There is much talk in the news of the Treasury having entered the Brexit debate. It has produced a forecast that apparently suggests that the average UK household will be £4,300 worse off in 2030 as a result of leaving the EU.
I have to admit three thoughts follow. The first is that the Treasury's forecasts have been wildly inaccurate since 2010. Why this one should be any better than their others of late is hard to know.
Second, the direction of travel in Treasury errors has always been consistent: they have been wildly optimistic. Could it just be that this one is as optimistic, as the Brexit camp suggest, and yet again in the direction that suits the Treasury's political masters?
Third, and most importantly though, what the report suggests is that the Remain camp really do not understand how decisions like this are made. It is now, I thought, widely known that some decisions are rationaL 'head' decisions and others emotive 'heart' ones. The first category are small and relatively inconsequntial. The stakes are limited and the number of variables low. We can rationalise in that case. The second group are the big decisions in life: our partners, homes and even cars. In these cases there are far too many potential variables to appraise to make anything that approaches a rational decision so we instead use our instincts, and usually quite appropriately. Only after the event can we, sometimes, rationalise why we came to make our choice.
The decision as to whether to stay in the EU or not is very definitely a heart and not a head decision, even if many of us would like to discuss aspects of it rationally. The Brexit campain clearly know this and are playing on it, very successfully. The Remain campaign appears clueless about this, it would seem, and is presenting all the wrong arguments by relying on rationality as a result.
We may pay a high price for their mistake, especially if we are to believe their own numbers.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The first thing I thought of when I heard the figure was how closely this £4K per-household figure matched Simon Wren-Lewis’s conservative estimate of the actual cost of Osbourne’s needless austerity policies. That was, apparently, a price worth paying.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/04/economic-consequences-george-osborne-covering-austerity-mistake
Good comparison
What exactly does this have to do with tax, or rather tax research?
Quite a lot
First it’s comment on research
Second falling earnings impact tax revenue
Third this blog is also about economics
All such financial predictions are a non-sense as I’m sure they assume the political centre ground status quo will continue and that everything economic will continue in the current neo-liberal centrist direction.
However an out vote is more likely to result in a political explosion of both far right and far left wing movements seeking to regain control of a rudderless UK, free from the EU restrictions that either side dislikes and a hard fought battle ahead to re-instate UK “democracy” and “sovereignty” in the direction of capital or labour.
Herein lies the dilemma of this referendum for most thinking people, if you don’t like the status quo do you risk the political battleground which could see the country lurch further right or further left.
There are huge political pros and cons to either staying in or leaving, which will ultimately dictate the real economic impact on different strata within society. Quoting some sort of average UK household loss is meaningless as we have no idea if the supposed loss is incurred primarily at the upper end of the income/wealth scale or at the bottom/middle.
Agree entirely with this. If it was a simple as ‘getting out means we lose £4,300 per household’ I doubt there’d be any point in having a vote at all!
Although a problem that Brexiters have is what happens when we vote no? We’ll have two years to get out on 24th June. So what exactly are their plans for that?
There has just been confusion. The most direct response I’ve heard is from John Redwood who said today that “we’d get our sovereignty back” and then wouldn’t need to do anything so we could continue as before! Just for a start I can hardly see the EU losing (is it?) 10% of their budget that the UK currently contributes, with complete equanimity. Never mind that if the EU wants to preserve its dignity it simply cannot let one of its ‘big three’ leave and still retain all the advantages with no consequences at all.
At the very least other members might feel a similar inclination to do likewise. And that would be not be good for them and nor would it be in the interests the UK.
The referendum is virtually a rerun of the Scottish one but this time for the Tory Party.
The answer though remains the same: ‘Better Together’.
I agree; from what I can see the substance of the BREXIT campaign, such as it is, appears to be the political equivalent of waving a big cross of St George and singing Eng-er-land Eng-er-land.
Chris Grayling was horrifying on the news last night. Refusal to countenance the likelihood that there could be adverse consequences.
I have gone on my own journey over the past 15 months from reluctant remain to firmly leave, I think these figures do have a heart pull and is all part of project fear. Like you say though who knows the real impact of leaving financially, I as an Economics graduate can recognise that there are two many variables so make my decision on principles of democracy and evidence from Greece, Portugal etc. In; we are in a Neo-Liberal straight jacket, out; we can elect a left wing government if we choose. Many of the left argue this will make us subject to a Tory government ad infinitum, but if we are in we can influence for the better assuming a Labour government. I favour Paul Masons arguments over Yanis Varoufakis and like a lot of what is argued here https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/enrico-tortolano/as-trade-unionist-this-is-why-britain-must-vote-to-leave
Graham – I think Corbyn has been pressurised to keep his negativity about the EU under wraps. Traditionally the trade Unions were anti EU because they knew it would be a corporatist take over as Benn prophesied in ’75. Corbyn voted AGAINST Maastricht and Lisbon, the rest is a history of disaster for populations of |Southern Europe and Ireland.
I agree and although I am a unilateralist I’d rather he compromised on that one than this, because we can effect this decision
If leave wins which leftwing progressives do you expect to form part of the renegotiation committee? Which leftwing policies with the EU do you envisage being kept in the renegotiation? How does continued EU membership prevent the election of a leftwing government in the UK?
As I have said before in these comments there is a huge amount for those on he left to be angry about with the EU. But this is not the time to turn that anger into a vote to leave. Voting leave will not further a leftwing cause it will do exactly the opposite. The leave side is clearly rightwing, anti-immigrant, anti-state intervention, pro free-market, pro rich. Leftwingers voting to leave are useful idiots for Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. If leave triumphs the leftwing celebration will be massively drowned out by the nationalism of the Brexiters.
Only option for the British left is to do as the French left did when voting for Chirac over Le Pen. In such a choice you vote for crook not the fascist.
‘The leave side is clearly rightwing, anti-immigrant, anti-state intervention, pro free-market, pro rich. ‘ Sounds pretty much like the IN side as well which is why it is such a dillema.’ One could adopt a ‘dialectial’ approach and argue that voting out, if it brought in a Farrage/Johnson ‘idiotocracy’ then the neo-liberal death throes would be hastened. That’s a risky one though due the decades of dumbed-down debate that has rendered much of the populace stupified.
The Eu does not prevent us electing a left wing government just from carrying out left wing policies, see Greece.
The whole basis of the treaties under-pinning the EU are based on free-market economics, we have no power to overturn these even with a Corbyn led government. Benn, Foot et al all saw this, the reason the British left are so pro EU has to be a mixture of lack of ambition of lack of confidence that we can enact those policies in Britain.
But it is hardly democratic to want to keep the EU as a means of sidestepping the British voters.
Graham- I think the Left being pro EU is largely based on the ‘sentimentality of internationalism’ which is the historic idea of an ‘international.’ Unfortunately ‘Internationalism’ has been appropriated by globalisation and corporate capture but the left can’t always distinguish between the two. It’s a fatal flaw of the Left.
I’m not defending the treatment of Greece by the EU but that is a specific case and cannot be used to say that the EU blocks left-wing policies in other countries. Were Corbyn to be elected and the EU would have no way of stopping him enacting left-wing policies such as tax rises on higher sources of income or wealth, scrapping trident, investment in public infrastructure and services, increased benefits to those at the bottom etc.
The choice for the left is do you vote for UKIP and the purple Tories or do you vote for remain. There is no left-wing leave option on offer in this referendum. No matter what you tell yourself, no matter how many times you remind yourself of the treatment of Greece, of TTIP of globalisation. If you vote leave you are adding your voice to an anti-immigrant, right-wing, nationalist movement. With a choice between a fascist and a crook you vote for the crook.
‘The leave side is clearly rightwing, anti-immigrant, anti-state intervention, pro free-market, pro rich.’
Clearly the above is not correct.
The leave side contains some who fit the above description and to be fair most of the senior political players are people I have no time for.
However the impact of the UK labour pool being awash with talented people from across the EU is manifest. It means that many well educated young UK people have significant difficulty getting work, any work. Add to that the manifest difficulty of well educated older people to get work. Obviously there are other factors at play, eg the impact of automation even in the professions. The [un]employment statistics grossly understate the under-utilisation of UK human capital, enthusiasm and talent.
If we vote to remain nothing will change. If we vote to leave there may be change.
”However the impact of the UK labour pool being awash with talented people from across the EU is manifest. It means that many well educated young UK people have significant difficulty getting work, any work. Add to that the manifest difficulty of well educated older people to get work. Obviously there are other factors at play, eg the impact of automation even in the professions. The [un]employment statistics grossly understate the under-utilisation of UK human capital, enthusiasm and talent.”
There are according to the latest official estimates slightly over 2 million EU workers in the UK and over 28 million jobs in total. EU workers make up roughly 7% of total workers in the UK. ONS data shows that roughly 60% of all EU workers are in what can be classed low skilled occupations so that gives a back of a fag packet estimate of 2.8% of UK jobs are both highly skilled and held by EU workers. Not sure I would describe the UK as being ‘’awash’’ with highly talented EU migrants when the figure is less than 3%. To properly refute your point about talented young Brits being kept out of work by more talented EU workers would require a much more detailed breakdown of statistics (age breakdown of that 2.8%, how many are talented but early in their career and how many are senior). But the basic logic doesn’t add up. The more talented or skilled a job is then the harder it is for large groups of non-British workers to enter. High-skilled jobs have high barriers to entry in terms of language, educational and professional qualifications and relevant experience. For those EU workers that can clear the barriers then the UK will have much less of a pull factor. If you can get a high skilled job in the UK ahead of British workers then you are going to be highly sought after in your home country and therefore have less reason to upsticks and leave. That is not to say that there are not young high skilled workers from the EU being accepted onto British graduate recruitment programmes or starting their career in the UK. But the idea that there are sufficient numbers to be having a significant negative effect on the job prospects of highly educated Brits cannot stand up to scrutiny. To put it simply it is logical to think of large numbers of EU workers taking on low skilled employment it is not logical to see the same happening in high skilled employment.
@rick
A fair cop guvnor. “awash” doesn’t cut it, evidence required.
However I have taken a cursory look at the ONS stats. Specifically at:
http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/bulletins/uklabourmarket/april2016
Figure 6: Non-UK nationals working in the UK, not seasonally adjusted October to December 1997 to October to December 2015
There is a note to this figure:
“As shown in Figure 6, since January to March 2009, the number of non-UK nationals from outside the EU working in the UK has been broadly flat but the number of non-UK nationals from EU countries working in the UK has continued to increase.”
I will find time to explore the underlying dataset to see if there is a way of further analysing this data. Specifically much of the noise around EU migration assumes it is almost exclusively occupying work at the lowest rung. My anecdotal sense is that this is not correct.
Graham – thanks for your useful link. I posted my comment before I’d read yours. I find it a very challenging decision to have to make.
If we do leave the EU, the Tories will arrange their own TTIP agreement between the US and the UK – guaranteed. In fact, instead of even signing a treaty, they will jut do it anyway in the middle of the night – they’re probably half way there with the NHS.
At least with TTIP going through Europe we can have a go at stopping it.
We have tried to stop the bedroom tax, austerity , cuts to disabled benefits within the bounds of our own sovereignty and what has it got us?
No where.
So whose sovereignty is it we are protecting here? Well, I don’t think it is the British people’s sovereignty. British sovereignty belongs to those whom we put in power over us. Remember that our politicians merely appropriated the divine right of kings and then re-labelled it ‘British democracy’.
It just so happens that at the moment we have a bunch of millionaires who want to rule us exactly how they want in order to grab as much money as they can. At the expense of the rest of us.
This is not the time to vote ourselves out of Europe.
If Boris and Co get their way, we will leave Europe and walk straight into he arms of America and end up being more tightly bound to them than ever before. Or even China. Fancy that at all?
And, as our actions get copied by other member states, a treaty frame work that has quite possibly contributed to European peace will begin to fracture at a time when we are still reeling from an American induced global financial collapse that has helped to flat line the economies nearly everywhere and as a result (added to by the immigrant crisis from Syria, Iraq etc.,) can only create more social upheaval and more opportunity for the good old right wings in Europe to have some fun. Result? Turmoil and possibly war.
Consider that BREXIT is a chimera.
The current world wide economic crisis originated in America because of lax US government regulation and over-deregulation of the financial system. In my view the British people should be cutting ties with the Yanks – not Europe. The EU (and the rest of the world )should have somehow taken the USA to court and the US Government should have bailed out ALL banks everywhere in my view (and I’m not joking either).
Yet here we are being told that Europe is the problem. Are you seriously telling me that European membership costs us more than putting right the economic crisis that the Americans created? Oh come on – wise up!
Europe is not the issue here; America is and continues to be. We are being knocked off the scent again to maintain the status quo.
We should be in Europe and be a raging vanguard for reform from within.
Think about it a lot my friend. And be careful of what you wish for in the coming months.
I think your first two sentences the most poweful argument of all
‘We have tried to stop the bedroom tax, austerity , cuts to disabled benefits within the bounds of our own sovereignty and what has it got us? ‘
yes, but where was the EU? I spent a year of my life challenging the bedroom tax with the help of Liberty and we got to the court of appeal (which overturned it). Where was the EU? Answer, nowhere! You know as well as I do that the EU is as pro TTIP as are the right-wing Brexit people.
Why are people out on mass in France, because the EU has ‘protected workers’ rights.’?
What is going on in France as has happened in Finland/Latvia/Greece is known as ‘internal devaluation’ where there is a race to the bottom pretending to be ‘competitiveness’ according to free market dogma. The EU is a ‘free market fundamentalist’ machine.
I still think there is a legitimate argument for getting out from a left perspective, although I haven’t finalised my decision. I have serious doubts about reforming the monster the EU has become and the idea that there can’t be solidarity and reform without the EU is absurd.
This is a very interesting and much needed debate we are having here. I totally agree that it is America we should be breaking our ties with. Clearly another smoke screen to move closer to them. I believe my decision may be made.
This is wonderful stuff! And agree so much that we should now learn that even if we are wary of Europe we should be much more wary of America. Though it is usually highly unpopular to say so.
I am not influenced by the migration rant from the Brexit campaign, however everytime either Cameron or Osbourne open their mouths I can only think they are spinning their usual web of lies so my gut feeling is to vote against their lies. Obama is over to negotiate TTIP with Cameron and my blood runs cold as we have no control, same as all the other european countties, over a deal that is being done behind closed doors. I think the referedum is a subterfuge to ensure the TTIP gets passed without note. Both sides, when they manage to mention TTIP claim that we will have more control if we “stay” or “leave” depending on the camp. I don’t think we have any control and it is only a few NGOs like War on Want & pressure groups like 38 Degrees that appear to be aware of the dire consequences of this deal. Is there anyone on the blog with some real information that can help me in my decision on Europe?
I am working on a blog…
But time is against me for the next few days
R
I don’t know the precise methodology for the Treasury forecasts, but the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE produced a forecast that suggested that Brexit would lower national income by between £850 and £1,700 per head.
While I’m in favour of staying in the EU, it’s very hard to take these forecasts seriously for (at least) 2 reasons:
1) the model used to generate the LSE results was a general equilibrium model which makes a number of simplifying assumptions which are manifestly at odds with reality (e.g. perfect competition in all product markets, and the assumption that the economy is actually *in an equilbrium* and will continue to be so). Given that the assumptions are very unrealistic there is no reason to expect the results to be at all accurate.
2) there is no account taken of distributional impacts. By saying (e.g.) “Brexit would cost £850 per household”, the LSE study conjures the impression of all households having to write a cheque for £850, or seeing a deduction from annual earnings of £850. But in fact there would almost certainly be winners and losers over a vast range. And some of the gains/losses would be much more hard to discern (for example, changes in the prices of goods and services, rather than changes in nominal incomes).
All in all I think that simplistic stories like this hinder debate more than they help it; the pro-Brexit campaigns’ accusation that the pro-EU campaign is running “scare stories” has some validity to it (although the pro-Brexit camp is also happy to run its own scare stories, largely centred on immigration!)
Agreed entirely Howard
I am sure the Treasury did use a general equilibrium model: I hate them
And your conclusion is spot on
Richard I agree on the general point to take Treasury estimates with a pinch of salt. Though given the basic economics of trade etc involved I can’t see how anyone could construct a model that would produce anything other than a loss to the UK economy following a decision to leave the EU.
Not sure that I agree with your heart and head analysis though. Is an innate risk averse attitude not an example of a heart type decision? Being that it often prevents the taking of rational head decisions because there is a downside risk. Is that not want the Scottish referendum and the last UK election ultimately showed? The risk averse attitude to potential gloom was ultimately too strong for the grass will be greener on the other side approach?
I agree we will be worse off – I have no doubt
I would not want to quantify it
I am not sure how to interpret your second para
Apparently Osborne said on the Today programme that it would be the poorest who would suffer from the forecast reduction in GDP.
He said “They are the people whose incomes would go down, whose house prices would fall, whose job prospects would weaken, they are the people who always suffer when the country takes an economic wrong turn,”
Well at least he was being honest there! The problem is his actions since 2010 have reinforced, if not made this outcome worse and show that this state of affairs is ok with him.
Quite an admission.
Osborne did indeed say the poorest would suffer. But he thought that among them were steel workers and car workers whereas in fact these are some of the much better paid jobs. It would have showed that he was a little more aware if he’d referred to subcontracted call centre workers in his beloved banks.
Particularly coming from him, a pretty daft statement – the poorest will always suffer more economically whatever you do, by definition. Unless it involves making them richer. Unfortunately no mention at all of that.
These figures are grabbed out of the air and are laughable in an environment where ALREADY we are seeing high levels of job insecurity, massive cuts to services and the ill/vulnerable as if the Treasury REALLY cares whether we are worse of.
The Labour IN campaign leaflet I got was also risible: Trying to make out that jobs will be insecure/workers’ rights damaged/£450 lost at the checkout. As if we haven;t already had the assault on workers’ rights and job security. What’s going on in France-a tiddlywinks festival?
Yet more examples of shyster politicians treating the public like fools. The backlash of anger is on its way and the Westminster Bubble is too immured to notice it.
I’m still undecided about the vote because whichever way you look you see the choice is: financialisation; more financialisation; even more financialisation/or perhaps: neo-liberalism; more neo-liberalism; or yet more neoliberalism.
I hope I’m not opening a can of worms here. But, as someone – probably like many – who is trying to balance head and heart influences (which in itself is an oxymoron because how can one rationalise an emotion?) I wonder if you have yet made a public pronouncement as to your preference. I assiduously read ‘arguments’ from all sides and am still on the fence, which is not my usual default position on socio-economic issues. Prof. Bill Mitchell has (predictably) advised in favour of Brexit for sovereign currency reasons and ‘communitarian’ blogger John Ward (https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/100-reasons-for-eu-brexit) has for years vehemently campaigned for Brexit. However I’m still not convinced – maybe because I have no faith whatsoever in the current UK political class to improve the lot of their citizenry and the high-profile Brexit campaigners are not people I would normally associate myself with. For work-place, environmental and animal rights issues (all 3 close to my heart) I think the EU has overall been a positive force. So, Mr Murphy, can you offer any advice from both rational tax and maybe Quaker-orientated heart perspectives? Hitherto, I’ve found your judgements to be reliably wise. So thanks for any guidance to help me get off the fence and avoid political haemorrhoids!
OK
I will work on it
‘For work-place, environmental and animal rights issues’
neo-liberalism trumps all these: Horse meat/France workers’ rights diminishing/zero hour contracts/underemployment/sanctions/disability benefits
How has the EU prevented this? If anything only the UN rapporteurs have raised a voice-but the EU?
I do agree with the general trend of your post and comments here. The remain campaign seems to be able to come up with blood-chilling figures at the drop of a hat and John Redmond (not a man I warm to) was entirely convincing in mocking the likely accuracy of Treasury forecasts, but one felt like asking him how accurate his own forecasts were likely to be. Not that he makes any. The out campaign seems to be a constant reiteration of the observation that we are the fifth largest economy in the world (even after all these years of EU ‘subjugation’) and that we can achieve whatever we choose once we have left. Seems very much a variation of the ‘with one leap our hero was free’ theme. Because we buy so much more from the EU than we buy from us, of course, it is claimed, they will fall over themselves to offer us the same trading terms as before without any of those tiresome budget contributions or acceptance of regulations and directives. It is as if we were going to be negotiating with Mercedes Benz rather than Germany and the EU. All our economic problems will magically fall away.
The EU referendum result is going to have a major effect on the total political landscape of the UK (or ex-UK) which may be of far more consequence to us than anything to do with our relationship with Europe (and I don’t relish the domestic political programme of triumphant exiters). I agree our relationship with Europe and the EU is problematic now, but I think the time to judge whether or not we want to leave lies a little in the future, after various strains within the EU have worked themselves out in ways that are presently imperfectly predictable. In that sense Cameron has done us no service by bringing forward the in/out decision to suit his own internal party (mis)management.
My first thought was bliar’s dodgy dossier. Key facts falsified, topped off with ludicrous assumptions.
Pssst, guv, you want a nice round figure cheap to persuade the bookies to give you an account? You name it, I’ll supply it, and honest it won’t cost you much at all, at least not at first.
I’m looking forward to the polls showing a very close run race right to the finish line, with some even showing even a possible (or likely) Brexit.
Because I’m waiting to see what the EU trump card will be if that is the case (AKA political bribery to the UK public to stay in).
Let’s not forget the cross party Devo Max offer at the very last minute to the Scottish voters!
Any bets on what the trump card could be, for example:
a) something more to reduce EU immigration into the UK
b) something more to reduce UK contribution to EU coffers
c) something more to allow UK opt out of EU laws
or something else entirely?
Keith-they have run out of cards jsu like the Central Banks -the only option is a change of the whole model and the neo-liberal hegemony will not allow that, they would rather push the EU into chaos that relax their white knuckle grip on financial power. Lokk at the disarray over the migration issue with one statement contradicted by another and a headless chicken dance.
I’ll never forget the Spanish Finance Minister, in an interview, saying that ‘if you are in a club you have to obey the rules’. 50% and above youth unemployment in his country and that’s all he can say!! What more evidence do we need for the moral, intellectual bankruptcy of this set up?
‘Better Together’? Where’s the ‘together’ bit?
I agree the EU hasn’t put all its cards on the table yet, and why should they when Cameron’s demands involved only minor commitments to change fairly irrelevant things from their perspective.
But I think that’s where the people of the UK do actually hold the most powerful card in European politics right now, because an OUT vote would most likely cause a tectonic shift in European politics which no loyal EU politician or technocrat wants to allow.
So I still see a potential OUT vote as the real game changer for the politics of the EU (even more so than the politics of the UK), and to avoid that happening if it looks like the British people may be heading towards an OUT vote then expect to see some very big EU guns being brought out to warn us off and one or two juicy carrots to tempt enough people to vote IN.
It’s worthwhile thinking this through from the perspectives of both France and Germany, who are holding almost all the pro EU cards at the moment and still desperately trying to hold the Eurozone together. The cost of Brexit to those two countries could be far greater than any cost to the UK.
I agree completely with your comments both about the quality of economic models and predictions of this kind and about the way decisions of this kind are made. My own take is that the economic impact in either direction is likely to be marginal and short lived. (this wouldn’t be true for all countries – if the Irish Republic were to leave the results would be disastrous and I think the same is probably true for Northern Ireland but not Scotland or England & Wales). Ultimately this is not really an economic choice but a political one. The real question should not be how will this affect me economically (almost impossible to answer accurately and probably not that significant)but rather what kind of international order do I want to see, what kind of place and role should the British political community have in that, and will in or out offer the best prospects for the kind of politics I support?
On that last it’s foolish to assume that exit will benefit one particular political position. What it would do is increase the range of political possibilities (because currently a whole range of policies both left and right are ruled out because of EU membership) but it’s not clear who will benefit. Moreover it’s very dangerous to assume that Remain means things will just go on as they have done before. Given the state of the Eurozone and the need to create institutions that will support it plus the crises over migration and relations with Russia that the EU faces, and the rise of right wing populism that’s a very misguided belief. There isn’t a safe vote and one that is ‘a leap in the dark’ – they are both risky. Given that, trusting your instincts is the way to go.
I agree that thinking ‘remain’ means ‘continue as before’ is just wrong
For me you’re wrong about head and heart. What I’ve seen the EU do to Greece is repellent. But I will vote to stay in, even if I have to hold my nose as I do so, because the prospect of Britain outside is far, far worse: it will turn the clock back to the 19th century.
But you are using heart
You hate what is happening and yet will stay
I agree with both sentiments
Irrationally it’s the right thing to do
It is, and I’ll be doing the same as you and James. But I remain convinced that the vote will be for out. Indeed, from what I hear/overhear, I’d say you’re absolutely spot on with your comment about the Brexit campaign playing to the heart and the Remain campaign being clueless – as with the figures today – and as a consequence Brexit has considerable traction and that’s beginning to influence waverers big time.
Then throw into that mix the point that Bill Keegan made at the weekend about the issues with voter turnout and young people (who are typically more pro EU), and the mess that Cameron has created on voter registration and the situation becomes a double wammy.
So, Johnson as PM by the end of July, with god knows what Tory arse as his Chancellor, and the Conservative right wing rampant. Followed by Trump as US president in November. You couldn’t make it up – surely?!?!
That’s the nightmare scenario
And it is plausible
it’s ‘clowns to the right of me, jokers to the left.’ No neutral ground available in life.
I too see in as the lesser of two evils. The thought of an England (because I think it will be an England) in which the right destroy what is left of the social contract, rampage through environmental protection (such as it is), shred working benefits like holiday entitlements and hours and demonise the poorest and most vulnerable people in society. A government blue in tooth and claw.
So it’s in for me.
Others may already be aware of this but – another message for the heart – there are stirrings about QE for the people even inside Euroland:
http://www.qe4people.eu/
To date, I have not seen a single fact presented by either side that could be verified. Not one. The only verifiable fact about this referendum is its date. Head 0 – 0 Heart (no score draw)
That forces me to look at the personalities who are calling loudest for Brexit. To a man they appear to rapacious deceivers who are in this as a money making opportunity with scant concern for the social fabric of this country. How many of these characters posses the statesman like qualities needed to negotiate new trade treaties when they can’t even get Jersey or Isle of Man to comply with anything?
Head 2 – 0 Heart (home win)
Then I think of the completely undemcocratic way the unelected troica has dealt with Greece. The impoverishment of a nation because they dared to elect a govern to do their bidding. Head 1 – 0 Heart (home win)
But I will be voting to remain because of the devil you know principle.
Head 0 – 3 Heart (Heart wins on away goals)
Just in case anyone has missed the personalities of the Vote Leave camp, this article will bring you fully up to speed.
https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/04/15/leading-members-of-brexit-campaign-call-for-privatisation-of-the-nhs-and-much-worse/
yes, the people leading the Brexit campaign are disgusting but that also applies to the other side. The WHOLE thing is disgusting.
But don’t forget there ARE Left arguments for getting out. Most of this privatisation has laready taken place in covert ways and continues apace. Greek assets are being privatized or are in throes of being so.
If we got the bulbous buffoon Johnson as PM it might well light the taper that leads to neo-liberalism imploding and wake up the narcoleptics. And I say this as someone on benefits and bedroom tax who will be hit the worst!
It seems to me impossible to quantify the costs/benefits of leave or remain, except that we know that leave would imply a massive amount of economic risk.
But along with the sentiment of the article, what occurs to me is that portraying this as an economic decision is wrong, because it is essentially a political decision.
I agree
I will vote to stay in the EU, but fear that the Treasury “Dodgy Dossier” may have done more harm than good. Extrapolating ANY economic model to 2030 is just plain ridiculous. BBC Reality check has already pointed out a major error with the £4,000 per year per household (confusing GDP per household with income per household).
However, I do think it should be possible to make an informed decision with the head rather than the heart:
1) It is hard to see how Britain can move out of the single market without causing significant short term damage to the economy both here and in the EU. A British company that uses German components, or a German company that uses British componenents will suffer significant disruption. However, it detracts from the case to suggest that this will persist to 2030. Companies will adapt. Some businesses will gain with less competition from the EU, others will lose some of their market. The trouble is that is likely to be a replay of Thatcher and Howe in 1980. Niche high-margin companies will survive. It is the world class companies in competitive markets that will suffer most.
2) Britain will have to accept whatever terms the EU offers on trade (or what is plan B supposed to be? Not to trade at all?). It is only opinion, but I suspect that Britain originally got a worse deal, because we failed to join at the outset, and had no input into how the EU was set up.
3) I would expect the Financial Services industry to both win and lose. Extra barriers mean extra complexity and extra opportunities to take an additional slice of money as it goes past. But although tax have facilities will remain in the UK, one would expect head offices to want to make a de facto move to stay within the EU. Whether or not the brass plate remains on a building in London.
4) It is only opinion, but I believe that the EU has been a significant force for peace in Europe. It is a dangerous fallacy that a country can do what it likes without regard for its neighours. Britain will still have to compromise, but without the framework of the EU.
5) The money that Britain contributes to the EU moves, and generates economic activity. If that money were repatriated, would George Osborne spend it, or would he take it out of the system to meet his ill-advised austerity goal?
You can weigh the probabilities of each of these and make a decision with the head.
One of the political phenomena that also adds to people’s confusion is those politicians who get elected into our Government or to represent us in the EU but fundamentally do not believe in what they are there to do.
They see it as their job to work against the system they have been put into.
I look at the MEPs – even Farage – and look at their behaviour whilst there (Farage standing up and then berating his fellow MEPS calling them useless; Tory MEPS reportedly blocking tariffs on Chinese steel and then letting the EU take the rap for the Tata steel fiasco) with absolute incredulity.
Such people manifestly undermine the EU and get away with it, then have the gaul to come back to dear olde blighty and tell all and sundry ‘the EU doesn’t work’!!
And we tolerate that!
It is just the same as this Government under funding the NHS – under funding so that it under performs and therefore manufacturing consent to change it – via privatisation. We fall for this all of the time. Well – too many of us I should say.
Three times in the last 250 years Britain’s failure to engage effectively with the European powers and to participate effectively in international arrangements to manage their behaviour has cost it dearly in blood and treasure. Think of the Napoleonic Wars, WWI and WWII. Choosing, once again, to opt for the “open seas” over Europe would be the height of folly. But this seems to be the default position for much of the British establishment and public. And while one would hope that it will not be costly in terms of blood, opting for the “open seas” again will certainly be costly in terms of treasure.
Most people I talk to on my dog walks (very scientific) want to come out. I think we have to remain, simply believe the alternative is a stranglehold of old Victorians longing for the old system of know your place. It is still there but the EU helps ever so slightly I think.
Our country now has mini states within it, I understand people want to belong to the safety and familiarity of home. Spain has many expat communities, not sure if they are welcome always. We are struggling to get on and assimilate with each other, extremists are white hot with rage. De Gaulle was not overly fond of the English. need to find the common thread and give the young a journey of exploration and hope.
Hear, Hear Sylvia!!
To Simon
It is true and widely discussed here that no one thinks that the EU is perfect. I’m not going to list all of issues that we have – go and read for yourself. And I probably agree with all of them.
Sure, TTIP is being discussed in the EU. But I say again that it is better off being discussed there than through the back door via a post BREXIT Tory party being involved. This Tory party are always happy to offload national assets for the lowest price. They do it all of the time.
We moan about the EU being undemocratic and opaque – quite rightly. But have you seem how American capitalist democracy works? How it is dominated by money – the money of vested interests? Listen to the late George Carlin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXhZyAOuyhE
We would just get a major facilitation of this in a post BREXIT UK Government. Boris and Co would open the door wider.
My beef with the USA is about health care provision. America today is standing there having depleted a lot of its natural resources. It has also started to see the death of its middle class – as economist Louis Hyman has pointed out (in his writings and in the documentary ‘The Flaw’), the crisis in the USA is now a wages crisis.
This means that increasing amounts of people are unable to pay for health care in the USA as the costs (based on the profit motive) become too expensive. Even American Republican voters know this.
So, as Gillian Tett points in the documentary ‘The Four Horseman’, rather than going West and expanding into its interior, America is now expanding outwards globally to grab resources because its internal expansion and consumption of its shrinking wealth base is in decline – it’s maxed out. The Americans are coming to grab our healthcare to use it as an income stream. Period. Something that may well be made easier by a post BREXIT Boris Government.
American business – American capitalism – is a clear and present danger to the people of this country.
As for the EU failing you in your bedroom tax problems (I work on the landlord side and like many we thing this policy is grossly unfair) – Cameron said in 2007 that he wanted to take the UK out of the Social Chapter. In other words, since he has been in Government it could very well be that there has been no intent on the part of the UK Government to uphold your rights under the Social Chapter.
Despite being in charge of a country that signed the treaty – remember what I said about being in the system and working against it?
This therefore is not a failure of the EU but an outright contravention of a treaty by a ‘sovereign’ British government towards a certain number of its own citizens. And you know full well that this issue is being dealt with in the Courts. It is not over yet.
If you and too many of you vote for BREXIT, the legal basis for fighting the bedroom tax and many other legal challenges made under the Social Chapter to this most unfair of Governments could well disappear for good.
Think on Simon, think on.
I’m sorry Pilgrim, the EU is a neo-liberal Basket Case, not to mention the Euro Zone (which is a basket case of a basket case)
I’ve listed this before:
1) 3 Million outside health care in Greece and a near total collapse of public services (which will be an intergenerational disaster of collosal proportions.
2) bedroom Tax/sanctions deaths/Disability cuts/zero hours/massive under employment in the UK
3) Michael Hudson (an expert on Latvia) now points out that there has been emigration of 20 Million due to austerity imposition.
4) massive emigration from Ireland/Portugal with a generation of young people suffering massive disruption to their lives.
5) The EU clearly seen as a vehicle for NATO anti Russian stance using Ukraine as a proxy
6) ECB bailouts of toxic assets of major French and German Banks
7) Social upheaval in France due to ‘internal devaluation’ in the form of cuts to workers rights via increased hours and overtime issues-something that could push people to the far right, politically.
If these are not proof of the EU as a basket case and tool of US financial imperialism I don’t know what is -how much worse does it get. You can keep you misplaced ‘internationalism’ which is now an internationalism of global capital and bugger all to do with the internationalism dreamt of by the Left.
In my own legal challenge of the Government, not once, not once, I repeat, not once did we use any EU legislation or get any support from an EU institution or legal concept.
Only the UN has intervened in relation to the Bedroom Tax and benefit sanctions.
I agree there is a risk of the ego-bloated piss-artist Johnson taking control and I will be one of the first in the firing line to be shafted by such an administration. But as I’ve said before: I take a dialectical approach: The utter incompetence of these people will be on full display and we’ll see it fully for what it is. Neo-liberalism is dying but only slowly. Clinton looks set to keep Wall Street going another 4 years as Sander’s hopes diminish but the groundswell is there and it can’t be taken away-THAT is Sander’s and Corbyn’s victory.
We know it is a neoliberal basket case
Outside we’ll just be exploited massively by neoliberal basket cases
That’s the problem: the alternative is much worse
Lots of good points here. 2 I would add:
1) TTIP – out of the EU it will be easier to change any agreements. Nothing stops a party standing for election in the UK on the basis that it would tear up TTIP: if the EU agree it, how could anyone vote to leave it?
2) If there is Brexit, could Europe survive? Britain is the financial centre of Europe. It is the language of Europe. It is also the necessary counterweight to Germany: the Euro shows how unbalanced the project is without Britain – you end up with Germany on one end of the seesaw and everyone else up in the air on the other.
I remember James Dyson being interviewed on R4 last year. He was railing against the government’s views on immigration, particularly the idiocy of sending home graduates in science subjects. He said we need to be encouraging educated, motivated immigrants to stay. They asked him about the EU, expecting him to say something similar. He said all the technical committees were dominated by Germans who would try to regulate to prevent innovation and protect their market position and he’d be happy out of it. In commercial matters, common standards can quickly become protectionist if they are set by those who dominate an industry.