Brexit Based on Lies, Distortions: British Economist

“To be absolutely clear, I am very firmly in favour of remaining in the EU. I believe that most of the Leave arguments are based on lies, misrepresentations, distortions and non-sequiturs. I think the economics are unambiguous. The Leave campaign appears not to understand how international trade agreements work – either in terms of disentangling the UK from EU agreements, nor in terms of negotiating new ones,” Rob Ackrill, Professor of European Economics and Policy at Nottingham Trent University, told the Tasnim News Agency.

Following is the full text of the interview.

Q: As you are aware the UK is planned to hold a referendum on June 23 on whether the country should remain a member of the European Union (EU). What is your take on this? What do people, including academics and scholars, in Britain think of it?

A: To be absolutely clear, I am very firmly in favour of remaining in the EU. I believe that most of the Leave arguments are based on lies, misrepresentations, distortions and non-sequiturs. I think the economics are unambiguous. The Leave campaign appears not to understand how international trade agreements work – either in terms of disentangling the UK from EU agreements, nor in terms of negotiating new ones. It also ignores, for example, not only the greater weight of the EU in international talks, but the fact that countries worldwide are increasingly adopting EU product standards. As a result, we would give up our ability to shape those standards with an exit, but our firms could quite likely still be subject to EU standards even on trade with non-EU countries. On migration, in so many ways migration has been shown to be of benefit to the UK economy. Migrants are here principally to work. They therefore generate output, pay taxes, etc, but are less likely to draw on public services such as the health service. And this is before we look at the extent to which the NHS relies of migrants as staff, whether it be doctors and nurses, porters, cleaners, etc. There is no substantive evidence that migrants take UK citizens’ jobs, and where there is evidence that migrants lead to lower wages, that evidence indicates those effects are very localized and modest. On security, the majority of the experts who have come out with an opinion believe the UKs security is greater in than out.

I have not looked in detail at the issue of UK exit and its impact on the EU economy, so I prefer not to comment on that.

It is hard to say too much about this, because the dominant views that I am aware of (economics, politics and history, in particular), are largely in favour of remaining. There are debates about the magnitude of impacts, but there is a broad consensus about the general direction of effects (negative if we leave) across academia. Then there is a second debate, not about the broad impacts of UK withdrawal, but about the specifics of research funding. There is a widely held view that exit would do a lot of damage to UK science and UK research. First, this will come via reduced funding. Second, EU funding supports large multi-country consortia of researchers. If the UK leaves and imposes restrictions on the movement of citizens from other countries, which is all too probably, then this will unquestionably affect UK researchers’ ability to engage with those consortia in those extremely important (financially and scientifically) projects. Finally, in today’s Times Higher Education, the main weekly newspaper/magazine for HE, a survey says that 90% of academics favour remaining in the EU, with 40% of respondents saying that an EU exit makes it more likely that they will leave the UK.

Q: Do British political parties and their main figures have a sort of consolidated vision toward Brexit?

A: No! The Conservative Party has a very long and ignoble history of tearing itself apart over the EU, stretching back over 50 years. Debates over Europe helped see off Margaret Thatcher, whilst Conservative eurosceptics turned John Major’s government of 1992-97 into pretty much a lame duck government. This current battle is, without question, the nastiest yet. I do not personally know what impact it could have on the party, but it could be extremely damaging to the party’s long term future. The Labour Party is not as openly divided, although there are some senior MPs who are on the side of Leave. They argue, for example, that the measures to protect workers’ rights, etc, are down to the UK, not the EU – which is something that puzzles most people, especially given the legislation on, for example, trades unions, workers’ rights etc, brought in under Conservative governments that have definitely not been to the benefit of traditional Labour voters. On the other hand, many measures promoted by the EU have benefited working people.

The first point to make is that there has been a rightwards shift in politics across Europe since the economic crisis, seen for example in growing nationalist populism and euroscepticism. Within this, the EU is seen as one example of political elites, against which the populist politicians have been railing. There are already several countries where some people have called for referenda. A major difference for the UK is that euroscepticism in the UK has been around a long time, and has a political party (UKIP) whose primary task has been to lead the call for an EU exit. We also have a right wing and mostly eurosceptic media. The one outlet that is more neutral is the BBC, but it is despised by right-wing Conservatives (who are also typically eurosceptic). Currently, there are enormous pressures on the BBC from the government, especially the right of the Conservatives, over its funding model and funding levels. Its ability to critique and challenge the Leave side in particular has been constrained as a result, for fear that the government will get its own back on the BBC by cutting its funding even more.

Denmark has always been more eurosceptic than most countries and there have been calls for a referendum there. I have no idea about domestic Danish politics, nor their media, but I suspect that their closeness to Sweden and to Germany would have a big impact on views, ultimately. Greek politicians have, throughout the economic crisis, said that they want to remain not only in the EU but also in the euro. There are also rising populist movements in several central and eastern European countries. I think the biggest concern regarding such a domino effect is that if there is a vote to Leave in the UK, then there will be a few other countries where the voice for a referendum there will be strong enough for politicians to feel they would HAVE to hold one as well.

Q: Senior officials with Scottish National Party (SNP) have repeatedly stressed that in case of Yes Vote to Brexit, another independence referendum should be held in Scotland. How much do you think it is possible?

A: I cannot say for certain just how pro-EU the Scots are, but there has long been a more positive view of the EU in Scotland than in England. Moreover, I get the impression that there are more senior politicians in Scotland who are supporting Remain than Leave, relative to England. I think that if there were to be a vote to leave the EU that this would trigger a big push for a second independence referendum in Scotland. To be clear, I am not a political scientist, nor an expert in Scottish independence. This is just a personal view. I do not think either Wales or Northern Ireland would look to split from the UK, but in Northern Ireland in particular there is a particular issue relating to the Republic of Ireland. The Republic is likely to be hard hit economically by a UK exit which, in turn, will impact on Northern Ireland very hard. There have even been talks about the possible reintroduction of border controls with the North.