Question

What do you think of the Brexit situation? If you were a British citizen, would you be for or against Brexit and why

From a business perspective, what are some of the benefits and drawbacks of more government control

Answer 1

1. It is very clear - and opinion polls have demonstrated this for some time - that the mood in Britain has now swung clearly against Brexit. A government that now goes ahead and goes through with Brexit will clearly be taking the UK out of the EU against the will of the people, and most decision-makers now recognise this.

Of course, Brexit still has its vocal supporters, but they are now largely limited to the remnants of the right-wing UKIP (UK Independence) party, the sovereignist and neo-conservative wing of the Conservative party, and a part of the far left; and of those who are still seduced by their populist arguments.

The British public still want a deal, which is based on a close relationship with the EU with the most preferred option resembling membership of the EEA.

People’s preferences in terms of the relative importance of different aspects of the UK’s relationship with the EU have not changed substantially in the last year.

There are pros and cons of brexit, If i were a British citizen i would definitely be against brexit considering the consequences it would have

Membership fee

Brexiteers argued that leaving the EU would result in an immediate cost saving, as the country would no longer contribute to the EU budget. In 2016, Britain paid in £13.1bn, but it also received £4.5bn worth of spending, said Full Fact, “so the UK’s net contribution was £8.5bn”.

What was harder to determine was whether the financial advantages of EU membership, such as free trade and inward investment, outweighed the upfront costs.

Trade

The EU is a single market in which imports and exports between member states are exempt from tariffs and other barriers. Services, including financial services, can also be offered without restriction across the continent. The consequences of Brexit for businesses that took advantage of these freedoms was always a matter of debate and conjecture.

Business for New Europe said tax revenues would drop if companies carrying out large amounts of business with Europe - particularly banks - moved their headquarters back into the EU. Fears that carmakers could scale back or even end production in the UK if vehicles could no longer be exported tax-free to Europe were underlined by BMW’s decision, in 2016, to remind its UK employees at Rolls-Royce and Mini of the “significant benefit” EU membership conferred.

For Brexiteers, sovereignty was seen as a simple win: even the most ardent Remainers had to admit that EU membership involved giving up some control over domestic affairs.

Pro-Brexit Labour MP Kate Hoey said at the time that the EU was “an attempt to replace the democratic power of the people with a permanent administration in the interests of big business”. Those on the right of the Conservative party might have disagreed with her emphasis, but they shared the view that EU institutions drained power from the UK parliament. For Leavers, exiting the EU would allow Britain to re-establish itself as a truly independent nation with connections to the rest of the world.

Pro-EU campaigners put economic security at the heart of their message, claiming three million jobs would be lost if Britain voted to leave. But Brexiteers branded the campaign “Project Fear”, dismissing it as a collection of gloomy fantasies.

Those two simple positions masked a complex debate about economic forecasts and employment rates, which intersected with arguments about trade policy and migration.

2. A command economy is one in which a centralized government controls the means of production. This has has both advantages and disadvantages when compared to a free market economy.

In a command economy, the government determines what is produced, how it is produced and how it is distributed. Private enterprise does not exist in a command economy. The government employs all workers and unilaterally determines their wages and job duties.

There are benefits and drawbacks to command economy structures. Command economy advantages include low levels of inequality and unemployment, and the common good replacing profit as the primary incentive of production. Command economy disadvantages include lack of competition and lack of efficiency.

The Advantages of a Command Economy

Less Inequality

Because the government controls the means of production in a command economy, it determines who works where and for how much pay. This power structure contrasts sharply with a free market economy, in which private companies control the means of production and hire workers based on business needs, paying them wages set by invisible market forces.

Low Unemployment Levels

Unlike the invisible hand of the free market, which cannot be manipulated by a single company or individual, a command economy government can set wages and job openings to create the unemployment rate and wage distribution that it sees fit.

Common Good Versus Profit a Priority

Whereas the motivation for profit drives most business decisions in a free market economy, it is a non-factor in a command economy. A command economy government, therefore, can tailor products and services to benefit the common good without regard to profits and losses. For example, most true command economy governments, such as Cuba, offer free, universal healthcare coverage to their citizens.

The Disadvantages of a Command Economy

Lack of Competition Inhibits Innovation

Critics argue that the inherent lack of competition in command economies hinders innovation and keeps prices from resting at an optimal level for consumers. Although those who favor government control criticize private firms that esteem profit above all else, it is undeniable that profit is a motivator and drives innovation. At least partly for this reason, many advancements in medicine and technology have come from countries with free market economies, such as the United States and Japan.

Inefficiency

Efficiency is also compromised when the government acts as a monolith, controlling every aspect of a country's economy. The nature of competition forces private companies in a free market economy to minimize red tape and keep operating and administrative costs to a minimum. If they get too bogged down with these expenses, they earn lower profits or need to raise prices to meet expenses. Ultimately, they are driven out of the market by competitors capable of operating more efficiently. Production in command economies is notoriously inefficient as the government feels no pressure from competitors or price-conscious consumers to cut costs or streamline operations. They also may be slower to respond – or even completely nonresponsive – to consumer needs or changing tastes.