The UK economy has been unexpectedly resilient post Brexit. Most professional economists predicted that the UK would fall into recession should the electorate vote to exit the EU.
Granted, the horizon does seem to be darkening a little for the UK’s all important consumer. However, business confidence surveys are buoyant and economic activity is so far holding up impressively well.
Many of these economists, not unreasonably, argued that nothing has changed yet. The uncertainty, instrumental in crimping private sector decision-making, will likely not crystallise sufficiently until Article 50 is finally invoked.
To what extent should we still listen to these economists?
Assuming that the Government triggers Article 50 by April, the UK will have just two years to negotiate a new trade agreement with the EU before being forced out of the single market.
Canada’s free-trade deal with the EU was seven years in the making and is still not yet in force and this is with the two sides of the negotiating table trying to row in the same direction.
It would be surely wise to assume that, as Prime Minister Theresa May suggested, the UK may well be falling back on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules in two years’ time.
However, the task of negotiating tariff schedules with the WTO’s 163 other members mean that the fog shrouding the UK’s global trading relationships is unlikely to disperse very quickly.
In short, we should probably work on the assumption that there is more uncertainty in the pipeline for the UK economy.
Uncertainty is, of course, hard to measure and even harder to predict. However, it can affect an economy through multiple channels.
Households increase savings — and so reduce consumption - while firms delay investment spending and hiring. Sometimes, additional temporary workers could be preferred to more costly and irreversible capital investment.
Uncertainty can even affect the economy’s supply-side potential, by delaying the entry and expansion of productive firms for example. The bottom line is that uncertainty can distort the healthy functioning of an economy.
This is part of the reason that we have long argued that Brexit would likely provide a headwind for the UK economy. We have, nonetheless, steered clear of the more apocalyptic forecasts touted by many.
The UK’s institutions, rule of law and relatively attractive demographic profile will likely continue to make this an appealing place for businesses to establish themselves once the dust has settled.
Of course, the process of disentangling the country from 44 years of economic entanglement with the neighbouring economic behemoth is likely to provide a challenging backdrop for a private sector that craves visibility and stability.
However, uncertainty is a nebulous concept and can take many forms – geopolitical, economic, policy – and not all will have the same impact on the economy.
Ultimately, the task of measuring uncertainty is a challenge fraught with uncertainty itself.
Forecasting the causal impact of uncertainty on the economy is harder still. Until these challenges can be adequately overcome – and one wonders whether this will ever be the case – accurately predicting the effects of a political shock such as Brexit may always be elusive.
For investors, it is worth bearing in mind that whatever the UK’s plight, it is unlikely to have a meaningful influence on the world’s capital markets.
The UK economy plays a minor role in the capital markets domiciled in the UK and an insignificant one in the global investment universe.
For UK-based investors, sterling is naturally important for its influence on the value of overseas investments.
However, there is already a lot of gloom factored in to the currency – something perhaps indicated by the currency’s surprisingly positive reaction to Prime Minister May’s Brexit speech.
Calum Brewster is managing director at Barclays Wealth & Investment Management for the north region.
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 here