The headline in
some of the papers that this was an option for the UK was based on a quote from Lyons that
“The best economic scenario for
Britain over the next 20 years is to be in a significantly reformed European
Union.
"But if, as an alternative, the
UK leaves the EU on good terms, while adopting sensible outward-looking trading
policies, that comes a very close second.”
But the detail
shown in all the reports relates only to London. Take this as an example from the Independent:
“…the Lyons report predicts London’s
GDP of £350 billion will grow to £640 billion by 2034 if EU reforms boost trade
with growing markets in the rest of the world.
“But, growth up to £614 billion would
still be achieved by the capital if Britain quit the EU to pursue its own
outward-looking trade policies, the report concluded.
“Staying in an unreformed EU would see
London’s GDP grow to just £495 billion over the same 20 year period, while
leaving the EU but failing to adopt trade-friendly policies would limit growth
to just £430 billion.”
At least the Western
Mail’s headline was more honest – saying that the report showed that leaving
the EU was a viable option for London.
But even the Western Mail doesn’t seem to have asked what ‘viable for
London’ might mean for Wales.
Posts
2 comments:
Quite right, for Wales, see London. There's more than enough people in Wales with English ties or roots to be interested in matters pertaining to the capital of the UK.
Indeed, sometimes I wonder if it is only these folk that have got the education to read and the wherewithal to afford such a newspaper in the first place.
If England leaves the EU fine, Wales can opt for independence and try to remain as an integral member. But don't forget, it is the EU that forces member states to accept free movement of people and the right to use their own language, something so loathed by so many of the pro independent nationalists in Wales.
Upon which side of this fence do you sit?
"There's more than enough people in Wales with English ties or roots to be interested in matters pertaining to the capital of the UK."
Yes, of course there are. But there's a big leap between being interested in such matters and accepting the idea that what's good for London is good for the UK, and that decisions should therefore be made on the basis of what suits London.
"...it is the EU that forces member states to accept free movement of people and the right to use their own language"
You speak as though the EU is some sort of external entity telling people what to do. But in fact it's a club whose decisions are made by the members, including the UK, although you wouldn't often believe that to listen to UK politicians. I doubt that there's a single member of the club that likes each and every rule agreed by the members; the decision that they all face is whether to accept the package on the basis that it's better than being outside the club.
And what's wrong with "free movement of people" anyway? Insofar as there is a problem of human migration (and that's another debate entirely), it's not allowing free movement which causes that problem, it's the inequality of opportunity which makes such movement attractive.
Post a Comment