Arguments for and against Brexit: What can UK lose or achieve through parliament suspension?

LAHORE: While British Prime Minister Boris Johnson's decision to suspend legislative business from mid-September has sparked an outrage from his fellow parliamentarians because it makes a no-deal Brexit more likely, the emerging scenario, or chaos as many media houses are calling it, would have major economic implications because United Kingdom's membership in the European Union touches on almost every aspect of the country's economy.

The result of the United Kingdom European Union Referendum of 2016 was a victory for the "Leave" campaign, amassing a total of 51.9 per cent of the vote.

This meant that the outcome was in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, a decision and process that is commonly referred to as "Brexit." Consequently, UK Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50 on 29 March 2017, starting the process of British withdrawal from the European Union.

The result had provoked considerable debate as to the factors that contributed to the victory, with various theories and explanations being put forth. The pro-Brexit arguments: The 'Leave' campaign had primarily emphasized on issues relating to sovereignty and migration.

One third (33 per cent) [of leave voters] had said the main reason was that leaving offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders. Boris Johnson, even when he was the Mayor of London, had viewed that over the past few decades, a series of European Union treaties had shifted a growing amount of power from individual member states to the central EU bureaucracy in Brussels.

He and his colleagues like former Justice Minister, Michael Gove, had argued that on subjects where the EU had been granted authority — like competition policy, agriculture, and copyright and patent law — its rules had trampled all over British laws.

Many Euroskeptics have emphasized in the past that the EU’s executive branch, called the European Commission, was not directly accountable to voters in Britain or anyone else. British leaders have some influence on the selection of the European Commission’s members every five years, but once the body had been chosen, none of its members were accountable to the British government or to Britons’ elected representatives in the European Parliament.

Critics like Johnson often said the EU’s regulations had become increasingly onerous, as sometimes, these EU rules sounded "simply ludicrous," according to them. These rules included the law that one could not recycle a teabag, or that children under eight could not blow up balloons, or the limits on the power of vacuum cleaners.

They were quoted as saying: "Sometimes they can be truly infuriating – like the time I discovered, in 2013, that there was nothing we could do to bring in better-designed cab windows for trucks, to stop cyclists being crushed. It had to be done at a European level, and the French were opposed."

Meanwhile, Michael Gove had argued that EU regulations had cost the British economy "£600 million every week" ($880 million). Many neo-liberal British economists believe that Britain could do better by leaving the EU.

They have argued that British businesses were hampered by bureaucratic red-tape from Brussels. Even the 80 per cent of British companies that do not export have to follow EU rules on standards, employee rights, union representation, health and safety, paternity leave and other bureaucratic red tape; this is a burden on small businesses. They have maintained that by leaving the European Union, United Kingdom could bring down the cost of labour in the country, so that firms could set up manufacturing plants, rather than exporting their production facilities to countries with low labour costs.

Besides, big companies would want to keep their operations in the UK and would only relocate as little as possible, as Britain without EU red-tape would be a more attractive place to do business.

Arguments and media reports against Britain's decision to leave the European Union: The "CNN" has reported: "The EU membership allows British businesses to trade freely across the bloc, without the need to have extra permits or pay tariffs. If the UK crashes out without a deal, that link will be severed abruptly and businesses will face extra costs. Business lobby groups say these could be too much for some companies, which may not survive. If companies start collapsing, jobs will disappear and the economy will suffer."

The key American media outlet has added: "A no-deal Brexit would likely mean new checks at the borders, which could delay imports. For some products border delays could prove catastrophic -- fresh fruit and other foodstuffs could rot while stuck in lorry queues. Medical supplies coming from Europe could be affected too, because of extra red tape. French drug maker "Sanofi" and its Swiss rival "Novartis" said they would stockpile key medicines ahead of Brexit. According to government's own assessment published in November 2018, leaving without a deal would result in the UK economy being 7.7 per cent smaller 15 years after Brexit. The damage would be even greater if net migration from the European Union substantially dropped, the government said."

The "CNN" maintained: "The UK is a major agricultural exporter and the National Farmers' Union had warned that a no-deal scenario would be devastating for the sector. Up to 65 per cent of Britain's agriculture exports go to the EU. A study by Imperial College in London found that two extra minutes spent checking each vehicle, be it at the ferry port in Dover in southern England, or the Eurotunnel terminal nearby, could translate to jams of up to 29 miles."