It’s the EU facing economic disaster
He writes ‘Within days of a vote to withdraw, they warned, our country would be engulfed by the storms of financial crisis and commercial meltdown. But more than a month after the referendum this disaster has still failed to materialise.
Far from sinking into recession the British economy is buoyant. Despite all the gloomy talk about the likely damage caused by the referendum the latest figures show that growth in the second quarter to the end of June actually reached 0.6 per cent, up from 0.4 per cent in the first quarter.
The fundamentals are stronger than ever. Employment rates are at a record high, interest rates at a record low. Boom rather than gloom appears to be the prevailing mood of business.’
It reminds me of a piece I wrote for the local press in the East Midlands before the referendum, in which I commented, ‘we’re the world’s fifth largest economy – our currency is a better bet than the Euro, which is a disaster in the making. The Euro is a bankruptcy machine that has brought economic depression and unemployment to most of southern Europe.
When we leave the EU, we will be Europe’s largest export customer, bar none. UK/EU trade is too important to be interrupted – and we buy far more from them that they buy from us, so the trade is even more important to their side.
We’ll still be buying their BMWs and Audis. They’ll still buy our Toyotas and Jaguars. If the European Commission tries to delay a trade agreement, they’ll find the leaders of continental industries kicking their doors down.
The Remain side warns us of job losses when we leave. I worry about the jobs we’re losing today, as a result of EU legislation.’
Article 50 controversy again
Meanwhile, a piece by The Independent claims The Lords could derail the triggering of Article 50.
Baroness Wheatcroft said she hoped that a pause in introducing Article 50 could lead to a second EU referendum and potentially the public changing its mind.
All very frustrating, let’s get on with Brexit – it is, after all, what the people of this country voted for.
Contrary views on science
There are more publications today claiming Brexit has hit the country’s science investment.
Graeme Reid, the Chairman of the Science and Research Policy at University College London, has said that in the wake of the British public’s decision to exit the European Union, science and research academies there face an uncertain and potentially damaging future, as much of the resources come from sources across the European Union.
I point you back to an earlier debrief when Royal Society President Sir Venki Ramakrishnan said that there was no evidence that British scientists were being by-passed for grant funding as a result of Brexit, nor that it would be more difficult to attract foreign researchers to the UK, insisting that the quality of British research would guarantee its future.
During the campaign, British science, like British academia, was strongly pro-Remain. Sir Venki says that this was understandable, since scientists, like business people, appreciate stability and may be worried by change. But despite the broad pro-Remain consensus in the scientific community, a number have broken cover to express contrary views. Prof Nick Donaldson of University College London argues that Brexit will attract more medical research to the UK when we’re free of restrictive EU regulation. Sir Venki’s comments add weight to such views.