

UK Migrant Workers: History and Policies Introduction There has been a large increase in the number of migrant workers in the UK in recent years (McKay, Craw Chopra, 2006). These increases have been spurred on by globalisation, the gaps opening in the UK labour market and legislative changes that provide many and varied methods for coming to the UK. While many migrant workers move into highly skilled jobs, there are also a significant number who carry out low-paid, low-skilled jobs in the UK. The pay and conditions in these jobs has become the focus of much interest, especially in the wake of the shocking deaths of 23 migrant workers harvesting cockles at Morecambe Bay. This essay, therefore, critically examines the history of migration and current policies, the ways in which migrant workers have been exploited, health and safety risks they face and legal protections that have been put in place. History of migration and migration policies The history of migration into and out of the UK is well established (Sriskandarajah Drew, 2006). In the past the result of this movement has been that people have generally left the country: 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 country which had a net influx of migrants (Sriskandarajah, Cooley Kornblatt, 2007). Net immigration reached its highpoint 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 caused this change. Dobson et al. (2001) explain that one reason for this change to net immigration was that the highly skilled could command better wages and obtain an improved lifestyle in the UK. In addition there was also a large increase in the number of asylum applications at this time (Home Office 2006). Further, with the addition of new member states to the EU, there was increasing m igration with 605,375 people successfully registering to work in the UK from these new member states (Home Office, 2007). Despite the net immigration to the UK, many do not intend to stay permanently. Spencer, Ruhs, Anderson and Rogaly (2007) found that only one-quarter of those immigrating from East and Central Europe intended to stay permanently. Others again, can be considered irregular migrants. These are people who have come to the UK without the correct authority. Pinkerton, McLaughlan and Salt (2004) estimate there could have been as many as 430,000 illegal immigrants in the UK in 2001. This number has been questioned, however, by Dorling (2007) who suggests this figure might incorrectly include US military personnel stationed here, and others, thereby artificially inflating the numbers. Whatever the true level of migrants in the UK, both legal and illegal, there have been clear changes in immigration policies over the last few decades. Laws regarding migration into the UK have also changed rapidly and a large variety of different ways of entering the UK have been developed (Dench, Hurstfield, Hill Akroyd, 2006). A recent Home Office report finds that there about 50 different methods for people migrating to the UK for both work and study (Home Office, 2005). Five schemes are identified as particularly important by Dench et al. (2006). The first of these is the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme (SAWS). This was introduced to allow workers living 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 six months 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 take into account the variability 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 joined the EU). In order to prevent mass immigration and the immediate claiming of benefits, workers moving to the UK are required to register, and only once they have worked without a break for 12 months are they entitled to full benefits and other rights. A third 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 sectors: food manufacturing and hospitality although it has since been withdrawn 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 under this scheme are doctors or are working in the area of health. A fifth category, and the large st method of entry, is through business and commercial work permits. Broadly, this allows companies to recruit from outside the UK if they are unable to fill a position with a UK national, or it allows them to move individuals between countries within the same company. Motives for migration At 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 labour (Somerville, 2007). Generally, then, 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 services (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 needs 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 also 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 leave as well as the turnover of employees. Many of these findings were backed up by research into employers of migrant workers by Dench et al. (2006). They also found that in the agricultural industry domestic 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 very 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 made 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 explained 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 very low compared to the dedication 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 said they were unsure exactly what standards foreign 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 likely to show up for work than domestic workers some employers even had to remind workers to take 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 about doing overtime. Although not mentioned by many employers it was also clearly a factor that migrant workers were more likely to be satis fied 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 rates of pay in the UK compared to their country of origin. Many were particularly interested in learning English, especially those who were from countries that had recently joined the EU. Exploitation of migrant workers The motives for migration in terms of globalisation and its specific effects on the labour market clearly set up a situation in which exploitation is a possibility. 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 own 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., 2006). 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 used migrant workers in order to drive down costs 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 below their level, such as carrying out cleaning or other menial tasks. Employers will also frequently hold 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. Consequently 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 National Insurance number or a payslip. The Citizens Advice Bureau (2004) also report on the recruitment of foreign nationals at universities in the UK who are given cleaning jobs after being told they will 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 received 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 Price (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 treated migrant worke rs is particularly poor. In addition they have significantly lower levels of psychological well-being. Health and safety risks of migrants Considering 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 were 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 certification they would leave 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 slang 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. Training 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. Overall McKay et al. (2006) argue that migrant workers are likely to be at a disadvantage in terms of adequate 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 protection 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 accidents 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 said that accident were not reported for fear of endangering their jobs. On the other hand, employers stated that accidents were rare 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 partly 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 generally saying that breaks were allowed, while migrant workers saying that they often 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 protective 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 required. Finally the TUC recommends that migrant workers should join a trade union so as proper support and organisation can be provided. Legal protection for migrant workers Since 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 have 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 reaching the relevant health and safety standards. The Act has been severely 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 become 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 vast 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 another 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. Conclusion The 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 simple 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 i llegal practices of gangmasters and agencies. Despite this, and despite the young age of the legislation, 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 Consequences Brexit: Causes and Consequences On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in an event dubbed â€Å"Brexit† (Britain + exit). This paper will explore the events leading up to the vote, the reasons for and against Britain leaving the EU, the immediate and long-term fallout, the steps to implementation, and the current discussions regarding implementation.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   First, recognizing the distinction between the Euro Currency and the European Union is important. The European Union is an economic and political partnership that began after WWII with six founding members to foster economic co-operation. The EU has steadily grown to 28 countries. The idea was that countries that trade together are less likely to go to war with each other. The Treaty on the European Union states that any European country can apply for membership if it respects the democratic values of the EU and is committed to promoting these values. Countries wishing to join must have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, a functioning market economy, and the ability to take on and implement effectively the obligations of membership. Financial and transitional arrangements for new members must be negotiated. The EU has its own currency, the Euro, which is used by 19 of the member countries (Wheeler, 2017).   The Euro was adopted in 1999 and is now the second most traded currency after the United States dollar. Some sovereign states that are not part of the EU have also adopted the Euro, as well as many territories, departments, and states of Euro-zone countries.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Brexit campaign kicked off in 2015, when a pledge was activated to hold a referendum, or public vote, on the UK’s membership of the EU. David Cameron made this promise under immense pressure from â€Å"Eurosceptics† and when the Conservative political party appeared to be losing votes to the UK Independence Party. Cameron then toured EU capitals seeking to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership, vowing to campaign to keep Britain a part of the EU. When Britain went to vote, all polls indicated that the UK would remain in the EU (Financial Times: Brexit timeline).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   There were many reasons for and against leaving the EU. In 2016, Britain paid in over  £13.1 billion to the EU budget, but also received  £4.5 billion worth of spending. Determining whether the  £8.6 billion net contribution is worth the other advantages of EU membership can be difficult. The EU is a single market, meaning no tariffs are imposed on imports and exports between the 28 members. The UK currently conducts more than 50% of its trades with other members of the EU. Britain also benefits from trade deals between the EU and other world powers. Leaving the EU causes them to lose some of that negotiating power. Following Brexit, the UK could seek membership of the European Free Trade Area, which includes the 28 members of the EU plus Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. However, joining the Free Trade Area means that the UK would remain bound by almost all EU regulations, while losing their input on those regulations. Open Europe conducted a study which found that the worst-case scenario is that the UK economy loses 2.2% of its total GDP by 2030. They also found that GDP could increase by 1.6% if a free trade deal can be negotiated. Supporters of Brexit think that it would be in the best interest of other European countries to re-establish free trade. However, opponents believe that the EU would want to discourage further exits by making life hard for Britain (Brexit).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   For proponents of Brexit, sovereignty was seen as a major reason to leave the EU. Few disagree that EU membership involves giving up control over its own affairs. Those that advocated for remaining in the EU said that leaving would weaken the UK’s position by taking away the power to influence events in an increasingly complex and interdependent world (Riley, 2016). British politician Douglas Carswell wrote that, â€Å"The European Union has lost control, and is unable to respond. Being part of the EU means that we can be outvoted by the Euro block on economic matters†¦The 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 own priorities, such as scientific research, if they left the EU. Carswell also writes that the UK could be a greater influence for free trade and cooperation as part of the World Trade Organization. Immigration is another topic of discussion. Under EU law, the UK cannot prevent anyone from another EU member state from immigrating to the UK. Britons benefit from the ability to live and work in any of the 27 other member countries. Consequently, there has been a large increase in immigration into the UK. While the recent pace of immigration has led to concerns with housing and service provision, the overall outcome has been positive. Some believe that immigration should be cut and control of the borders should be regained. A decrease in immigration would mean more jobs for the people who remain, but with a current unemployment rate of around 4.5%, the UK does not appear to be suffering in this manner. Those that support staying in the EU estimated that there are three million jobs linked to trade with the EU. If trade and investment falls following Brexit, some of these jobs would undoubtedly be lost (Brexit). However, it is not clear exactly how many of these jobs are dependent on the UK being a part of the European Union. On the flip side, if trade were to rise after Brexit, new jobs would likely be created. A writer for the London School of Economics said that limiting freedom of movement between EU countries discourages the â€Å"brightest and the best† from coming to Britain, and it reduces the pool of potential candidates for jobs (Brexit). Security was another point of contention. Those is favor of Brexit argued that remaining in the EU is leaving the door open to terrorist attacks, because the open border does not allow them to know who is entering and exiting the country. However, several senior military figures argued that the EU is an â€Å"increasingly important pillar of our security† especially in light of instability in the Middle East and Russia. Michael Fallon, Defense Secretary, said that they needed the collective power of the EU to work together on counter-terrorism. However, Colonel Richard Kemp, former head of the international terrorism team at the Cabinet Office, said that it was absurd to assume that the EU would put citizens at risk by reducing cooperation (Brexit).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Despite strong arguments both for and against Brexit, the referendum to decide the future of the UK as part of the EU was held on Thursday, June 23, 2016. Over 30 million 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, there were significant differences in the percentage of the population voting to leave. 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 the EU with votes to leave tallying 53.4% and 52.5% (Wheeler).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The vote on Brexit came with political consequences. The day after losing the referendum, David Cameron resigned as Prime Minister. Theresa May, the former home secretary, took over, becoming Prime Minister without facing a full Conservative leadership contest after the key players from the â€Å"Leave† side withdrew from consideration. May was against Brexit during the referendum campaign but is now in favor of it because the British people voted for it. Her position is that â€Å"Brexit means Brexit†, and she began the process of leaving the UK on March 29, 2017 when she invoked Article 50, a plan for any country that wishes to leave the EU. Article 50 was created in 2009 as part of the Treaty of Lisbon, becoming the first formal mechanism for a country to leave the EU. This short, five-paragraph article spells out that any member state deciding to quit the EU must notify the European Council and negotiate its withdrawal with the EU. Countries wishing to leave have two years to reach an agreement and cannot participate in EU internal discussions about its departure (Wheeler).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Article 50 process lasts two years. Accordingly, the intention is that the UK will leave the EU on March 29, 2019, two years from the date that May began the process. This date can be extended if all 28 members agree, however currently all sides are focusing on this date as the key one. EU law still stands in the UK until it is no longer a member. There is currently uncertainty about how final the break will be on this date. Many prominent figures support a transition period of up to three years to allow a smooth implementation. Although all ties could technically be cut on this date, May and others would like to avoid such a â€Å"cold turkey† exit where current regulations on things like trade and travel ends overnight, as this could harm the economy (Wheeler). In a speech in Florence, May confirmed her government will pursue an implementation of around two years after the formal point of departure scheduled for March 2019. Under her deal, relations between Britain and the EU would remain similar as before, with the UK contributing to the EU budget to settle its divorce bill, and remaining within the single market until 2021 (Theresa).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Along with political consequences, Brexit also had several economic consequences. David Cameron and many other figures who wanted to stay in the EU predicted an immediate economic crisis if the UK voted to leave. They were partially correct; 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 economy was estimated to have grown 1.8% in 2016 and has continued to grow at almost the same rate in 2017. The drop in value of the pound means that exports should get a boost as UK goods will be cheaper, but imported goods will get more expensive (United). Inflation has risen since the vote to stand currently at approximately 4%, but unemployment has also continued to fall to a 42-year low of 4.3%. House prices have fallen from 9.4% in June 2016 to 5% in August 2017 (Wheeler).      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Pensions, savings, investments, and mortgages are also affected by Brexit. The UK has a â€Å"triple lock† for state pensions, which is an agreement by which pensions increase 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 had proposed ditching the 2.5% part of the law. However, as part of the post-election deal with the Democratic Unionist Party, the triple lock remains guaranteed. Any expats who rely on UK income, like pensions, will be impacted by currency changes. Additionally, more than a million pensioners living in Spain are currently being paid annual cost of living rises by the UK government. There is considerable concern regarding whether this policy will continue (Connington, 2017).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Savings rates dropped to record lows following the vote, partially driven by the Bank of England’s decision to halve Bank Rate in August 2016. Other factors also played in to the drop, including investors who feared instability and sought a safe haven in government bonds. Prices were pushed up and their yield was consequently decreased. Pessimism in the immediate aftermath of the referendum has subsided and savings rates have begun to bounce back. However, it is expected that rates will remain volatile until Brexit talks are settled and it can be determined what policies will be in effect. The Brexit referendum also impacted mortgage rates. Experts were wrong, however. While it was predicted that 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 by increased competition in the mortgage market. Towards the end of 2016, rates began to creep back up, and this pattern of gradual increases is predicted to continue (Dyson, 2016).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The UK and EU negotiating teams met for the first time on June 19, 2017. They meet face-to-face for four days each month in Brussels to try to reach an agreement on the rights of UK and EU citizens after Brexit, a figure for the amount of money the UK will pay upon leaving, and what will happen to the Northern Ireland border. These negotiations are complex, as it is complicated to unpick 43 years of treaties and agreements. The UK team is led by David Davis, a veteran Conservative MP who is Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. On the EU side, Michel Barnier, a former French foreign minister and EU commissioner, is leading the charge (Wheeler). Since this has never been done before, a great deal will have to be improvised as the negotiations continue.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Barnier has not been hesitant to remind the UK side that the â€Å"clock is ticking† on the negotiations. EU summits in March and June 2018 will be important in the process, but the real time crunch is expected to come in the fall of 2018. If a deal is to be approved by Parliament, the European Parliament, and the EU states, it will need to be agreed upon by this point to meet the Article 50 deadline. 72% of the EU states will have to vote in favor of the deal for it to pass. Although the UK could leave before March 2019 if an agreement is reached sooner, that is highly unlikely at this stage. May says leaving the EU with no deal in place is preferred to signing a bad one (Wheeler). If Brexit occurs with no agreement on trade, the UK would operate under World Trade Organization rules.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   One main topic of discussion in the negotiations is the type of trade deal the UK will have with the UK following Brexit. Studies by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research suggest that leaving the single market could cause a long-term reduction in UK trade with Europe between 22% and 30%, unless they sign exactly the same free trade deal they have currently. Many in the EU have made it clear that they do not support this. This significant drop in trade reflects the purpose of the single market as reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers within the EU. The government believes that a portion of the trade impact can be offset by creating new free trade deals with countries outside of the EU, but that could take a while (Wheeler). The other major problem involving trade is immigration and labor mobility. Internationally operated businesses often require moving key staff in and out of the country seamlessly, and certain sectors such as agriculture and food preparation rely on thousands of EU workers. This issue is one that would be particularly impacted by a â€Å"cliff-edge† exit and would greatly benefit from transitional arrangements. While it has yet to be agreed upon for sure, at this time, it seems that all EU nationals lawfully living in the UK for at least five years will apply for â€Å"settled status† and be able to bring over spouses and children. Any deal on future legal status and rights must also be reciprocal and give certainty to the 1.2 million expats living elsewhere in Europe. Barnier has demanded more clarity and ambition from the UK government, saying that this proposal does not go far enough and he wants the same level of protection citizens have under current EU law. May has said one of her key takeaways from the Leave vote is that the British people want a reduction in immigration. She would like the net migration, or difference between the amount of people entering and leaving the country, to reach a â€Å"sustainable† level of below 100,000 per year. The rate of increase in population has slowed since the vote, largely driven by an increase in emigration from the UK by citizens of many East and Central European countries (Wheeler). Another very important facet of the Brexit negotiation is how to avoid a â€Å"hard† border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, who have been living mostly in peace since the Good Friday Agreement twenty years ago. The invisible land border has been crucial to economic development and has been of huge symbolic importance. Neither side wants Brexit to result in new barriers, but the UK government has not yet produced a realistic proposal on how to avoid physical border controls. The EU worries that leaving this border unpoliced creates a conduit for goods to flow illegally between the UK and the EU via Ireland (Financial Times: Brexit risks). The final contentious topic of discussion is how much the UK will owe the EU for its exit. Barnier wants the UK to cover their liabilities and budgetary commitments. A Commission spokesman likened it to still needing to pay your tab even if you leave the bar. The â€Å"divorce bill† could include pension payments to EU officials, guarantees on loans such as the bailout of Ireland, and spending on infrastructure agreed on but yet to be financed. The EU wants Britain to respect the obligations resulting from the entire period of their membership, referencing the seven-year budget period that runs through 2020. The estimates as to how much this bill could end up totaling range from 5 billion pounds to over 100 billion euros. Once Britain leaves, the EU will have to fill a void in its budget of about 10 billion euros, which could mean increasing contributions from the remaining 27 members, cutting spending, or finding alternative revenue sources (Kennedy, 2017). Ideally, this issue would have been addressed first, but the British preferred to address everything at the same time so trade-offs and compromises could be made. This approach is part of the reason why little headway has been made.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Two more current issues are affecting the talks surrounding implementation. The UK government’s EU Withdrawal Bill, formerly known as the Great Repeal Bill, reached committee stage in the House of Commons in November 2017. This bill aims to ensure that European law will no longer apply in the UK following Brexit, by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Any existing EU legislation will be carried over into domestic UK law to help with a smooth transition. This bill will be one of the largest legislative projects ever undertaken in the UK, presenting a unique challenge because the body of EU law is found in many different places and in many different forms. Many UK laws will 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, the government plans to create powers to correct statute where necessary, without full Parliamentary scrutiny (Wheeler). The passing of this bill is further complicated by the ongoing negotiations with the EU.     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Another new development affecting Brexit is growing evidence that thousands of fake accounts may have been used to influence the Brexit vote. Britain’s intelligence watchdog is facing demands to examine whether Russians interfered. Academics in the UK have found that at least 419 Twitter accounts operating from the Kremlin-linked Russian Internet Research Agency tweeted about Brexit. Additionally, thousands of other Russian twitter accounts posted more than 45,000 times about Brexit during last year’s referendum, in a span of just 48 hours. Approximately 13,000 accounts that tweeted about Brexit during the campaign disappeared after the vote. Theresa May has declined to say whether she believes Russia had interfered, supporting the position that there is no evidence yet. Putin also has denied Russia’s role, saying the day after the vote that, â€Å"We closely followed the voting but never sought to influence it,† (Booth, 2017). The impacts of the Withdrawal Bill and possible Russian intervention have yet to be seen, but will definitely affect the proceedings of the talks surrounding implementation.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The year and a half following the Brexit vote has been a contentious time in the UK. The full economic impact is unknown, and markets will likely be volatile as discussions continue and Brexit plays out fully. It is yet to be seen exactly when and how the UK will exit the European Union. Further complicating the exit date is May’s promise that Members of Parliament will vote at the end of the two year process to approve whatever deal is agreed to. They could potentially vote to send the UK back to renegotiate. Andy deal that is made also must be approved by the European Parliament. With so much uncertainty regarding the politics, economics, and other implications of Brexit, discussion on this topic is far from over. Once a deal is finally agreed to, it will impact the UK and the EU for years to come. References Booth, R., & Hern, A. (2017, November 15). Intelligence watchdog urged to look at Russian influence on Brexit vote. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/15/intelligence-watchdog-urged-to-look-at-russian-influence-on-brexit-vote Brexit: What are the pros and cons of leaving the EU. (n.d.). Retrieved from:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://www.theweek.co.uk/brexit-0 Carswell, 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.html Connington, 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-   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   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-   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   outcome-what-it-means-for-savings/ Financial Times: Brexit risks destabilizing Irelands fragile peace. (n.d.). Retrieved from     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   https://www.ft.com/content/046ce872-c30a-11e7-b2bb-322b2cb39656 Financial Times: Brexit timeline: key dates in UKs divorce with EU. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/64e7f218-4ad4-11e7-919a-1e14ce4af89b Kennedy, S. (2017, July 14). Explaining Brexits Costs and Whether Britain Will Pay Up.     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-14/brexit-s-   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   costs-and-whether-britain-will-pay-up-quicktake-q-a Riley-Smith, B. (2016, June 16). Leave or Remain in the EU? The arguments for and against Brexit. Retrieved from   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/leave-or-remain-in-the-eu-the-   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   arguments-for-and-against-brexit/ Theresa May Seeks 2-Year Brexit Implementation Period. (n.d.). Retrieved from     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://time.com/4952988/britain-theresa-may-brexit-two-years-implementation-   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   period/ United Kingdom. (n.d.). Retrieved from   https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/ What are the key issues for the Brexit negotiations? (2017, March 29). Retrieved from     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39196315 Wheeler, A. H. (2017, November 13). Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving     Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   the EU. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887