Since June 23rd 2016, the UK has voted for an exit from the European Union. Almost three years later and no progress has been made on how the UK is going to cut ties with the EU. There is no consensus on a deal or no-deal exit, and a referendum is being considered again. Solutions are nowhere to be found and the whole process is blocked. On the economic aspect a lot is unknown , some say independence from the EU will boost economy, as EU regulations won’t apply to trade with other countries, while other people say the economy will collapse due to the major transition they are about to undergo. From a political standpoint, the ECJ’s jurisdiction contradicts UK courts, but is an exit the ultimate solution? To evaluate Brexit, we first have to assess its fundamental ideas.

Essentially Brexit’s main economic reasons for an exit derive from an idea that the EU restricts UK in its freedom to enter with a more profitable business relationship with other parts of the world. In my opinion this is not a good reason to leave the EU as the UK already is a major trade and business center with countries outside of the EU. Additionally, the restrictions the EU implies with trading with non-EU countries will not compensate for the tariffs that would be added to the UK in relationship with big EU trading partners in case of an exit.  As statistics show, “The small declines in the cost of trade with the rest of the OECD, emerging economies and the rest of the world are less valuable, not only because they have been smaller, but also because Britain conducts less trade with those economies” (Springford). Meaning that the EU is far more valuable to the UK in terms of a free trade flow than other countries. Therefore, restricting trade with the EU and increasing trade with other trading partners would not end up as profitable as thought it will be. Consequently, trade with the EU will be more expensive and their economy will have to be reliant upon other sources, that are unknown.  In this period of dilemma a lot of companies have left the UK jeopardizing 44 billion in transactions, causing manufacturing to decline massively during these 3 years of an unresolved exit (Sommerlad, and Chapman). Companies like Airbus, Goldman Sachs, Ford, and Honda have left, are planning to leave, or are cutting jobs intensely causing a shortage of jobs and eventually a lack of manufacturing and investment. Currently Brexit is a disaster, causing major companies with major work forces to leave and situate themselves in other places. As a big business center for EU based companies and other big transnational corporations, Brexit is a threat for the UK as a thriving business hub. Future projections show the economy receding to 3.9 % lower at a best case scenario with a generous deal with the EU. In a no-deal scenario, the economy recedes 9.3 % lower creating a big economic recession that is not good for England or its trading partners (Kirby). This shows that in a best case scenario Brexit is harmful for the economy and essentially for the people. With a fairly stable economy, Britain is heading towards a period of economic recession possibly leading to austerity programs and structural adjustment measures to save the economy. In no possible scenario is Brexit good for an economy that was approximately 1.5 to  2 % higher before the Brexit vote and possibly another 4-9 % lower after it officially leaves the EU (Fray, and Giles). In my opinion UK’s economy is bound to be hit by a recession that was not projected before the Brexit vote, creating an unnecessary economic crisis.

Another dimension of the Brexit movement are the political reasons. One big political motive is independence from the European Court of Justice which has applied contradicting rulings and jurisdiction in UK courts cases. But if you are going to be part of a supranational organization with free trade agreements and other beneficial terms, then a court to overrule on cases within the organization is quite logical. The problem though is that the UK deems its courts as one of the most important foundations of their country and consider the ECJ as an intervening obstacle to UK courts’ autonomy. The problem with taking the drastic measure, which is leaving the EU, is to solve this problem by negotiating a deal while being a member state. Independence from the ECJ is a good thing for the UK, as their courts have shaped modern law and jurisdiction, and giving them a supervising entity is ironic in itself as it defies sovereignty. Leaving would get the UK autonomy of its own jurisdiction and no interdependency upon the ECJ, which is a positive component of Brexit. The problem stands where the UK could find a solution or agree new terms with the EU, about the ECJ, internally without the necessity to leave. In my opinion the ECJ intervention motive to leave the EU is more logical than other reasons to leave, as it is defying their self rule and their ability to have an independent judicial institution unreliant on any other entities.

The Brexit vote caught everyone by surprise, in an unexpected leave vote. Since then no progress to leave has been made, bringing up numerous issues that still remain unresolved. Propositions to delay Brexit even up to one year have been made, making this process even more lengthy and uncertain, which already has proven the negative impacts upon the economy. UK courts still operate under some dependency upon ECJ not even resolving that part. Brexit is nothing what promised, and is costing and will cost the UK a lot; wishing they would have voted remaIn.