There's a weirdly upbeat mood in the city

Are we in denial?

No one seems quite certain whether these are the best of times or the worst of times for the City. Well, OK, few think these are the best of times (that accolade still belongs somewhere back in the pre-2008 boom). But while there are still major problems in the banking sector, including what to what to do on executive pay and bonuses and how to deal with the fallout from scandals such as Libor-rigging and the sale of dodgy loan insurance products to SMEs and individual, there is nevertheless an upbeat mood in the air. This is most obviously epitomised by the FTSE 100 share index, which crashed confidently through the significant 6,300 mark last month and with only a few minor blips since has continued to regain heights not previously seen since before the crash.

But there has also been a noticeable upswing in corporate finance activity, with a rash of major M&A deals either done or on the cards.

In the last week there have been announcements about the leveraged buyout of a majority stake in computer giant Dell, the acquisition of Virgin Media by Liberty Global and even rumours of a private equity backed leveraged buyout of a significant chunk of the UK’s largest mobile telecom provider EE (formerly Everything Everywhere, itself formed from a merger between Orange and T-Mobile). All these deals point to a more buoyant start to 2013.

There have been several theories hatched to explain this sudden upswing. It started with a growing belief towards the end of last year (misguided according to the more bearish commentators) that the actions of the European Central Bank (ECB) and others have done enough to make the euro crisis recede, if not go away all together.

Then the US managed to avoid dropping off the fiscal cliff (again the bears would suggest that we’re not out of the woods here either, with a no real budget agreement struck and the pain merely deferred). But all these attempts to rationalize this upswing (which has so far not been matched by any sort of similar recovery in the real economy) don’t really explain it enough. Now, there will be plenty of people keen not to ask too many questions.

So desperate have we become for good news (any good news) that it seems like heresy to even question the source of any optimism.

The rest of this article can be read here, on economia

Photograph: Getty Images

Richard Cree is the Editor of Economia.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Brexit is teaching the UK that it needs immigrants

Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past.

Why did the UK vote to leave the EU? For conservatives, Brexit was about regaining parliamentary sovereignty. For socialists it was about escaping the single market. For still more it was a chance to punish David Cameron and George Osborne. But supreme among the causes was the desire to reduce immigration.

For years, as the government repeatedly missed its target to limit net migration to "tens of thousands", the EU provided a convenient scapegoat. The free movement of people allegedly made this ambition unachievable (even as non-European migration oustripped that from the continent). When Cameron, the author of the target, was later forced to argue that the price of leaving the EU was nevertheless too great, voters were unsurprisingly unconvinced.

But though the Leave campaign vowed to gain "control" of immigration, it was careful never to set a formal target. As many of its senior figures knew, reducing net migration to "tens of thousands" a year would come at an economic price (immigrants make a net fiscal contribution of £7bn a year). An OBR study found that with zero net migration, public sector debt would rise to 145 per cent of GDP by 2062-63, while with high net migration it would fall to 73 per cent. For the UK, with its poor productivity and sub-par infrastructure, immigration has long been an economic boon. 

When Theresa May became Prime Minister, some cabinet members hoped that she would abolish the net migration target in a "Nixon goes to China" moment. But rather than retreating, the former Home Secretary doubled down. She regards the target as essential on both political and policy grounds (and has rejected pleas to exempt foreign students). But though the same goal endures, Brexit is forcing ministers to reveal a rarely spoken truth: Britain needs immigrants.

Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. On last night's Question Time, Brexit secretary David Davis conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall following Brexit. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants."

Though Davis insisted that the government would eventually meet its "tens of thousands" target (while sounding rather unconvinced), he added: "The simple truth is that we have to manage this problem. You’ve got industry dependent on migrants. You’ve got social welfare, the national health service. You have to make sure they continue to work."

As my colleague Julia Rampen has charted, Davis's colleagues have inserted similar caveats. Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary, who warned during the referendum that EU immigration could “overwhelm” Britain, has told farmers that she recognises “how important seasonal labour from the EU is to the everyday running of your businesses”. Others, such as the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, and the Communities Secretary, Sajid Javid, have issued similar guarantees to employers. Brexit is fuelling immigration nimbyism: “Fewer migrants, please, but not in my sector.”

The UK’s vote to leave the EU – and May’s decision to pursue a "hard Brexit" – has deprived the government of a convenient alibi for high immigration. Finally forced to confront the economic consequences of low migration, ministers are abandoning the easy rhetoric of the past. Brexit may have been caused by the supposed costs of immigration but it is becoming an education in its benefits.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.