Ahead of Theresa May’s long-awaited speech outlining the
nature of the Brexit deal which the UK government wants, the past few days have
seen a certain amount of poker playing. I was somewhat discomfited by remarks
by Chancellor Philip Hammond to the German press over the weekend, who suggested
to Welt am Sonntag that although “most of
us who had voted remain would like the UK to remain a recognisably
European-style economy with European-style taxation systems, European-style
regulation systems etc … if we are
forced to be something different, then we will have to become something
different.”
In response to a request to clarify his remarks, he noted “we could be forced to change our economic model, and we will have to change our model to regain competitiveness. And you can be sure we will do whatever we have to do. The British people are not going to lie down and say ‘too bad, we’ve been wounded’. We will change our model and we will come back, and we will be competitively engaged.”
That sounds like a threat to engage in tax competition with the EU in the event that the UK does not get the deal it wants. I know I should not be surprised by chancellors who demonstrate their economic illiteracy in public – he would not be the first after all – but this argument does not work on so many levels. First, days ahead of Theresa May’s speech, it does not strike me as a sensible policy to antagonise one of the key negotiating partners, let alone one whom the British government hopes will be sympathetic to its aims. Not surprisingly, EU politicians did not react very favourably. The new Dutch Labour party leader, Lodewijk Asscher, has already suggested that The Netherlands will block any EU trade deal with the UK unless it signs up to tough tax avoidance regulations preventing it from becoming an attractive offshore haven for multinationals.
What I found particularly interesting, however, were the below the line comments from German online newspaper readers who offered a more balanced view of the pros and cons of the Brexit debate than I get from most British newspapers. At the risk of over-simplifying the views, there is a large constituency which understands why the Brits have had enough yet also believes that the UK government is behaving irrationally. And there is also a large group which says “go if you must. It’s a pity but that is your choice and you will have to live with the consequences.”
From a domestic British perspective, Hammond’s comments make little sense. For one thing, UK policy over the past seven years has been to eliminate the fiscal deficit. Further cutting taxes is not exactly a clever way to further that aim. Moreover, the average working man (and woman) will not benefit from lower taxes. Hammond is talking about cutting corporate taxes. Reducing the tax burden on corporates – precisely the group which has been in the firing line in recent years for not paying their share of tax – does not sound as though the will of the people is being taken into account on this issue. Indeed, to the extent that at least part of the Brexit vote was triggered as a reaction to the impact of globalisation on UK regions outside the south east, a policy of attracting footloose international capital means more rather than less dependence on globalisation.
Unless the government is simply prepared to ignore the domestic fiscal constraint, cutting corporate taxes means either taxes will have to rise in other areas, or spending will have to be reduced further. And this at a time when the National Health Service is widely reported as creaking at the seams due to an ageing population, which will require additional resources to be spent simply to maintain the current level of service. We all know by now that we cannot expect Scandinavian-style public services if we are prepared only to pay US tax rates. But Hammond has simply taken a leaf out of his predecessor’s book by claiming that what the UK needs is more of the Thatcherite medicine which involves cutting taxes, public services and privatising state resources. However, as with any medicine, the more you take, the more it loses its potency. I would very much like to see some alternative policy prescriptions.
And as if matters were not bad enough, the UK’s Brexit vote has been endorsed by none other than Donald Trump – the model of policy consistency destined to end the week as US President. If Trump does what he says and cuts the UK some slack in getting a trade deal with the US, it would be a step forward. But given his problems with NAFTA, which is of great benefit to US manufacturers, why should he care about the UK?
To quote the Tears for Fears song, “I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad/ The dreams in which I'm dying are the best I've ever had/ I find it hard to tell you, I find it hard to take/ When people run in circles it's a very very/ Mad world”
In response to a request to clarify his remarks, he noted “we could be forced to change our economic model, and we will have to change our model to regain competitiveness. And you can be sure we will do whatever we have to do. The British people are not going to lie down and say ‘too bad, we’ve been wounded’. We will change our model and we will come back, and we will be competitively engaged.”
That sounds like a threat to engage in tax competition with the EU in the event that the UK does not get the deal it wants. I know I should not be surprised by chancellors who demonstrate their economic illiteracy in public – he would not be the first after all – but this argument does not work on so many levels. First, days ahead of Theresa May’s speech, it does not strike me as a sensible policy to antagonise one of the key negotiating partners, let alone one whom the British government hopes will be sympathetic to its aims. Not surprisingly, EU politicians did not react very favourably. The new Dutch Labour party leader, Lodewijk Asscher, has already suggested that The Netherlands will block any EU trade deal with the UK unless it signs up to tough tax avoidance regulations preventing it from becoming an attractive offshore haven for multinationals.
What I found particularly interesting, however, were the below the line comments from German online newspaper readers who offered a more balanced view of the pros and cons of the Brexit debate than I get from most British newspapers. At the risk of over-simplifying the views, there is a large constituency which understands why the Brits have had enough yet also believes that the UK government is behaving irrationally. And there is also a large group which says “go if you must. It’s a pity but that is your choice and you will have to live with the consequences.”
From a domestic British perspective, Hammond’s comments make little sense. For one thing, UK policy over the past seven years has been to eliminate the fiscal deficit. Further cutting taxes is not exactly a clever way to further that aim. Moreover, the average working man (and woman) will not benefit from lower taxes. Hammond is talking about cutting corporate taxes. Reducing the tax burden on corporates – precisely the group which has been in the firing line in recent years for not paying their share of tax – does not sound as though the will of the people is being taken into account on this issue. Indeed, to the extent that at least part of the Brexit vote was triggered as a reaction to the impact of globalisation on UK regions outside the south east, a policy of attracting footloose international capital means more rather than less dependence on globalisation.
Unless the government is simply prepared to ignore the domestic fiscal constraint, cutting corporate taxes means either taxes will have to rise in other areas, or spending will have to be reduced further. And this at a time when the National Health Service is widely reported as creaking at the seams due to an ageing population, which will require additional resources to be spent simply to maintain the current level of service. We all know by now that we cannot expect Scandinavian-style public services if we are prepared only to pay US tax rates. But Hammond has simply taken a leaf out of his predecessor’s book by claiming that what the UK needs is more of the Thatcherite medicine which involves cutting taxes, public services and privatising state resources. However, as with any medicine, the more you take, the more it loses its potency. I would very much like to see some alternative policy prescriptions.
And as if matters were not bad enough, the UK’s Brexit vote has been endorsed by none other than Donald Trump – the model of policy consistency destined to end the week as US President. If Trump does what he says and cuts the UK some slack in getting a trade deal with the US, it would be a step forward. But given his problems with NAFTA, which is of great benefit to US manufacturers, why should he care about the UK?
To quote the Tears for Fears song, “I find it kinda funny, I find it kinda sad/ The dreams in which I'm dying are the best I've ever had/ I find it hard to tell you, I find it hard to take/ When people run in circles it's a very very/ Mad world”
No comments:
Post a Comment