The economic argument
Represented by Oliver Morrissey, School of Economics, whose research interests include trade policy and the political economy of policy reform.
“Immigration is one of the main reasons for the referendum. For centuries, Britain has welcomed immigrants. While it’s economically successful, we can absorb them and they provide a net benefit. But that’s the past. It’s becoming harder to get full-time, well-paid stable employment - an increasing proportion of the labour force is in low-wage, temporary, zero-hour contracts. Immigration is a factor in causing that – as well as creating pressure on the education and health systems. People want some degree of regulation – the fact that the EU prevents that is a legitimate reason to vote to leave.
“It’s misleading to claim there won’t be costs for trade, but it’s equally misleading to claim these costs will be large. If Britain leaves the EU it will have to renegotiate existing trading relations with countries around the world that have been negotiated as part of the European Union. However, as the fifth largest economy in the world it’s likely to be in the interests of Britain’s trading partners to look for an agreement that is more or less a continuation of the existing relationship. There are structures within the WTO that would help that to happen. The US would find that of interest, as would many other nations – they don’t want the unnecessary extra costs of renegotiation.
“Put simply, the EU is not working. It’s not working on its economic policy, it’s got a deficit of democracy and a surfeit of regulation. It’s too rigid and not flexible enough. If Britain votes to exit, it’s the wakeup call the rest of Europe needs.”
This is not an entirely outlandish position, but the vast majority (90%+) of economists disagree with it
