It has been a tumultuous year for those of us who spend a
lot of time looking at the British economic and political scene. Recall that
former prime minister David Cameron hoped a referendum would lay to rest once
and for all the civil war within the Conservative Party that was being fought
on the battleground of EU membership. As it turned out, Cameron’s decision
proved to be the most spectacular political own goal in at least 60 years
(rivalled only by the failure triggered by the Suez invasion of 1956).
Consequently, this has been a year characterised by social division and
political anger, with no signs that the divisions stoked by the Brexit decision
show any sign of healing. It has also been a year strewn with political
mistakes which have compounded Cameron’s original error, notably the
government’s failure to clarify what it wanted prior to triggering Article 50
and the shocking error of judgement in calling an unnecessary general election.
Despite all this, the economy has trundled along and looks
set to post a growth rate around 1.5% this year whilst the unemployment rate
has fallen from 4.8% a year ago to 4.3% today. But the pace of growth is
considerably slower than we might have expected in the absence of the
referendum. In June 2016, my forecast called for real GDP growth of 2.2% in
2017. A direct monetary comparison of what this means in terms of lost output
is distorted by data revisions and methodological changes, which have raised
the current vintage of nominal GDP by an average of 1.1% since 2010 compared to
the June 2016 vintage. But assuming away such matters and focusing purely on
the growth trajectory, latest data suggest that real GDP Is currently almost 1%
below the level expected in the pre-referendum forecast.
This
is roughly what was predicted in spring 2016 in the event of a leave vote and would appear to reinforce the views of the economics
profession which argued forcefully that there would be a cost to leaving
the EU (bear in mind we have not left yet), whilst giving the lie to claims by
Brexit supporters that such warnings were overly gloomy. You can argue about whether pre-referendum
forecasts were too optimistic, but given the pickup in the rest of the EU this
year I would suggest this is not the case. And as Chris Giles pointed out in the Financial Times this week,
such a shortfall amounts to lost output equivalent to £350 million per week –
the amount which the Leave campaign (falsely) claimed the UK would save by
leaving the EU. Given that the net savings in direct EU contributions are only
half that amount, the inaugural Dixon Award for Dodgy Analysis (DADA) goes to
the Leave Campaign whose referendum victory imposed a cost on the UK economy
double the amount which it was claimed could be saved.
Brexit supporters will always claim that there is a short-term price to be paid but it will be worth it in order to reclaim sovereignty over UK laws. Indeed, so committed is the government to taking back control that it planned simply to enact the result of a legally non-binding referendum without any form of parliamentary debate. It took the brave efforts of Gina Miller last year to force a parliamentary vote before implementing Article 50. Not that it mattered much in the end: the decision to trigger it was passed by a majority of 498 to 114 with 38 abstentions – or, in terms of the arithmetic applied to the EU vote, by a majority of 81.4% to 18.6% which is a rather larger margin than the actual referendum. It is also ironic that each time the degree of parliamentary unanimity on a Brexit vote is less than total, the Daily Mail takes it upon itself to denounce the dissidents as traitors (the most recent example being only last week).
Brexit supporters will always claim that there is a short-term price to be paid but it will be worth it in order to reclaim sovereignty over UK laws. Indeed, so committed is the government to taking back control that it planned simply to enact the result of a legally non-binding referendum without any form of parliamentary debate. It took the brave efforts of Gina Miller last year to force a parliamentary vote before implementing Article 50. Not that it mattered much in the end: the decision to trigger it was passed by a majority of 498 to 114 with 38 abstentions – or, in terms of the arithmetic applied to the EU vote, by a majority of 81.4% to 18.6% which is a rather larger margin than the actual referendum. It is also ironic that each time the degree of parliamentary unanimity on a Brexit vote is less than total, the Daily Mail takes it upon itself to denounce the dissidents as traitors (the most recent example being only last week).
Looking ahead, 2018 promises more of the same both
politically and economically. The consensus view is that the UK will again grow
at a rate around 1.5%, though I suspect there may be some upside risks on the basis
that the inflation-induced constraint on real incomes is likely to ease. But
politics will remain as fractious as ever. In my view – and one which I have
been espousing for the last five years – opening a partisan debate on EU
membership means that many politicians are taking positions which run contrary
to the UK’s economic interests. This has met with huge pushback and continues to distort the political debate to the extent that many other pressing economic issues - such as welfare reform and overhauling the social care system - continue to be pushed down the agenda.
I would like nothing better than to write less about the
politics of Brexit in 2018 but it is the dominant theme of our time which will
have profound economic consequences. Brexit represents a political revolution,
with many politicians apparently forced to take positions which they may not
personally agree with because they are afraid of acting against “the will of
the people.” In some ways I am reminded of the Iranian popular revolution,
which unfolded on our nightly TV news bulletins almost 40 years ago. Years of
dissatisfaction with the status quo in Iran prompted a revolution, based in this case
around religion. Years of dissatisfaction with the UK political status quo has
resulted in a revolution based around the cause of the EU. The Iranian case led to
years of hardship and international isolation. Quite what Brexit will do to the
UK will become apparent only in the years ahead.
No comments:
Post a Comment