Skip to content

Brexit: The day we entered the eye of the maelstrom

↓ Jump to responses

Download the WEA commentaries issue ›

By Thomas I. Palley

In years to come, the Brexit referendum may come to be seen as the day we entered the eye of the maelstrom that now promises enormous destruction. The immediate consequence looks to be a possible financial crisis, but even if that is avoided the other costs of Brexit will not be.

The European economy was already on the outer circle of the maelstrom. Brexit has swept it into the eye, accelerating the process whereby social alienation and bad economic outcomes produce bad political outcomes, and bad political outcomes produce worsened economic outcomes and further social alienation.

Economic implications

The leading edge of events will be financial markets. Even if an immediate financial bloodbath is contained, the reasonable expectation is for significant downside turbulence over the coming months that will ripple into the real economy. Moreover, a bloodbath now would not be panic. Instead, it can be rationally justified by the economic and political outlook and the fact that asset markets were already richly valued.

British financial markets and the British economy will be the epicenter. The shock to London’s stock market will hit wealth and household confidence, negatively impacting consumer spending and the United Kingdom (UK) real economy.

Britain’s real estate market (especially London) was already highly priced, and it is now very vulnerable to reduced local and foreign buying. British banks are financed in sterling and a lower sterling exchange rate has unpredictable negative implications for them and their counter-parties.

Business will cut back further on investment in the UK because business dislikes uncertainty. Big ticket investments will be placed on hold until the status of the UK’s access to European markets is clarified.

All these impacts will ramify outward, hitting other economies, including the US. The mechanisms are financial contagion, currency turbulence, and uncertainty, all of which generate negative aggregate demand effects that are then multiplied via the contraction process. The first port of call will be the European economy, which is already in a fragile condition and is most integrated with the UK.

Political implications

Bad as the economic news is, the political shocks to come may be worse.

The Brexit electoral outcome map shows all of Scotland voted to remain. That means the UK’s constitutional crisis regarding Scottish independence is likely back on.

In Spain, there is the long-standing issue of Catalonia’s demand for independence, which Brexit further mainstreams and encourages. Now, Italy’s Northern League, which is politically powerful in the rich northern half of the country, is calling for an EU exit referendum.

In effect, Brexit is a green flag for separatisms of all stripe. That has adverse implications for the euro, which is already under the threat of Grexit. Consequently, sterling’s weakness stands to be accompanied by a weakening of the euro, providing an additional currency channel for spreading Brexit’s shockwaves into the global economy.

With regard to US politics, negative economic fall-out from Brexit will injure the incumbent candidate Hillary Clinton and benefit Donald Trump.

Beyond that, Brexit carries vital political lessons for the Obama administration and Clinton campaign, both of which must not give reason for US voters to further disdain the establishment.

Brexit has structural similarities with Trump’s rise. It is the logical outcome of the Conservative Party’s political strategy of the past twenty years. Conservatives used the European Union (EU) as a whipping boy to help smuggle in their “Thatcher – Reagan” neoliberal economic policies. The Labor Party spoke out in defense of minorities, but it did not defend the EU and nor did it adequately confront neoliberalism.

In the US, Trump is the analogue “exit” candidate. His rise is the logical outcome of thirty years, during which Republicans used dog-whistle racism and the culture war to smuggle through their neoliberal economic agenda that has wrought the destruction of shared prosperity. Democrats resisted racism and the culture war, but were complicit in the promotion of neoliberalism.

The lesson for the Clinton campaign is it must move beyond rhetoric criticizing neoliberalism and adopt serious remedies that tackle its legacy of inequality, economic insecurity and loss of hope. Neoliberalism is the ultimate cause of the establishment’s rejection. Racism, immigration and nationalism may be the match for the anti-establishment fire: wage stagnation and off-shoring of jobs are the fuel.

As regards the Obama administration, the lesson concerns the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). On all sides, the US electorate has rejected the TPP, but the Obama administration keeps pushing it. That further discredits the establishment and benefits Trump who is the outsider candidate. Clinton is the insider who has openly touted her links to President Obama, and she still lacks credibility on her opposition to TPP because of her past endorsement.

In this environment, the Obama administration’s pushing of the TPP is recklessly irresponsible politics that send us, nose down, into the eye of the maelstrom.

From: p.11 of World Economics Association Newsletter 6(3), June 2016


Download WEA commentaries Volume 6, Issue No. 3, June 2016 ›

2 responses

  • Martin Essex says:

    This is a good example of the Project Fear campaign by the Remainers that dominated the Brexit campaign. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. First, the financial markets. The FTSE 100 index of leading London shares is now higher than it was before – so the warnings of a wealth loss have been proved wrong. Sterling is weaker – but that’s good for exports at a time when inflation is low. The top end of the property market is stronger than even because overseas buyers now have to pay less in their currencies. If the bottom end falls, that will be good for first-time buyers. As for the economy, it might suffer briefly but it will improve long terms when we do more business with China and Russia, Canada and Australia, Brazil and Argentina. In terms of politics, the sooner the unelected undemocratic elite in Brussels is removed the better. We’d all rather our governments were run by the people we elect, not by overpaid, underperforming wasteful placemen and women.

  • Edward K Ross (Ted) says:

    Edward K Ross October 14, 2016.
    I am not an economist or academic but simply an eighty year old who has had a very limited education. However I agree with Thomas I Palley’s criticism of neoliberalism because living in the real world you do not have to be very bright to see and understand that neoliberalism is the tool of the elite wealthy and that they control the academics, the economists and the politicians.This perception is supported by Noam Chomsky in his article How Free is the free market ? Cited in, Second Opinion , Therefore as an ordinary citizen I believe this is the problem that has to be discussed openly between the entrenched mainstream neoliberals and those advocating a pluralistic economic discussion. Here I further add that I remember some of the discussions between Tony Lawson and Bernard Gurrien in real world economics where Gurrien cleary stated that that discussion had to start with the cause of the problem before debating other complicated issues such as the need for a new ontology in economics.

Respond to this article

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Please note that your email address will not be published.