Economy, Institutions and International Markets

Divorce of the United Kingdom and the European Union: Contrast of

effects.

Author
Steven Bonilla Avendaño
64151283

Adviser
Diana Ortiz Herrera

La Salle University
Faculty of economics and social sciences
Business and International Relations
Bogota, May 25th
Faculty of economics and social sciences

Abstract
In the month of June of last year (2016) the international system was painted blue with
yellow stars, but one was misaligned from the perfect circle, the most important if we
refer to economic, political and military aspects; Brexit is abbreviated (abbreviation for
the words Britain (Great Britain) and exit (Exit), referendum to start the process of
leaving the European Union by the United Kingdom after 43 years of belonging to it,
in accordance with the article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union.

Although this was not the first attempt to win a referendum to approve the exit of the
EU, if it was the first to lean towards the exit, with a tight 52% against 48%, which
shows a clear British division. The United Kingdom is one of the most important
trading partners of the EU, therefore, it is impossible that its exit does not bring
important changes and consequences for both sides, besides there was a great
disagreement (especially by the youth community) of the British, and by Scotland,
Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, who remain firm in remain in the UN, with the United
Kingdom or without him, so this situation leaves a Kingdom not very united.

June marks two years since the decision of the British to leave the European Union,
two years of changes and consequences for both the United Kingdom and the European
Union as for the rest of the countries, so it is essential to see the effects and contrast
them for to be able to deduce whether they are advantages or disadvantages of the
British decision.

Keys words
Integration, United Kingdom, European Union, Referendum, exit, effects, decision,
consequences.
Faculty of economics and social sciences

This trend of division of the British took much further back, through initiatives to leave
the European Union, but only until 2016 the citizens agreed (with a very small
difference), it is known that the United Kingdom aligned with the European Economic
Community, on January 1, 1973, when the first president was the curator Edward
Heath; In October 1974, the Labor Party, led by Harold Wilson, mobilized to
renegotiate the terms of their stay in the EEC, and then held a referendum on the
permanence of those terms.
The referendum was held in 1995, to decide whether to stay in the EEC, the majority
of parties and the media supported the permanence, and in the Labor Party, and the
government at that time, promulgated the exit; there were breaks when some of its
members voted in favor of staying in a conference on April 26, 1995, so Harold Wilson,
leader of the party, gave free publicity to either of the two options, in the end only 7 of
the 32 of the government opposed the stay in the EEC.

On June 5, 1995, the British had to vote in case they thought that the United Kingdom
should remain in the European Economic Community, or as they called it "Common
Market"; 17'378.581 votes in favor 67.2% against 8'470.073 votes that corresponded
to 32.8%, the United Kingdom continued in the at that moment premature integration
plan.
In 1983 the Labor Party makes a campaign of general elections for the United Kingdom
to leave the EEC, the proposal did not have great reception as Margaret Thatcher
crushed in the elections. With the Treaty of Maastricht, the EEC became the European
Union.

In 1990 the Independence Party of the United Kingdom (UKIP) was formed, an anti-
European party, which won in 2004 the third place in the elections, the second in the
2009 and the first in the 2014, given again thread to the discussion, which in 2013 is
proposed by Prime Minister David Cameron, which proposes a referendum on the
permanence of the United Kingdom in the European Union for 2014, but its effect is
only seen until 2016. With the victory in the 2015 elections for the Conservative Party,
but because of the pressure of the UKIP party, which has strength and support for
people in difficult economic situations and affected by the number of migrants in the
country.

On June 23, 2013 there was a referendum on the departure of the United Kingdom from
the European Union, also known as Brexit, with 51.9% in favor of the exit against a
48.1 against. Northern Ireland, Scotland, Gibraltar and most of London remained the
Faculty of economics and social sciences

main defenders of the country. With the result Prime Minister David Camero,
announcement to leave office in October.

It is logical to think that the Brexit to bring consequences not only for the two actors
involved, but for many more countries and subjects of the international system, so it
can be analyzed that the possible consequences could be among 3 possible scenarios
that could lead to the Brexit, 1 ) A particular integration of the United Kingdom to the
European economic field, as does Norway and Iceland, so that it will continue to have
commercial relations with the member countries of the European Union, only with a
limited capacity to determine the rules that will govern it; 2) Relations with the
European Union, exclusively through the conclusion of bilateral treaties, such that as
Switzerland has privileged economic and commercial relations with member countries,
almost equal to those it lost with Brexit, and with the added value that will have more
control over the rules that are imposed for these agreements and 3) a model based on
the property of the United Kingdom to the World Trade Organization, and relations
between the United Kingdom and the European Union only be limited to what of the
organization is stipulated. Scenarios that until now, after almost 2 years since the
decision of misalignment, are possible and are considered as a solution and way to
when the final exit in March of the following year, they are constantly negotiating to
mediate a path that benefit both and reduce the effects that arise as:
• Reduction in the yield of the lowest British bonds since 1703
• Fall of the British currency at the 1985 level
• Increase in incidents of racism from 54% to 57%
• Increase in hate crimes by 41% (In a Government report)

• Delay in decisions in the European Union on security in the Syrian civil war and
immigration crisis
• Call for general elections for June 8, 2017

The causes that motivated the exit from the United States were diverse motivations that
led to the referendum getting a majority supporting the exit, even though institutions
like the IMF and the OECD were quite emphatic in the economic repercussions on the
United Kingdom with the victory of the BREXIT , the British with the victory of the
referendum, are apparently willing to assume the economic stagnation, the increase in
unemployment, the collapse of their currency and a possible increase in taxes after that
Faculty of economics and social sciences

decision. Another reason that represented a great influence for the BREXIT, was the
affirmation that leaving the European Union could release up to 350 million pounds
per week that could be better invested in the public health system (NHS), thus being a
slogan that would be quite tempting for the voters.

In politics, and referring to immigration policies, the British Nigel Farage, leader of the
Independence Party of the United Kingdom, was the one who managed to put as a
crucial issue the growing migration of Europeans to the United Kingdom. Farage,
would make the British with lower incomes worry about cultural and national
strengthening; in addition, the clear argument that the United Kingdom could not
control the number of migrants if it remained a member of the European Union, which
led voters to opt for the exit of European integration (Thomas, 2016).

But we should also anticipate the effects and consequences that this decision would
bring, example of which were the causes at the exchange rate and the stock markets
only with the rumor that it was possible for the United Kingdom to leave the European
Union; generating effects in the pound sterling, in the financial market, where the
sterling record lost to the point of trading 1.32 USD / GBP when it was at 1.50; with
respect to the Euro it also depreciated from 0.76 to 0.84 GBP / EUR, on the other hand,
it generated benefits of the so-called refuge currencies such as the Swiss franc, the
Japanese yen and the dollar that of 1.09 USD / EUR step in one day at 1.14. The effects
on the currency market on Friday after the results of the referendum are shown below:

(Ernst & Young S.L., 2016)

Faculty of economics and social sciences

The effects on the stock market did not wait, with a quick reaction after the victory of
the referendum, where the debt market benefits while the demand for public securities
increases, but the yield of the British 10-year bond under 1.40 % to 0.90%.

(Ernst & Young S.L., 2016)

It is necessary to be able to determine the sectors and points that would be more fragile
and could be more affected after the Brexit, in order to be able to compare with what
has really happened now and close to the effective exit of the United Kingdom. Some
possible economic consequences that were thought were

• Decreased confidence: Affects FDI, increases savings (decreasing the circulation of

money and the possibility of creating money), reduces the generalized demand, this
will have a short-term impact.
• Decrease in the Ranking: Ranking agencies rethink the UK investment risk score.
This will have a short-term effect.

• Higher interest: The cost of credit will increase, since banks located in the United
Kingdom, due to the level of risk and less British people depositing their money, must
increase their profits to finance their activities and protect their investment.

• GDP decreases: The negative movement in the demand curve will generate a
contraction of GDP, in a range of -0.1% and -3.9%, it is expected to remain constant
one year. This situation will have a long-term effect.
Faculty of economics and social sciences

• Interest Central Bank: The British central bank is expected to reduce interest near
negative digits, in order to reduce the impact and boost the economy. It will have a
short-term effect.

• Increase taxes: Depending on whether the exit from the United States becomes
effective and how relations remain after negotiations with the EU, changes could be
made to the directive and regulations on value added tax (VAT), dividend and royalty
payments executives , and the domestic exemption of payment of some British
residents, the guidelines of mergers and restructuring and other provisions of domestic
regulations that allow to give a non-unfavorable tax treatment to resident entities in the
EU, with respect to the treatment given to entities in Spain, to avoid violating
community freedoms (provisions on international tax transparency, deductions for
donation or R + D + i, patent box, exit taxes, etc.)

The customs union to which the UK belongs today, prevents it from imposing tariffs
on the member countries of the integration, when leaving the EU, it must establish taxes
on exports and imports, which can be established in the UK-EU negotiation.

Treasury Secretary George Osborne, announced that, with the departure of the United
Kingdom, increased taxes to cover the fiscal gap of 30,000 million pounds sterling,
which would leave the Brexit in the public coffers, taking advantage of the greater
freedom in fiscal policies.

• Increase in Inflation: Expected increase due to increases in import and export prices,
since there will be no commercial treaties. Then it can stop and weaken while the
central bank makes an effort to stabilize it. Its effect will be short term.

• Depreciation of the Local Currency: Sterling is expected to depreciate close to

20%, due to the deficit in the current account and the expansive policies of the central
bank of England. The G7 and central bank will intervene to avoid greater volatility of
the stock market. Short-term impact

• Greater volatility: Due to the uncertainty of the outcome of the British economy.
This will be valid in the short term.
• Stock Market: The European indices will have decreases. Short term.
• Deficit in the Trade Balance: The increase in import prices and given that the EU is
the recipient of half of UK exports and 63% of exports are based on relations in
integration. This will have a short-term impact.
Faculty of economics and social sciences

• Investment: The EU represents 43% of UK FDI, and BREXIT makes the UK much
less attractive for foreign investment, and it is the time when the greatest need for these
investments is to finance their current account. Short-term impact.

• Banking System: Due to the fact that in the UK there are more than half of the
financial institutions of the EU countries, and the BREXIT will prevent businesses with
more than 30 countries, special treatment must be shortened in order not to affect the
market financial situation of the Euro Zone, can have a medium-term effect.

• European Banking Authority (EBA): This EU banking regulatory agency, which

tests resistance to European banks, obliges the EU to seek a new location. Its impact
will be seen in the medium term.

• Immigration: The most likely thing is that the UK does not operate a free movement
of people, as it was a reason to leave the EU, this will mainly affect the agricultural and
construction sector, with more expensive labor, with a short-term effect.

• Division: At the political level the possible independence of Scotland can be opened,
since in the north there are few who want to leave the EU and it could also raise doubts
about the permanence and stability of the EU member countries, which can be
developed in the medium term, its impacts.

And the points of international economy that could be most affected would be:

• Economic decline: Growth rates and confidence indicators can fall, generating
economic cuts due to the slowdown of the economy of the Euro Zone, this can have a
short-term impact.

• Monetary policies: Policies will continue to be expansive, with some injections of

liquidity, and very low interest rates, although the US may not change its interests.

• Financial System: With negative interest the coexistence will be tension with the
banking entities. The financial entities present in England (mainly) will have to move
to a new headquarters (as in the case of the EBA), this would mean that the United
Kingdom would lose its title as the financial center of Europe.

• Risk premia: In the peripheral countries these risk premiums will increase.
Faculty of economics and social sciences

• Portfolio: By increasing the financing costs of the peripheral countries by the level
of risk, the countries that benefit are the cut in financing will be Germany, Switzerland,
USA and Japan. The demand for their securities will increase, given the high
investment risk and the securities will have a low profitability.

• In foreign trade: Trade relations will be weakened and protectionist policies can be
reached.

• FDI: The risk in the area will reduce the attractiveness of any investment.

• Raw materials: By having a more skewed economic growth, the price of raw
materials will not have much evolution and will remain low (EY, 2016).

According to the approximations that were estimated internally in the United Kingdom
would generate a destabilization at the economic level, not in terms of their exports,
but rather in terms of trade relations with European countries, because it represents well
for the region British a great gain, and somehow the European and Asian countries,
take into account the financial and commercial operations that the United Kingdom
does, the European island depends on international changes and transactions to
consolidate its economic policies. However, due to financial strength, they have taken
the decision to venture into a European economic misalignment, which, although the
consequences are uncertain, it is estimated that the strongest blow will be the
Eurocentric countries much more than the British island.

But now it is possible to see these instances who are the countries that have really been
affected over the months, since since the departure from the United Kingdom, the
reactions were not long in coming, and the intrigue and alternatives of countries like
Holland, Sweden, Denmark, the Baltics and the countries of the center since it was one
of the largest in the European Union, with 12% of the votes in the European institutions,
who was the partner and support of these countries, defending the free exchange and
against a political union.

"Small countries feel orphaned," says Caroline de Gruyter, a journalist and think tank
analyst at Carnegie Europe. And it generates a change of powers, an imbalance in the
balance of powers within Europe, where France and Germany acquire great power, "It
was too easy for many of us to hide behind the United Kingdom."
Faculty of economics and social sciences

Many countries used the United Kingdom as a commercial bridge, which gave them
the facility that they did not have to deal directly with the other countries of the
European Union, and always had their partner as a shield defending and fighting their
battles, countries like Sweden, They underwent great changes after the Brexit for this
reason, which left them out in the open. "It's as if now Sweden is finally becoming a
member of the EU," says Eva Sjögren, director of the Swedish Institute for European
Policy Studies. Although Sweden belongs to the European Union more than 20 years
ago, Brexit obliges it to develop a new strategy since it already has the presence of the
United Kingdom, so it must strengthen a closer relationship with the countries of
European integration, given that has been exposed. "When the British leave, Sweden
will not lose only a close ally, but also an important bridge of relationship with the
other member states" (Sjögren, 2018).

A sample of the new strategies that have had to take countries of the European Union
that depended on the United Kingdom is the alliance called Liga Hanseática 2.0, it is a
federation of merchants of cities of the north of Europe that had creation in the XIV
century, it is composed by the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the 3 Baltics
and Ireland.

The Netherlands interprets a discouraging panorama, and after the departure from the
United Kingdom has had consequences for them and now the possibility of a Nexit,
where 54% of the Dutch want a referendum like the Brexit, 48% would be willing to
leave the Union European The strategy has been to go to the link with Brussels, as a
flexible alliance to defend their interests after any outcome, and a speech in favor of
the EU, to avoid feeling against the European club. (Masdeu, 2018).

For this reason, an adequate negotiation is essential to prevent negative impacts for the
two actors in question and the other countries, for this reason The European
Commission (EC) seeks solutions to the imbalance generated by the Brexit, and that is
why in the month May 2018 presented the budget for the post-Brexit period, which
would be between the years 2012-2027, (the request is to be approved before the new
2019 elections in the Commission) the project aims to raise the funds to 1.28 trillions
of euros and cuts of 5% of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and 7% in the
Structural and Cohesion Funds.

This initiative with the aim of covering the absence of the United Kingdom that
according to the calculations of the EC oscillates between 12,000 and 15,000 million
Faculty of economics and social sciences

Euros, and at the same time new necessities demand 10,000 additional million to the
year.

Seeing the distribution of the budget for the joint projects of the European Union, we
see that the single market, innovation and digital are the best endowed and priority
section with 187,400 million euros (14.6% of the budget).

Another problem that increased after June 23, 2016 with the Brexit was immigration,
which was one of the main issues for which opposition was made to leaving the United
Kingdom; The EC proposes, significantly increase the funds allocated to immigration,
security, defense and external action, to mitigate this problem, going from 8% (84,000
million euros) before the Brexit to represent 14.5% after it. This amount will be divided
into foreign and neighbor shares (123,000 million), border and immigration
management (34,900 million) and security, defense and crisis response (27,500
million) (EITB, 2018).

Also after the victory of BREXIT, Great Britain has become a territory with greater
social divisions and with a greater presence of racism in comparison to what it was
before the BREXIT. The xenophobic and racist attacks increased days after the
referendum triumphed; the main victims and victims, those who came from Eastern
Europe with the Jews, in addition to the Muslims and the Spaniards. According to
statistics from the World Bank, violence and aggressions due to differences in religion,
race and ethnicity increased by 41%. These acts of violence have even led to the murder
of some foreigners in the country.

It is encouraged that the negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European
Union remain constant, since both seeking the objective of reducing the consequences
and consequences of both actors. In March, European Union negotiator Michel Barnier
and David Davis, British minister, met to discuss an agreement on the Brexit transition
period, which will be two years, from March 30, 2019, which will be the British
departure date. definitive EU until December 31, 2020. During this transitional period,
London will not participate in decision-making on integration, given the loss of the
member state, but will maintain access to the single market and customs union.
Faculty of economics and social sciences

The provisions agreed here will be valid for new states entering the European Union
during the transition period, as stated by the delegate of the EU. "We agree that the
British and European citizens of the Twenty-seven who arrive during the period of
Transition benefit from the same rights and guarantees as those who arrived before the
'Brexit' day. " This transition will be of great importance for the modification of the
business and administrative structure of the United Kingdom to prepare for the future,
once the exit of the European block becomes effective (EITB, 2018).

But there are also negotiating points that cannot be reconciled, such as the one proposed
by the European Union with London, an agreement where Northern Ireland is
maintained in the single market, avoiding a rigid and strict border with the Republic of
Ireland after the inevitable departure of the United Kingdom of the European Union,
but the British Government has expressed its complete rejection, and Prime Minister
Theresa May has said " “A customs and regulatory border would be created in the Irish
Sea, which constitutes a threat to the constitutional integrity of the Kingdom United,
therefore, no British Prime Minister would ever agree to it "(EITB, 2018).

The United Kingdom has also begun to have some strategies to mitigate the commercial
and financial impact of its exit from the European Union, so far it cannot conduct
formal trade negotiations, as it still belongs to the EU, but after March 2019, You can
do them with any country in the world without any impediment. The Prime Minister
Theresa May, visited in January of this year Beijing, accompanied with a large number
of business and commercial representatives, in order to strengthen diplomatic relations
by strengthening foreign policy towards China, to see the possibility of entering into
business relationships and mitigate tensions due to violations in Human Rights, which
the prime minister acknowledged, in the former British colony in Hong Kong.

Several collaboration agreements were signed, as a possible preamble for formal

negotiations after March of the following year, in order to increase the participation of
China as a destination for British exports, which at the moment only amounts to 3%
(Etxebarria, 2018).

These alternatives are necessary since the effects of Brexit are already beginning to be
seen in the British economy, as stated by Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of
England, who said during the meeting of the Treasury Committee, that the 'Brexit' has
Faculty of economics and social sciences

cost him to the United Kingdom about 2% of its GDP, which is equivalent to about
46,000 million euros, reducing the annual income of families by about 1,000 euros.

"One of the biggest factors has been the impact of the referendum on the exchange of
the currency due to the inflation it has brought with it," he also said "That is, there are
effects of 'Brexit' that are already coming to light. that over the course of the last year
and a half there has been an impact according to what we expected despite the fact that
tailwinds have been produced in favor of the economy "(Carney, 2018). These
statements have been used by the opposition as is the case of the critic Wes Streeting,
Labor parliamentarian, who in search of a new referendum says "The governor of the
Bank of England has been quite clear at the time of pointing to the vote of the 'Brexit
'as the reason that we are worse and poorer, and the failed negotiations of the
Government threaten to make the situation even worse for future generations' (Muñoz,
2018).

The British Prime Minister has a heavy burden on her shoulders, and when it is less
than a year before the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union
becomes effective, before this happens Prime Minister Theresa May must fulfill the
promises that It did, and in part took the balance of the referendum to the positive vote
of Brexit, which are:

• Avoid a hard Irish border

• Ensure a "customs company" free of tariffs with the EU other than the customs union.
• Compensate the damage caused to financial services by the loss of the passport
• Registers 3.7 million European citizens in the space of two years
• Set up a business deal with a hostile Trump administration (Colson, 2018).

In addition, it must face the EU summit in mid-October of this year, an event of

fundamental importance, and both the United Kingdom and the European community
expect to have already negotiated the pending issues completely, in order to be able to
specify two things:

1. The retirement agreement, which establishes the legal terms of the Brexit, this
includes a payment of 39 million pounds, which were already agreed, which also avoid
Faculty of economics and social sciences

a hard border with Northern Ireland and the rights of European citizens in the United
Kingdom.

2. A political statement about future relationships, especially commercial ones. It will

establish the likely terms of a free trade agreement and security cooperation (Colson,
2018).

Then the British government has a number of possible options for Brexit, the point is
to predict which of them are best suited to the country, generating greater benefits and
less consequences, and the best way to see it is with monetary figures, millions of euros
and sterling pounds, which is provided by a study by Think Tank Global Future, due
to a concise reason, given by the studio director, Jonathan Portes, "If we are going to
decide what kind of Brexit we want, the least we can ask for it's a menu of options with
prices. " Global Future affirms that any of Brexit's implementation options, on average,
would generate a weekly cost of 330 million weekly to 1,400 million euros from the
British public coffers.
Faculty of economics and social sciences

Let's see, the prime choice of Prime Minister Theresa May, which is a "perfect" trade
agreement, would mean at least 615 million pounds sterling (710 million euros) per
week in order to finance public services such as the National Health Service (NHS).

According to Global Future, the least expensive alternative would be the Norwegian
model, which consists in a permanence of the United Kingdom in the single market,
while the Canada model, which consists of a trade agreement without including the
services sector, would have a weekly impact of approximately 1,000 million euros.
The worst scenario that could happen an implementation option would be equivalent
to a weekly expenditure of 1,250 million pounds sterling, which would be an inability
of agreement between Ladres and Brussels, leaving the negotiation and the
relationship available to the rules of the World Trade (WTO) (Fresneda, 2018).
Faculty of economics and social sciences

Conclusions

The United Kingdom from previous years was motivated by a motivation to leave the
European Union, in search of greater independence in its policies, its economy and its
culture, in order not to have a limitation to implement strategies of potentialization in
the international framework , but in pursuit of objectives such as reducing immigration
and loss of British identity, significant economic factors or even more dangerous
integrity of the United Kingdom can be put at risk, with the possibility that Northern
Ireland and Scotland declare their independence given the complete disagreement
about the Brexit.

On the side of the European Union, the effects are enormous and put at risk the solidity
of their integration. England was the financial center of the European Union, also one
of the largest partners that contributed with a large amount of GDP and trade relations
with the rest of the world, with the loss of this, has been producing an imbalance and a
gap that It must be covered. The United Kingdom was a commercial bridge, connecting
the small countries, members of the European Union and close to the British, with the
other countries of the euro zone, acting as representative; Without the United Kingdom,
these countries will reduce their commercial interactions, while carrying out diplomatic
missions and trade agreements. Some may even consider leaving the European Union,
with the same ideal of obtaining better benefits outside of it.

The social impact of this decision is also of great relevance, with the discrepancy and
division in which the United Kingdom is located, the possibility of a disintegration of
the countries that make up the United Kingdom, and the student sector, the which saw
in the European Union a possibility to study and work in any member country, has been
outraged and protesting to remain in the EU. Based on the calculations carried out by
Global Future, where the costs raised by the government ark, which are very high, are
Faculty of economics and social sciences

raised, the company considers whether the decision made on June 23, 2016 in the
referendum was a good decision, and is also a good decision. used by opponents to
argue that leaving the European Union would be an error, and that it has more effects
than benefits.

The United Kingdom, after leaving the European Union, will have its independence
that it longed for and its culture safe, but at a very high cost, although it will obtain
greater profits in its international trade by way of taxes, freights and other, and savings
Because you will not have to pay more contributions to the integration budget, the costs
of the restructuring of Britain after your departure and the effects on the international
market, economic, social and commercial will be greater than the benefits, it is possible
that In the long term, after overcoming changes and reforms after Brexit, it can obtain
benefits.
Faculty of economics and social sciences

Bibliography

Colson, T. (29 de March de 2018). Brexit, one year to go: Time is running out for
Theresa May to get a deal. Business Insider.
EITB. (5 de Mayo de 2018). Bruselas plantea un presupuesto de 1,28 billones para el
periodo post-Brexit. EITB.eus.
EITB. (1 de Marzo de 2018). Londres rechaza mantener a Irlanda del Norte en el
mercado único tras 'Brexit'. EITB.eus.
EITB. (19 de Marzo de 2018). UE y Reino Unido alcanzan acuerdo sobre el periodo
de transición del 'brexit'. EITB.eus.
Ernst & Young S.L. (2016). EY Building a better working world. Obtenido de EY
Building a better working world:
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-brexit-impacto-y-efectos-
inminentes/$FILE/ey-brexit-impacto-y-efectos-inminentes.pdf
Etxebarria, F. (1 de Enero de 2018). Reino Unido busca nuevos mercados para
cuando salga de la Unión Europea. EITB.
EY. (2016). BREXIT: Impacto y efectos Inminentes.
Fresneda, C. (18 de Abril de 2018). Cuatro escenarios fatales para el Brexit. El
Mundo.
Masdeu, J. (30 de Abril de 2018). Nada será igual después del Brexit. Lavanguardia.
Muñoz, A. (23 de Mayo de 2018). El 'Brexit' ya ha costado un 2% del PIB a los
británicos. El Mundo.
Thomas, I. (2016). La batalla por el Reino Unido. Madrid: Politica Exterior.
Faculty of economics and social sciences