Economic reality is beginning to catch up with the false hopes of many Britons. One year ago, when a slim majority voted for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, they believed the promises of the popular media and of the politicians who backed the Leave campaign that Brexit would not reduce their living standards. Indeed, in the year since, they have managed to maintain those standards by running up household debt.
This worked for a while, because the increase in household consumption stimulated the economy. However, the moment of truth for the British economy is fast approaching.
As the latest figures published by the Bank of England (BOE) showed, wage growth in Britain is not keeping up with inflation, so real incomes have begun to fall.
As this trend continues in the coming months, households will soon realize that their living standards are falling and they will have to adjust their spending habits. To make matters worse, they will also realize that they have become over-indebted and will have to deleverage, thus further reducing the household consumption that has sustained the economy.
Moreover, the BOE has made the same mistake as the average household: It underestimated the impact of inflation and will now be catching up by raising interest rates in a pro-cyclical manner. These higher rates will make household debt even harder to pay off.
The British are fast approaching the tipping point that characterizes all unsustainable economic trends. I refer to such a tipping point as “reflexivity” — when both cause and effect shape each other.
LOSE-LOSE
Economic reality is reinforced by political reality. The fact is Brexit is a lose-lose proposition, harmful both to Britain and the EU. The Brexit referendum cannot be undone, but people can change their minds.
Apparently, this is happening. British Prime Minister Theresa May’s attempt to strengthen her negotiating position by holding a snap election badly misfired: She lost her parliamentary majority and created a hung parliament.
The primary cause of May’s defeat was her fatal misstep in proposing that older people pay for a substantial portion of their social care out of their own resources, usually the value of the homes that they have lived in all of their lives.
This “dementia tax,” as it became widely known, deeply offended the core constituency — older people — of May’s Conservative Party. Many either did not vote, or supported other parties.
The increased participation of young people was also an important contributing factor in May’s defeat. Many of them voted for Labour in protest, not because they wanted to join a trade union or because they support Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn (although he gave an unexpectedly impressive performance throughout the campaign).
The attitude of Britain’s young people to the single market is diametrically opposed to that of May and supporters of a “hard” Brexit. Young people are eager to find well-paying jobs, whether in Britain or elsewhere in Europe.
In that respect, their interests correspond with the interests of the City of London, where some of those jobs are to be found.
STRATEGIC SHIFT
If May wants to remain in power, she must change her approach to the Brexit negotiations, and there are signs that she is prepared to do so.
By approaching the negotiations that started on Monday in a conciliatory spirit, May could reach an understanding with the EU on the agenda and agree to continue as a member of the single market for a period long enough to carry out all the legal work that will be needed.
This would be a great relief to the EU, because it would postpone the evil day when Britain’s absence would create an enormous hole in the EU’s budget. That would be a win-win arrangement.
Only by taking this path can May hope to persuade parliament to pass all the laws that need to be in place once the Brexit talks are completed and Britain withdraws from the EU. She might have to abandon her ill-considered alliance with the Democratic Unionist Party in Ulster and side more emphatically with the Tories of Scotland, who are keen on a softer version of Brexit.
May will also need to atone for the sins of the Tories in the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea with regard to last week’s Grenfell Tower fire, in which 79 people are presumed to have lost their lives.
If May embraces such a platform, she could then carry on leading a minority government, because nobody else would want to take her place.
Brexit would still take at least five years to complete, during which time new elections would take place. If all goes well, the two parties might want to remarry even before they have divorced.
George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management and chairman of the Open Society Foundations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS