Mirth wrote:
jones wrote:
Honestly as a Brit the one thing I would have hope for is Corbyn coming into power, which would most likely not happen unless the Tories fail spectacularly come March next year. I've worked in a Brexit transition task force for half a year in the finance sector and my very entry and high level assessment of the situation is there are innumerable landmines whatever direction you look (no deal, CETA 2.0, even re-entry into the EU) but I also think the UK could survive just fine either way. UK-EU relations, memberships in the single market etc pp are while important not the be all and end all; I'd worry a lot more about a "good" deal (which in reality is mostly good for big business and the City anyway) where May comes out strengthened and leads the country for another decade than a hard Brexit followed by Corbyn taking over.
Do you mean the UK as a whole or just London since you cite the finance sector? Most assessments still see London being the least affected largely because it enjoys a skilled, young work force backed with the ability to quickly raise capital and the political will to do so.
It's the rest of the country including the North of England, Cornwall and parts of Wales that are expected to suffer the most for the same reasons.
I cited the finance sector because that's where I work. You highlighted a couple of points so I'm not sure which one your question relates to but the gist of my post was the whole of the UK could survive leaving the EU for good. The reasons the 'structurally weak' regions are expected to suffer the worst are, while not exactly recent developments, not set in stone either.
The European Union is a neoliberal behemoth that works two-fold, through power (or rather blunt force) and structures, regulations or laws. The former can be seen at work e.g. when Draghi finally announced the ECB's QE programme in 2015 despite its own regulations stating they are prohibited from buying sovereign bonds (more or less), or when Schäuble, Dijsselbloem and other Euro hawks blatantly strongarmed Greece into accepting ridiculously bad terms for new credit lines.
However the European Union is obviously not the Ndrangheta and even though it acts like a mafia occasionally most of the time it is not necessary due to the structures which were put in place in 2009, 1992 and before, after or in between. Since the UK is a lot more powerful, politically and financially, than the EU members of the periphery it should generally be able withstand the EU's blunt power, and by shedding itself of its links altogether and thereby of the Stability & Growth Pact or the Maastricht convergence criteria it does not have any supranational regulatory framework which it legally has to abide by.
Those regulations for me are a lot more harmful than most of the EU-induced supposed advantages which the majority of Brits never experience anyway, and that's basically the chance I'm seeing behind a Corbyn-led post-EU United Kingdom, although it really is a very faint hope.
