Brexit poses a threat to Ireland’s aircraft-leasing business

The Irish economy has been a source of concern for the EU since 2008 banking crisis. Though they are still struggling, they did manage to bring in significant revenue in with the enactment of low corporate tax rates (12.5%) which led lots of foreign corporations to place their headquarters in Dublin, some major ones being Facebook, Apple, etc.

This article takes a look at how Brexit might affect the Irish economy by explaining the potential impact it could have on Ireland's largest industry: aircraft finance. Ireland is a prominent hub for aircraft leasing and financing, and this industry accounted for majority (approx. 76%) of the 26% growth that Ireland saw in 2015. They are currently leasing 40% of their fleet. Ireland had always been attractive to corporations due to their low corporate tax rates (12.5%) and their proximity to London.  If the world corporate centers start moving away from London to Hong Kong or Singapore this may have an adverse effect on the aircraft finance industry. The EU has been trying to push for more leveled taxes for a while now but Britain had always been a negotiating voice in regards to Ireland and their taxing policies, and without Britain they may not be able to continue to keep such low corporate tax rates.

When Dan O'Brien, the Irish Chief Economist from the Institute of International and European Affairs came to visit last year he spoke expansively about Brexit and touched on how the Irish economy was dependent on Britain being a part of the EU. He talked about how without Britain in the EU, it will become very German dominated and given how Britain was the closest US ally, this will weaken transatlantic ties as well. The majority of Irish exports go to the US (as presented by the The Irish Times graph) and any weakening of those ties may be fatal to their economy.

Ireland will have to deal with a lot of uncertainty over the next two years and their performance will affect the EU as a whole, they will have to adapt to the changing geopolitical situations to maintain stability.

Silicon Valley Fights Back

Silicon Valley leaders are at the forefront of the "corporate resistance" to President Trump's immigration ban. As an industry that thrives on the efforts put forth by immigrants it is not surprising that they are fighting back. Tech giants, startups, and the industry's power players have pledged their support for ACLU, which has filed a lawsuit against this appalling executive order. Some also took part in protests that occurred earlier at international airports across the country. Immigrants have played a key role in finding some of the American economy's most successful companies in the tech industry which include Apple, Google, eBay and many others. They did a much better job of speaking out against this muslim ban (calling it like it really is) as opposed to key players in other industries. Companies such as Apple and Google have offered legal aid to their employees that have been affected by this order. Airbnb has offered to house refugees and immigrants for free while Lyft founders have pledged to donate $1 million to ACLU in their efforts to revoke this ban.

Immigrants make up the tech industry's backbone. Elon Musk and Travis Kalanick have said that they would voice industry concerns to Trump's business advisory council. However, I agree that it will not be enough to sway Washington's stance on the ban. Immigrants have contributed to the American economy and that is a fact many in favor of the ban refuse to acknowledge. They make approximately 18% of the labor force and many are business owners. Their share of small businesses is higher than U.S born workers.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/10/silicon-valley-fighting-trump-travel-ban.html

The Multinational Company is in Trouble

The rise of multinational corporations in the 1990’s created a beneficial system that many less developed countries flourished on. Multinational corporations were giving money to countries in exchange for cheap labor and low costs. Trade boomed and consumer choice of products became the norm. Companies such as McDonalds, Ford and IBM led the way to a global society where MNC’s do about 50% of trade.

President Trump has recently announced through executive orders, higher tariffs and the abolition of trade agreements in favor of a more protectionist stance. MNC’s have earned a reputation of cutting corners to increase profits and are not favorable by the new administration. However, this is not necessarily the case within the last 5 years. According to the article, profits have decreased by 25% and returns on capital are the lowest in 20 years which, is a significant decrease. 

Consumers have long benefited from price and consumer choice of multinational corporations. With the protectionist stance taken by the new Trump Administration, there is going to be even more profound effects on the market and multinational corporation profits further. The article believes that with the protectionist stance taken, there will be fewer firms in competition, higher prices and slow innovation which, would hurt not only the firm but also the consumer. 



http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21715660-global-firms-are-surprisingly-vulnerable-attack-multinational-company-trouble

Ukraine's Economy: The Other War

Ukraine's conflict with Russia has continued on since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. During the 2013 protests in Independence Square, then-President Victor Yanukovych received a $3 billion bond from Russia to deal with the pro-EU protesters' demands. Even after Russia and Ukraine's conflict, the money was never paid back.

The bond was issued under English law, and Russia has taken legal action against Ukraine in London courts. Issues facing Ukraine's repayment of the bond has come from Russian aggression and resistance. In 2015, Russia refused to partake in a group of creditors' attempt to restructure the debt; the annexation of Crimea and war in the Donbas region has made repayment to Russia extremely difficult; furthermore, Russia has put sanctions on Ukrainian importation and has slowed gas supply to Ukraine. Because of these Russia actions, the GDP in Ukraine has fallen by 15%, and the hyvnia has fallen from 8:1 USD in 2013, to 25:1 USD.

On the bright side, there has a been a resurgence recently as the hyvnia has fallen, making exportation more favorable. Ukrainian citizens are viewing the recession's end, and markets are beginning to flourish (regardless of pro-Russia Trump's election).

Pressure on the hyvnia will begin again with the repayment of the bond, as well as anger Ukrainian citizens. In order to repay the bond, Ukraine will have to pay approximately $15 billion, equivalent to their current reserves of foreign exchange.

Ultimately, Russian aggression and insistence to have control over its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe comes as their power diminishes: its removal from the G8, EU sanctions causing a tank in the economy, and the United States' beginning self-reliance on gas, which is Russia's largest export, has caused gas prices to fall dramatically. With this, and a need to exert power and nationalist sentiment in Russians living outside of Russia as NATO and the EU continues to expand, it is not surprising that Russia is being seen as the bad guy- this has always been their foreign policy.

As for Ukraine, the stretch of the looming debts that need to be repayed is daunting. The market for agriculture was supposed to be expanded by foreign investment, but has fallen through. Per capita GDP is one-tenth of the United States', and like many other countries under the sphere of influence of Russia, the 2019 election will have a loud populist voice, following the worldwide trend of embedded liberalism's demise.

"Ukraine's Economy: The Other War." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 21 January 2017.

IMF Warns Eurogroup Loan Measures Not Enough for Greek Debt

It's been a year and a half since the Greek debt crisis was making headline international news. However, the EU and other international organizations' difficulty with administering aid has not gone away. Economic forecasters have estimated that the debt will rise as high as 275 percent of the Greek GDP by 2060. On February 6th the IMF will meet and discuss the issue facing the Greek economy and how laws that the Greek government can implement might make creditors more comfortable with taking on this burden. The IMF and creditors to Greece suggest that the country should implement austerity measures. However, this has not been received well by Greek officials.What policies could Greece put forth to make the country more welcoming to creditors?

It seems as though austerity measures in Greece might help make Greek debt more sustainable in the short term, but if Greece want's to improve their stagnating economy shouldn't the government spend more? Also, if increasing taxes could be a part of these austerity measures would this make a difference if the Greek people are already struggling to pay the taxes they already have?

Taxing the poor: Making protectionism unpopular again

This article discusses the growing popularity in tariffs. Originally, these tariffs were considered stomach taxes because tariffs affected imported goods that made products like bread. These tariffs increased the price; the rich didn’t feel this price as significantly as the poor thus dubbing these tariffs as poor tax or “stomach tax”. Taxing products coming in, is protectionist. It protects products made within the US, but taxes what once were cheaper foreign made goods. This article argues that protectionist policies will not help rebuild American manufacturing jobs; in fact the protectionist policies will greatly affect consumers. Partially, because consumers are not aware of how many purchased goods are imported. The impact of tariffs on just China and Mexico “would hit poor Americans the hardest: A tariff of 45% on imports from China and Japan and 35% on Mexican imports would cost US households in the lowest 10% of income up to 18% of their (mean) after-tax income or $4,670 over 5 years.”  A worldwide tariff would “[cost] households in the lowest decile 53% of their annual income, while it would cost households in the highest decile 7% of their incomes”. Protectionist policies have a much wider affect than previously thought. This article does not even cover the potential affect our protectionist policies would have on the American international trade relationships. It seems unlikely that normal trading partners won’t create their own tariffs against American exported goods, creating a more negative impact on US manufacturing. 

Link: http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2017/01/taxing-poor

Trump executive order: White House stands firm over travel ban

Throughout his campaign Trump mentioned a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S. He signed an executive order on Friday to ban people from 7 countries (Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen). Trump's administration said that the seven countries were chosen because they had been identified by Congress and the Obama administration as the most likely to have terrorists.

Even though there have been many court rulings throughout the country against this executive order, expect most Republicans and the White House to continue to support the 120 day ban.

In response to the executive order there have been many demonstrations at airports across the country and there will most likely continue to be more including one in front of the White House potentially. A lot of criticism of the ban has come from outside the United States as well. It will be interesting to see other nations and people with ties back to those 7 countries react to it.

How much the border wall will really cost

This article is interesting to me regarding the estimated $10 billion dollar operation to build a will to slow immigration from Mexico.  It stuck out to me that the article mentions that the funding going towards the construction of the wall, could easily construct a road that could span from Seattle to Miami.  This stuck out to me because of Trump's campaign for the construction of roads and highways that he has made so clear.  So I am left questioning where all the funding will come from to fulfill both promises of construction.  I am eager to watch how soon this plan is put into action and how it will effect the American people in the future.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/25/news/economy/trump-mexico-border-wall-cost/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

Making Mexico Pay for Border Wall: Ideas Abound, and So Do Obstacles

President Trump proposed on Thursday that he plans on using Mexican money to build his wall.  Trump suggested that a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico, totaling around 300 billion dollars will fund it.  The article explains some trouble with tariffs, starting with the fact that a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico would violate the North American Free Trade Agreement and also the rules of the World Trade Organization.  Trump also talked about taking the United States out of the global trade accord, which would likely impose enormous costs on the American and world economies and could even start a global trade war.

            The article goes on to talk about blocking money transfers. It states that Mexico receives about $25 billion a year from Mexicans living abroad, primarily in the United States.  Trump threatened that he will change the rules of the Patriot Act antiterrorism law to forbid immigrants who cannot prove that they are a legal resident from tiring money abroad.  Trump hopes that the loss of resources will force the Mexican government to offer to pay for the wall.

The article also dives into possible ways of getting access to other money.  It suggests charging Mexicans more for visas and boarder cards, but it would take a ton of charges to be able to cover the cost of the wall.  Mexican companies have close to $20 billion dollars and nearly 12 million Mexicans investing and living in the United States so Trump could most likely find money somewhere, but he must be careful of the income tax treaty the United States has with Mexico.  The United States agreed to tax Mexican residents who are subject to income tax at a reduced rate.  Trump needs to make sure that he does not break the law.

            The article concludes by talking about the overall ultimate price, stating that Trump has acknowledged that how Mexico pays might be very complicated, which could bean that he plans on getting a majority of the money elsewhere.  Trump must be careful on how he finds funding for his wall.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/26/business/economy/mexico-pay-border-wall-trump.html?ref=business

Trump's immigration ban sends shockwaves

As of Saturday, Trump's executive order will ban more than 130 million people from the United States and will deny entry to all refuges. The move sent "chaos and confusion" through law enforcement agencies, airports, and foreign capitals, as they attempt to "grasp the US's new policy." The executive order is set to ban travelers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, and Yemen, all of which are Muslim majority nations, earning the order the title of "Muslim ban."

Effects of the order have been seen recently at John F. Kennedy Airport where more than 300 demonstrators attended, in protest of the recent policy. Recently, protest also took place at Logan airport in Boston with over 100 demonstrators.

Trumps administration has responded to recent comments of racism by saying that this was necessary in order to improve the "vetting" process of travelers. Trump also added that he believes the government "is totally prepared" to handle the situation. President Trump has signed a large amount of executive orders in his short time as president, many of which bring have brought concern and confusion to the public and it will be interesting to see how the public and other nations react to Trump's policy.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/28/politics/donald-trump-executive-order-immigration-reaction/index.html

Trump pulls TPP bid

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-25/r-i-p-tpp

In the first few days of Trumps administration he has taken several executive actions.  One in particularly had been in the works for many years it was also subject to attacks from both Trump and Clintom during the election campaign.   TPP or the Trans Pacific Partnership was more than just another "free trade" deal as Trump would label it.  It provided protections for labor including freedom of association, prohibitions on forced or child labor, and the right to collectively bargain.  It also would've benefited corporations as well as it allowed for them to receive intellectual protection all the way to being treated the same as local business in the countries that signed the agreement.

It seems that the very things that Trump had talked about needing to do to improve trade like protecting the American worker and more would've been covered in TPP.  Although some did question if it were possible to enforce the rules outlined in it. It still seems like it would be an improvement from the current situation. 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-21f

I felt that this s article fit in well with what other people were posting about. Trumps wall is huge in the news right now.

I thought that this article was interesting because trump has been promising to build this wall ever since he started running for president. He said that with building this wall the crime rate will decrease because the amount of illegal immigrants will be reduced. I feel that building the wall will not make a great impact on the crime rate because not all criminals are immigrants. Another question I have is who is going to be paying for the wall cause Mexico already stated that they will not be paying for the wall, if that's true how is the United States going to fund this. The money that will be spent could be used to better the health and education of the United States. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out 

The 12 executive actions Trump has signed (so far)

Being in office for only a week, Donald Trump has signed 12 executive actions. Among these actions we can find the order to begin building the wall and the pipelines, massive deportations, federal hiring freeze, cut funding for organization that provide abortion services and more. Most of these actions require funding which currently the U.S does not have. The action signed to begin building the wall states that aside from contracting a company to begin the construction, the U.S will hire about 5,000 new border patrol agents. That is 5,000 new salaries which is only for one operation and yet he signed the action to begin the construction of the pipelines. 

Trump also signed the executive action to begin the massive deportation of immigrants. This action also states that now law enforcement officers must act as immigration officers. Therefore, if they believe that a person is illegal they have the right to stop them and ask them for their documents. However, it doesn't end there. This action also orders the Homeland Security to block any federal grants to "sanctuary cities," such as Los Angeles, which do not enforce immigration laws. 

Some of his executive actions require funding and others cut program funding. However, those that do require funding are large projects that will require funding that we currently do not have. This will then mean that our taxes will increase in order to proceed working on these projects. 

Article: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/10-executive-actions-trump-signed-far/

Student Loans, the Next Big Threat to the U.S. Economy?

This article brings an insightful view of how student loans might be impacting the economy. The article talks about how in the third quarter of 2013, the student loan debt was a massive $1 trillion, which since then till today has increased by 11.8%. The New York Federal Reserve believes that this increase in student debt can be harmful to the economy because, "People can have trouble with the student loan debt burden—unable to buy cars, unable to buy homes—and so it can really delay the cycle.” The article also had an interesting perspective on how a student loan is linked to the university a student attends and the major they are pursuing.


However, if the US department of education decreases student loans wouldn't there be a increase in the unemployment rate and the Labor Force Participation rate because there is a shortage of skilled labor which in turn can have an impact on economic growth? Could one possible way to combat the problems associated with high student debt be decreasing the cost of attending a public university?

Link:https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-01-16/student-loans-the-next-big-threat-to-the-u-dot-s-dot-economy

20% Mexico Tariff to Pay for Trump's Wall

How Donald Trump plans to pay for his wall on the US Mexico Border has been a huge (yuge) question throughout his campaign. He previously stated that he would negotiate with Mexico, and that they would simply pay for it. Not surprisingly, Mexico was not overly willing to do so.

Today, Trump introduced a plan to place a 20% tariff on all Mexican imports to the US. The math actually works as a 20% tax on $303 B, the amount of goods the US imported from Mexico in 2015, would yield more than enough money to pay for the wall.

While this may appear to solve the problem, Americans may end up with the burden after all. These high tariffs would cause many prices to rise, as many companies have their goods assembled and processed in Mexico. Ford, GM, Walmart, and Best Buy would likely be affected. It will be very interesting to see how everything unfolds.


http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/26/news/economy/trump-mexico-tariff/index.html

President Trump’s infrastructure plans probably involve more tolls

With the inauguration of President Trump came the 100 day countdown. Largely considered the most important time in a president's term, these first 100 days in office will set the tone for the rest of his time in the White House.

While President Trump spoke a big game on the campaign trail, it was hard to nail down any exact policy plans. The same can be said for his comments regarding rebuilding infrastructure. President Trump promised to rebuild our roads, fix our bridges, and make American infrastructure great again. Yet, he was noticeably vague when asked about how he was going to go about doing this.

In a plan just released, President Trump helped clarify. Rather than spend public money, he plans to incentivize private companies to rebuild our infrastructure in an amount he hopes will reach a trillion dollars after a decade. The problem with this, however, is that there needs to be a real and tangible incentive for these private companies. There is a reason roads, highways, etc have taken on the role of a public good; because absent tolls, there is no way to make money from building a road.

Thus, it seems that President Trump is simply shifting the economic impact around, rather than eliminating it. Sure, we may not be asked to pay more in taxes so that we can rebuild infrastructure. But if it is left to the private sector, we will most likely see an increase in the amount of tolls and costs associated with using roads, public transportation, and the like.

This will be an interesting term for many reasons, but it will be especially interesting to see what role the private sector will play throughout President Trump's presidency, and if it will actually save tax payer dollars.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/01/pay-you-go

Five Potential Improvements to NAFTA

This article by Christopher Wilson outlines five elements of NAFTA the President could and should address during his eminent renegotiation of the Agreement.  Many obstacles faced by the working class (unemployment, job insecurity, etc) have been attributed in part to free trade agreements like NAFTA by the President and many other sources. Therefore, a renegotiation or possible withdrawal from the Agreement is imperative for the Trump Administration.  A complete withdrawal from NAFTA would be incredibly costly for the United States; thus, the article explores renegotiation options on a bedrock of liberalizing trade and the necessity for investment in workforce development.  

The first item on the list for improvement is a general overhaul encompassing the modern technology we use to do business; issues like transnational flows of data, as well as the exportation of digital products should be included (Wilson).  Second, the simplification of customs paperwork, and raising the threshold for the value of shipments before they face customs revisions would encourage small businesses to venture into foreign trade with Canada and Mexico (Wilson).  As technology improves, business is becoming more impersonal, this would act as a material incentive for small businesses to increase their gains from trade.  Third, the article proposes that the rules of origin for qualifying for tariff benefits to be strengthened in certain regions and industries, resulting in higher job growth and investments.  The fourth improvement the President could make to NAFTA would be the strengthening of NAFTA labor rights, maneuvering the issue into NAFTA itself instead of as a side agreement.  The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation stipulates that North American countries should follow their own labor laws; however, the enforcement of labor rights in certain areas is lacking (Wilson).  This would incentivize companies to remain in the United States instead of moving to Mexico at the cost of workers’ rights (Wilson).  Fifth and finally, emphasis in NAFTA should be placed on eliminating obstacles to services exports; according to the article, the United States already has an advantage in the trade high skill service industries, and has maintained a surplus in this trade with Mexico (Wilson).  Overall, the renegotiation of NAFTA allows for the visible hand to make a potential improvement in the policies of our economic system in our increasingly globalized world.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/themexicoinstitute/2017/01/23/trump-to-announce-plans-for-renegotiation-of-nafta-five-ways-to-improve-the-agreement/#5cf6d9f3302b

Wilson, Christopher. "Five Ways Trump Could Improve NAFTA." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 23 Jan. 2017. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.

Federal Policy Will Shift. Not All States Will Shift With It.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/upshot/federal-policy-will-shift-not-all-states-will-shift-with-it.html?ref=economy

With the arrival of an unprecedented Trump presidency comes many unknowns. How will the world react? How will the markets react? How will the states react? This article explores the differing reactions states are having to Trump. For example, Gov. Jerry Brown of California has increased efforts in California to combat climate change by negotiating carbon emission reduction agreements with other states and countries in response to Trump's declared skepticism of climate change. In reaction to the threat of a Republican Congress withdrawing support of Planned Parenthood, states have increased state levies to maintain funding for the organization. Some states, such as California, are raising the marginal income tax rate to fund healthcare and other programs at risk of ending. Though the arrival of new President Trump will carry repercussions, states have always had the power to experiment and do their own thing in reaction to the federal government. Part of the United State's economic system is the separation of power between the states and the federal government. This decentralized structure of power allows for reactions to a new leader, especially now. 

To be relevant, economists need to take politics into account

This article details the importance of integrating economic models with politics or process. This allows models to be more comprehensive and predictive when it comes to explaining economics in the real-world.  Recently, the push has been to incorporate this into the American Economic Association Conference so researchers can be on the forefront of discussing and disseminating this information.  Many economist think that these political issues are often outside the scope of their research and it is not realistic to include them.

This article sheds light on some potential shortcomings of the current research pertaining to economic research that coincides closely with policy.  However, it seems that much of these issues are tremendously complex, so adding more variables to the mix may only dilute the current research.  Particularly, when it comes to macroeconomics and trying to sift out causal relationships amongst a vast system of institutions and players.  I am curious to see how economic models with a policy bent will fare in strengthening the existing research...



To be relevant, economists need to take politics into account http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21714363-advent-trump-administration-finds-economics-profession-crisis

Trump could gut public health funding at the exact time we need it most

We’re hearing a lot about the 22 million people who may lose their health insurance if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. But there’s another less publicized issue that could play out if the ACA is gutted: States could lose critical funding for public-health efforts like responding to outbreaks, vaccination programs, and anti-smoking and anti-obesity campaigns.

Not every state will be impacted in the same way. Some of the preventive-health funding is population-based and some of it is grant based, though the Trust for America’s Health said the biggest states tend to be hardest hit because they have more municipalities that can receive grants.

Removing the funding will mean less money for responses to outbreaks, less money to fight the opioid epidemic, less money to fight superbugs in hospitals, and less money for vaccination programs. It’ll also mean more scrambling for cash at already cash-strapped public health offices. “The indirect impact of the ACA repeal,” Auerbach added, “is that the funding has to come from somewhere else.”

When public health works, it’s often invisible. When we have mosquito-control programs that prevent Zika from spreading, it’s a non-story. When we aren’t poisoned by our food, it’s a non-story. It’s also more difficult to talk about the benefits of public health: They tend to be long term, slow to show up, and affect entire populations instead of individuals. "Public health has little news value — saving statistical lives doesn't make for good human-interest stories or photo ops," Hemenway writes.

In Trump’s healthcare reform position statement, he said, “The best social program has always been a job — and taking care of our economy will go a long way towards reducing our dependence on public health programs.” It’s not clear how job creation would stop an Ebola outbreak, or control tobacco, or test people for STDs. But we will soon find out.

Doing Brexit the hard way

Since England's vote to leave the EU the country has been facing the reality of that decision. Mrs. May, their new Prime Minister, has announced her strategy towards the UK's decision to leave the EU. On January 17th she announced that she will be making a "clean" break from the EU. This means that she intends to unchain the UK from the regulations of the EU while working to maintain trade with the EU and countries around the world.

This is a more liberal approach to Brexit, which has alleviated concerns from businesses throughout the world. This vision of a "Global Britain" had an immediate effect by raising the value of the pound. The metaphor that Mrs. May drew was  "Singapore on steroids". For according to the vision the Prime Minister has laid out the nation would be able to become more competitive in the global economy. This would include lower taxes, less needless regulation, and freer global trade than before.

However, there are several serious problems that remain unaddressed in this admittedly thorough response to the nation. The first is the lack of follow through. So far Mrs. May has focused on the immigration aspects of Brexit which is restrictive towards trade. Secondly, Mrs. May hinted that her vision would allow Britain to selectively access the EU's single market, which is the free trade market between all EU nations, such as in the auto industry. This selectivity is important because to remain in the single market requires that Britain remains in the EU. The problem here is that there is no longer a neutral judge to oversee these trade deals and that the World Trade Organization(WTO) restricts this level of access. If Britain can have selective access then so must countries like China and India. Even if they could overcome the WTO's restrictions, the EU is unlikely to be particularly receptive to Britain.

Mrs. May remained positive about the status of Britain's economy, citing pessimistic forecasts to prove the economy's resilience. Somehow she ignored the fact that Britain has not yet left the EU as a part of this positive perspective on the Economy. Nor did she mention the difficulty of negotiating a new trade agreement with the 27 countries within the EU or the 53 countries that the EU has established trade agreements with. Despite a receptive response from president-elect Donald Trump there is still a long road ahead of this Prime Minister.

The reality of the situation is that Britain has experienced some backlash due to the Brexit vote, however looking optimistically at the economy's ability to remain relatively unscathed is misguided. The EU has been united against Britain since the vote. Britain's exports make up 3% of the EU's GDP however, the EU's exports make up 12% of Britain's. Mrs. May has stated that she is willing to have no deal rather than a bad deal, which is a dangerous sentiment coming from the nation which currently holds a position of weakness.

"Doing Brexit the Hard Way." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 18 Jan. 2017. Web. 18 Jan. 2017.