Mervyn King attacks Theresa May: Brexit plan ‘betrays’ Britain

Former Bank of England governor Mervyn King has weighed in, slamming Therea May's Brexit plan in a powerful opinion piece run by news agency Bloomberg.
Published on

EDINBURGH — Brexit discussions in the House of Commons have been going very badly for Prime Minister Theresa May. Previous supporters have turned against her. Former chief whip Mark Harper told the Tory- and May-supporting The Telegraph that he would break 13 years of loyalty to the Government by voting against Theresa May's Brexit plan, saying: "Brexit should be an opportunity for our country to spread its wings, not have them clipped." He claims the proposed withdrawal agreement "not only compromises the integrity of our country" but also breaches the Conservative manifesto, insisting it "leaves the UK in a worse position that we are now" in an article published today. Former Bank of England governor Mervyn King has weighed in, slamming May in a powerful opinion piece run by news agency Bloomberg. He accuses her of betraying Britain (read his full article, below). In the meantime, Scottish remainers have confirmed that the UK can stop Brexit in its tracks without permission from the rest of the European Union. Although still to be ratified by 27 judges, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) stated yesterday that the UK has the power to unilaterally revive Article 50, reports Scotland's The National. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. – Jackie Cameron

By Mervyn King*

(Bloomberg) – When Tony Blair and Boris Johnson unite in their condemnation of the "deal" under which Theresa May proposes that the U.K. should leave the EU, you know something has gone badly wrong. The withdrawal agreement is less a carefully crafted diplomatic compromise and more the result of incompetence of a high order. I have friends who are passionate Remainers and others who are passionate Leavers. None of them believe this deal makes any sense. It is time to think again, and the first step is to reject a deal that is the worst of all worlds.

There have been three episodes in modern history when the British political class let down the rest of the country: in the 1930s, with appeasement; in the 1970s, when the British economy was the "sick man" of Europe and the government saw its role as managing decline; and now, in the turmoil that has followed the Brexit referendum. In all three cases, the conventional wisdom of the day was wrong.

FILE: Theresa May, U.K. prime minister, departing from her news conference following a special meeting of the European Council on the Brexit withdrawal agreement in Brussels, Belgium, on Sunday, Nov. 25, 2018. Photographer: Jasper Juinen/Bloomberg
FILE: Theresa May, U.K. prime minister, departing from her news conference following a special meeting of the European Council on the Brexit withdrawal agreement in Brussels, Belgium, on Sunday, Nov. 25, 2018. Photographer: Jasper Juinen/Bloomberg

It saddens me to see the Bank of England unnecessarily drawn into this project. The Bank's latest worst-case scenario shows the cost of leaving without a deal exceeding 10% of GDP. Two factors are responsible for the size of this effect: first, the assertion that productivity will fall because of lower trade; second, the assumption that disruption at borders — queues of lorries and interminable customs checks — will continue year after year. Neither is plausible. On this I concur with Paul Krugman. He's no friend of Brexit and believes that Britain would be better off inside the EU — but on the claim of lower productivity, he describes the Bank's estimates as "black box numbers" that are "dubious" and "questionable." And on the claim of semi-permanent dislocation, he just says, "Really?" I agree: The British civil service may not be perfect, but it surely isn't as bad as that.

The UK is a European country, and always will be. Trade and contacts among the nations of Europe can and should continue much as before. And I have no doubt they will do so. But the political nature of the EU has changed since monetary union. The EU failed to recognise that the euro would demand fiscal and political integration if it was to succeed, and that countries outside the euro area would require a different kind of EU membership. It was inevitable, therefore, that, sooner or later, Britain would decide to withdraw from a political project in which it had little interest apart from the shared desire for free trade.

Leaving the EU is not the end of the world, any more than it will deliver the promised land. Nonetheless the country is entitled to expect something better than a muddled commitment to perpetual subordination from which the UK cannot withdraw without the agreement of the EU.

Many MPs will argue that "we are where we are," that it's too late to change course, and that May's deal is the only deal available. But remember, this is a political not an economic crisis. If Blair and Johnson, from opposing political viewpoints, can see the fatal weaknesses of this proposed deal, politicians of all hues should try to do the same. This deal will not end the divisiveness of the debate about Britain's relationship with the EU. The Remain camp will continue to argue, correctly, that to align the country indefinitely with laws over which it has no influence is madness, and a second referendum is vital to escape from this continuing nightmare. And the Leave camp will argue, also correctly, that it is intolerable for the fifth largest economy in the world to continue indefinitely as a fiefdom.

If this deal is not abandoned, I believe that the UK will end up abrogating it unilaterally — regardless of the grave damage that would do to Britain's reputation and standing. Vassal states do not go gently into that good night. They rage. If this parliament bequeaths to its successors the choice between a humiliating submission and the abrogation of a binding international treaty, it will not be forgiven — and will not deserve to be.

  • Mervyn King, a professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, was governor of the Bank of England for a decade, beginning in 2003.

Related Stories

No stories found.
BizNews
www.biznews.com