The IMF has blundered on Brexit impact
The IMF's economic analysis of a British withdrawal from the European Union is flawed, argues John Redwood MP.
Yesterday – and despite the change of mood in the UK – the IMF decided to release its economic assessment of the implications of Brexit to the UK economy. It has produced a flagrantly political intervention, claiming a bleak future if we leave the EU and a continuing good future if we stay in. I read its own website, which flags the UK report with a picture of Westminster in the rain at its mast head. This is a most unfortunate decision, which demeans the institution.
The forecast assumes that the rest of the EU will be willing and able to impose new barriers on their trade with us in an act of self-harm, at a time when the IMF thinks the Euro area economy is weaker and more exposed to troubles than the UK one. I think this very unlikely. No-one explains exactly how and why they will do this. The German government has never said it wants any new tariffs or non-tariff barriers, and they tend to lead the EU's response to such issues.
It assumes there will be a confidence affect as well, when the leading inward investors to the UK with factories here have made clear they are going to stay as the UK workforce, domestic market and export base suits them. They have the contacts they need with the rest of the world through our airports, seaports, the English language, our liquid financial markets, and high standards of corporate governance and dispute resolution. So far the various short term forecasts cited by the IMF to talk down the pound, to talk interest rates up and to talk the UK into an early recession have failed. Sterling is a bit higher against the dollar than at the end of February when the referendum campaigns got into gear, and government borrowing rates are well down on the opening levels of 2016.
The IMF rightly highlights the weak UK balance of payments position as a negative for the economy. It does, however, point out that part of the reason for this is low returns on UK investments abroad, which it thinks might improve in due course. The IMF does not point out the UK's large net contributions to the EU are also an important part of the balance of payments deficit which would immediately improve once we cancel the contributions, as we will if the country decides to leave. Nor does it stress that the UK enjoys a trade surplus with the rest of the world, but a large deficit with the rest of the EU. This again underlines how any new barriers to trade would be more damaging for the EU than for the UK.
This article has been republished with the kind permission of John Redwood MP. This and other articles are available from his blog.
John Alan Redwood, Baron Redwood, is a British politician and academic who represented Wokingham in Berkshire as Conservative Member of Parliament from 1987 to 2024. Born on 15 June 1951, he served as Secretary of State for Wales under John Major and twice stood unsuccessfully for the Conservative Party leadership during the 1990s. Following his ministerial career, Redwood held positions in the Shadow Cabinets of William Hague and Michael Howard before spending his remaining parliamentary years as a backbencher. Prior to entering Parliament, he earned a doctorate at All Souls College, Oxford and served as Director of the Number 10 Policy Unit under Margaret Thatcher.
A veteran Eurosceptic described in 1993 as a pragmatic Thatcherite, Redwood has been particularly known for his work on economic policy and European matters. He co-chaired the Conservative Party's Policy Review Group on Economic Competitiveness until 2010 and serves as Chief Global Strategist of investment management company Charles Stanley & Co Ltd. Redwood was a prominent supporter of Brexit in the 2016 EU referendum and was a member of the pressure group Leave Means Leave. He writes commentary for Comment Central.
