Business Travel Direct managing director Julie Oliver wavered – albeit briefly. Again stressing that this is her per-
sonal view, and not necessarily that of her company, she said: “If you had asked me a year ago, I would definitely have said ‘stay’. Since then, however, I have to say I haven’t seen any real leadership from within Europe – no-one, as far I can see,
“No-one, as far I can see, has put forward a compelling case for us to remain, and that concerns me”
has put forward a compelling case for us to remain, and that concerns me.” Johnny Nash may have had more ques- tions than answers back in 1972, but his preceding hit single was ‘I Can See Clearly Now’ – which may turn out to be true on June 24.
In the meantime, we’re stuck with The Clash – ‘Should I Stay Or Should I Go?’
Opinion: Brexit benefits John Stepek, editor of Moneyweek magazine, analyses the ins and outs of ‘in’ and ‘out’...
FIRST THINGS FIRST. I’M NOT GOING TO PRETEND TO BE OBJECTIVE on this topic – I’m pro-Brexit, and I’ll most likely vote ‘leave’ when June 23 arrives. However, my desire to leave is based primarily on concerns about the long-term direction of the European Union and its impact on British sovereignty, and little to do with the economy, which is ultimately what matters most for business travel in the short run. So here I’ll strive to give you as balanced an overview of the big-picture economic issues as I can.
The first thing you’ll notice when you try to analyse the impact of Brexit on the economy is that there’s a very wide range of estimates. This is understandable – so much depends not so much on whether we leave, but on what terms. One London School of Economics report puts the potential GDP loss – due in great part to the impact on trade – at as much as 9.5 per cent in its gloomiest scenario. Meanwhile, right-of-centre think tank Civitas is much more upbeat on the outlook, putting potential GDP gains at 4 per cent or so, due to reduced bureaucracy, among other things. It seems likely that either
extreme is wide of the mark. We are neither so dependent on the EU that leaving would be a complete disaster, nor so bound
50 BBT MAY/JUNE 2016
up in red tape that getting out would unleash rampant productivity growth. Research consultancy Capital Economics – which isn’t necessarily neutral (founder Roger Bootle is an acknowledged Eurosceptic) but certainly endeavours to look at the economics in-depth – put together an analysis for British fund manager Neil Woodford. Its conclusion? “It is plausible that Brexit could have a modest negative impact on growth and job creation. But it’s slightly more plausible that the net impacts will be modestly positive.”
BUSINESS RISKS Take trade, one of the most obvious concerns. The EU is by far Britain’s biggest trading partner – accounting for about half of our goods exported. So the idea of doing anything to jeopardise that relationship sounds concerning. However, it’s not as risky as it might seem. For one thing, nothing would change immediately – under the Treaty of Lisbon, a country leaving the EU has two years to negotiate the terms of withdrawal. For another, we are one of the EU’s biggest customers, so the bloc has little incentive to start a trade war with us. Meanwhile, our trade with non-EU partners has grown strongly and may well continue to do so, particularly
at a time when the EU has struggled economically amid the ongoing eurozone crisis. In all, the impact of Brexit on trade depends very much on the model we adopt. Under a Norway-style relationship, as a member of the European Economic Area, little would change, but we would still have to contribute heavily to the EU budget. But even in a worst-case scenario, where no deal is reached, we would remain subject to World Trade Organisation rules, which means punitive tariffs specific to the UK are out of the question. As Capital Economics notes, the UK would face the same tariffs that non-EU members face – in practice, around 4.4 per cent, “well within the normal range of exchange rate movements”.
THE BOSSES’ VIEW Perhaps the best-placed commentators are those at the sharp end of any potential Brexit – those who run the airlines. The bosses of Europe-focused budget carriers – Carolyn McCall of Easyjet and Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary – are clear that they would prefer Britain to stay in the EU, but the transatlantic airlines seem less concerned. IAG’s Willie Walsh has said that while there’s “uncertainty”, Brexit would have no “material impact on our business”.
It’s understandable that businesses which are now set up to deal with specific types of bureaucratic infrastructure aren’t keen for that to change. But there could be long-term benefits to leaving, too. As the World Travel and Tourism Council points out, Brexit – and the accompanying focus on trade with farther-flung partners – might provide the push that the government needs to commit to building a third runway at Heathrow, or to expanding Gatwick.
Even John Holland-Kaye, chief executive of Heathrow, who supports continued membership of the EU, has acknowledged that “if we were to exit the EU we would become more dependent on trade with those non-EU markets which means we need more long-haul flights... to emerging markets.” In short, from a business perspective, Brexit would indeed be a leap in the dark. But looked at realistically, chances are it will be no more disruptive than our failure to join the eurozone (when many voices warned of a mass exodus from the UK if we didn’t adopt the euro) was back in the early 2000s. And in the long run, I think most would agree, that decision didn’t work out too badly at all. ¢
moneyweek.com
BUYINGBUSINESSTRAVEL.COM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128