…Finally, let’s move on to Brexit.
…”As for the negotiations, the situation is pretty clear. Its framework will be set out by the European Council – that is by the guidelines foreseen in the Treaty. Our task will be to protect the interests of the EU as a whole and the interests of each of the 27 member states. And also to stick unconditionally to the Treaty rules and fundamental values. By this I mean, inter alia, the conditions for access to the single market with all four freedoms. There will be no compromises in this regard.
“When it comes to the essence of Brexit, it was largely defined in the UK during the referendum campaign. We all remember the promises, which culminated in the demand to “take back control”. Namely the “liberation” from European jurisdiction, a “no” to the freedom of movement or further contributions to the EU budget. This approach has definitive consequences, both for the position of the UK government and for the whole process of negotiations.
“Regardless of magic spells, this means a de facto will to radically loosen relations with the EU, something that goes by the name of “hard Brexit”.
“This scenario will in the first instance be painful for Britons. In fact, the words uttered by one of the leading campaigners for Brexit and proponents of the “cake philosophy” was pure illusion: that one can have the EU cake and eat it too. To all who believe in it, I propose a simple experiment. Buy a cake, eat it, and see if it is still there on the plate.
“The brutal truth is that Brexit will be a loss for all of us. There will be no cakes on the table. For anyone. There will be only salt and vinegar. If you ask me if there is any alternative to this bad scenario, I would like to tell you that yes, there is. And I think it is useless to speculate about “soft Brexit” because of all the reasons I’ve mentioned. These would be purely theoretical speculations. In my opinion, the only real alternative to a “hard Brexit” is “no Brexit”. Even if today hardly anyone believes in such a possibility. We will conduct the negotiations in good faith, defend the interests of the EU 27, minimise the costs and seek the best possible deal for all. But as I have said before, I am afraid that no such outcome exists that will benefit either side. Of course it is and can only be for the UK to assess the outcome of the negotiations and determine if Brexit is really in their interest. ..
Lionel Barber FT Editor Guntram Wolff Bruegel Director
James Blitz FT Editor Sylvie Goulard MEP
“Lionel Barber expressed the view that the Brexit vote was not a vote against globalization in general although direction and the rhetoric in UK politics have changed dramatically against it. James Blitz argued that Brexit supporters underestimate the extent of reduction in trade a hard Brexit would entail and overestimate the degree and speed with which trade deals with third countries can compensate for it. Sylvie Goulard emphasized that any future arrangement with the UK would have to fully respect each of the four freedoms of the EU. She added that the discussion is not specific to Britain, but pertains to a more general debate about the desirable degree of openness in society. She finally wondered whether domestic policy failures and the introduction of the euro contributed to the course of events. Guntram Wolff took the view that the future deal should strike the balance between preserving favourable outcomes for the citizens and respecting each side’s political principles. He agreed on the importance of EU-UK trade for both parties, and thus spoke in favour of maintaining the deep integration of goods and services markets, while reaching a compromise on free movement of workers with the UK, outside of the EU.
“In his second intervention, Lionel Barber drew the context for Theresa May’s recent speech at the Conservative Party Conference. He argued that she intended to address Brexit voters’ anxieties and pointed at her tenure as Home Secretary makes her sensitive on security and immigration. Barber concluded that, while whether globalization has peaked in Britain is an open question, certain aspects of it will not be complete. James Blitz agreed that domestic policy shortcomings contributed to the referendum result, adding that May’s post-referendum response has been to advocate a strong state to address them. The problem he sees is an intrinsic contradiction between that domestic policy vision and the strategy currently pursued, which is limiting the economic resources a strong state would require. Sylvie Goulard also supported the need for a balanced solution but insisted that supranational jurisdiction over the single market should remain a precondition for participation. Guntram Wolff, in turn, made two final points; firstly, he raised the prospect of policy dumping should the UK becomes estranged from the EU. Secondly, he argued that the depreciation of the pound should be seem as a correction, whereby the financial sector is shrinking, driving down the value of the currency and, thus, making British industry more competitive.”
Chart £ – $
The rapid transition in the UK with the appointment of Theresa May as Prime Minister following the resignation of David Cameron has led to a welcome turnaround in UK business activity and sentiment with support from the the Bank of England
Prime Minister May has made it clear Brexit means Brexit. But it will be months and may be even years before we know what Brexit actually means.
This blog was launched to support work I have been doing addressing the unconventional monetary policies adopted by central banks since the global financial crisis erupted in 2008. A key element of the book is identifying reliable and accessible information resources for ordinary investors in extraordinary times. Markit is an important resource.
Previous postings on this blog have suggested keeping gold on the agenda for consideration when asset allocation decisions are being made. A weaker currency is good for exporters but not for savers.
“UK construction activity fell sharply for a second successive month in July, pointing to an ongoing impact of Brexit-related worries.
The Markit/CIPS Construction PMI edged lower from 46.0 in June to 45.9 in July, signalling a rate of decline not seen since June 2009:
While the June data has mainly reflected business activity prior to the June 23rd referendum, the July data were collected between 12th and 28th July inclusive.
“Just 15% of firms reported higher activity in July against 23% reporting a decline.
The poor start to the third quarter deals a further blow to a sector that was already in recession in the second quarter and has been greatly underperforming the rest of the economy, according to official data.”
“During the EU referendum campaign, the Vote Leave campaign repeatedly reassured the British people that a vote for Brexit would boost the economy and create jobs. And they dismissed all expert warnings of the consequences of a vote to leave – from the Bank of England, IMF, Treasury and others.
But Monday has seen just the latest in a series of shockingly bad economic numbers. It’s less than six weeks since Britain voted to leave, but already the consequences are being felt. The Markit PMI survey of manufacturers, which picks up data every month on output, orders, employment and other metrics, has collapsed into negative territory. Falling from 52.4 to 48.1, it is now at its lowest level for four years.
What does this rather dry statistic really mean? It means lower revenue for firms as orders dry up. It means small businesses being forced into the red. It means jobs being lost and investment postponed or cancelled in a desperate attempt to save money. It means real people, workers and business-owners alike, being worse off.
And it’s hardly the only piece of evidence that the Leave vote has drastically hit the economy. The pound has plunged to its lowest level since the mid 1980s, before many voters were even alive. Confidence among both consumers and retailers is now lower than it’s been since the height of the Great Recession in 2009. And big companies like Ford and Ryanair are mulling their investment positions in Britain.
I campaigned passionately for Britain to remain in the EU, and was deeply disappointed by the result. Yet I respect it totally, and I hope now that Britain can avoid economic damage, and get the best deal possible from the EU. We Remain campaigners take absolutely no pleasure in being the bearers of bad news.
Yet it’s vital that the Leave campaigners are held to account for the promises and claims they made during the referendum campaign. Senior cabinet ministers, from Boris Johnson and Andrea Leadsom to David Davis and Priti Patel, promised greater prosperity outside of Europe, and blithely brushed off every warning about the consequences. These people aren’t running some scrappy political campaign – they’re running the country. They have to be held to account, and that is what Vote Leave Watch, the campaign I chair, is doing.
There is a tragic irony that it is manufacturing that seems so clearly to be bearing the brunt of the Brexit vote. Theresa May entered Downing Street promising a “comprehensive industrial strategy”, which would shift the economy towards productive manufacturing, and rebalance the country by boosting manufacturing heartlands in the North, the Midlands, Wales and Scotland. I applaud the intention, though we are yet to see much in the way of specifics.
The irony is that the part of the economy the new Prime Minister wants to champion is the very sector that has apparently been badly hit by the vote for Brexit. While she earnestly reassures the nation about her commitment to an industrial strategy, her government is packed full with Leave campaigners who have made that strategy immensely more difficult to carry out.”