- Joined
- Apr 5, 2005
- Posts
- 9,726
- Reaction score
- 1,310
From a government's point of view, everything starts from the economy. It has to. This may seem distasteful or uncaring, but it reflects the real world because the economy pays for the NHS. It pays for housing. It pays for benefits. It pays for absolutely everything the government spends money on.
That's why the economic argument isn't just "another thing". It's THE thing, when it comes to what the government will or will not be able to do for workers, the unemployed, farmers, hospitals, pensioners, business owners, etc. If Brexit tanks the economy, you can wave goodbye to any more money for the NHS, for compensating farmers for the loss of their EU subsidies, for support for businesses facing increased tariffs, for anything at all. That so-called "£10 billion surplus" would be gone in the blink of an eye if GDP drops even a hair.
So it's fine to argue (as Nigel Farage has) "Quality of life is more important than GDP." (though it's probably not a good idea to laugh about it like he seems to) But it's absolutely not ok to ignore the negative consequences of that statement as well as the positive, or duck the thorny issue of the economic impact entirely!
If you are saying "I categorically don't care if Brexit hurts the economy, having thought through exactly what that would entail carefully, because X, Y or Z", then fine. That reasoning, made with eyes wide open and full knowledge, is completely legitimate. It's a "position". It shows what you value, what you place the most importance on. And what you therefore base your decision on. Just realise that X, Y or Z other issue won't save the economy.
But if you are saying "Brexit absolutely won't hurt the economy because of bogus 'reason' I just plucked out of thin air." Well, then, that's not fine at all. That's irresponsible in the extreme. That's gambling with everyone's future to chase unicorns.
It is also worth remembering at all times that a government has a much, much higher obligation than any individual citizen. It simply can't stop paying for hospitals, schools, road repairs, benefits, pensions, etc. etc. etc. And so it has to seek to protect the economic position of the country.
Individuals, on the other hand, have comparative luxury: you can take a pay cut or change your lifestyle ("live within your means") if you value other things more than mere money. But a country is like a nest of baby birds, always chirping, always hungry. Those beaks are opening and shutting, gulping down every penny you can find, and it's never, ever enough.
So it's important to understand WHY the government bangs the economy drum until its hands bleed. It's because if the economy fails, everything the government has to and wants to do risks failing too.
Take a moment to check just how little GDP had to drop by to throw us into the last few recessions. It's a tiny amount, a couple of % or so, yet it's the difference between boom times and millions on the dole. Why? Because of those chirping birds: everything the government can get its hands on is already spent, is needed somewhere. There is practically no slack in the system at all (this isn't exclusive to the UK). So what may at face value seem a "tiny" change in percentage terms has diabolic knock-on consequences.
Again, that's a huge difference between a country and a person. Most people are fortunate enough (not all, granted) to be able to ride out a drop of a couple of % in their income. Many wouldn't even notice it, in practical terms. But for a country, that's the bugle call signalling the start of the next recession.
That's why the economic argument isn't just "another thing". It's THE thing, when it comes to what the government will or will not be able to do for workers, the unemployed, farmers, hospitals, pensioners, business owners, etc. If Brexit tanks the economy, you can wave goodbye to any more money for the NHS, for compensating farmers for the loss of their EU subsidies, for support for businesses facing increased tariffs, for anything at all. That so-called "£10 billion surplus" would be gone in the blink of an eye if GDP drops even a hair.
So it's fine to argue (as Nigel Farage has) "Quality of life is more important than GDP." (though it's probably not a good idea to laugh about it like he seems to) But it's absolutely not ok to ignore the negative consequences of that statement as well as the positive, or duck the thorny issue of the economic impact entirely!
If you are saying "I categorically don't care if Brexit hurts the economy, having thought through exactly what that would entail carefully, because X, Y or Z", then fine. That reasoning, made with eyes wide open and full knowledge, is completely legitimate. It's a "position". It shows what you value, what you place the most importance on. And what you therefore base your decision on. Just realise that X, Y or Z other issue won't save the economy.
But if you are saying "Brexit absolutely won't hurt the economy because of bogus 'reason' I just plucked out of thin air." Well, then, that's not fine at all. That's irresponsible in the extreme. That's gambling with everyone's future to chase unicorns.
It is also worth remembering at all times that a government has a much, much higher obligation than any individual citizen. It simply can't stop paying for hospitals, schools, road repairs, benefits, pensions, etc. etc. etc. And so it has to seek to protect the economic position of the country.
Individuals, on the other hand, have comparative luxury: you can take a pay cut or change your lifestyle ("live within your means") if you value other things more than mere money. But a country is like a nest of baby birds, always chirping, always hungry. Those beaks are opening and shutting, gulping down every penny you can find, and it's never, ever enough.
So it's important to understand WHY the government bangs the economy drum until its hands bleed. It's because if the economy fails, everything the government has to and wants to do risks failing too.
Take a moment to check just how little GDP had to drop by to throw us into the last few recessions. It's a tiny amount, a couple of % or so, yet it's the difference between boom times and millions on the dole. Why? Because of those chirping birds: everything the government can get its hands on is already spent, is needed somewhere. There is practically no slack in the system at all (this isn't exclusive to the UK). So what may at face value seem a "tiny" change in percentage terms has diabolic knock-on consequences.
Again, that's a huge difference between a country and a person. Most people are fortunate enough (not all, granted) to be able to ride out a drop of a couple of % in their income. Many wouldn't even notice it, in practical terms. But for a country, that's the bugle call signalling the start of the next recession.
Last edited:
