can be catastrophic for any economy, especially when we have only recently started to recover from the 2008-9 recession. Fewer jobs and a decrease in growth would create uncertainty among businesses and consumers. This could mean that delayed consumption will become a threat along with malign deflation followed with, potentially, a decrease in the standard of living that would rupture all of the government’s efforts of returning GDP per head to 2006 levels. On the effect of migrants to the economy, one could argue they actually put more benefits into the economy than they take out with a report suggesting that migrants have contributed over £25 billion net since 2000. However, a very, in my opinion, controversial point is that many believe the ability for poorer communities to access the opportunities that Great Britain offers should only be given if these communities are able to contribute to our economy if they so wish to encourage growth in their home country too. To me the world is only as strong as its weakest member; we can start by modernising the rest of the EU to the standard we live in today. Even if you are still adamant that migrants can’t benefit our economy, the leave campaign has not promised any improvements. In fact, by retracting their policy of making the migrant situation better and because we wouldn’t actually be able to send anyone away, we aren’t ‘taking back control over our borders’! Another reason why many people chose to leave was the £350 million to Brussels campaigners promised would be redirected to the NHS, a policy later denied by Nigel Farage and others; Leave voters have been lied to. This sum of money isn’t even a large enough proportion of the economy to make a difference; on any calculation it is less than the benefits the EU brings to the UK. The prosperity of the UK, including subsidies to areas that voted Leave, is largely dependent on a successful finance sector. However, banks and investment firms thrive from the agglomeration of capital and information. Being isolated from Europe would therefore have a strong negative effect and could be an incentive to relocate to Paris, Brussels or Frankfurt (a relatively easy task for them) taking the contribution of this huge sector away from Britain. This became clear to me recently when a group of Dulwich College students visited Blackrock, an asset management company. Here, analysts were clear their situation in the global market would falter outside the EU so the firm would have to relocate. While the emotion is understandable, the rational case for ‘beating the banks’ is hard to follow. As well as a vast contribution to our GDP, the sector has become more compliant with regulation, as well as creating a path for our economy to recover from the recent recession. Why would we want to erase this? Finally, politically this has already been a disaster with the Labour party collapsing, Scotland now willing to separate from the UK and, as a ‘lame duck’, Prime Minister David Cameron is unable to lead us to safety from this turbulent period. Personally, I see tension and uncertainty as the immediate results of this referendum. My brother, sister and I do not know how our education experience will be affected and what the job market will look like in the coming years. My father’s firm is already in negotiations with his international clients who cannot plan or invest with confidence. Therefore, for us (a personal belief), a vote for leave is a vote against a system which, while imperfect, works. The anger of people who feel they have no stake in the global future of our country, and an expression of distrust of the establishment, is understandable. I have met very intellectual and persuasive Leave voters who have eloquently urged me towards scepticism of the EU and an understanding of the potential benefits that could arise from leaving it. The economic and social case is balanced and complicated and the referendum result may even be a fair reflection of that balance.
7
Made with FlippingBook Annual report