The art of comedy? Timing

Well, unexpectedly the Prime Minister called a “snap” General Election yesterday. Unexpectedly because as recently as September 2016 she was quite clear in her refusal to do so “I am not going to be calling a snap election…we need a period of stability to be able to deal with the issues the country is facing”. So, why the sudden turnaround in that view? Has the Prime Minister decided we need less stability? Or that Brexit is actually much easier than she expected it to be? Or could there be another reason for it?

It all feels a bit strange, and for those people who are not engaged in politics, this must seem the worst possible outcome. After all we had the particularly nasty and bad tempered Scottish Independence referendum in 2014. Then a general election in 2015. Following on from that David Cameron decided he would shut up UKIP and the brexiteer side of his party by destroying them with ANOTHER referendum in 2016 (and that went so well for him) on EU membership. That was quickly followed up with wall to wall coverage of the US presidential elections (no genuinely, he actually won under their system).

Since then the Prime Minister has insisted that any referendum on Scottish Independence would be a distraction and the government must be entirely focussed on Brexit. In fact just 5 weeks ago, she said “Now is not the time. Just at this point all our energies should be focused on our negotiations with the European Union”.

So why have we had this sudden change of heart from the Prime Minister? There are a number of reasons that this may have taken place. Apparently it is to get a stronger hand for Brexit, and to do the right thing for the country. There are a number of other alternative theories too, so it seems only fair that we explore them all. And just for fun, let’s add a plausibility score out of ten – on whether it has directly impacted on the announcement at this time.  

Official explanation from the PM

Part1: The other parties and the Lords are trying to stop Brexit, and I need a larger majority to force it through.

An interesting statement really, and one that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny on any level. Firstly, the other political parties AND the Lords have had opportunities to delay and frustrate the process. These votes have been held. The opportunity to stop Brexit has been passed already. The votes are completed, and Brexit will happen. As Yvette Cooper pointed out today - 3/4 of MPs and 2/3 of Lords voted FOR Brexit when the vote was held. There is no opportunity of stopping Brexit now, unless there was a massive change in direction and views of the country. That would really require the PM herself to come back and say “we can’t achieve what we promised if we leave”. If that were really her fear she would have called a general election during the NINE MONTHS she has had before triggering Article 50.

Plausibility rating: I wouldn’t buy a used car from her.

Part 2: Negotiations will continue until just before the next General Election, and then you will be able to see what deal we have and start to feel it impacting you. The other countries will use that to drive a hard bargain.

There is probably more truth in this part of her statement. But there are some massive implicit promises in there that you are expected to miss out on. Firstly, it is an acceptance that we will not get everything we want from any negotiations. In fact, it is the first time publicly that any Conservative minister has admitted that the negotiations will be a 2-way street, and that there will be give and take depending on the political pressures the politicians feel at home. Secondly, there is an admission that ordinary people will feel the negative impacts of Brexit. Even those who voted for it and supported it will by then realise we have ended up with a potentially worse deal than we had.

Theresa May is terrified the government will be blamed for that. Perhaps, people may think, if they had spent more time negotiating the best deal and less time threatening war with Spain and coming up with catchy little phrases we wouldn’t be heading into a recession. I can understand Theresa May wanting to avoid that. After all, she was a Remain supporter, who never wanted to leave the EU. She can see closer and in much more detail how hard it will be. I wouldn’t want to be measured on the basis of how successful or painful it was in that situation.

Plausibility rating: More than a ring of truth about it.

It’s a snap annihilation of the Labour Party

Obviously, the staunch conservative voters and those who have wanted the left wing of the Labour party to fail since the election of Jeremy Corbyn are desperate to believe this is the reason for calling it now. Certainly, if you believe the polls (you know, the ones that showed us there would be no overall majority in the last election, that we would remain in the EU, and that Trump would lose) then this makes good political sense.

However, why now exactly? We have only 2 years to negotiate the exit from the EU, and this will take 7 weeks out of that timetable. Labour have been wallowing in the polls for about 18 months. Why not as soon as David Cameron resigned? Labour have said all along they will support it. So did this really make Theresa May directly contradict herself and break a promise she made publicly? Also, was the best time to launch it after Labour have had 2 weeks of announcing a number of incredibly popular policies – one a day – that have strong public support? Finally, if this IS the case, it is a clear admission that calling this election has nothing to do with the good of the country – just the good of the Tory party.

Plausibility rating: A consideration, and an expectation, but not the main reason.

Alleged Tory electoral fraud from 2015

There is still, hanging over the Tories, a police investigation into electoral fraud during the 2015 General Election. This arose because the Tories spent a lot of money in specific target seats that they claimed as central spending, when actually it directly related to the results in those seats, allegedly. A file of possible charges has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, and an announcement was expected THIS WEEK. Obviously, that announcement is now up for grabs.

Certainly, we can glean some clues to this – the fact that the CPS have confirmed they are still looking to continue this work suggests there is a case to at least be considered. If there is a fresh election, it means that this can be glossed over as having been solved at the Ballot Box instead of in the courts. Secondly, when the Prime Minister was asked, on the floor of the House of Commons whether she would allow anyone facing criminal or legal proceedings over this to stand, she said that she would support all Tory candidates to stand it begins to show the contempt that she feels towards free and fair elections. Obviously, this is not something that the PM would want to call an election for. But it may just be that this has been the final straw. And it is hard to argue against, given the rushed and surprise nature of it, the obvious U-turning and the fact she is now eating her own words on stability.

Plausability rating: Ticks the box for the timing aspect.

So, there we have it then. A lot of conjecture, and a lot of assumptions, and a lot of admittance on the part of the Government about how bad things are. The most likely scenario is that this is a government who are afraid of admitting the mess they are making of Brexit forced into this decision by the timing of CPS decisions. They are putting the needs of their party above your needs as citizens of this country. I would suggest you remember that, and don’t let them get away with it when you are in the polling station. 

Step right up, now everyone’s a winner, bargains galore.

Thank goodness for Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. There was I, worried that leaving the European Union might in some way be bad for our economy, workers’ rights and public sector, when they come along and show me that everything is going to be OK. Of course it is not just the US. Apparently, countries are queueing up to do trade deals with us. We now thankfully have some greater clarity on what Theresa May plans for her brexit strategy. So, what can we take from her announcement yesterday? And how bright is the future looking for us? Can we get ready for a massive influx of trade we don’t currently have? Is the prospect of a Global Britain better than the prospect of a “Shared Britain” (now removed) or a “Red, White and Blue Brexit” (now removed) or is it just another meaningless slogan?

Really, we need to understand from the speech what we are potentially losing compared to what we might gain. That is the only way we can judge whether we are looking at a net positive or a net negative. This was the most important speech that the Prime Minister has given since we voted for her to be our leader. Only joking of course, we live in a parliamentary democracy where elected representatives are chosen and entrusted to make our decisions for us. Well apart from THAT decision obviously. So, the most important speech since her party voted for her to be party leader and therefore Prime Minister. Only joking, there was no vote for her. So, the most important speech she has given since 35,000 in the borough of Maidenhead voted for her (that’s right Americans, you think you have problems).

I am going to focus purely on the aspects relating to trade and the economy. There was actually some good stuff in there, relating to how the process will run, and also massively important areas around immigration and nationality, borders and governance. But that will have to be part of another blog. So what did we learn? Well the key points were these:

·         All existing rules and regulations of the EU will become British Law and workers’ rights will be protected, then will “keep pace with the changing Labour Market”

·         We will leave the single market, and the customs union then “pursue a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement” with the EU

·         We might pay to be a part of “specific European programmes”

·         If we don’t get the deal we want with the EU, we will trade with them without a trade agreement

·         We will seek out new trade deals with other partners that we don’t currently have in place

Keeping existing rules and regulations, and workers protections

                So, depending on your point of view, keeping existing safety and consumer laws is a good thing or a bad thing. It will mean that we can continue to export to mainland Europe because our goods and services will be comparable. But it might also mean that we are held to a higher level of regulation than say US or Chinese manufacturers. Therefore, this could make our products uncompetitive on a global market. So this really depends on whether we get a trade agreement with the EU.

                More worryingly, is the specific language used around workers’ rights. This should be a massive big warning sign to everybody who is employed in the UK. Over the last 6 years the Tories (and their coalition partners) have overseen the stripping away of workers’ rights, and have resisted every opportunity to improve them. For example, even at the height of the furore over zero hours contracts, the government did nothing. Coupled with that our rights to strike have been eroded, weakening our bargaining power with companies. And senior members of the government are openly talking about banning the use of strikes across industries.

                Mrs May could have said that workers’ rights would be improved upon, or strengthened. But the language is purposefully specific. “Keeping pace with the changing Labour Market”. Well, if we look at how the Labour market is changing, more people are being put in to roles where their employers can pretend they are self-employed; employers can give up any sort of responsibility through the “gig” economy; zero hours contracts will become more prevalent; trade unions will be downgraded and weakened at every turn; pensions agreements will no longer be stuck to by employers whilst taxpayers bail out pensions funds. Basically, if you are employed, then this is the start of a bonfire of what rights you currently have. If you are applauding this speech, you are either an employer yourself, or not paying attention. Perhaps somebody could remind me, when we voted for the UK to leave the European Union, where we also voted to give up our working rights to Sir Philip Green and Mike Ashley? I obviously ticked that box without realising.

Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, getting a trade deal with Europe instead, paying for access

                It is probably worth, as a starting point, understanding what our trade deal within Europe currently means. Firstly, it is worth stating that it is probably the most comprehensive, invasive and wide-ranging multi-lateral trade agreement in the world. It includes everything from free trade (meaning we trade our goods free from tariffs being applied by other countries), customs union (meaning we all apply the same tariffs to goods coming from outside our deal), free movement (of services, capital and resource ie people) and a level of political union too. It covers almost every aspect of trade and commerce, industry and services, import and export. The effort to split ourselves out from it is on a scale unprecedented and untried. It is not simply rhetoric to say it is of the scale that countries leaving the USSR and Eastern-bloc felt during the early 90s.

                So we would be leaving, with great difficulty and cost a free-trading bloc of 450 million people in 27 states (once you take us out of the official figures). It has GDP of US$13tn (again once you take us away from the published figures). It is 41km away from us at the closest point. Those are the really key considerations in any trading deal we want to do: how many individual consumers are there, how wealthy is it, how far away is it, and what tariffs would we expect. It is worth also stating that given the depth and breadth of the negotiations that will be needed, this will (you would hope) require a great deal of considered and careful negotiation. We currently have no experience of trade negotiations, given that we haven’t had to for about 40 years. It seems a reasonable assumption that what experience we can muster together will be focussed on this deal. Two years of effort to LEAVE that free trade deal.

                Of course, it is possible that we could end up with an even better trade deal. However, it is highly improbably. By its very nature, if we are choosing to say to a trading bloc that have grown together “we want to trade with you, but don’t wish to pay in to your structural costs” then it is only reasonable to assume we will get a worse deal than full membership. Even Theresa May accepts that. Hence why the Prime Minister and others have been warming us up to the idea that we will still have to pay something to continue to trade freely in certain markets. I think it is fair to assume this will include the Motor industry (if not, then what the hell have we promised Nissan?) and financial services (given it is our biggest single industry). Of course, that gives us the question of what will the cost be? How much will we have to pay for access? Not only that, does it mean any industry which isn’t beloved of the Tories (Steel, manufacturing, non-financial services) should now expect tariffs to start to affect their business. So there we have it, a deal where we still pay in (when it suits the Tories) and everybody else has their business negatively impacted.

                Not only that, but what if we start imposing our own tariffs on European goods? Well, that will lead to massive instantaneous inflation, whilst at the same time our economy is getting worse. We had this in the 1970s – and the term which was coined was stagflation – a stagnant economy whilst prices rise. It was a horrific time. If you are too young to remember it be grateful, then ask somebody who was around how it felt.

No deal is better than a bad deal, trade deals with other parties

                Of course, we could choose to have no trade deal at all with Europe. However, just the most cursory glance at this shows how completely stupid and damaging this would be. This would mean that we would immediately start trading with ALL of the European Union at WTO Tariff rates. In effect every single item that we export to Europe would immediately be less competitive, and therefore we would either have to sell less OR sell them more cheaply. The idea that no deal is better than a bad deal is complete hogwash – and everybody knows it. God even to export Oxygen to the EU we would have to pay a tariff of 5% - and they breath the bloody stuff (yes, I know, thanks). So this idea that we will go with No Deal is never going to happen. Besides which, in all honesty both parties want to get a deal. It is in their interest as well. It is entirely a PM trying to sound tough for the UKIP-leaning voters in her own party. It is simply within our interest to achieve some deal with Europe (popn 450m, GDP US$13tn, dist 40km) – and it is theirs to do a deal with us (popn 65m, GDP US$3tn, dist 40km).

                What about other deals? We are told by Boris Johnson that countries are “queueing up” to do a trade deal with us. Well, the first consideration is – why aren’t we trading with them currently? If these countries are so desperate to get a trade deal with us, why is that? Well, we already do trade with many of them. But it is at a lower level than perhaps we could. Therefore, any belief that this will lead to a massive influx of NEW trade is again erroneous. What it will do is make trade easier and therefore give some lift to our global trade levels. It might also (if we remove import tariffs) lead to consumers paying less for certain goods. It is way beyond me to be able to state with any certainty what scale the impact would be. But it would need to be very high indeed to offset any major losses of trade with the EU. I am going to leave the US to one side for a moment, but still, let’s pick out some of the options which do look like “live picks” ie countries that are talking about trading with us:

Country	Population	Size of economy	Distance	Comments
EU	450m	US$13.1tn	41km
Iceland	0.3m	US$0.016tn	1,894km
India	1,300m	US$8.72tn	7,194km
New Zealand	4.7m	US$0.174tn	18,500km
Australia	24m	US$1.2tn	17,000km
Canada	36m	US$1.5tn	5,700km
Ghana	27m	US$0.121bn	4,800km
Mexico	120m	US$2.2tn	9,000km
South Korea	50m	US$1.4tn	9,000km
Total	1,562m	US$15.3tn	9,136km average

                So, if the worst happened and we stopped all trade with the EU (which no-one is suggesting, to replace it we would need to trade with these 8 separate economies to get a trading block of the same size. Ignoring the fact that on average that would mean sending goods 45 times further on average to sell them.

                To put it another way, our trade with the EU accounts for 45% of our exports. If we lost a quarter of that export trade – on our doorstep – we would need to boost our sales internationally to non-EU countries by 11%. Unfortunately, our trade with international neighbours is already at record levels for us. What else are we going to sell – at a competitive price after sending it an extra 9,100 km? The very desperately sad thing is, we are already a successful trading nation. Is it really possible that not being part of a customs union with the EU is going to boost our trading with every we currently trade with across the board by over 10% BEFORE the end of the current deal with the EU in 2 years’ time?

                Who is going to negotiate these trade deals? Everyone with experience or knowledge will be working on the EU deal? Or should we leave that to Boris “let’s joke about the Nazis” Johnson? Genuinely? Of course, we have the trade deal to look forward to with the US. After all, we have been promised a trade deal by the President-Elect, a man who never goes back on what he says. Well, he has already threatened to pull out of NAFTA (a free trade deal), and put 35% import tariffs on goods from China and Mexico – 2 of their biggest trading partners and very strong economies. If Donald Trump is looking to trade on those terms with others, why would we believe we would get anything more beneficial?

Everything’s rosy

                There is no hard evidence to say that is all impossible. It may well be that against all odds the government manage to deliver. But for that to happen we would need a massive turnaround in fortunes, in abilities, in industry, in trade patterns and in the views of our own government. At the same time we would need the EU to be kind to us in any future trade deal. Put quite simply, the potential risks are much greater than the opportunities at the moment. I would love to be wrong about this – and I am often wrong. But I see no analysis which suggests anything other than this stark conclusion – by leaving the single market we are throwing away access to a strong market on a really good deal for the possibility of access to less accessible markets, with less good deals. This can only be bad for our economy. 52.1% of people voted for Brexit. But how many voted for an almost certain worsening of our economy, job losses, rights and protection losses, uncertainty and a weaker economy?

WARNING! This post contains SPOILERS about what happens after a leave vote

              Or, then again it might not. I say that because nobody actually knows what will happen to the economy if we leave. Nobody can. David Cameron and George Osborne don't. Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson don't either. Nor do Economists for Brexit, the IFS, the WTO or The Economist magazine. Neither do I. But given that the economy is one of the main areas of discussion in the EU referendum debate we can't possibly ignore it. So, before you read any further, there is a massive health warning - any projections which are made OR referenced might be completely wrong. This has been part of the issue that has been turning so many people off from this referendum. The repetition that as soon as one side trot out an indisputable fact, the other side dispute it with their own fact.
              So what can we say about the economy and the impact of leave or remain? Well a really good place to start is to understand some basic ideas which are directly relevant to the question at hand. Let's set out then what the EU is (from a purely economic point of view), where it came from (again from an economic point of view) and what are trade deals, tariffs and the regulations that are often discussed by various commentators on both sides. This might take a while and bore the shit out of you - so if you want to go and get a drink now is the time to do it (I'm certainly having one). This is the explanation nobody else will do - because it is incredibly long and boring. But I think worth getting to the end of. One thing I will try NOT to do is to address any claims or counter claims - there is enough of that round already.
               The EU was originally set up very much as a trading block. The underlying theory of many politicians at the time was simple (and actually pretty true) - that most wars, when you get down to it, are really about access to resources. Those resources might be money, land, water, access or a million others. Given that Europe had spent the best part of a thousand plus years at war, then wouldn't it be better to settle disputes over a negotiation table instead of a bayonet? Therefore a "trading block" was set up relating to Coal and Steel - at the time the 2 key resources you needed to fight a war and also the 2 resources you would be likely to fight over. To avoid using an EU reference, you can find all of that information on wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_European_Union ). How would that trading block work? Well, they would work together to decide how much to produce, who to sell it to, at what price and what would be the rules for producing it. The last point is really important. They would also allow the countries in the block to sell to each other without "tariffs" - that is the governments wouldn't add costs to goods coming in from the other countries. To make this fair and achievable, what was very important to the countries involved was that the produce was created in the same way. So, same workers rights, same standards of outputs etc. This was so that no individual country could make more profit by undercutting the others unfairly.
               These are the regulations that are often held up by leave as blockers to British dominance of markets. These hated "regulations" that are thrown around as such a terrible thing include measures to ensure that:

1. What you are buying is actually what you are trying to buy
2. You are not paying too much for products and services
3. When you buy something it wont kill or injure you and your family
4. The people producing goods are not being abused / have employment protections
5. Producing these goods doesn't damage the environment more than it has to
6. There is a standard level of quality for goods that you buy
7. No single organisation or country can run the entire market and abuse a leading market position.

              As a general rule of thumb then, regulations are good for consumers, good for the market, good for workers and costly for businesses, and if it is costly for businesses that increases prices for consumers too. So whenever you hear the term "regulations" - run through that as a checklist and decide if they are things you want or not. Of course part of the problem identified by some on the Leave side is that these regulations attach to all companies whether they trade across Europe of not. I personally quite like the idea of regulations to stop all companies abusing workers and damaging the environment - irrespective of where they trade.

              In very basic economic terms then, the EU has now become a single market where lots of products and services are sold across Europe - with common regulations, but without tariffs being added if they come from within the EU. Tariffs go hand in hand with international trade - so let's look at what they are. Say your country and it's economy is very reliant on the production of "thingies" as an example. You as a government want to make sure that the "thingie" industry is protected. Therefore, what you do is add an import tariff to any "thingies"made overseas being imported - with the aim of making foreign "thingies" more expensive. It is called protectionism. It has existed since the start of international trade. Why wouldn't you do it?

              There are a couple of big problems with protectionism. The first one is quite simple - that protectionism breeds protectionism. Therefore whilst we are trying to protect our engineering industry, France is trying to protect their wine industry. Italy and Germany are trying to protect their car industries. And it goes on, and on, and on. What that means is that we all pay more for our products and services, but also because people don't want to pay higher prices they don't buy, so economies are held back. Secondly, protectionism favours rich countries. After all, if you have more to protect and trade, then you can afford to be tough to other countries with your tariffs ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism ). So as part of a global world we screw other people, our own consumers and ultimately our own economy. Again, as a rule of thumb then, tariffs are bad for consumers, bad for the overall economy but potentially good for individual companies in an economy.

                There are other ways of course as well as tariffs that countries can protect their own industries. Nationalised companies obviously have government support so can (generally) borrow money more cheaply. Or Labour costs can be controlled by government to help companies. Or grants, or a variety of other measures and methods that can be used. For example, the recent furore over the death of Tata Steel in the UK is often blamed on cheap imports of Chinese Steel "flooding the market". There is a huge lack of transparency around why the EU didn't stop this. The arguments (depending on which side you are on) are that the EU rules stopped the UK from intervening to help our steel industry OR the EU tried to block the chinese steel (by increasing tariffs) and the UK government stopped them from doing that. Whilst it is unclear what happened in this instance, the EU rules on this are quite clear - we could have increased tariffs at a European level to counter the protectionist measures of the Chinese. What is worth considering is whether the whole EU standing up to China would have more impact than the UK standing up to them on it's own.

             So, a single market, with common regulations and no tariffs, across a regional trading block, with an end consumer base of 500 million people. That is great because it gives companies (particularly international companies that trade across borders) certainty. Set up in Britain and access that market. Sounds pretty sweet. The main problem raised though is that in order to access that market we have to be (currently) a member of the EU. That in itself comes with a few costs. Firstly, the cost of complying with regulations as discussed above. Secondly, we have to pay to be a member of the EU. This is not a small amount of money, and the budget is set in Europe - we don't decide ourselves how much to pay. After rebate (which we do control) we pay £14 billion a year to the EU.                 That sounds like we might just be better off paying the tariffs in the first place. To put it into perspective - that is out of total UK government expenditure of £772 billion. Our payments to the EU (before looking at what they give us back in other ways) equate to 0.5% of the cost of government ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_Kingdom ). So less than half a penny in every pound paid in tax goes to the EU. Finally, there is a cost of being part of the EU when we try to trade with non-EU countries. Because we are members when we trade with other countries without a trade deal the EU makes us apply tariffs. This is why the EU is currently trying to agree trade deals with a range of countries - Canada, the US, China as examples. However, overall tariffs are coming down across the world - in some cases slowly, but in other cases more quickly.
              There do seem to be some other major costs too economically. One of the obvious key ones is that if you are running a business in the UK then because of the close integration of the markets you are potentially not just competing with the business next door - but also the business in Paris, Madrid and Berlin. Is this a bad thing or a good thing? Well, first of all it means that the businesses in Europe are also competing with you - you can enter and sell to their local customers. Competition should also (according to prevailing economic theory) lead to better prices for consumers and a more efficient market, innovation and better products and services. The impact of this will depend on your business - common sense would suggest it is much easier to sell "knowledge" services over a phone line or internet connection. It might be much harder to sell fresh cream cakes.
            Finally then, there is also the concern over free movement of Labour - one of the central tenets of the European model of tariffs and regulations. Now, I have already written a blog about immigration generally ( http://unexpectedsocialist.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/if-immigration-is-your-answer-someone.html ) and I don't want to revisit a lot of those points. But being part of Europe also requires us to allow workers to seek employment in any other part of the EU without barriers to that. Is this a cost to our economy? At a very basic level it would seem intuitive that having a greater Labour pool would help companies make money. They can drive down wages and salaries by hiring people from lower paid countries to work for them. This could therefore be good for companies (and earn more money for an economy) but bad for employees. It could also transfer funds from wealthier economies to poorer economies - by individuals remitting wages back to their home country. At the same time though, we have more individuals in the country spending their money here, paying taxes here and generally because they are of working age using less public services (remember, we are only talking about working migrants). Unfortunately, I do need to refer to a study here ( http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf ) that shows that immigrants have NOT reduced wages for the UK population. It is simply a not true assertion. BUT TAKE THAT WITH A PINCH OF SALT.
           Economically then, what is the EU? Well a single trading block that increased potential customers but also potential rivals. A law making body that creates a lot of regulations that apply to all companies irrespective of whether they trade internationally. A body that tries to reduce protectionism and tariffs for the good of the global economy, not just ours. A bloc that negotiates on our behalf with other large economies that sometimes doesn't get the results that we would want. A larger, more competitive market that companies either thrive in or fail in. And one where the free flow of Labour allows people to work across a different range of countries depending on their skills, abilities and needs. This of course sounds rosy, but then again I am for remaining in. The problem is that whether we vote to stay in or vote to leave we are picking winners and losers. Some businesses will benefit from staying in. Some will benefit from losing. What we have to do is decide is whether getting rid of or replacing the things above will benefit US as individuals / companies AND what will be the impact on the overall economy.