Short-term Brexit disruption is a price worth paying—Britain can thrive on the outside

Brexit offers us the opportunity to compete in a world which is rapidly evolving

by Paul Ormerod / February 9, 2018 / Leave a comment

Chief EU Negotiator Michel Barnier. Photo: Ye Pingfan/Xinhua News Agency/PA Images

A great deal of the economic commentary about Brexit remains focused on the immediate future. But the key economic question relates to the longer term. How well will Britain’s economy adapt to rapid changes and the innovations of the future?

There are of course influential people who do not like to see capitalism being innovative, in ways that can be hard to control. It is this comfort blanket view of the world which surely lies behind MIFID II, the latest regulatory fest from the European Commission, which started to come into force at the beginning of this year.

The Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II is designed to offer greater protection to investors. At least seven years in the making, it already runs to several thousand pages of regulatory requirements. In this mind set, bureaucracy and rules can eliminate risk.

But it is so complicated that it is virtually beyond the powers of a human to grasp. Certainly, experts like Phil Treleaven at UCL who have shone the light of AI on it believe that it is riddled with contradictions.

Here, in contrast, is an example of what is going on in the rest of the world.

Paytm is an Indian e-payments and e-commerce brand which has been around since 2010. At the end of last year, the company announced that it will “create the world’s largest digital bank with 500m accounts, envisioning an online financial services provider of everything from wealth management to credit cards and stock market trading.” The company is backed financially by Alibaba, the giant Chinese internet company. They have the money to match their ambition.

This news snippet shows how rapidly the world is changing. Banks established in the west for many decades or even centuries may suddenly find themselves facing serious competition from companies which virtually no one here has heard of.

In my view, we are living through a period of rapid evolutionary change. The London to Edinburgh stagecoach was perhaps the world’s premier service in 1830, covering the journey in just 39 hours. By the 1840s, it had been driven out of business by the revolutionary technology of railways. Right now, in just the same way, established companies in many sectors will find themselves made extinct by unanticipated innovation.

Brexit…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

14205913755dad22343e2572.37517757

Go to comments

Preventing such an outcome would require an unprecedented level of tactical coordination

Comments

S C.
February 10, 2018 at 11:56
An interesting but very broad brush view. Nonetheless, it touches on an important point, that rational planning and prediction is sometimes - even often - pointless. I voted 'remain', because of the law of unintended consequences: it was completely unknown, in June 2016, what leaving the EU would entail, and what the practical opportunities would be outside the EU. Nothing that has happened since has altered my original view. One minor but important point: Brexit believers now criticise remainers because the economic disaster predicted by Osborne et al hasn't happened. No, because (a) we haven't left the EU yet and (b) the economy is driven by many things, not all of which government understands or can influence. Perhaps we can revisit the point in a couple of years' time?
R_HITCHMAN
February 10, 2018 at 18:33
The congnitive dissonance is on the part of the Leavers. Services are the strong point of our exports, and by far the biggest component of GDP, but we are to leave the Single Market. The forecasts, signed off by Dexeu, show that any arrangement outside the EU is economically worse. This is civil servants lying. And so on. I despair.
M W L.
February 14, 2018 at 09:55
Really a very thin and simplistic article.