Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help

Help in Homework
trustpilot ratings
google ratings


Homework answers / question archive / Policy Options Section After clearly describing the problem at hand, your policy brief will analyze different options for resolving the problem

Policy Options Section After clearly describing the problem at hand, your policy brief will analyze different options for resolving the problem

Writing

Policy Options Section After clearly describing the problem at hand, your policy brief will analyze different options for resolving the problem. While the problem description section draws heavily on descriptive writing (painting a picture of the problem at hand and explaining why it’s important), the policy options section draws heavily on persuasive writing. Here, you’ll be making a clear and coherent argument about the pros and cons of different approaches to resolve the problem you’ve described. For the purpose of this assignment, you should present two policy alternatives. Both policy alternatives should be realistic—please do not posit “straw man” options that would not be considered viable by anyone familiar with your case. As emphasized by Young and Quinn, the policy options section should: 1) Specifically describe the policy alternatives. After reading this section, your audience should clearly understand how the two distinct policies could be implemented. 2) Evaluate the two policy alternatives based on chosen criteria (eg, cost-effectiveness, feasibility, timeliness, scale of impact, etc.). You’ll describe why your chosen criteria are important and discuss how effectively each policy satisfies the criteria (eg, Policy A costs a lot, but it can produce immediate change. Policy B is inexpensive, but will take a long time to produce any change). 3) Provide a convincing argument for the preferred policy alternative. By the end of this section, the reader should know which policy is preferred and why it’s the better one. The preferred option should be your second option. Young and Quinn (p. 68) provide a series of questions that offer a helpful guide for the policy options section: - What is your overall evaluation of each policy option? - You’ve selected one preferred policy alternative. Why is it your preferred alternative? What’s lacking in the other policy alternative(s)? - How did you base your decision on which policy alternative is the best? - What are the limitations to your preferred option? Your policy options section should be between 900-1200 words. Policy Option 1: Creating a ‘Frictionless’ Border With Northern Ireland, England, and the EU all advocating for a ‘border-free’ Brexit, the key issue is determining how this can be realistically achieved. A policy option put forth by Britain and EU policymakers includes using new procedures and technology to create a ‘frictionless’ border or smart border. A smart border addresses the need for a border and customs compliance without the traditional delays experienced at borders. By using technology, borders can operate smoothly, relying heavily on cross-border cooperation and shifting compliance processes to either before or after the border (Karlsson, 2017, p. 21). Similar models have been enacted at Schengen borders and between the United States and Canada, making this a viable option for Northern Ireland. Another key area of concern is facilitating the free movement of people and goods. Border control will impact up to 30,000 ‘cross-border’ workers who will be directly inconvenienced by border checks (Tonge, 2017, p. 8). To mitigate this, the border would be controlled using a “trusted traders scheme,” in which pre-approved companies and vendors can receive clearance. The objective of the trusted traders scheme is to retain key trade relations, while encouraging smooth cross-border travel. Ultimately, a ‘frictionless’ border aims to alleviate the disruptions and inconveniences that may arise from a standard hard border. Evaluating Policy Option 1: Limitations of a ‘Frictionless’ Border The use of technology and cooperation to create a ‘frictionless’ border helps balance the demands of Brexit and those affected by daily travel across the border. Despite proponents arguing that a ‘frictionless’ or smart border would differ from a ‘hard border,’ this option ultimately results in returning a border to the island. Consequently, it would be difficult to determine how “visible or intrusive it would be,” serving as a visual reminder for victims of the Northern Ireland conflict (Taylor, 2017, p. 2). Free movement not only affects convenience, but is also crucial to reconciliation efforts as it fosters the sharing and exchange of goods, ideas, perspectives, and experiences. In addition to forestalling the healing process, the implementation of a ‘hard border’ bears heavy economic and social consequences. This policy option highlights the movement of goods, but fails to address how the movement of people will be managed. Individuals who don’t want to be inconvenienced by daily border checks may simply resort to residing and/or working on ‘their side,’ further deepening segregation. Additionally, Swedish experts believe that using a trusted traders scheme would impose an administrative burden, restricting the scheme to only large companies (Campbell, 2018, p. 2). This can negatively impact trade and hurt smaller businesses who may profit from doing their business elsewhere. A ‘frictionless’ border helps mitigate the fear and negative consequences of a hard border, but doesn’t eliminate the notion of dividing the island with a border. Policy Option 2: Granting Northern Ireland ‘Special Status’ to Remain in the EU Bloc Many policy makers have argued for Northern Ireland to remain in the EU bloc, granting it ‘special status’ within the UK. By doing so, Northern Ireland would be granted separate economic status to stay within the EU and would be allowed to maintain the same benefits that the UK is opting to withdraw from—the Single Market and Customs Union. This would eliminate the idea of having a hard border on the island of Ireland and in turn, eliminates the possibility of violence reemerging near the border. However, the issue of border control would have to be controlled by Britain, shifting immigration checks to ports and airports between Britain and Northern Ireland. This would effectively make the Irish Sea the new border between Britain and the EU (Taylor, 2017, p.2). Granting Northern Ireland ‘special status’ aims to achieve the goals of Brexit, without jeopardizing key elements of the Northern Ireland peace process. Evaluating Policy Option 2: Avoidance of a Hard Border Through ‘Special Status’ This policy option aims to delicately balance the goals of Brexit, without hindering the Northern Ireland peace process. By granting ‘special status’ to Northern Ireland, the movement of people and goods can remain fairly undisturbed, in comparison to implementing a ‘frictionless’ border. However, many argue that one of the primary reasons behind Brexit was to regain political and economic control within the UK, and by granting ‘special status’ to Northern Ireland, the constitutionality of the UK can be jeopardized. Skoutaris (2018) argues that given Northern Ireland’s unique position of having to uphold its peace process, a ‘special status’ would not compromise UK’s constitutionality. For example, other nations have special territories, such as Spanish cities in Africa. Ranging from historical, geographical, and political reasons, these territories share a different relationship with their national governments than the rest of the member state’s territory (Skoutaris, 2018, p.2). Although this option calls for close and difficult negotiations between the UK and the EU, the economic and social costs of implementing a hard border can be avoided. Additionally, granting Northern Ireland ‘special status’ can lighten economic impacts, as well as facilitate the free movement of individuals. Free trade of goods has benefitted both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. The EU is the largest export market for Northern Ireland, resulting in £3.63bn in 2014, compared to £2.53bn of non-EU exports (Tonge, 2017, p. 9). If a hard border is implemented, trade relations with the EU would be greatly disrupted. The weight of this decision would disproportionately affect the economy of Northern Ireland. This can fuel greater hostility between the two sides, especially if individuals feel that they are economically disadvantaged in comparison to their counterparts. To uphold Brexit’s aim of controlling immigrant movement into the UK, Britain can work closely with the EU to negotiate on new border control points. However, the primary movement of people from both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will remain unaffected, allowing them to continue with their daily routines, while upholding the Good Friday Agreement. o : Stefani Lauryn Rios 9:20pm My policy draft is directed towards Georgia citizens and officials. I believe both groups can implement what I am advising. Language is used by everybody and everybody can do a better job at not using words that dehumanize the Abkhazians or make them feel inferior. It is helping me figure out the most effective way to change the use of rhetoric in order to create more trust between the groups so peace-building can be more effective. If you do not know how to cater to your audience in the brief. Who ever the brief is a waste of time. The reader will not be engaged or motivated to take your advice.

Option 1

Low Cost Option
Download this past answer in few clicks

16.89 USD

PURCHASE SOLUTION

Already member?


Option 2

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE