ONS: No post-referendum shock to UK economy

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
Project Fear lay in tatters last night after a string of major reports showed the British economy is prospering following the Brexit vote.

In a damning assessment of the scaremongering by the Remain camp, the Office for National Statistics declared that there had been no post-referendum economic shock.

Even the left-leaning, pro-EU Guardian newspaper reported the economy had 'confounded analysts' gloomy expectations,' with its own analysis finding consumer spending was strong, unemployment low and the housing market stable following June's EU vote.

The ONS even pointed to ‘indicators of strength’ – such as rising house prices, record levels of employment and soaring high street sales.

Remainers also like to keep saying that many of those who voted Brexit now "regret" their decision. But that claim also lies in tatters.

An analysis of polling by elections expert John Curtice found there was ‘not much evidence of buyer’s remorse,’ among Brexit supporters – with the vast majority still wanting to leave the EU.

It found little support for a second referendum on Britain’s EU membership. Only about a third of voters want to see a second poll, ‘virtually all of them Remain voters’.


Now even the lefty GUARDIAN says Brexit's not that bad as three of the most impeccably independent institutions say we're BOOMING


ONS declared that there had been no post-referendum economic shock

The comments made a mockery of George Osborne's dire warnings

Bank of England also admitted that business sentiment had improved

The OECD was forced to raise its growth forecasts for the UK economy


By Hugo Duncan, Deputy Finance Editor For The Daily Mail
22 September 2016


So wrong: George Osborne

Project Fear lay in tatters last night after a string of major reports showed the British economy is prospering following the Brexit vote.

In a damning assessment of the scaremongering by the Remain camp, the Office for National Statistics declared that there had been no post-referendum economic shock.

Even the left-leaning, pro-EU Guardian newspaper reported the economy had 'confounded analysts' gloomy expectations,' with its own analysis finding consumer spending was strong, unemployment low and the housing market stable following June's EU vote.

The ONS even pointed to ‘indicators of strength’ – such as rising house prices, record levels of employment and soaring high street sales.

The upbeat comments from the country’s official statistical body made a mockery of George Osborne’s dire warnings before the vote of ‘an immediate and profound’ economic blow.

The Bank of England also admitted yesterday that business sentiment had improved about Britain’s post-Brexit prospects, and said the fall in the pound had boosted tourism.

And, in a significant U-turn, the OECD was forced to raise its growth forecasts for the UK economy, having been among the many international forecasters to predict economic catastrophe.

Last night Tory MP John Redwood, a former cabinet minister, said: ‘These people got it comprehensively wrong. Those people who threatened us with an immediate shock and recession should be apologising.’

On a day that appeared to have hammered the final nails into the Project Fear coffin:

Banking heavyweights including UBS, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan also raised their forecasts for the UK;

A separate ONS report showed the deficit fell in August thanks in part to a surge in income tax and corporation tax receipts;

Car production was at a 14-year high, with demand from overseas booming.


Mr Osborne, chief architect of Project Fear, had claimed a Brexit vote would cause a ‘DIY recession’, while David Cameron said it would put ‘a bomb under the economy’.

But yesterday the new Chancellor Philip Hammond hailed the ‘underlying strength in the UK economy’.



City commentator David Buik, an analyst at stockbroker Panmure Gordon, added: ‘It comes as absolutely no surprise to me that the ONS feels that Brexit has not damaged the UK’s economy. There was absolutely no need for Project Fear. It was irresponsible and totally unnecessary.’

In a sweeping round-up of economic data collected since the referendum, the ONS noted that house prices ‘continued to grow strongly’, while the manufacturing and construction sectors are on the same paths as before vote. It added: ‘So far there are no signs of a sharp collapse in consumer confidence as some early fears had suggested.’

Joe Grice, its chief economist, said: ‘The referendum result appears, so far, not to have had a major effect on the UK economy. So it hasn’t fallen at the first fence but longer-term effects remain to be seen.’ The OECD – the leading economic think tank in the West – said it now expects the economy to grow by 1.8 per cent this year. That was better than the 1.7 per cent previously forecast and puts Britain on course to be the fastest growing major economy in the developed world this year alongside Germany. Earlier this year, the Paris-based watchdog had warned Brexit ‘would be a major negative shock to the UK economy’.

A monthly round-up of independent forecasts published by the Treasury also showed City institutions were far more optimistic. After the Brexit vote, banks had downgraded their forecasts. But Morgan Stanley, which donated £250,000 to the Remain camp, now expects growth of 1.9 per cent this year, up from the 1.2 per cent it predicted in August.

UBS revised up its forecast for growth this year from 1.3 per cent to 1.9 per cent as it welcomed ‘a more resilient post-referendum performance than anticipated’.

The Bank of England warned the economy has slowed since the referendum, having grown by 0.6 per cent between April and June, and added that companies are less willing to take on staff or invest. But its report, based on the views of its regional agents – its eyes and ears around the country, found sentiment improved in August.

The Bank said the fall in sterling – it is down 11 per cent against the euro since the referendum – has boosted tourism as families opted to holiday in Britain.

It added that the fall in sterling, which raises the cost of imports, has not led to higher prices, despite claims a vote to leave would hit shoppers in the pocket.

ONS figures yesterday showed the Government borrowed £10.5billion last month – down from £11.5billion in August last year. The Treasury was boosted by a rise in tax receipts. In a further sign business is booming, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said 109,000 cars were produced last month – the best August for 14 years.

No buyer's remorse: Voters want to cut migration and stop funding EU


Theresa May has already indicated that ending free movement will be a deal-breaker

Ending free movement from Europe and halting the billions Britain sends to Brussels are the public’s ‘red lines’ for the Brexit negotiations, a new study revealed yesterday.

An analysis of polling by elections expert John Curtice found there was ‘not much evidence of buyer’s remorse,’ among Brexit supporters – with the vast majority still wanting to leave the EU.

It found little support for a second referendum on Britain’s EU membership. Only about a third of voters want to see a second poll, ‘virtually all of them Remain voters’.

And it laid out voters’ key demands for Brexit negotiations. Ending Britain’s EU budget contributions is the public’s top priority, with 81 per cent in favour.

Scrapping the free movement of people is also a red line, with 79 per cent of voters citing it as a key demand. Theresa May has already indicated that ending free movement will be a deal-breaker. Cabinet ministers at Chequers last month agreed the exit deal ‘must mean controls on the numbers of people who come to Britain from Europe’. But Mrs May has avoided questions about whether Britain will halt all payments to the EU. Some ministers are pushing her to agree to reduced contributions in return for access to the EU’s single market. Professor Curtice said it was clear that any deal that involved the UK continuing to bankroll Brussels would meet stiff resistance. ‘It’s a sovereignty issue,’ he said. ‘Most people do not feel European in this country.

‘And so there is an argument about the legitimacy of this £350million (a week) that we don’t “control”, that the EU decides how is spent. People think – “Why does the EU have the right to spend our money?”’

By contrast, voters are more relaxed about having to comply with EU regulations. Just 17 per cent said ending all Brussels rules should be a red line.

Professor Curtice analysed results of every poll conducted since June 23. Remainers have claimed the public mood has changed since Brexit, with many voters regretting their vote. But Professor Curtice suggested this was ‘wishful thinking’. It came as Mrs May prepared for crunch talks in Downing Street today with Martin Schulz, the socialist leader of the European Parliament, which has the power to veto Brexit terms.


HUNGARY: UK CITIES' NO-GO ZONES

Hungary has sparked a diplomatic row with Britain after claiming that parts of the UK are now ‘no-go zones’ because of the number of migrants.

In a leaflet sent to millions of Hungarian households, the government in Budapest said the British authorities are unable to maintain control in the areas where ‘social norms’ no longer apply because of the number of migrants. Cities across Europe are marked on a map with ‘no-go’ signs, including six in Britain that appear to relate to locations including London, Southampton and Peterborough.

The British Embassy in Budapest has complained to the Hungarian foreign ministry about the leaflet.


 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Don't confuse Brexit with the Brexit vote. You have no Brexit yet, just a Brexit vote. In a sense, you're in the best possible scenario right now: Full EU membership and a weak pound. What more can you ask for.

Once the UK leaves the EU, the weak pound will help somewhat to compensate for the loss rising tariffs and the UK's loss of economies of scale in production.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
Don't confuse Brexit with the Brexit vote. You have no Brexit yet, just a Brexit vote. In a sense, you're in the best possible scenario right now: Full EU membership and a weak pound. What more can you ask for.

Once the UK leaves the EU, the weak pound will help somewhat to compensate for the loss rising tariffs and the UK's loss of economies of scale in production.

I'm fed up of Remainers trying to dismiss the fact the British economy is booming despite the Brexit vote by saying "But Brexit hasn't happened yet!"

Throughout the referendum campaign, the Remainers were telling us that economic disaster and WWIII would happen almost as soon as a Brexit vote occurred, NOT when Brexit actually happens. George Osborne, who arrogantly assumed he'd stay as Chancellor after a Brexit vote, was saying that he would have to implement an emergency Budget just days after a Brexit vote to try to rescue the economy. Yet his successor, Philip Hammond, has not had to introduce such measures.

But now that the economic disaster that the Remainiac Remainers predicted would occur straight after a Brexit vote hasn't happened, they now keep trying to brush it off by saying "But Brexit hasn't happened yet!" No doubt when Brexit occurs and the Remainers' Great Calamity still doesn't happen, they'll then say "Oh, but not enough time had passed yet! We need to wait at least ten years before we see the negative effects!" And then after ten years when the Great Calamity STILL has not happened...
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I'm fed up of Remainers trying to dismiss the fact the British economy is booming despite the Brexit vote by saying "But Brexit hasn't happened yet!"

Throughout the referendum campaign, the Remainers were telling us that economic disaster and WWIII would happen almost as soon as a Brexit vote occurred, NOT when Brexit actually happens. George Osborne, who arrogantly assumed he'd stay as Chancellor after a Brexit vote, was saying that he would have to implement an emergency Budget just days after a Brexit vote to try to rescue the economy. Yet his successor, Philip Hammond, has not had to introduce such measures.

But now that the economic disaster that the Remainiac Remainers predicted would occur straight after a Brexit vote hasn't happened, they now keep trying to brush it off by saying "But Brexit hasn't happened yet!" No doubt when Brexit occurs and the Remainers' Great Calamity still doesn't happen, they'll then say "Oh, but not enough time had passed yet! We need to wait at least ten years before we see the negative effects!" And then after ten years when the Great Calamity STILL has not happened...

Actually,there is some truth to that. Not all trade barriers are teriff-based. Now the UK and the EU share many common laws regarding trade, industry, trades, etc. This means these shared common business standards allow a company to meet common specifications so as to reduce redundancy. Immediately after Brexit, the UK will suffer initially by a moderate increase in tariffs, but it will inherit many of the old EU business laws.

As time goes by and the UK's and EU's business laws diverge though, UK businesses will increasingly find themselves having to package, measure, translate, etc. separately for the UK and EU markets. This will impose additional costs on businesses, reduce economies of scale, and so impose inflation.

Now I suppose the UK could avoid this by voluntarily choosing to always conform to EU standards or legislatively allow UK businesses to choose between UK or EU standards. This could avoid some trade barriers, but you'll still need to negotiate tariff reductions.

A smaller EU would feel pressure to reduce tariffs somewhat, but we all know the EU to be protectionist by nature, so don't expect too much on that front.

Thatcher was smart to remain in the EU and would likely have been a smart as Cameron to step aside and let someone else do the damage.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
Actually,there is some truth to that. Not all trade barriers are teriff-based. Now the UK and the EU share many common laws regarding trade, industry, trades, etc. This means these shared common business standards allow a company to meet common specifications so as to reduce redundancy. Immediately after Brexit, the UK will suffer initially by a moderate increase in tariffs, but it will inherit many of the old EU business laws.

As time goes by and the UK's and EU's business laws diverge though, UK businesses will increasingly find themselves having to package, measure, translate, etc. separately for the UK and EU markets. This will impose additional costs on businesses, reduce economies of scale, and so impose inflation.

Now I suppose the UK could avoid this by voluntarily choosing to always conform to EU standards or legislatively allow UK businesses to choose between UK or EU standards. This could avoid some trade barriers, but you'll still need to negotiate tariff reductions.

A smaller EU would feel pressure to reduce tariffs somewhat, but we all know the EU to be protectionist by nature, so don't expect too much on that front.

Thatcher was smart to remain in the EU and would likely have been a smart as Cameron to step aside and let someone else do the damage.

Brexit and International Trade Treaties

One consequence of the UK’s membership of the EU is that many aspects of the UK’s external relations are now conducted partly or wholly through the EU. As a result of Brexit, the UK would be able to re-assume direct control of its external relations, including trade relations. The pro-Remain camp suggested in the campaign that Brexit would result in years of uncertainty while the UK renegotiates its international trade arrangements.

This contention is not supported by the facts and evidence. As we explain in more detail in this research piece:

The UK cannot currently decide the level of tariffs which we levy on imports, because these are set at a uniform level for the EU as a whole under the EU's customs union. After exit, WTO rules would apply which would allow the UK to decide the level of our own tariffs on imports, provided that tariffs on average are no higher than under the EU customs union.

Again, because of the EU customs union and 'common commercial policy', the UK is not able to negotiate its own trade agreements with non-member countries -- we can only do so as part of the EU. The UK will be able to participate in new trade agreements with non-member countries from the day after exit. The process of negotiating new trade deals can be started during the 2-year notice period leading up to Brexit, with a view to bringing them into force on or soon after the date of exit.

The EU has existing free trade agreements which currently apply to the UK as an EU member. Most of these EU agreements are with micro-States or developing countries and only a small number represent significant export markets for the UK. Both the EU and the member states (including the UK) are parties to these agreements. The UK could simply continue to apply the substantive terms of these agreements on a reciprocal basis after exit unless the counterparty State were actively to object. We can see no rational reason why the counterparty States would object to this coursDaniel Alexander <Daniel.Alexander@8newsquare.co.uk>e since that would subject their existing export trade into the UK market, which is currently tariff free, to new tariffs. There will be no need for complicated renegotiation of these existing agreements as was misleadingly claimed by pro-Remain propaganda.

The UK was a founder member of EFTA but withdrew when we joined the EEC in 1973. We could apply to re-join with effect from the day after Brexit. There is no reason why the four current EFTA countries would not welcome us back, given that the UK is one of EFTA's largest export markets. EFTA membership would allow us to continue uninterrupted free trade relations with the four EFTA countries, and also to participate in EFTA's promotion of free trade deals with non-member countries around the world.

The EU is seriously encumbered in trying to negotiate trade agreements by the large number of vociferous protectionist special interests within its borders. After Brexit, the UK would be able to negotiate new trade deals unencumbered by these special interests much faster than the EU, and with a higher priority for faciliting access to markets for our own export industries including services.

It is completely untrue that you need to be a member of a large bloc like the EU in order to strike trade deals. The actual record of the EU compared to that (for example) of the EFTA countries demonstrates the direct opposite.

The baseline of our trade relationship with the remaining EU states would be governed by WTO rules which provide for non-discrimination in tariffs, and outlaw discriminatory non-tariff measures. From this baseline, and as the remaining EU's largest single export market, we would be in a strong position to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal providing for the continued free flow of goods and services in both directions. We explain what such a deal would look like in a later post, Brexit - doing a deal with the EU.


Brexit and International Trade Treaties
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
One advantage of Brexit is that the UK could negotiate much freer trade with other states, and might even consider unilaterally dropping all tariffs and minimising regulation. Would that compensate for loss of trade with countries just across the Channel? Maybe, but I doubt it.

With that in mind, I guess Brexit might not be catastrophic, but it will hurt the UK's economy none-the-less.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all EU-members states are members of EFTA. In fact, I thought you had to be a member of EFTA to join the EU.

So why would the UK need to rejoin EFTA if it is already an EFTA member-state. All it would need to do is to not withdraw from EFTA. And sinse EFTA and the EU are still separate, leaving the EU does not automatically mean leaving EFTA. IN fact, I bet the EU would hope the UK remain a member of EFTA and the UK would be stupid to leave that too.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
One advantage of Brexit is that the UK could negotiate much freer trade with other states, and might even consider unilaterally dropping all tariffs and minimising regulation. Would that compensate for loss of trade with countries just across the Channel? Maybe, but I doubt it.

With that in mind, I guess Brexit might not be catastrophic, but it will hurt the UK's economy none-the-less.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all EU-members states are members of EFTA. In fact, I thought you had to be a member of EFTA to join the EU.

So why would the UK need to rejoin EFTA if it is already an EFTA member-state. All it would need to do is to not withdraw from EFTA. And sinse EFTA and the EU are still separate, leaving the EU does not automatically mean leaving EFTA. IN fact, I bet the EU would hope the UK remain a member of EFTA and the UK would be stupid to leave that too.

Loss of trade with EU member states?

UK trade with the EU is declining anyway, year on year. Each year, the EU becomes less important to the UK for trade. Soon the EU will be insignificant to the UK, even though the population of the EU (minus the UK) is around 440 million.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
Loss of trade with EU member states?

UK trade with the EU is declining anyway, year on year. Each year, the EU becomes less important to the UK for trade. Soon the EU will be insignificant to the UK, even though the population of the EU (minus the UK) is around 440 million.

That means nothing. South Korean trade is insignificant to North Korea too.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
That means nothing. South Korean trade is insignificant to North Korea too.

It means a lot. It means the EU is becoming less and less important to the UK each year, despite what the Remain minority would have us believe. Brexit affecting British trade with the EU really doesn't matter. The EU is becoming less important to Britain as a trade destination each year.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
It means a lot. It means the EU is becoming less and less important to the UK each year, despite what the Remain minority would have us believe. Brexit affecting British trade with the EU really doesn't matter. The EU is becoming less important to Britain as a trade destination each year.

So who's the UK's biggest trading partner?

Just because the UK imorts more from than exports to the EU means nothing. That means that cutting your ties would push the price of UK products up. Inflation. You might start producing it yourself less efficiently or alternatively import it from much farther afield.

Meanwhile, it could hurt your exports too and so reduce economies of scale.

Now devil's advocate. Supposing the UK agreed to some deal whereby the UK, Russia, North Africa, and North America agreed to drop all tariffs between each other, and heck, throw China and India and Australia and New Zealand in for good measure, that might make up for your loss of EU trade. Loss of geographical proximity, but a much larger market population-wise I suppose.

But what's the probability of that happening?
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
So who's the UK's biggest trading partner?

Just because the UK imorts more from than exports to the EU means nothing. That means that cutting your ties would push the price of UK products up. Inflation. You might start producing it yourself less efficiently or alternatively import it from much farther afield.

Meanwhile, it could hurt your exports too and so reduce economies of scale.

Now devil's advocate. Supposing the UK agreed to some deal whereby the UK, Russia, North Africa, and North America agreed to drop all tariffs between each other, and heck, throw China and India and Australia and New Zealand in for good measure, that might make up for your loss of EU trade. Loss of geographical proximity, but a much larger market population-wise I suppose.

But what's the probability of that happening?

British dependency on EU trade is at a record low


The proportion of goods and services we're trading with the EU is falling.

The ONS said that exports from the UK to the EU grew on average by 3.6pc from 1999 to 2014, below the 6.5pc rise in exports to non-EU countries.

As a result, the proportion of UK exports destined for the EU has dropped from 54.8pc in 1999 to 44.6pc in 2014.

The latest monthly figures showed that in April goods exports to the EU fell to a record low. Just 45.1pc of the goods that the UK exported that month went to the EU, down from 52pc in the previous year.

Martin Beck, an economist at Oxford Economics, said: "The latest trade data showed a further decline in the EU's importance as a market for UK exports.

"The EU remains by far the UK's single most important export market," said Mr Beck. However, he added that "a consistent drop in the importance of the continental market should embolden David Cameron's hand in renegotiating the UK's membership".

The EU's importance as a trade destination is likely to keep declining

Elizabeth Martins, an economist at HSBC, warned that the jump in goods exports in April largely came from growth in non-EU markets. She said this was "a move which could be vulnerable to reversal in coming months".

But that doesn't mean that the long-term trend won't be a steady one. Less developed economies are catching up, and are sure to represent a larger share of UK trade in future.

Mr Beck said: "While exit from the EU continues to look an unlikely prospect, were it to happen, an ongoing shift in the destination of UK exports should at least make the cost in terms of lost overseas sales less onerous over time."



Trade figures showing high exports to the EU may also be inflated by the 'Rotterdam effect'.

This refers to the theory that exports to the Netherlands are high because they are shipped to Rotterdam, before continuing on around the world to a non-EU destination.

The ONS has addressed the Rotterdam effect in a separate bulletin, and said that "it is not possible to estimate, with any certainty, the impact that the Rotterdam effect has on UK trade with the Netherlands and its subsequent impact on UK trade with EU and non-EU countries".

It said: "The port of Rotterdam is not unique in acting as a ‘gateway’ for other countries; it is accurate to say that this form of trading can occur in almost any place. For example, goods arriving in France from China could, after clearing customs, be distributed to other EU member states and potentially be recorded as imports from France.

"The main difference is that the port of Rotterdam is one of the largest in the world and the sheer quantity and value of goods being traded separates the Rotterdam effect from other, similar, cases and therefore attracts more attention," it added.

The EU's dwindling importance to UK trade in three charts - Telegraph
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
The EU makes up 44.6% of your trade according to your own article. And you're willing to risk that for what?

Now I suppose again, if you do manage to get better deals, you might make up for it.

To be honest, I would be willing to have Canada leave NAFTA, but on one condition: that we unilaterally drop all tariffs and that many, many other states do the same. Problem is, that's a gamble because if other states don't do so, we lose the US market and we're screwed.

I like the idea in principle, but it's a major gamble.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,429
1,668
113
The EU makes up 44.6% of your trade according to your own article. And you're willing to risk that for what?

Now I suppose again, if you do manage to get better deals, you might make up for it.

To be honest, I would be willing to have Canada leave NAFTA, but on one condition: that we unilaterally drop all tariffs and that many, many other states do the same. Problem is, that's a gamble because if other states don't do so, we lose the US market and we're screwed.

I like the idea in principle, but it's a major gamble.

Why would EU member states want to suddenly stop trading with Britain?

The UK is the fourth biggest export market in the world for German cars. Will the Germans suddenly want to stop selling their cars to the UK?