Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Brexit OUT of EU: What happens now?

Sure, but all that was before we had the biggest jihadist movement of modern times, which is clearly creating paranoid emotional responses, as likely intended. What if all parties agreed that a stricter border control 'pillar' is needed? Would that not help pacify some of the paranoid conservatives?

Paranoia is irrational fear. Nothing irrational about wanting less jihadists in the UK. For me, it's a sh1tty but necessary decision. I would have voted exit. Even if the risk is low, it's a risk which can reduced by closing up shop temporarily.
 
Sure, but all that was before we had the biggest jihadist movement of modern times, which is clearly creating paranoid emotional responses, as likely intended. What if all parties agreed that a stricter border control 'pillar' is needed? Would that not help pacify some of the paranoid conservatives?

The issue is Poles and Romanians having the right to live and work in the UK not Islamic extremists. Britain is not part of the Schengen area and already maintains separate immigration for non-EU nationals.
 
The issue is Poles and Romanians having the right to live and work in the UK not Islamic extremists. Britain is not part of the Schengen area and already maintains separate immigration for non-EU nationals.

So what about all the refugees flooding into Germany ? Do they eventually end up with the right to go anywhere in Europe ?
 
Paranoia is irrational fear. Nothing irrational about wanting less jihadists in the UK. For me, it's a sh1tty but necessary decision. I would have voted exit. Even if the risk is low, it's a risk which can reduced by closing up shop temporarily.

In other words Canoz, if you had an innocent friend or family member ripped in half by a bomb in central London in 2005... do you think you'd develop some anxiety or hatred for those of ME appearance? Or would you still be cool as a cucumber lefty? You're showing no empathy for, or understanding of, those who did experience exactly this.

I know it's not good to encourage fearful thinking, but neither is it good to push peoples' boundaries if fear has taken hold.
 
In other words Canoz, if you had an innocent friend or family member ripped in half by a bomb in central London in 2005... do you think you'd develop some anxiety or hatred for those of ME appearance? Or would you still be cool as a cucumber lefty? You're showing no empathy for, or understanding of, those who did experience exactly this.

I know it's not good to encourage fearful thinking, but neither is it good to push peoples' boundaries if fear has taken hold.


Actually GB, every-time i watch the news i get anxious about extremism. After September 11th i went into a deep depression, brought on by a triple tragedy in my life as well as anxiety from the horrible events of 9/11.

Despite all of this, i try and remain as objective as i can as i have lived in a country and have been subject to racism, i know what it feels like. I am also very sympathetic to the Middle Easterners cause, after all it was the US and her allies that repeatedly went into the middle east hunting for various groups and killing innocents....I can't help but feel for the people that have been hurt on both sides. I try to remain balanced and make my own judgments rather than rely on the media to scare me into staying at home...

I've got to say I've become more sympathetic to the refugees after we had our first child. To see the look in the eyes of the children pains me to no end.

I hope you can understand my view.
 
Actually GB, every-time i watch the news i get anxious about extremism. After September 11th i went into a deep depression, brought on by a triple tragedy in my life as well as anxiety from the horrible events of 9/11.

Despite all of this, i try and remain as objective as i can as i have lived in a country and have been subject to racism, i know what it feels like. I am also very sympathetic to the Middle Easterners cause, after all it was the US and her allies that repeatedly went into the middle east hunting for various groups and killing innocents....I can't help but feel for the people that have been hurt on both sides. I try to remain balanced and make my own judgments rather than rely on the media to scare me into staying at home...

I've got to say I've become more sympathetic to the refugees after we had our first child. To see the look in the eyes of the children pains me to no end.

I hope you can understand my view.

At heart we have the same view. Nice post.
 
They did try and negotiate back earlier this year. It was the agreement that Cameron secured that pretty much formed the basis of his Remain campaigning.

Meanwhile the leave campaign has freedom to say and promise anything.

It seems crazy that the vote is actually not legally binding. It's just the world's biggest opinion survey...

This has always been my view. The 27 countries of the EU excluding the UK know that they don't want the UK out and the UK is waking up to the fact that it doesn't really want to leave. If anything I think this vote has brought EU reform finally to the front and centre. Which is a good thing. Maybe they can also deal with the periphery which Brussels has put into perpetual depression.

That would be the best case scenario... but that would give every other member a free pass to change things?

Also... how can the market be so optimistic and just seem to ignore all downside and price in the best possible outcome?
 
So what about all the refugees flooding into Germany ? Do they eventually end up with the right to go anywhere in Europe ?
And if I was a Brit, that is enough of a reason to vote leave.No doubt at the rate of 1.1million a year min for Germany alone, it does not take long to overwhelm the natives in Europe;
better poor but free, than rich an extra 10y but under islam rule.
Funny how the left comparea the anti migration with nazis yet forget the analogy between the green and the brown plague.
Neither better in my opinion.
Churchill not Chamberlain
 
Meanwhile the leave campaign has freedom to say and promise anything.

It seems crazy that the vote is actually not legally binding. It's just the world's biggest opinion survey...

The Westminster system doesn't really make allowance for referendums. Obviously in Australia the Constitution sets out the referendum process, but anything that doesn't require a change to the Constitution should be dealt with by the Parliament. That's why it's called representative democracy. In this instance, Cameron didn't consider that the vote would be close and he thought he could shut up the eurosceptics for at least a generation by putting it to a vote.


That would be the best case scenario... but that would give every other member a free pass to change things?

Any change will applied across the EU, not given as a special allowance to Britain. The eastern Europeans have the most to lose, and will fight the hardest. When push comes to shove, they'll probably accept that less free access is better than no access. The idea of free movement of labour within the EU was done at a time when it was a union of economically much similar countries, and most labour was unskilled. If the EU does not budge on immigration then it changes the ball game again, but the UK is still unlikely to shoot itself in the foot based on 35% of the voting public, and there will be another referendum.

All of that is of course my uninformed opinion. ;)
 
Thanks McLovin, however uninformed it may be, i always welcome it!:xyxthumbs
 
In other words Canoz, if you had an innocent friend or family member ripped in half by a bomb in central London in 2005... do you think you'd develop some anxiety or hatred for those of ME appearance? Or would you still be cool as a cucumber lefty? You're showing no empathy for, or understanding of, those who did experience exactly this.

I had one *very* near miss myself with a bombing by Muslim extremists in Moscow a couple of years ago, so I have every sympathy for these views.

That said, I think it's important to focus the argument on the freedom of movement of people within the EU. Refugees from Syria and how Europe handles the sheer volume of them is in my mind a different matter that warrants it's own discussion. It's a challenging topic - how do we balance our need for a functioning society with our moral obligations to the world?

The unfortunate fact is that 3 of the 4 London bombers were born in the UK. The 4th was born in Jamaica. But I've come to the view in the last day or so that whilst concerns over immigration (and in the case of BNP/UKIP types racism) was a factor in the referendum, the driving force may be something far deeper and even sadder.

http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/thoughts-on-the-sociology-of-brexit/ explains my current view far more articulately than I possiby could.
 
Interesting how the farmer voted for Brexit, yet get such great benefits from being in the Union...my how stupid some have become.
Do you always vote for self interest?
If I did I would vote liberal every time, be pro migration to get gardeners paid 5$ an hour as in the US.
(some) people vote for a higher ideas and for what they believe is the best for the country as a whole;
But maybe I am the only one to be like that: different background and education
In a nutshel, i see no problem with voting for something which might hit me more than benefit me, all for a grand cause/purpose; the farmer might have voted to save his country from a (perceived) islamic onslaught via migration, not to get reduced wheat subsidies...
my 2c only as i am not a brit farmer but wanted to offer another possible side of the story..
it could also be sheer stupidity, i know...
 
Do you always vote for self interest?
If I did I would vote liberal every time, be pro migration to get gardeners paid 5$ an hour as in the US.
(some) people vote for a higher ideas and for what they believe is the best for the country as a whole;
But maybe I am the only one to be like that: different background and education
In a nutshel, i see no problem with voting for something which might hit me more than benefit me, all for a grand cause/purpose; the farmer might have voted to save his country from a (perceived) islamic onslaught via migration, not to get reduced wheat subsidies...
my 2c only as i am not a brit farmer but wanted to offer another possible side of the story..
it could also be sheer stupidity, i know...

Obviously they didn't vote for what was good for them now....i think they voted for what they think might be good for them longer term....I've known farmers all my life, they always voted with their pocket books, what happened this time?:rolleyes:...populism...
 
In reference to the topic title: this is what happens now:

http://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-new...ned-from-uk-for-life-20180325?c=1521996078350

Canadian Activist Speaks Out After Being Banned From UK For Posting Posters Saying ‘Allah Is Gay’
Stewart Perrie in NEWS
Canadian 'activist' Laura Southern has received a lifetime ban from the UK after authorities accused her of distributing racist material.

The 'alt-right' campaigner was keen to see what would happen if she started posting posters around Luton saying 'Allah is gay' and 'Allah is trans'.

She says it was a 'social experiment', which seems to be today's phrase used by people who do whatever the **** they want all in the name of anthropology.

You don't have to be an expert in the Koran to know that Allah is pretty revered in the Muslim world, so it's not hard to guess that Southern's posters didn't go down well.


Not only did members of the Luton community confront her, but her and her pals were quickly addressed by the police. They told her what she was doing was a Public Order Offence and told her to pull down the posters before a 'situation' started where people 'could get injured'.

52e3dd915ab7270a87e8e425e664c390.png

Credit: Laura Southern/YouTube

Southern was warned if she didn't pull them down, she'd be arrested.

Sure enough, they shut down their wee stall.

While she wasn't arrested during that incident, the Mirror says she was detained at the border crossing in Calais under the Terrorism Act earlier this month. It's reported that it was here she was told she was banned from entering the UK.

A UK Home Office spokesperson told the newspaper: "Border Force has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good."

View image on Twitter
DYE7zi3X0AAGwYD?format=jpg&name=small.jpg

https://twitter.com/Lauren_Southern/status/973124784623112192
Lauren Southern

✔@Lauren_Southern


They just locked me out and said "au revoir"... Officially banned from UK for "racism".. doing fine though, all the cool people are being banned anyway
1f609.png


Need to gather my thoughts and call family. Interrogation story is pretty crazy though. Will tell it soon.

7:13 PM - Mar 12, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Southern says her 'social experiment' was sparked when she saw an article online saying that 'Jesus was gay'. She was confused about why there wasn't an outpouring of rage in response to the article and so wanted to see what reaction she'd get if she swapped Jesus with Allah and the internet with Luton.

In a video posted to her YouTube channel, she says: "This highlights a monumental double standard in Western societies, why is it racist to say Allah is gay, but not Jesus is gay?"

While she's attracted criticism for a few years, Southern copped an absolute battering for a mission she was a part of in May last year.

She took part in an attempt to block an NGO ship from leaving Sicily that was about to start a search and rescue mission for a migrant vessel that has sunk off the shores of Northern Africa.
 
https://www.wsj.com/...anks-1521819089





The U.K. Is Doing Just Fine, Thanks




Despite all the dire Brexit forecasts, the U.K. has had a strikingly good year. Leaving the EU may well boil down to far less, economically, than anyone thought.




BN-XY755_BREXIT_FR_20180322134450.jpg

ILLUSTRATION: ALEX NABAUM


By

Fraser Nelson
March 23, 2018 11:31 a.m. ET
68 COMMENTS

For a country supposedly crawling out of the ruins of the Brexit vote, the U.K. has been having a strikingly good year so far. The number of people working stands at a record high, and income inequality is approaching a 30-year low, according to the Office for National Statistics. New orders for manufacturers are at their highest level in a generation, and employers in general are struggling to find enough staff to cope with demand. Even the (relatively new) national happiness index stands at a peak.



When Britain voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, a very different future was forecast. Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, declared that Britain had just “collapsed: politically, monetarily, constitutionally and economically.” But the plague of locusts has yet to show up—which is odd, given how many experts predicted that a victory for Brexit would bring catastrophe. Now, almost two years after the vote, the picture is clearer, and there is plenty of evidence to challenge the conventional wisdom, for those with eyes to see it.



To be sure, the quality of our political drama remains dismal. If you have only been looking at Westminster, you will have only seen disaster. The leaders of the Brexit campaign hadn’t given enough thought to what they’d do if they won, so they ended up destroying each other when the time came. Theresa May, who had opposed Brexit, became prime minister and then lost her majority in a snap election last summer; she carries on, but with little authority.



Brexit capsized the entire political establishment. It was a revolution, but no new regime has emerged. And that may be no bad thing: After the pyrotechnics of the past few years, a spell of boring politics is welcome. If this is a crisis, it is one with its compensations.



In the run-up to the 2016 referendum, the International Monetary Fund predicted that a vote for Brexit would result in “sharp drops in equity and house prices” and a downturn in foreign investment. But all three measures went on to hit record levels. Barclays predicted that there would be a 0.4% contraction in gross domestic product in 2017, Credit Suisse a 1% fall, Nomura a 1.3% fall. In the end, GDP rose by 1.4%. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned that consumers would be shaken and cut back on their spending. They didn’t.





‘How could so many great minds get it so wrong?’

Perhaps the direst Brexit warnings came from the U.K. Treasury. The milder of its two forecasts said that the economy would “fall into recession with four quarters of negative growth,” while “unemployment would increase by around 500,000, with all regions experiencing a rise in the number of people out of work.” As it turned, economic growth accelerated after the Brexit vote. Employment rose by 560,000, and the unemployment rate now stands at a 43-year low.



How could so many great minds get it so wrong? It is a case study of unconscious bias in forecasts.



Too many economists assumed that the public would react to a Brexit vote in the same way that they themselves would: Run for the hills and wait for the sky to fall. So they made guesses—about consumer spending, investment, productivity—and entered them into computer models that came up with nonsense figures. Their only correct prediction was the 10% drop in the value of the pound, which has brought its blessings (high manufacturing exports) as well as its curses (consumer price inflation peaking at 3%).



The great exodus of financial sector workers hasn’t quite happened either. Before the referendum, banks were cheerfully saying that they’d lose no time in packing up and booking flights— Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan even donated £500,000 (about $705,000) to the Remain campaign. Deutsche Bank spoke of moving 4,000 staff out of London. But Deutsche has since calmed down and is now talking about moving a few hundred; last summer it signed a lease on a new London headquarters.



London’s resilience is easy to explain. It is perhaps the greatest financial center in the world. No other European city comes close, not just for finance but (let’s face it) for vibrancy, atmosphere, people and opportunity. What’s the point of earning more money in Frankfurt if you have to spend it in Frankfurt? London’s advantages—the time zone, the language, its fintech pre-eminence, the financial ecosystem—are still very much in place. Its biggest rivals are Hong Kong, New York and Singapore, all of which manage just fine outside the EU.



When companies sit down to do Brexit scenario planning, they find that it’s not so hard. A free-trade arrangement with the EU in the style of the North American Free Trade Agreement is the most likely outcome, in exchange for British cash (the current figure is £37 billion, paid over several decades). If the British negotiate a bad deal (the next most likely option), businesses would end up bound by the same EU rules they face now—so not much would change.



BN-XY823_BREXIT_P_20180322155927.jpg

Demonstrators in a ‘March for Europe’ rally in London, Sept. 3, 2016. PHOTO: KATE GREEN/ANADOLU AGENCY/GETTY IMAGES
If the talks go wrong, or if the deal is vetoed by the parliament of Wallonia (a fate that almost blocked the EU-Canada free-trade agreement), World Trade Organization rules would kick in, so tariffs would be capped at 4.2% on average. That would cause a headache for importers, but it’s manageable. So the worst-case Brexit scenario is hardly catastrophic.



For financial chiefs, Brexit might mean doing more business out of a bureau in Dublin or Paris, but its impact probably won’t go much further. TheCityUK, a trade body, had been talking about as many as 100,000 financial jobs moving from London after a Brexit vote; it has since estimated that the toll will be more like 3,000.


The idea of foreign workers abandoning Britain has captured imaginations around the world, especially among those looking for proof of the disaster they wrongly predicted. A report in the New York Times a few months ago described an “exodus of foreign workers,” leaving British employers “in the lurch.” Another article described the departure of workers for the National Health Service, explaining that the country to which they had immigrated “no longer exists.”



But Britain very much does still exist, as does the NHS, whose ranks now include more EU nationals than ever before (trainee doctors in particular). The same goes for universities: Cambridge, for example, saw 382 EU nationals leave last year, but it saw 509 others arrive. A forthcoming survey of U.K. universities by the Spectator shows that two-thirds saw a net increase in the number of EU nationals last year. The same trend holds for the economy overall. Since the Brexit referendum, according to the Office for National Statistics, 17 EU nationals have arrived in Britain for every 10 who have left.



Still, it is true that the total number of people arriving from the EU has fallen from pre-Brexit levels—and some employers are indeed panicking. Politicians too. Nicola Sturgeon, first minister of Scotland, warned recently that half of the workers in the U.K. food-processing industry are EU nationals. The Food and Drink Federation has gone as far as to say that its members might “be unable to feed the nation”



Ms. Sturgeon exaggerated: 33% of these workers are from the EU. But, strikingly, it was just 1% in 2004. So the food-processing industry, like many others, had completely changed its business model in response to the sudden influx of workers, who arrived at a scale the U.K. government never envisaged.



‘One remarkable effect of Brexit has been a mellowing in the country’s political mood.’

The idea of their arriving at a slower rate certainly worries David Page, whose private-equity firm owns the pizza chain Franco Manca. He warned that his staff feel “bruised” by Brexit and might not hang around in Britain. Facing “bigger competition for a lesser pool of staff,” he said, the company might even “have to increase our bonus packages.” Heaven forbid! Mr. Page’s plight was reported as proof of the grim effect of Brexit on business, but the expectation of such wage boosts is precisely why a lot of people voted for Brexit. They saw it as something that would nudge the balance of power away from the bosses and back to the workers.



One remarkable effect of Brexit has been a mellowing in the country’s political mood. Concern about immigration has fallen sharply, even if immigration is still twice as high as the government’s target. Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party, the closest Britain has to a populist movement, is dying on its feet. Not so long ago, it was Britain’s third-largest party. Now it’s a comic irrelevance, struggling to win 2% of the vote and with no chance of taking any seats in Parliament.




Compare this to the tumult in the rest of Europe. Populist parties have recently taken over half of the vote in Italy, a third of the vote in France’s presidential election, a fifth of the vote in Germany and Austria and about the same share of parliamentary seats. Brexit Britain is an oasis of stability by comparison, perhaps the most successful melting pot in the continent. It’s quite true that the U.K. Labour Party, now under new hard-left management, is a threat to the calm. But the populist specter, which is haunting so much of Europe, has been exorcised from the U.K. body politic.



To confuse populism with Brexit is to confuse a disease with its cure. As the Princeton political theorist Jan-Werner Müller has observed, populism is primarily a form of rhetoric, not a political agenda. It’s all about shaking a fist at the establishment, saying that your party alone can represent the silent majority. The reaction in the chancelleries of Europe has seemed to follow the Bertolt Brecht poem: “Would it not be easier… To dissolve the people/ And elect another?” But Britain offers an easier remedy: If you address what people are concerned about, populism goes away.



BN-XY854_BREXIT_P_20180322165758.jpg

The Lloyd's of London building, Feb. 1. London’s advantages are still very much in place. PHOTO: REUTERS/SIMON DAWSON


The disorientation in the House of Commons can be seen as part of this adjustment—a sign of things going right, not wrong. A new Tory MP, Kemi Badenoch, used her maiden speech to comfort her colleagues by saying that democracy is like sex: If it’s not messy, you’re not doing it right. Her quote might owe more to Woody Allen than to Bagehot, but it makes a key point: Brexit has forced back on the agenda important themes that had been discarded, and it goes beyond the protection of the nation state and control of borders. MPs now talk a lot about the wants and needs of those who voted for Brexit—typically less-affluent people who did not go to university. A demographic that had been taken for granted has now made itself felt.



But Brexit did not need to be such a political mess. Many of the more facile claims made by Brexiteers have been disproved, at some cost to Britain’s reputation abroad. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnunchin says that the U.K. is at the “front of the line” for a free-trade deal, but progress is discouragingly slow. It was assumed during the campaign that negotiations with Brussels would be quick and easy. Instead, we have seen slow diplomatic torture from a well-organized EU that regards its treatment of Britain as a proxy war with its own populist tormentors.



The House of Commons is full of politicians who fantasize about somehow thwarting the whole process. Ms. May needs Parliament’s permission to agree to a deal; many MPs are getting excited about making life so difficult for her that the whole project would be abandoned. But it’s a pipe dream. Michael O’Leary, the CEO of Ryanair, recently pointed out that his fellow Irishmen keep holding referendums until people give the right answer. But this is not the British way. Even if it were, support for Brexit has barely changed since referendum day, with the country still evenly split.



MORE SATURDAY ESSAYS


If the fate of Brexit was decided by the quality of political leadership, the project would have been abandoned long ago. But this was not about a choice of government, or calculations of GDP per capita: It was about sovereignty, democracy and the idea that British laws and government should be decided only by those elected by the British public. In its way, it was the greatest-ever vote of confidence in the project of the United Kingdom, and that confidence has not gone away.



Every so often, I receive an email that gathers up news stories containing the words “despite Brexit.” It never fails to cheer me up. For example: “ Citigroup to invest in London, hire staff, despite Brexit,” or “Despite Brexit, City real estate partners reap benefits of record year.” None of this has anything to do with Brexit, which hasn’t actually happened yet. When it does, to judge by the reaction so far, it may well boil down to far less, economically, than either its supporters or enemies think.



It could be that Brexit, in and of itself, will be neither good nor bad for Britain. It will bring extra powers, and all depends on whether those powers will be used well or badly in 10 Downing Street. It’s still early days. But from what we’ve seen so far, it looks like a bet that a lot of Britons are still glad to have taken.



Mr. Nelson is the editor of the Spectator and a columnist for the Daily Telegraph.
 
https://www.wsj.com/...anks-1521819089





The U.K. Is Doing Just Fine, Thanks




Despite all the dire Brexit forecasts, the U.K. has had a strikingly good year. Leaving the EU may well boil down to far less, economically, than anyone thought.




BN-XY755_BREXIT_FR_20180322134450.jpg

ILLUSTRATION: ALEX NABAUM


By

Fraser Nelson
March 23, 2018 11:31 a.m. ET
68 COMMENTS

For a country supposedly crawling out of the ruins of the Brexit vote, the U.K. has been having a strikingly good year so far. The number of people working stands at a record high, and income inequality is approaching a 30-year low, according to the Office for National Statistics. New orders for manufacturers are at their highest level in a generation, and employers in general are struggling to find enough staff to cope with demand. Even the (relatively new) national happiness index stands at a peak.



When Britain voted to leave the European Union in June 2016, a very different future was forecast. Mark Rutte, the Dutch prime minister, declared that Britain had just “collapsed: politically, monetarily, constitutionally and economically.” But the plague of locusts has yet to show up—which is odd, given how many experts predicted that a victory for Brexit would bring catastrophe. Now, almost two years after the vote, the picture is clearer, and there is plenty of evidence to challenge the conventional wisdom, for those with eyes to see it.



To be sure, the quality of our political drama remains dismal. If you have only been looking at Westminster, you will have only seen disaster. The leaders of the Brexit campaign hadn’t given enough thought to what they’d do if they won, so they ended up destroying each other when the time came. Theresa May, who had opposed Brexit, became prime minister and then lost her majority in a snap election last summer; she carries on, but with little authority.



Brexit capsized the entire political establishment. It was a revolution, but no new regime has emerged. And that may be no bad thing: After the pyrotechnics of the past few years, a spell of boring politics is welcome. If this is a crisis, it is one with its compensations.



In the run-up to the 2016 referendum, the International Monetary Fund predicted that a vote for Brexit would result in “sharp drops in equity and house prices” and a downturn in foreign investment. But all three measures went on to hit record levels. Barclays predicted that there would be a 0.4% contraction in gross domestic product in 2017, Credit Suisse a 1% fall, Nomura a 1.3% fall. In the end, GDP rose by 1.4%. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned that consumers would be shaken and cut back on their spending. They didn’t.





‘How could so many great minds get it so wrong?’

Perhaps the direst Brexit warnings came from the U.K. Treasury. The milder of its two forecasts said that the economy would “fall into recession with four quarters of negative growth,” while “unemployment would increase by around 500,000, with all regions experiencing a rise in the number of people out of work.” As it turned, economic growth accelerated after the Brexit vote. Employment rose by 560,000, and the unemployment rate now stands at a 43-year low.



How could so many great minds get it so wrong? It is a case study of unconscious bias in forecasts.



Too many economists assumed that the public would react to a Brexit vote in the same way that they themselves would: Run for the hills and wait for the sky to fall. So they made guesses—about consumer spending, investment, productivity—and entered them into computer models that came up with nonsense figures. Their only correct prediction was the 10% drop in the value of the pound, which has brought its blessings (high manufacturing exports) as well as its curses (consumer price inflation peaking at 3%).



The great exodus of financial sector workers hasn’t quite happened either. Before the referendum, banks were cheerfully saying that they’d lose no time in packing up and booking flights— Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan even donated £500,000 (about $705,000) to the Remain campaign. Deutsche Bank spoke of moving 4,000 staff out of London. But Deutsche has since calmed down and is now talking about moving a few hundred; last summer it signed a lease on a new London headquarters.



London’s resilience is easy to explain. It is perhaps the greatest financial center in the world. No other European city comes close, not just for finance but (let’s face it) for vibrancy, atmosphere, people and opportunity. What’s the point of earning more money in Frankfurt if you have to spend it in Frankfurt? London’s advantages—the time zone, the language, its fintech pre-eminence, the financial ecosystem—are still very much in place. Its biggest rivals are Hong Kong, New York and Singapore, all of which manage just fine outside the EU.



When companies sit down to do Brexit scenario planning, they find that it’s not so hard. A free-trade arrangement with the EU in the style of the North American Free Trade Agreement is the most likely outcome, in exchange for British cash (the current figure is £37 billion, paid over several decades). If the British negotiate a bad deal (the next most likely option), businesses would end up bound by the same EU rules they face now—so not much would change.



BN-XY823_BREXIT_P_20180322155927.jpg

Demonstrators in a ‘March for Europe’ rally in London, Sept. 3, 2016. PHOTO: KATE GREEN/ANADOLU AGENCY/GETTY IMAGES
If the talks go wrong, or if the deal is vetoed by the parliament of Wallonia (a fate that almost blocked the EU-Canada free-trade agreement), World Trade Organization rules would kick in, so tariffs would be capped at 4.2% on average. That would cause a headache for importers, but it’s manageable. So the worst-case Brexit scenario is hardly catastrophic.



For financial chiefs, Brexit might mean doing more business out of a bureau in Dublin or Paris, but its impact probably won’t go much further. TheCityUK, a trade body, had been talking about as many as 100,000 financial jobs moving from London after a Brexit vote; it has since estimated that the toll will be more like 3,000.


The idea of foreign workers abandoning Britain has captured imaginations around the world, especially among those looking for proof of the disaster they wrongly predicted. A report in the New York Times a few months ago described an “exodus of foreign workers,” leaving British employers “in the lurch.” Another article described the departure of workers for the National Health Service, explaining that the country to which they had immigrated “no longer exists.”



But Britain very much does still exist, as does the NHS, whose ranks now include more EU nationals than ever before (trainee doctors in particular). The same goes for universities: Cambridge, for example, saw 382 EU nationals leave last year, but it saw 509 others arrive. A forthcoming survey of U.K. universities by the Spectator shows that two-thirds saw a net increase in the number of EU nationals last year. The same trend holds for the economy overall. Since the Brexit referendum, according to the Office for National Statistics, 17 EU nationals have arrived in Britain for every 10 who have left.



Still, it is true that the total number of people arriving from the EU has fallen from pre-Brexit levels—and some employers are indeed panicking. Politicians too. Nicola Sturgeon, first minister of Scotland, warned recently that half of the workers in the U.K. food-processing industry are EU nationals. The Food and Drink Federation has gone as far as to say that its members might “be unable to feed the nation”



Ms. Sturgeon exaggerated: 33% of these workers are from the EU. But, strikingly, it was just 1% in 2004. So the food-processing industry, like many others, had completely changed its business model in response to the sudden influx of workers, who arrived at a scale the U.K. government never envisaged.



‘One remarkable effect of Brexit has been a mellowing in the country’s political mood.’

The idea of their arriving at a slower rate certainly worries David Page, whose private-equity firm owns the pizza chain Franco Manca. He warned that his staff feel “bruised” by Brexit and might not hang around in Britain. Facing “bigger competition for a lesser pool of staff,” he said, the company might even “have to increase our bonus packages.” Heaven forbid! Mr. Page’s plight was reported as proof of the grim effect of Brexit on business, but the expectation of such wage boosts is precisely why a lot of people voted for Brexit. They saw it as something that would nudge the balance of power away from the bosses and back to the workers.



One remarkable effect of Brexit has been a mellowing in the country’s political mood. Concern about immigration has fallen sharply, even if immigration is still twice as high as the government’s target. Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party, the closest Britain has to a populist movement, is dying on its feet. Not so long ago, it was Britain’s third-largest party. Now it’s a comic irrelevance, struggling to win 2% of the vote and with no chance of taking any seats in Parliament.




Compare this to the tumult in the rest of Europe. Populist parties have recently taken over half of the vote in Italy, a third of the vote in France’s presidential election, a fifth of the vote in Germany and Austria and about the same share of parliamentary seats. Brexit Britain is an oasis of stability by comparison, perhaps the most successful melting pot in the continent. It’s quite true that the U.K. Labour Party, now under new hard-left management, is a threat to the calm. But the populist specter, which is haunting so much of Europe, has been exorcised from the U.K. body politic.



To confuse populism with Brexit is to confuse a disease with its cure. As the Princeton political theorist Jan-Werner Müller has observed, populism is primarily a form of rhetoric, not a political agenda. It’s all about shaking a fist at the establishment, saying that your party alone can represent the silent majority. The reaction in the chancelleries of Europe has seemed to follow the Bertolt Brecht poem: “Would it not be easier… To dissolve the people/ And elect another?” But Britain offers an easier remedy: If you address what people are concerned about, populism goes away.



BN-XY854_BREXIT_P_20180322165758.jpg

The Lloyd's of London building, Feb. 1. London’s advantages are still very much in place. PHOTO: REUTERS/SIMON DAWSON


The disorientation in the House of Commons can be seen as part of this adjustment—a sign of things going right, not wrong. A new Tory MP, Kemi Badenoch, used her maiden speech to comfort her colleagues by saying that democracy is like sex: If it’s not messy, you’re not doing it right. Her quote might owe more to Woody Allen than to Bagehot, but it makes a key point: Brexit has forced back on the agenda important themes that had been discarded, and it goes beyond the protection of the nation state and control of borders. MPs now talk a lot about the wants and needs of those who voted for Brexit—typically less-affluent people who did not go to university. A demographic that had been taken for granted has now made itself felt.



But Brexit did not need to be such a political mess. Many of the more facile claims made by Brexiteers have been disproved, at some cost to Britain’s reputation abroad. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnunchin says that the U.K. is at the “front of the line” for a free-trade deal, but progress is discouragingly slow. It was assumed during the campaign that negotiations with Brussels would be quick and easy. Instead, we have seen slow diplomatic torture from a well-organized EU that regards its treatment of Britain as a proxy war with its own populist tormentors.



The House of Commons is full of politicians who fantasize about somehow thwarting the whole process. Ms. May needs Parliament’s permission to agree to a deal; many MPs are getting excited about making life so difficult for her that the whole project would be abandoned. But it’s a pipe dream. Michael O’Leary, the CEO of Ryanair, recently pointed out that his fellow Irishmen keep holding referendums until people give the right answer. But this is not the British way. Even if it were, support for Brexit has barely changed since referendum day, with the country still evenly split.



MORE SATURDAY ESSAYS


If the fate of Brexit was decided by the quality of political leadership, the project would have been abandoned long ago. But this was not about a choice of government, or calculations of GDP per capita: It was about sovereignty, democracy and the idea that British laws and government should be decided only by those elected by the British public. In its way, it was the greatest-ever vote of confidence in the project of the United Kingdom, and that confidence has not gone away.



Every so often, I receive an email that gathers up news stories containing the words “despite Brexit.” It never fails to cheer me up. For example: “ Citigroup to invest in London, hire staff, despite Brexit,” or “Despite Brexit, City real estate partners reap benefits of record year.” None of this has anything to do with Brexit, which hasn’t actually happened yet. When it does, to judge by the reaction so far, it may well boil down to far less, economically, than either its supporters or enemies think.



It could be that Brexit, in and of itself, will be neither good nor bad for Britain. It will bring extra powers, and all depends on whether those powers will be used well or badly in 10 Downing Street. It’s still early days. But from what we’ve seen so far, it looks like a bet that a lot of Britons are still glad to have taken.



Mr. Nelson is the editor of the Spectator and a columnist for the Daily Telegraph.

But they haven't left yet!
 
Prevarication and equivocation is the way the British do their negotiations. Also pretending they do not know what they are trying to achieve whilst always knowing exactly what they want to achieve. Once negotiations are agreed the other side will think they have the best deal whilst the British get the deal they originally wanted in the first place whilst saying compromises on both sides were made.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prevaricate
 
Top