YOU could almost hear the sound of the bottom of the barrel being scraped this week when the effect of the repeal of the Corn Laws was cited in support of a UK exit from the European Union.
It was the kind of headline, among thousands rolling in on the Reuters financial news terminal, which made you wonder if you were dreaming. But it was real enough. And it was difficult to shake the notion that the arguments for Brexit had gone from the ridiculous to the sublimely ridiculous.
For those who do not know or perhaps do not care, or both, the Corn Laws were repealed in 1846. For the avoidance of doubt, that is 170 years ago.
The eight-strong Economists for Brexit group, Reuters informed us, sees a parallel between the UK’s modern-day establishment wanting the country to vote to stay in the EU in the June 23 referendum and the land-owning elite fighting in the 19th century to keep the Corn Laws. These laws imposed import tariffs on food.
When the Corn Laws were repealed, a consequent fall in bread prices boosted the spending power of the UK’s increasingly urban population, spurring the economy.
The argument advanced by the Economists for Brexit group seems to be that a post-Brexit UK could benefit from being more open to free trade, lowering import tariffs unilaterally.
As parallels go, this is definitely not the most obvious one.
The UK is, these days, a long, long way away from being an agrarian economy. And, in any case, should we really be looking all the way back to 1846 when trying to contemplate what might happen were the electorate to vote for Brexit? Especially when the answers are surely staring us in the face in the present.
At least this albeit seemingly bizarre parallel was used to put forward some kind of economic viewpoint, however unconvincing it might be.
Last September, it was noted in this column that, when trying to assess what might happen in the referendum on UK membership of the EU, we must take account of the backdrop of depressingly prevalent xenophobia in Britain.
And it was argued that some politicians on the right must shoulder a significant part of the blame for this blight, given their tiresome and ill-informed rhetoric.
Sadly, things are no better on this front. They have probably got worse.
Opinion polls are, alarmingly, indicating the June 23 vote could be close. Given the Brexit camp seems to have failed to come up with any convincing reasons why the UK might possibly be better off by leaving the giant free trade bloc that is the EU, it seems xenophobia and jingoism are influencing some people’s voting intentions heavily.
However, that does not mean we should ignore the economic realities of Brexit.
It remains impossible to see how an exit from the EU would not cause massive economic disclocation, causing the UK’s already woeful international trade performance to take a massive lurch for the worse.
Experts have warned of a disorderly plunge in sterling. The pound has been looking jittery in the run-up to the referendum, but this nervousness would seem likely to pale into insignificance if the UK electorate were actually to vote to leave the EU. And the UK’s already poor growth seems to have been weighed down further by Brexit fears.
Bank of England Governor Mark Carney warned yesterday that the risks of the UK leaving the EU “could possibly include a technical recession”. This seems like a gentle euphemism. However, whether understated or not, at the end of the day Mr Carney is warning there is a danger of recession.
He does not dwell on the likely depth of any such recession. However, you could easily picture a scenario of a Brexit vote being followed by a tumble in exports, investment, employment and confidence. So a painfully deep recession would be no surprise at all.
With the UK economy already in most unconvincing shape as the Conservatives continue to exert their icy grip of austerity, a vote to leave the EU would almost certainly heap further huge misery on households.
The indications are that, in the business community, there is a greater recognition of the true consequences of Brexit.
A poll published this week by Scottish Chambers of Commerce shows nearly 70 per cent of businessmen and women north of the Border remain in favour of staying in the EU.
Support is stronger among exporters, running at 71 per cent. But, even among non-exporters, support for EU membership is 63.9 per cent.
The benefits of EU membership are plain to see everywhere, even in Glasgow Airport’s latest passenger figures this week.
And the dangers of exit have been well flagged. What clearer message is there than President Barack Obama’s warning that the UK would, in the event of Brexit, have to go to the back of the queue for a trade deal with the US? The US is a huge export market for companies in Scotland, and elsewhere in the UK.
The UK benefits hugely from trade deals between the EU and a raft of countries. The EU is obviously also home to some of the UK’s most important export markets.
Yet, it seems, many people are not bothered about the sensible economic arguments.
As the referendum looms, we should ask ourselves one question. Do people really want to vote for something that may well usher in another very painful recession just because they cannot be bothered to, or choose not to, address the economic reality of the situation?
Surely not, you might think. Yet the opinion polls are telling us the electorate might do just that.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel