| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Well I'm happy | |
| Posted by: | T P Howell | |
| Date/Time: | 27/06/16 22:12:00 |
| Paul, I will agree and say very directly - 'hmm, maybe this isn't right'. This will not be gentle economic readjustment. And here's why: - 44% of our exports went to the EU last year – if we do not have free access to the EU market, jobs in the UK will melt away like the Spring snow; - 80% of the UK economy is based on services (which used to be called “invisibles”). It is far easier to put up non-tariff barriers (e.g. rules and regulations) against invisibles than it is against tangible goods. - the platitude that the French and Germans will “have” to give us a soft trade deal because they “need” to export their cars and wine to the UK is nonsense: - free movement of goods is the easy one - export of services require free of movement of workers (not of “people” as so often mis-stated), free movement of capital, and the right of establishment. - I expect that the “Outers” would pass off MiFiD, for example (one of the EU directives that gives us “passporting” rights into the EU for financial services) as the EU “red tape” that they so eager want to be rid of, despite the massive benefits it brings to the UK. - Foreign companies invest in the UK, create manufacturing capacity and jobs (the US$ 1.7 trillion foreign direct investment stock into the UK), as well as jobs in the services sector (about 150 foreign banks alone regulated by the PRA – before we get to the non-banking sector) – because they want access to the 500 million richest people in the world (on average) – not because they are interested in our market of 65 million people - that investment has been drying up for the last year or so, because of the uncertainty over the referendum, and has now dropped off a cliff; - I can tell you as a fact that investment deals are being cancelled now left right and centre, because even for those signed up in the last few months, many had "MAC" clauses ("material adverse change") allowing the investor to back out if there was an exit vote. - As already mentioned in this thread – the pound is falling – the cost of imports, particularly energy and food, will increase creating inflation. - Real incomes (only recently recovering since the banking crises) will decline (hitting the poorest hardest) through inflation, and reduction of employment. - Liquidity will reduce, and with less lending (particularly in the housing market) people will spend less, leading to job losses, leading to less spending, etc, etc. And all of this on the basis that NOBODY VOTED TO LEAVE THE EU (except for the completely dogmatic) because nobody explained what the “leave” option would be (because nobody knew, and still nobody knows). In reality, people only voted against remaining, not to leaving. This, on any level, was a very bad decision making process. We were not given the choice of “Option A” or “Option B”. We were given the choice of “Option A” or “Option unknown” (even after discounting the misinformation). And we still don’t know what the “leave” option actually is. If you have a binary option (either “A” or “B”), you can’t exercise a valid vote until you know what both options are. “Okay, let’s reject Option A, and wait and see what Option B looks like”. You can only make a valid decision when both options are on the table, and you can choose between them. That is why a second referendum or a general election is a fundamental democratic requirement when we know what “exit” looks like, so we can compare “Option A” with “Option B”. We cannot stake the future of this country, and our children’s future, on a pig in a poke. Or, we could just ask the EU politely if they minded if we stayed in the EEA, and promise to comply with all of the EU regulations (including free movement of workers), and pay our membership fee. Of course then we would not then have any say in making the EU regulations (currently made by the Council of Ministers, not the Commission (or “Brussels”) as misrepresented during the campaign). At the moment, that the EEA is looking like the only viable option – and what a complete own goal that would turn out to be. |