Also, when it came to laws the arguments put in place for Brexit was that there was too many British’s laws made overseas passed down from Brussels and with then rulings being upheld by the European Court of Justice (Riley-Smith, B. 2018). Which leads the UK courts not having any sovereign. With the European Union planning on “even closer a union” (Miller. V, 2015) with the UK law and economic integration, it makes uncertain on whether how much sovereign will the UK have over their own laws in the future. On the other hand, there was also strong arguments to remain in the Europe Union. proponents EU believer like Pr. Christian Dustman and DR Tommaso Frattini stated in the Economic Society of the Economic Journal “immigration to the UK since 2000 has been of substantial net fiscal benefit, with immigrants contributing more than they have received in benefits and transfers. This is true for the immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe as well as the rest of the EU”. (Ucl.ac.uk, 2014) In addition, leaving will not solve the migration crisis however it will bring it to Britain’s doorstep because border controls from the continent will move from Calais in France to Dover in the UK. One of the strongest argument for staying in the EU was the single market. The single market gives Britain economic advantage, allowing companies to trade across the Europe Union on the same level. With 44 percent of our exports go to the European union and with 48 percent cent of foreign investment into coming from the European. Ernst & Young conducted a survey on foreign direct investors who stated “72% of investors citing access to the European single market as important to the attractiveness, the referendum has the potential to change the perception of the UK dramatically posing a major risk to FDI” (Buttonwood, 2016). Demonstrating, leaving puts Britain at risk of an uncertain future, when it comes to trading as the European council have already said they will not offer the U.K a special deal as it may cause other countries to rebel. Additionally, leaving the European Union comes with uncertainty, as there is the question of the UK budget scheme. The leave party claimed Britain was contributing to the EU budget £350million a week which the head of statics authority stated it was “potentially misleading” (Dilnot. A, 2016). As a refund is given to England before it sends money to the EU then around £5 billion comes back to the UK in the form of regional grants and industry subsidies. The remaining contribution is around 1% of government spending (Buttonwood, 2016). The IFS believes’ the hit to British tax revenues in the event of Brexit will be much larger than £8 billion (Emmerson et al., 2016). There will be no “extra money” to spend, on the NHS which the leave party claimed that we would have. This most likely will lead to an increase of borrowing around £20 – £40 billion in 2019-20 (Emmerson et al., 2016). As it will be hard to maintain the budget which will lead to austerity or high borrowing and debt. On 23rd June the British people voted to leave the European Union and thus creating a curiosity what drove people to vote out. It is believed poverty, education and age were seen as the cause of support for Brexit. It was found the support was found in the older population and people with low levels of education, the people with these qualities were likely to experience deprivation while witnessing the influx of inward migration from EU nationals. For instance, 15 of the 20 ‘least educated areas voted to leave while all of the 20 ‘most highly educated’ areas voted to remain.(Goodwin, J and Heath,O, 2016) Support for Brexit was also stronger than average in areas with a larger number of pensioners. Of the 20 youngest authorities 16 voted to remain, but of the 20 oldest authorities 19 voted to leave. (Goodwin and Heath, 2016). Goodwin and Heath believed that same support can be seen in UKIP and their talk of “left behind communities” the same result of in the areas that were older white people in poor areas and it was UKIP vote for support was consistently weaker in younger and more culturally diverse areas who were finically secure. Explaining why the differences in local demography helped UKIP win 40% in places which struggled economically like Rotherham. However, it is said the role of the leader like Nigel Farage is what persuaded people to vote for UKIP also in the leave campaign the leadership of Boris Johnson. If you liked Boris and agreed with some of the factors you were likely to vote for Brexit. With Farage, he was less welcomed among the professional middle-classes yet more popular among voters who felt left behind. Both leaders knew the by June the core driver for their votes was immigration. The remain side leaders were not as effective compared to the leave campaign. This then leads to the main assumption that the reason people voted for Brexit was due to migration. Communities that received a major influx of migration in last decade were more likely to vote for Brexit. For instance, in Peterborough, it was estimated the growth of EU migration only grew by 7 percentage point and 61 percent of people voted to leave (Goodwin, M and Heath, O,2016). Nevertheless, areas with high levels of EU migration were more likely to be pro-remain. This finding demonstrates the when it came to the effect of migration the effect it had on the referendum was due to the latest experience of sudden change rather than the overall level. It is also believed the roles of attitudes and values had a heavy influence on the referendum, as the issue of sovereignty and national identity towards immigration caused people to vote leave. As nearly 90 percent of people thought immigration was bad for the economy making them vote leave, compared to the 10 percent who believed immigration was good for the economy who voted to stay. Likewise, with 88 percent of people believing the country should have fewer immigrants as these were people who felt “very strongly British” had a very narrow notion of national identity. (Ford,R & Goodwin,M,2016). It is also believed these people felt disillusioned with politics which made them vote to leave. Eric Kaufmann (2016) states people who supported Brexit had socially conservative views in the same way people who voted to stay had liberal views. Giving the impression that there is an underlying difference in values to what people consider to be important. Indicating why people were so attracted to leave the EU. Also the level of support for Brexit can be seen in deprived areas . The Financial Times (2016), performed two economist analysation which discussed the relationship between wage growth as a reason for the leave vote and whether there was any correlation between the past UKIP vote. They found a notable link between a lack of wage growth and votes going to UKIP at the 2015 general election. Which can be seen in the struggling communities like Castle Point in Essex the with the wage being declined to 13% since 1997. Based on these results it was stated that the disappointing economic predication made by the remain campaign had failed to resonate within communities that for a generation hadmissed out on increases of wages that have been displaced elsewhere in the country. (Neville, 2016) However, the work of the Resolution Foundation claims there is no link between prosperity and on why people voted out. As some of the areas who did vote to leave had a big increase in hourly earnings like in Christchurch in Dorset. Unlike Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire who experienced a drop in earning who voted to stay. However, it can be suggested aggravate level is from a long entrenchment of feeling left out instead of levels of income which may explain why people voted out. In general, it was areas where people tended to earn less that voted for Brexit even if these were not always the communities that had been the most badly affected in recent years. The implication is that ‘it’s the shape of our long-lasting and deeply entrenched national geographical inequality that drove differences in the voting patterns'(Bell, T. (2018).