STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Anti-Brexit Shocker: Economists and Faith Leaders Plot Britain’s Downfall
By Daily Bell Staff - May 30, 2016

Economists overwhelmingly reject Brexit in boost for Cameron  … Poll shows 88% of 600 experts fear long-term fall in GDP if UK leaves single market, and 82% are alarmed over impact on household income. -Guardian

Once again, economists remind us that that their profession is at least a questionable one.

Presumably healthy economies are based in private competition not public regulation. Economic progress is made via individual human action.

One person has a product or service and competes against another. And one company against another.

There is room for more than one product or service as consumers have different priorities.

And thus an “economy” is built.

But for some reason, British economists seem to believe that the authoritarian mess that is the European Union is necessary for prosperity.

More:

Relatively few economists have publicly come out saying that leaving the EU would be good for British growth, and only a handful have signed up in support of the pro-Brexit group Economists for Britain.

Most studies of the impact on Britain’s economy of a decision to quit the EU show the uncertainty will hit growth in the short term and the loss of access to the EU’s single market will damage growth for decades to come.

The poll was administered by Ipsos MORI, and received responses from more than 600 economists.

These economists believed in great numbers that leaving the EU would damage the British economy for years to come. Some 61% believe unemployment would expand.

Economists from top institutions such as the Royal Economic Society and the Society of Business Economists replied voluntarily.

The article also tells that 37 “faith leaders” have just written a letter to the Observer newspaper claiming Brexit damages both peace and prosperity.

It’s not clear from the article why leaving the EU would damage peace and prosperity.

The article makes a clearer case for what economists are worried about: “Loss of access to the single market” (67%) and “increased uncertainty leading to reduced investment” (66%).

Presumably economists (and faith leaders?) see their professions somehow enhanced by the EU and diminished by Brexit.

But these views still don’t make much sense.

There are currently reports that the EU is pushing hard for the federalization of Europe via a new tax ID number and also via plans for a pan-European army.

A national insurance number will allow Brussels to identify European (and British) taxpayers and would be a further step toward the institution of an aggressive European tax.

Additionally, new legislation will ban sovereign states from reducing corporate taxation to below 15 percent.

Neither plans for a European army nor the new tax ID number are apparently getting much coverage in Britain.

It really doesn’t matter though. Brussels have proven several times over that the EU’s goal is a United States of Europe.

Surely the economists involved in the survey understand the level of corruption currently infecting the EU.

Those affiliated with the EU receive enormous compensation for useless activities. Regulatory advantages are routinely sold to the highest bidder.

And surely they understand that the decision-making bodies have been purposefully divorced from Parliament. The entire setup of the EU is aimed at producing a mega-state responsible only to a handful of bureaucrats.

How on earth British economists, let alone “faith leaders” can endorse the EU is difficult to imagine.

If Britain stays in the EU, within a decade the country – as it has existed for perhaps a thousand years – will be disassembled.

These economists and faith leaders are content to support the end of Britain.

Faith will not be diminished and industry will not leave if Brexit occurs. But the country will not survive as a historical entity if it remains within Europe.

Conclusion: These two groups are willfully presiding over the end of Britain.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Chris Hulme

    Are these the same economists that think you can cure a debt crisis with more debt? The same ones that believe that you can get real growth by creating and spending fake, funny money produced out of thin air?
    If Brexit wins, and the EU don’t want to trade with us, this will instantly solve the current account deficit, and who knows, maybe we will have to start manufacturing stuff to sell to ourselves. Wouldn’t that be awful!
    The biggest danger I see for Britain is when the rest of the world goes back on real money, ie gold, and we suddenly realise that we haven’t got any, because one of our brightest and best sold ours for an average price of $275.6.

    • Eric Coote

      Your right Chris. Unfortunately the future debt will be funded with USD backing (those nice yankee bagmen can print plenty) and the target is… 10,000+ tonnes of gold owned by those hopelessly bankrupt Europeans.

    • wrusssr

      Agree.

      Would venture also to say there’s an ample supply of gold sitting in the Bank of England’s vaults. Unfortunately it doesn’t “belong” to the British nation, but to the banker-owned and -operated independent “country” in London that’s answerable to no other nation on earth—The City—which owns the Bank of England.

      The U.S. is in the same boat with these same bankers and its un-audited so-called gold “depository” at Ft. Knox that held the world’s lion share of gold spoils following WWII; all of which—as in every other nation where sits one of The City-owned central banks (150 + or -)—was/has been subsequently pledged (sold/foreclosed on) as collateral for these “loans” that The City “provided” (read: money the nations “bought” from The City’s central banks at face value which the central banks printed for the cost of paper, ink, and press-time; that was then “sold” to the nation at face value—or a ledger entry was made—all with perpetual interest). Gold collateral obligated for these “loans” now sits in central bank vaults, IMO, including the U.S.’s gold.

      The City-owned Fed in the U.S. began “selling” America its own money in 1913, and deliberately provided corrupt politicians and government officials monopoly money with which to indulge themselves annually in spending orgies in the name of the people they represented until they’d run up unpayable debt and interest; at which time the bankers began to tighten their financial noose.

      Because these fiat debts are unpayable for most nations now, The City has been quietly calling in hard assets against them. This was their long-term goal and reason for establishing their central banks in nations from the start; gold, which they got for a song, being at the top of their collateral list, IMO. It was, after all, what Iraq and the “Arab springs” were all about—the takeover of their independent central banks and the confiscation of the physical gold in them. That Iraq, Libya, Iran, etc., had begun selling oil for gold, and was about to upset the oil market (oil could only be bought with dollars), plus the possibility their oil for gold sales would cut into the bankers’ access to the world’s real money, was at the root of the “Springs”. (The U.S, still has huge, untapped, oil and gas reserves, especially in Alaska.)

      As this monetary thing unwinds, The City and China, and to a lesser extent Russia and India, seem to be the four countries with strong enough stores to balance gold scales with The City. Both China’s and Russia’s mining and production of gold appear to be full throttle at present, and both seem to be onto the banker’s scam; with China printing its own currency like the founders mandated congress to print/coin America’s currency so it could control its own debt without becoming indebted to a foreign lender like The City. And in both China and India, gold is widely held and used among their populations; it being the ‘old people’s money’ in China historically.

      Convenient the bankers’ current attempt to switch the world’s “money” to smart phones and digital cards just as they’re sitting sit down behind the curtain with a good brandy and cigar to count their stores.

      Another thanks DB for the ongoing forums.

  • alaska3636

    The “educated liberal” is the purvey of the modern economist. The man on the street and the interested observer find the technocratic arguments of economists to be either inscrutable or indefensible from the stand point of common sense.

    The “faith leader” will try to gather the man on the street, the interested observer will likely be the loudest to reject either of these justifications for “union”. It will take a French revolution-like purge of interested observers, i.e. a further polarization of opinion, to wrangle the kind of majority needed to keep this mess together.

    A failing system requires more energy input per unit of output; the EU at this time (and the US in general) are burning through energy capital (and economic capital) like crazy to keep these memes floating as the DB often points out. The harder they try to make these systems work, the poorer they make the people they are trying to wrangle; the poorer the people are the less likely they will be to listen to arguments for their further impoverishment: and then Trump.

  • Rog Cook

    I’m from the UK. The survey was a mess. Here’s what really happened.
    Overall 3,818 invitations were sent out, with a response rate of approximately 17%, 639 respondents.

    If a survey was done of 17% of the U.K. Population about whether to Brexit or not, that would be regarded as a reasonable survey.

    But if a survey was done and 83% refused to answer of the test group, then the results would be regarded as next to meaningless, as is the case here.
    We shall never know:
    Why the 83% refused to answer.
    Were they closet Brexiters and afraid to come out, did they hate a survey done by the Observer, etc etc.

    • Thanks for the info. Certainly was a ridiculous response.

  • Pilgrim

    Britain grew accustomed to vast wealth capitalized by little investment in terms of both money and effort back in the colonial days when they could draw on limitless natural resources and a cheap foreign workforce that often included slaves.

    Two world wars followed by a flirtation with marxist policies combined with lax immigration policies has left scars and wounds that haven’t healed.

    Britain needed inclusion in the EU to keep their economy from running on fumes. It’s difficult to stay with a precious-metals based economy when the neighbors next door are enjoying a cocaine high of printed money.

    I could be wrong, but the Brits were never ones to take a back seat and let someone else do the driving. They don’t always do what’s right, but whatever they do, they stay in charge.

    I can’t see them compromising their sovereignty now or ever. Britain will exit and that can only be a good thing for the US if Trump is elected. Strengthening trade relations with Britain and negotiating new trade deals with the EU can only benefit all involved.

    If Hiliary is elected . . . there goes the neighborhood.

    • Hillspinikin

      I don’t see an objective difference between Hillary and Trump. Both are corporatists just like Obama. They will continue doing what they have always done, support the status quo. Trump may “sound” radical, but then so did Obama during his run up to the Presidency. It turned out that he was nothing more than a corporatist. That is the objective reality. The American oligarchy would not allow a Bernie Sanders, the only true radical, if you think FDR was radical that is, to get anywhere near the White House.

      • Pilgrim

        There’s a huge difference between Hiliary and Trump! Motivation, morality and end-goals. Trump already wields power, power is not his motivation. He has ideological goals. Like Obama, but different ideology and different goals. Hiliary wants power, but she’s not ideological, she’s in it for the money AND the influence AND the thrill of wielding the power to destroy anyone who gets in her way. Hiliary and Bill are Jezebel and Ahab all over again.

        • Hillspinikin

          I disagree. There is no evidence that Trump ever did anything that wasn’t for him. Its all for him. The power of a President is intoxicating for someone who longs for it like Trump. Moral for both Hillary and Trump is whatever you can legally get away with. He is as ideological as the situation demands. He will choose the route most convenient and lucrative for him. They are the same. They have many of the same friends and hobnob with the elite of NYC, constantly on the lookout for advancing their status among the Fraudster psycho’s who inhabit the corridors of wealth. That is who they are, both of them. The major difference is gender, that’s it.

  • Bruce C.

    I still say Britain will exit the EU. Considering how far gone they are it does seem too late, and it’s astonishing that they elected a Muslim for Mayor of London, but I still think enough Brits will care enough to vote and want out at least to give it a try. Staying in is obviously the end of Britain as we’ve known it. Most Brits (and Europeans) are beginning to realize that the establishment are either consistently wrong or subversive. They remember the debates about ENTERING the EU and all the advice about how good it would be, and now they’ve seen how wrong it was. Hopefully, they’ll not follow that advice again.

  • Hillspinikin

    Economic progress is made by individuals directing collective action. In the end individualism is based on them motivating groups toward a particular goal. Individuals can do nothing without the group assisting.

  • Jinks Munroe

    Rothchild’s are going to crash UK economy within 24 hours of BREXIT. Please watch & share https://youtu.be/OBzgMOfH3XY & http://www.infowars.com/3-strikes-and-youre-out-with-coming-new-internet-id/

  • Tsigantes

    The present day economy is hardly an advertisement for the profession of economics. I think we can safely ignore them. As for the faith leaders, what can one say when the present archbishop of Canterbury is a retired oil executive whose career in the church has been relatively short and who makes deals on behalf of the church with the odious George Soros?

loading
Sign up now and join our exclusive international network for free-market thinkers
Privacy Assured: We will NEVER share your personal information.