Why Brexit?

Financial FAQs

Brexit, the British vote to exit the European Union, was precipitated by many factors, including Brit’s fear of loss of sovereignty due to the Schengen requirement that it open its borders to citizens of other EU countries.  And it may lead to a breakup of the Eurozone.

It was a real fear—that eastern Europeans would deprive Britons of jobs by migrating from countries whose wages were lower. Great Britain’s minimum wage is more than double that of countries such as Poland, Czech Republic, and Romania, for instance, which has meant that some 1 million immigrants from other EU countries have migrated to Great Britain seeking better paying jobs, and pushing out many blue collar Brits in the process.


Graph: Trading Economics

So there was good reason for the Brexit vote. Great Britain’s unemployment rate only came down to 5 percent in 2016, after hovering at 8 percent since 2008, the end of the Great Recession, largely due to misguided economic policies.

Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron was hoisted on his own petard when he called for the referendum that precipitated Brexit, in other words. He was a strong supporter of German austerity policies that led to two recessions in most of the EU, policies that advocated cuts in government programs combined with higher taxes for Eurozone countries.

Poor job prospects in many of those countries hardest hit by the Great Recession prompted the flight to countries least affected, such as Great Britain, even though Great Britain was still suffering from job losses. The Guardian has been trumpeting this truth since Cameron’s austerity policies were instituted in the Conservative Party’s 2010 ascent to power.

“Austerity – which has affected the living standards of many working people – was not imposed by the EU, but was a choice by the current government. When public finances are tight, the economic contribution made by migrants ought to be welcomed. But the climate of cuts allowed migrants to be blamed and Britain’s contribution to the EU – at £8bn, just 1.2 percent of public expenditure and outweighed by our economic gains from membership – to take on disproportionate significance.”

Many major economists have written about the failure of austerity policies since the end of the Great Recession, including Nobelist Paul Krugman.


Graph: Slate.com

“Since the global turn to austerity in 2010, said Krugman in the Guardian, “every country that introduced significant austerity has seen its economy suffer, with the depth of the suffering closely related to the harshness of the austerity. In late 2012, the IMF’s chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, went so far as to issue what amounted to a mea culpa: although his organisation never bought into the notion that austerity would actually boost economic growth, the IMF now believes that it massively understated the damage that spending cuts inflict on a weak economy.”

Maybe we should also mention it is the reason why the Eurozone is in danger of breaking up, all because of not knowing how to deal with the huge amount of debt incurred during and by the Great Recession. All countries suffered, as they did after WWII. But the western world had visionary leaders then, willing to rebuild those European countries in particular with something called the Marshall Plan—some $17 billion in loans and grants—one quarter of which went to Great Britain.

It was also a time when 50 percent of German debt was forgiven—that is, cancelled. But are there any such leaders today that might help Greece and Portugal, at the very least? Unfortunately, we are instead harking back to WWI history, and the punitive demands made on Germany for war reparations that precipitated Hitler and WWII.

London School of Economics Professor of Economic History Albrecht Ritschl conducted research into how Germany was able to pay off its debts after the two World Wars. Ritschl looked in detail at the financial assistance that was paid to Germany under the Marshall Plan, in which the US gave that $17 billion – around $160 billion in today’s values – in economic support to help rebuild European economies. He showed that while the transfers were tiny, the cancellation of debts was worth as much as four times the country’s entire economic output in 1950 and laid the foundation for Germany’s fast post-war recovery.

If we had such leaders today, could it have prevented Brexit and the possible breakup of the Eurozone—and maybe the European Union, as well?

Harlan Green © 2016

Follow Harlan Green on Twitter: https://twitter.com/HarlanGreen

About populareconomicsblog

Harlan Green is editor/publisher of PopularEconomics.com, and content provider of 3 weekly columns to various blogs--Popular Economics Weekly and The Huffington Post
This entry was posted in Economy, Keynesian economics, Politics, Uncategorized, Weekly Financial News and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Why Brexit?

  1. Roberta says:

    cheers for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning a lot more on this topic. If possible, as you gain exietrpse, could you mind updating your weblog with more info? as it truly is extremely helpful for me.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s