Brexit has been a controversial decision, and throughout the previous few articles, we have explored its different impacts. Now, it is time to bring these together to decide whether it was a good decision or a devastating mistake

Throughout this series of articles, we’ve discussed the many negatives and few positives of the decision, especially the impact it can have on London. Brexit may cause the city to fall behind its counterparts like New York and Tokyo, but a contrasting advantage of this is that investment will be more evenly distributed across cities in the United Kingdom and allow them to prosper and grow instead. However, the issue associated is that although it is levelling up the North, it degrades the South, so its economic contribution and net profit are not substantial. This is one of the critical economic and political debates that trouble UK politicians and economists – you cannot level up the North without levelling down the South, at least not without a radical systemic change. Therefore, the government has decided to renege on finding a solution for now and instead focus on fuelling London and, on a broader scale, the South’s vast economic growth and practically abandoning the North. I have discussed this issue further in my article on ‘Left-behind areas’. It addresses the neighbourhoods that are deprived and experiencing modern-day poverty, most of which are found in the Northern regions of England, and how to improve the dire situation without restricting London and the South’s infinite potential for economic development.

Overall, Brexit and its future consequences will cause more economic damage than would be covered by the few advantages. Sadly, the primary reason for this is that the UK’s decision to leave the European Union was politically driven and not founded on improving the country on an economic scale. As a result, any impacts on the economy are often ignored. The decision was made to misdirect the public’s growing concerns of the UK’s debt and economy and instead diverted them towards immigration and the idea of ‘taking back control’. The EU referendum was only initiated due to pressure from a minority in Parliament who wished for a hard full Brexit, with the likes of Nigel Farage and the Brexit Party. So David Cameron decided to create the referendum to reassure his supporters and rebuild confidence in his government, as he expected an easy majority win. However, this was not the case as misinformation from both sides to the public caused a snowball effect where the Brexit movement gained more and more momentum until the day of the referendum came and ‘Leave’ earned a marginal win of 4%, meaning that what was once a tiny thorn in the side of the UK government became one of the most expensive and revolutionary decisions in British history. The European Union was a key ally for the UK and offered a vast and cheap market that allowed UK producers to maximise profits, and so detaching from the EU, although not fatal, will inhibit and reduce any potential future economic growth for years to come.