Voted Leave: D+1 - whats the Economic Plan
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
hornet said:
Free movement of people is one of the key principles of the EEA agreement. If we wish to retain access to the single market in a post-Brexit world, I don't see any evidence to suggest we wouldn't have to accept it. Joining EFTA would see control over agriculture and fisheries, but freedom of movement is still required for an EFTA member to participate in the EEA.
If we went the non-EFTA bilateral route, what evidence is there to suggest we wouldn't be subject to the same requirements as Switzerland? Treaties in their two bilateral treaty tranches are deemed mutually dependent and subject to a "guillotine clause". They have no power to pick and choose the terms of their access, and I don't see how using that to infer a likely outcome of possible EU/UK trade deals can be considered either nonsense or discredited? I don't understand where this confidence comes from that we can just rock up to negotiations, pick and choose what we want and expect to get our way without every other signatory saying "um, hang on, why do they get preferential treatment?".
I don't see how any of the above can be considered nonsense or scaremongering, given it's based on precedent (Swiss situation) and the foundational principles of the internal market agreement we're apparently just going to rock up to and partially circumvent without any other member states kicking up a stink?!
If you stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly all these problems will disappear.If we went the non-EFTA bilateral route, what evidence is there to suggest we wouldn't be subject to the same requirements as Switzerland? Treaties in their two bilateral treaty tranches are deemed mutually dependent and subject to a "guillotine clause". They have no power to pick and choose the terms of their access, and I don't see how using that to infer a likely outcome of possible EU/UK trade deals can be considered either nonsense or discredited? I don't understand where this confidence comes from that we can just rock up to negotiations, pick and choose what we want and expect to get our way without every other signatory saying "um, hang on, why do they get preferential treatment?".
I don't see how any of the above can be considered nonsense or scaremongering, given it's based on precedent (Swiss situation) and the foundational principles of the internal market agreement we're apparently just going to rock up to and partially circumvent without any other member states kicking up a stink?!
We will be dictated to. There is a majority in parliament to remain in the EU. If there is an exit then the closest thing to it will have a lot of pressure behind it. The EU will be pushing at an open door.
Seriously.
The absolute worst case scenario is that we trade with the EU under the WTO rules. Currently, 56% of our exports take place under this system. Why on Earth do you fear it so much?
JNW1 said:
Nor can I; Germany is the largest economic force by far in the EU and their businesses would suffer most as a result of any trade war with Britain. Therefore, in the event of Brexit I suspect German companies would lean heavily on their government to make sure they could continue to sell their BMW's, Audi's, VW's, Mercedes, etc, over here without a problem - the last thing they'd want is a trade war. I don't doubt there would be EU countries keen to give us a bloody nose for daring to leave but the reality is many are teetering on the economic brink already and a trade war isn't where they need to be; in any event, to protect their own businesses I think the Germans would reign-in any notion of an economic conflict with Britain.
As has already been pointed out, whilst EU exports to the UK exceed UK exports to the EU, UK exports to the EU make up a significantly larger element of UK total exports and GDP than EU exports to UK make up of the EU total exports and GDP.People seem to forget that the remaining 27 countries of the EU combined have a much larger economy (5 to 6 times larger) than the UK alone. Although their exports to us exceed our exports to them they are smaller relative to the total size of their economies.
If there was a trade war and all trade between the UK and the rest of the EU stopped the UK would see a bigger fall in GDP than in the rest of the EU. Even Germany as the dominant EU exporter would see a smaller fall than the UK would.
The UK would suffer most in the event of a trade war.
ralphrj said:
As has already been pointed out, whilst EU exports to the UK exceed UK exports to the EU, UK exports to the EU make up a significantly larger element of UK total exports and GDP than EU exports to UK make up of the EU total exports and GDP.
People seem to forget that the remaining 27 countries of the EU combined have a much larger economy (5 to 6 times larger) than the UK alone. Although their exports to us exceed our exports to them they are smaller relative to the total size of their economies.
If there was a trade war and all trade between the UK and the rest of the EU stopped the UK would see a bigger fall in GDP than in the rest of the EU. Even Germany as the dominant EU exporter would see a smaller fall than the UK would.
The UK would suffer most in the event of a trade war.
but it won't matter to the EU what happens to the UK GDP. They will only be concerned with what happens to their individual countries' GDP. People seem to forget that the remaining 27 countries of the EU combined have a much larger economy (5 to 6 times larger) than the UK alone. Although their exports to us exceed our exports to them they are smaller relative to the total size of their economies.
If there was a trade war and all trade between the UK and the rest of the EU stopped the UK would see a bigger fall in GDP than in the rest of the EU. Even Germany as the dominant EU exporter would see a smaller fall than the UK would.
The UK would suffer most in the event of a trade war.
and it will make a difference to all of them. Not a cat in hells chance they will block trade.
Can either side afford a trade embargo?
No.
ralphrj said:
JNW1 said:
Nor can I; Germany is the largest economic force by far in the EU and their businesses would suffer most as a result of any trade war with Britain. Therefore, in the event of Brexit I suspect German companies would lean heavily on their government to make sure they could continue to sell their BMW's, Audi's, VW's, Mercedes, etc, over here without a problem - the last thing they'd want is a trade war. I don't doubt there would be EU countries keen to give us a bloody nose for daring to leave but the reality is many are teetering on the economic brink already and a trade war isn't where they need to be; in any event, to protect their own businesses I think the Germans would reign-in any notion of an economic conflict with Britain.
As has already been pointed out, whilst EU exports to the UK exceed UK exports to the EU, UK exports to the EU make up a significantly larger element of UK total exports and GDP than EU exports to UK make up of the EU total exports and GDP.People seem to forget that the remaining 27 countries of the EU combined have a much larger economy (5 to 6 times larger) than the UK alone. Although their exports to us exceed our exports to them they are smaller relative to the total size of their economies.
If there was a trade war and all trade between the UK and the rest of the EU stopped the UK would see a bigger fall in GDP than in the rest of the EU. Even Germany as the dominant EU exporter would see a smaller fall than the UK would.
The UK would suffer most in the event of a trade war.
Jockman said:
lostkiwi said:
So if we were mates and I did something you didn't like such as for example shag your wife would we still be friends?
This is getting hilarious. Countries form alliances for many reasons but friendships aren't one of them.
talksthetorque said:
but it won't matter to the EU what happens to the UK GDP. They will only be concerned with what happens to their individual countries' GDP.
and it will make a difference to all of them. Not a cat in hells chance they will block trade.
Can either side afford a trade embargo?
No.
UK exports to the rest of the EU £220 billionand it will make a difference to all of them. Not a cat in hells chance they will block trade.
Can either side afford a trade embargo?
No.
Rest of EU exports to the UK £280 billion but spread across 27 countries with a combined GDP 5 to 6 times greater than the UK.
I agree that a trade war is unlikely, there will be a trade deal negotiated. The point I am making is that it is wrong to assume that the UK will have the upper hand in these negotiations as the impact of negotiations failing will be more severe in the UK than in the rest of the EU.
None of the above!
I am pretty certain that DC will go to Merkal and say " Do you want to talk about serious reform of the EU."
If she says "Nein" then he will say "Do you want to make special arrangements for Britain as we already have significant population inflows from our former Colonies" to which she will probably reply "Lassen Sie uns sprechen Kompromiss"
In short, we will be a long way from the end game, it will only be the start. We basically go back to the negotiations that we started last year but got bogged down between the refugee crisis and Greek bailouts. There is a lot of talking yet to be done.
I am not sure we will even get another referendum at the end of it. France did not when it voted NO to Maastricht.
I am pretty certain that DC will go to Merkal and say " Do you want to talk about serious reform of the EU."
If she says "Nein" then he will say "Do you want to make special arrangements for Britain as we already have significant population inflows from our former Colonies" to which she will probably reply "Lassen Sie uns sprechen Kompromiss"
In short, we will be a long way from the end game, it will only be the start. We basically go back to the negotiations that we started last year but got bogged down between the refugee crisis and Greek bailouts. There is a lot of talking yet to be done.
I am not sure we will even get another referendum at the end of it. France did not when it voted NO to Maastricht.
JNW1 said:
So is the argument that because the pain of a trade war would be spread across a lot of EU countries that somehow makes it ok and a good idea? Doesn't sound very rational to me to be honest! Moreover, as has also been pointed out, with the exception of the UK Germany is the only robust economy of any size in the EU; many of the others are teetering on the brink already and the last thing they need is a little trade war shove to push them over the edge.
I am not claiming that it is a good idea. The purpose of a trade deal is to avoid a trade war and I think one will be made. I am trying to counter the argument that the UK will call all the shots in these negotiations. The impact on the UK economy of negotiations failing will be greater than in the rest of the EU. We will have more to lose so our hand will be weaker not stronger. RobDickinson said:
What size of hole? I just dont see it being a big issue.
UK saves billions not being a member and it will still trade as it does with Europe, its in Europs interests not to f
k that up as you are an important export market for them. Far more so than they are for you.
It wont affect Uk's position with anywhere outside of Europe. You will still trade with the rest of the world. Europe will still trade with the UK.
The whole economic an tax thing is the biggest scare tactic of the whole debate. totally baseless too.
The UK currently payss £8 billion a year in net contributions, so that would be the immediate saving. Interest payments on the national debt are £45 billion a year. The average interest rate on the debt is a little below 3%. If the UK's credit rating is cut after a vote to leave the EU and if that credit rating cut results in a rise in interest rates on the UK's debt, then that £8 billion will be eliminated.UK saves billions not being a member and it will still trade as it does with Europe, its in Europs interests not to f
k that up as you are an important export market for them. Far more so than they are for you.It wont affect Uk's position with anywhere outside of Europe. You will still trade with the rest of the world. Europe will still trade with the UK.
The whole economic an tax thing is the biggest scare tactic of the whole debate. totally baseless too.
A 0.25% rise in interest rates would cost about £4 - 5 billion. A 1% rise would cost between £16 and 20 billion per annum.
don4l said:
Derek Smith said:
hornet said:
Free movement of people is one of the key principles of the EEA agreement. If we wish to retain access to the single market in a post-Brexit world, I don't see any evidence to suggest we wouldn't have to accept it. Joining EFTA would see control over agriculture and fisheries, but freedom of movement is still required for an EFTA member to participate in the EEA.
If we went the non-EFTA bilateral route, what evidence is there to suggest we wouldn't be subject to the same requirements as Switzerland? Treaties in their two bilateral treaty tranches are deemed mutually dependent and subject to a "guillotine clause". They have no power to pick and choose the terms of their access, and I don't see how using that to infer a likely outcome of possible EU/UK trade deals can be considered either nonsense or discredited? I don't understand where this confidence comes from that we can just rock up to negotiations, pick and choose what we want and expect to get our way without every other signatory saying "um, hang on, why do they get preferential treatment?".
I don't see how any of the above can be considered nonsense or scaremongering, given it's based on precedent (Swiss situation) and the foundational principles of the internal market agreement we're apparently just going to rock up to and partially circumvent without any other member states kicking up a stink?!
If you stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly all these problems will disappear.If we went the non-EFTA bilateral route, what evidence is there to suggest we wouldn't be subject to the same requirements as Switzerland? Treaties in their two bilateral treaty tranches are deemed mutually dependent and subject to a "guillotine clause". They have no power to pick and choose the terms of their access, and I don't see how using that to infer a likely outcome of possible EU/UK trade deals can be considered either nonsense or discredited? I don't understand where this confidence comes from that we can just rock up to negotiations, pick and choose what we want and expect to get our way without every other signatory saying "um, hang on, why do they get preferential treatment?".
I don't see how any of the above can be considered nonsense or scaremongering, given it's based on precedent (Swiss situation) and the foundational principles of the internal market agreement we're apparently just going to rock up to and partially circumvent without any other member states kicking up a stink?!
We will be dictated to. There is a majority in parliament to remain in the EU. If there is an exit then the closest thing to it will have a lot of pressure behind it. The EU will be pushing at an open door.
Seriously.
The absolute worst case scenario is that we trade with the EU under the WTO rules. Currently, 56% of our exports take place under this system. Why on Earth do you fear it so much?
If we are under WTO rules then tariffs apply.
So everything we export to our largest market gets more expensive to our major trading partner.
Then everything we import gets more expensive (and lets remember we are a nett importer of food).
I'm not sure but I seem to recall tariffs on cars are 10% (I can check later) and if we look at volumes the tariffs will probably cost more than EU membership.
What Hornet said is quite accurate.
We are about to seriously annoy our largest trading partner. Furthermore the 'Leave' published strategy is to go about breaking treaties left right and centre rather than following the correct exit procedure and then having done so expect to go to the negotiating table for the EU to bend over backwards to give us a free trade deal with no need to accept either mobility of workers or EU laws.
In other words we will be asking for what we have in trade now but with none of the bits we don't like.
Problem is if they do this for use it won't make the Swiss or the Norwegians very happy (for starters).
Secondly it says to the rest of the EU that "We can leave the EEA and get the same deal as Britain so why should we stay?".
Now I'm not sure if the published strategy of the Leave campaign is foolhardy or arrogant or a mix of both but its unrealistic.
So the WTO option would be the fall back position (unless we accept compromises on the very things the Leave campaign has campaigned about!).
In which case expect increased prices, less exports to the EU (so a larger trade deficit with them as lets face it Britain won't give up their German/French/Swedish/Spanish cars very easily and still need to eat!). Yes we could freight in more food from elsewhere etc but that then incurs shipping costs. Either way its no win.
In fact (from every perspective) its a no win scenario.
emicen said:
talksthetorque said:
So it appears Mr Osborne has said he will whack taxes up if we vote leave.
MP in acting like a petulant child shocker.
I found it more remarkable he admitted there is no plan at all for the opposite outcome, of a binary decision, to the side he favours.MP in acting like a petulant child shocker.
Edited by talksthetorque on Wednesday 15th June 21:15
Some would consider that a case of gross incompetence from him and his department.
Zod said:
Thanks for engaging constructively.
A few of us have to try without all the name calling 
I won't pick up on all replies as I suspect the two of us have fairly entrenched positions on them (and the point about the ECJ is noted...though my opinion on the ECJ is not dissimilar to my opinion on the EU...good idea to start with, very misguided detail decisions over time).
Zod said:
For an awful ot of people supporting an exit, numbers really do appear to be important. In any case, in what scenario would "control" not result in a reduction?
If the country has a significant gap of skilled resources then let's get them in from abroad. This sort of resource would typically (very broad brush I know) be a net contributor to our society in many ways which is obviously to be welcomed. So control could result in an uplift.However, if our government are wise, and our people capable (I still believe in us as a nation, but some of the things we've been doing to ourselves and allowed to be done to us beggar belief) then we should be capable of filling any current gaps ourselves IMO. So there should not be a need for large scale immigration of skilled resource.
On unskilled resource, we need a kick up the arse to get the 1.7m unemployed engaged in these activities.
It's a bit like the whole political angle - I do not believe for one minute that the EU is wholly to blame for all the poorly executed stuff that goes on in this country. But it's giving our politicians an opt out - "it's not me gov, it's them". Take away the "them" and people have to start looking at their own actions.
While ever we have an influx of low paid (to us - high paid to them) workers there is no impetus for the indigenous unemployed to do anything about their situation with jobs that are "beneath them".
This is also where I believe if free movement of people is to work as I think it was intended, political and fiscal union is needed to level out benefits systems, worker's rights etc etc etc. To create an environment where people are moving for the right reasons. I disagree with the need for this, but if people are insistent it's the best thing for us to do then we can't go about it in a half hearted way as that leads to the worst of all worlds.
Murph7355 said:
53% and rising of our exports are with countries outside of the EU who have different regulations to us. It's quite evidently possible to have favourable trading relationships with countries without getting bogged down by baggage. Baggage which is quite evidently the slippery slope.
Why would we need to negotiate different deals with different member states? That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to non-EU trade. If the current member states wish to be treated as one, then our industry can deal with their regulations as one whilst doing something different (if they wish) with the US, China, Japan...etc.Zod said:
This ignores the point that the EU is for trade purposes a single unit, so we do not have a choice to negotiate individual trading relationships with EU member states. Of that 53%, nearly 30% is with just four countries, the US, Switzerland, the UAE and China.
Is 30% of non-EU exports going to 4 countries intended to be a bad thing? That means the overriding majority goes to a diverse bunch. Having a small number of core/anchor customers but the bulk of your book diversified seems pretty sound to me, economically
Murph7355 said:
I've asked a few times in these threads, but can you name one other "block" still in existence today that has a "single market" that includes totally unfettered movement of people, and a very strong push towards full monetary, fiscal and political union?
I don't count the US Zod said:
There is, as well you know, no equivalent, unless you count the US.
As I suspect you know, my point is that if having an "ever closer union" (which I firmly believe means political and fiscal union as well as monetary and an unnecessarily zealous approach on trade) is such a great idea, why is no one else doing it? More, the only "block" that has gone down this path in the last 100yrs collapsed around 30yrs ago. It collapsed with countries bankrupt and massive civil unrest and set nations back decades.
It's not necessary to have these things to succeed as partners. In fact I'd argue strongly that it's detrimental to everyone involved in it over time (as has been demonstrated) as it's not only a distraction but the elite end up detaching themselves from the proles and lose sight of what the original objectives were (or at least what the proles thought they were).
Zod said:
Wholly unnecessary uncertainty. That is not the case with a remain vote. Brexit means sudden, unknown change. Remain means change, but gradual and telegraphed in advance.
It's not wholly "unnecessary uncertainty" if you look at the other factors, and in my case a nation's control of its own affairs (and remember, only the EU is going down a path that cedes this, so I'm evidently not the only one thinking it ). If a degree of economic uncertainty is needed to get this back, then it's wholly necessary IMO. I've looked at the worst predictions of the infamous cabal of economists and they're nothing that cannot be recovered IF they actually happen. It's worth the price (IMO, YMDV )."Uncertainty" does not always mean doom and gloom. It can just as readily mean a move to more positive situations results. We have to quit looking at our shoes, shuffling round and mumbling that we can't do it, and grasp the nettle and get ourselves moving like historically we've proven we can. And in doing so we need to work with our neighbours and global partners - cooperation is the only way everyone succeeds. But that does not have to entail handing over the reins.
More importantly, the world is shrinking. We have to think globally - the notion of an EU as the EU currently want it to be is no less isolationist in a global context than people are accusing the UK of being if we leave the EU. Replace "Little Englander" with "Little EUer" and the same negativity applies. As people, lines need to be drawn somewhere. It's how we as a race function best (with boundaries). I want those boundaries drawn at our national level.
Zod said:
RobDickinson said:
What size of hole? I just dont see it being a big issue.
UK saves billions not being a member and it will still trade as it does with Europe, its in Europs interests not to fk that up as you are an important export market for them. Far more so than they are for you.
It wont affect Uk's position with anywhere outside of Europe. You will still trade with the rest of the world. Europe will still trade with the UK.
The whole economic an tax thing is the biggest scare tactic of the whole debate. totally baseless too.
The UK currently payss £8 billion a year in net contributions, so that would be the immediate saving. Interest payments on the national debt are £45 billion a year. The average interest rate on the debt is a little below 3%. If the UK's credit rating is cut after a vote to leave the EU and if that credit rating cut results in a rise in interest rates on the UK's debt, then that £8 billion will be eliminated.UK saves billions not being a member and it will still trade as it does with Europe, its in Europs interests not to f
k that up as you are an important export market for them. Far more so than they are for you.It wont affect Uk's position with anywhere outside of Europe. You will still trade with the rest of the world. Europe will still trade with the UK.
The whole economic an tax thing is the biggest scare tactic of the whole debate. totally baseless too.
A 0.25% rise in interest rates would cost about £4 - 5 billion. A 1% rise would cost between £16 and 20 billion per annum.
ralphrj said:
UK exports to the rest of the EU £220 billion
Rest of EU exports to the UK £280 billion but spread across 27 countries with a combined GDP 5 to 6 times greater than the UK.
I agree that a trade war is unlikely, there will be a trade deal negotiated. The point I am making is that it is wrong to assume that the UK will have the upper hand in these negotiations as the impact of negotiations failing will be more severe in the UK than in the rest of the EU.
This line of argument would be better made if you compared our balance of trade with individual countries. Rest of EU exports to the UK £280 billion but spread across 27 countries with a combined GDP 5 to 6 times greater than the UK.
I agree that a trade war is unlikely, there will be a trade deal negotiated. The point I am making is that it is wrong to assume that the UK will have the upper hand in these negotiations as the impact of negotiations failing will be more severe in the UK than in the rest of the EU.
For example, you might want to consider the trade balance with Germany and then compare that with, say, Greece to see whether the 27 countries is the important number.
paulrockliffe said:
ralphrj said:
UK exports to the rest of the EU £220 billion
Rest of EU exports to the UK £280 billion but spread across 27 countries with a combined GDP 5 to 6 times greater than the UK.
I agree that a trade war is unlikely, there will be a trade deal negotiated. The point I am making is that it is wrong to assume that the UK will have the upper hand in these negotiations as the impact of negotiations failing will be more severe in the UK than in the rest of the EU.
This line of argument would be better made if you compared our balance of trade with individual countries. Rest of EU exports to the UK £280 billion but spread across 27 countries with a combined GDP 5 to 6 times greater than the UK.
I agree that a trade war is unlikely, there will be a trade deal negotiated. The point I am making is that it is wrong to assume that the UK will have the upper hand in these negotiations as the impact of negotiations failing will be more severe in the UK than in the rest of the EU.
For example, you might want to consider the trade balance with Germany and then compare that with, say, Greece to see whether the 27 countries is the important number.
lostkiwi said:
paulrockliffe said:
ralphrj said:
UK exports to the rest of the EU £220 billion
Rest of EU exports to the UK £280 billion but spread across 27 countries with a combined GDP 5 to 6 times greater than the UK.
I agree that a trade war is unlikely, there will be a trade deal negotiated. The point I am making is that it is wrong to assume that the UK will have the upper hand in these negotiations as the impact of negotiations failing will be more severe in the UK than in the rest of the EU.
This line of argument would be better made if you compared our balance of trade with individual countries. Rest of EU exports to the UK £280 billion but spread across 27 countries with a combined GDP 5 to 6 times greater than the UK.
I agree that a trade war is unlikely, there will be a trade deal negotiated. The point I am making is that it is wrong to assume that the UK will have the upper hand in these negotiations as the impact of negotiations failing will be more severe in the UK than in the rest of the EU.
For example, you might want to consider the trade balance with Germany and then compare that with, say, Greece to see whether the 27 countries is the important number.
Murph7355 said:
"Uncertainty" does not always mean doom and gloom. It can just as readily mean a move to more positive situations results. We have to quit looking at our shoes, shuffling round and mumbling that we can't do it, and grasp the nettle and get ourselves moving like historically we've proven we can. And in doing so we need to work with our neighbours and global partners - cooperation is the only way everyone succeeds. But that does not have to entail handing over the reins.
+1Any referendum, any election, any negotiation, causes uncertainty. That's kinda the point.
lostkiwi said:
Hmmm... let me think.
If we are under WTO rules then tariffs apply.
So everything we export to our largest market gets more expensive to our major trading partner.
That is simply untrue.If we are under WTO rules then tariffs apply.
So everything we export to our largest market gets more expensive to our major trading partner.
The goods that I trade in are duty free under WTO rules. We haven't paid any duty for about 10 years.
This highlights the reason why the Remain campaign has failed.
I don't think that you are deliberately lying, but you don't check your "facts".
The result is that people see you as liars.
If you don't believe me, then this IpsosMORI poll should convince you.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-pol...
IpsosMORI said:
Only 17 per cent of people believe the Chancellor’s flagship claim that UK households will lose £4,300 and be permanently poorer after a Brexit, despite the analysis carrying the full weight of the Treasury. Some 70 per cent think it is a falsehood.
Mr Cameron’s claim that the peace and stability of Europe would be put at risk by a Brexit was rejected by 59-32.
Neither side is trusted, but the public feel that Remain are telling more porkies.Mr Cameron’s claim that the peace and stability of Europe would be put at risk by a Brexit was rejected by 59-32.
lostkiwi said:
The 27 countries is the important figure as any trade deal needs to be ratified by the entire Council and Parliament. Any deal isn't with individual countries - its with the EU.
Indeed, but taking a look at the relative positions of the 27, and seeing what might occur with any internal "negotiation" as a result is important.We negotiate with the EU, but the EU still has to negotiate amongst itself. Doesn't it?
Jockman said:
s2art said:
Jockman said:
kurt535 said:
Then stand by for diminished returns if vote leave gets in. Ironically, everyone has seen their pensions whacked in the last few years quite badly but there's no doubt they will be hurt more. Again, based off the £/ftse/ govt bonds getting hurt. could be trouble ahead!
Thank you for the heads up. The view is not an official Deutsche Bank view its the view of one equity analysis. He view is not about massive UK growth after britex but that UK equities will perform better that other EU countries because he predicts sterling will devalue sharply on a leave vote. So not quite such good news. Particularly for a country with a large borrowing requirements.
I would argue that the article suggests Osborne's emergency budget with substantial cuts may be needed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff