DOCSLIB.ORG

Transport and the Economy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

House of Commons Transport Committee Transport and the economy Third Report of Session 2010–11 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/transcom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 15 February 2011 HC 473 Published on 2 March 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Transport and its associated public bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman MP (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe) Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South) Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West) Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North) Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne) Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys) Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer) The following were also members of the committee during the parliament. Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South) Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/transcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mark Egan (Clerk), Marek Kubala (Second Clerk), David G Davies (Committee Specialist), Alison Mara (Senior Committee Assistant), Edward Faulkner (Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Transport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6263; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] 1 Contents Report Page Summary 3 1 Introduction 5 The challenge for transport 5 Our inquiry 6 2 Relationship between transport and the economy 7 The Eddington Transport Study 7 Analysis 7 Eddington’s recommendations 8 Changed economic conditions 8 Analysis still valid? 9 Integrating transport with economic development 11 Rebalancing the economy 14 The need for policy clarification 15 A coherent framework 15 Taking a selective view of Eddington 15 Calls for clarification 16 The case for a new Transport White Paper 18 3 Spending priorities 19 Support for investment in transport 19 Identifying priorities 22 Strategic economic priorities 22 Location 22 Transport modes 24 Within modes 25 Priorities depend on circumstances 26 Financial arrangements and distortions 26 Greater flexibility and certainty 26 Small schemes 27 Local contributions 28 Capital-resource spending balance 29 4 Appraisal and decision-making 30 Overall process 30 Appraisal 30 UK transport appraisal 30 New Approach to Appraisal 30 Criticisms of NATA 31 In defence of NATA 32 Non-trivial sums 33 Decision-making process 34 Policy considerations 34 2 Regional equity 35 The case for greater transparency 35 5 Local and regional transport planning 37 The regional level 37 A decade of regional planning 37 Abolition of regional plans and organisations 37 The strategic gap? 38 Sub-regional planning 39 Potential problems with Local Enterprise Partnerships 41 6 Conclusion 43 Conclusions and recommendations 44 Formal Minutes 46 Witnesses 48 List of printed written evidence 50 List of additional written evidence 51 List of unprinted evidence 53 List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 54 3 Summary The Government has said that it is focusing its transport policy on contributing to economic growth and carbon reduction targets while reducing the fiscal deficit. Economic rebalancing—including reducing the “north-south divide”—is a primary objective. At the same time the Government has distanced itself from the last major study of transport and the economy—the 2006 Eddington Transport Study—and rejected a number of its key recommendations, particularly on road pricing, airport capacity and high speed rail. The Government has not provided an assessment of the implications of its decisions; nor explained how its investments will deliver the growth and rebalancing that it is seeking. Transport investment can enable and stimulate economic growth but it does not guarantee it. Transport investment intended to stimulate growth needs to be closely linked to a proactive approach to economic development. The Government has swept away the regional tier of planning and institutions, to be replaced by Local Enterprise Partnerships and other arrangements. Most of these are at the early stages of formation, or yet to be established. With regard to transport functions, these may not be in place until the end of this Parliament. We call on the Government to: • publish a White Paper on transport and the economy, clarifying the nature of the economic solutions that it is seeking to deliver through transport spending and how the schemes that it is supporting will achieve these aims; • ensure that transport investment and economic development are properly integrated; • provide greater transparency in the appraisal and decision-making process with regard to new schemes, and • ensure that the institutions and arrangements required to plan and prioritise sub- national transport schemes are developed and made effective as soon as possible. 5 1 Introduction The challenge for transport 1. The UK’s economic situation has changed dramatically over the past three years. Steady GDP growth in the period 2000–2007 has given way to low or negative growth, an increased fiscal deficit and higher levels of unemployment. Following the general election in May 2010, the Coalition Government stated that reducing the government deficit was its most urgent task and that it would “support sustainable growth and enterprise, balanced across all regions and all industries, and promote the green industries”.1 2. Transport was expected to play a key part. The Secretary of State for Transport, Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP, told us that the Government’s priorities for transport were to support sustainable economic growth and to contribute to the Government's 2020 carbon reduction targets, within the overarching constraint of reducing the deficit.2 Supporting the economy has long been an objective of government transport policy. This Government, perhaps more than most,3 appears to be focusing on it more sharply, no doubt due to the precarious state of the economy. 3. Investment in transport infrastructure was prioritised in the October 2010 Spending Review, reflecting the Government’s view that long-term investment in transport infrastructure was essential to competiveness and economic growth. Whereas the resource budget for the Department for Transport (DfT) was cut by 21% (the average across government departments), the capital programme was reduced by only 11% compared with an average of 29%. According to HM Treasury, in 2014–15 DfT capital investment will be higher in real terms than in 2005–06.4 4. As well as supporting overall growth, the Government has made clear its intention to use investment in transport, particularly in high speed rail, as a means to rebalance the economy and to reduce regional inequalities: Our vision is a transport system that is an engine for growth [...] to radically reshape our economic geography [...] to help bridge the North-South divide that has limited for too long growth outside the South East.5 5. We welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on using transport to support and stimulate the UK economy and to reduce the economic disparities between different parts of the country and we call on him to explain how his policy will achieve that end. 1 HM Government: The Coalition: our programme for government, 20 May 2010 2 Transport Committee, Secretary of State’s Priorities for Transport, oral evidence, 26 July 2010, Q 3 3 Under the previous Government, the DfT had five strategic objectives, including supporting economic growth. (DfT, Annual Report and Resource Accounts 2008-09, HC454, 16 July 2009, p 14) 4 HM Treasury, Spending Review 2010, Cm 7942, October 2010, pp 10, 11 and 46 5 DfT, Business Plan 2010-11, November 2010, p 1 6 Our inquiry 6. We believe that supporting sustainable economic growth should be the overriding objective for the DfT. We have, therefore, decided to inquire into how best transport can support this objective. In particular: • Have the UK’s economic conditions materially changed since the Eddington Transport Study in 20066 and, if so, does this affect the relationship between transport spending and UK economic growth? • What type of transport spending should be prioritised, in the context of an overall spending reduction, in order best to support regional and national economic growth? • What should be the balance between resource spending7 and capital investment? • Are the current
Recommended publications
  • London Clerical Workers 1880-1914: the Search for Stability

    London Clerical Workers 1880-1914: the Search for Stability

    London Clerical Workers 1880-1914: The Search For Stability By Michael Heller (University College London, University of London) Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in July 2003 UMI Number: U602595 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U602595 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Contents Abstract............................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements........................................................................................... 4 Introduction................................................................................................ 5 Chapters: 1. A Definition of the Late Victorian and Edwardian London........ Clerk35 2. Work, Income, Promotion and Stability.................................................68 3. The Clerk, the Office and Work............................................................108 4. Attitudes of the Clerk towards Work.....................................................142
  • The Carrying Trade and the First Railways in England, C1750-C1850

    The Carrying Trade and the First Railways in England, C1750-C1850

    The Carrying Trade and the First Railways in England, c1750-c1850 Carolyn Dougherty PhD University of York Railway Studies November 2018 Abstract Transport and economic historians generally consider the change from moving goods principally on roads, inland waterways and coastal ships to moving them principally on railways as inevitable, unproblematic, and the result of technological improvements. While the benefits of rail travel were so clear that most other modes of passenger transport disappeared once rail service was introduced, railway goods transport did not offer as obvious an improvement over the existing goods transport network, known as the carrying trade. Initially most railways were open to the carrying trade, but by the 1840s railway companies began to provide goods carriage and exclude carriers from their lines. The resulting conflict over how, and by whom, goods would be transported on railways, known as the carrying question, lasted more than a decade, and railway companies did not come to dominate domestic goods carriage until the 1850s. In this study I develop a fuller picture of the carrying trade than currently exists, highlighting its multimodal collaborative structure and setting it within the ‘sociable economy’ of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century England. I contrast this economy with the business model of joint-stock companies, including railway companies, and investigate responses to the business practices of these companies. I analyse the debate over railway company goods carriage, and identify changes in goods transport resulting from its introduction. Finally, I describe the development and outcome of the carrying question, showing that railway companies faced resistance to their attempts to control goods carriage on rail lines not only from the carrying trade but also from customers of goods transport, the government and the general public.
  • A Call Against the Decline in Local Bus Services

    A Call Against the Decline in Local Bus Services

    A call against the decline in local bus services Resolution Shortlist Briefing Notes A call against the decline in local bus services Over the last decade there has been a massive decline in the number of bus services, particularly of those in rural and semi-rural areas. In order to alleviate loneliness, improve health and wellbeing, as well as promoting sustainable development, the NFWI calls on the Government and local authorities to increase subsidies and work in partnership with bus companies and community transport operators to enable an adequate provision of services. Proposer’s position The proposer would like the importance of a local sustainable bus service, particularly in rural areas, to be more widely recognised. In light of the falling coverage of bus services and the wide-spread impact on communities, this resolution calls on local and national government to take action. The scale of the problem Since 2010, local authorities have faced budgets cuts which have put pressure on the delivery of local services such as health centres, post offices and libraries. Those without access to a car rely heavily on public transport, and the loss of a bus service can reduce access to services and facilities and contribute to social exclusion and loneliness. According to the Campaign for Better Transport, council bus budgets have been cut by 45% since 2010. Local authorities across England and Wales were found to have taken £182 million away from supported bus services over the decade, affecting more than 3,000 bus services in England and 259 in Wales. According to Rural England, about half of people in smaller villages do not have access to any public transport and young people's access to education is being impacted by poor public transport provision.
  • 'Ungovernable'? Financialisation and the Governance Of

    'Ungovernable'? Financialisation and the Governance Of

    Governing the ‘ungovernable’? Financialisation and the governance of transport infrastructure in the London ‘global city-region’ February 2018 Peter O’Briena* Andy Pikea and John Tomaneyb aCentre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU. Email: peter.o’[email protected]; [email protected] bBartlett School of Planning, University College London, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, 620 Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London, UK WC1H 0NN. Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author 1 Abstract The governance of infrastructure funding and financing at the city-region scale is a critical aspect of the continued search for mechanisms to channel investment into the urban landscape. In the context of the global financial crisis, austerity and uneven growth, national, sub-national and local state actors are being compelled to adopt the increasingly speculative activities of urban entrepreneurialism to attract new capital, develop ‘innovative’ financial instruments and models, and establish new or reform existing institutional arrangements for urban infrastructure governance. Amidst concerns about the claimed ‘ungovernability’ of ‘global’ cities and city-regions, governing urban infrastructure funding and financing has become an acute issue. Infrastructure renewal and development are interpreted as integral to urban growth, especially to underpin the size and scale of large cities and their significant contributions within national economies. Yet, oovercoming fragmented local jurisdictions to improve the governance and economic, social and environmental development of major metropolitan areas remains a challenge. The complex, and sometimes conflicting and contested inter-relationships at stake raise important questions about the role of the state in wrestling with entrepreneurial and managerialist governance imperatives.
  • Sharing Wiltshire's Space: One Public Estate

    Sharing Wiltshire's Space: One Public Estate

    Sharing Wiltshire’s space: One public estate Contents Foreword from Baroness Scott OBE, Chair Wiltshire Public Service Board Setting the scene 4 Delivery Plans 6 Meeting the pre-selection criteria Next steps Headline Outputs Key Projects Delivery schedule Costs 16 Capacity Fund Relationship database Programme Management Regeneration of Warminster Targeted funding request Regeneration schemes in Trowbridge and Chippenham Reopening of Corsham Rail Station Partnership and Governance Arrangements 16 Our story so far – track record of delivery 20 One Council Community Campus – or ‘Health and Wellbeing Community Centres’ Strategic Partnership between Wiltshire Council, Wiltshire Police and OPCC Wiltshire Council and NHS collaboration Wiltshire and the MoD Wiltshire and Dorset Fire and Rescue Service One Wiltshire Devolution Proposals Appendices – Terms of Reference for: 24 Wiltshire Public Service Board Wiltshire Public Estates Partnership Wiltshire Military Civilian Integration Partnership Table of Partners 2 Sharing Wiltshire’s space: One public estate Foreword Wiltshire’s vision is to create stronger, more resilient communities. The agencies on Wiltshire’s Public Service Board have committed to working more closely together and rationalising estates so that we can focus on: • Delivering integrated customer focused services and community facilities • Reducing demand, running costs and generating capital receipts • Creating economic growth – releasing land for jobs and housing and regenerating our towns and villages This means increasingly close working between public, private and voluntary organisations in the county to achieve better outcomes for the people of Wiltshire. Our work to date - combining five councils into one, delivering a strategic partnership between Wiltshire Council and Wiltshire Police (covering a joint ICT platform, co-located services and a Multi- Agency Safeguarding Hub) and developing the first phase of the Health and Wellbeing Community Centre in Corsham - has shown that we can genuinely transform service delivery.
  • The Need for Indigenous Aggregates Production in England

    The Need for Indigenous Aggregates Production in England

    The need for indigenous aggregates production in England Open Report OR/08/026 BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN REPORT OR/08/026 The need for indigenous aggregates production in England T J Brown, F McEvoy and J Mankelow (BGS) with J Ward, S Bloomfield, T Goussarova, N Shah and L Souron (cebr) Keywords England, aggregates, economy, construction. Front cover Dowlow Quarry, Derbyshire C Mitchell, BGS © NERC Bibliographical reference BROWN, TJ, MCEVOY, F AND MANKELOW, J (BGS) WITH WARD, J, BLOOMFIELD, S, GOUSSAROVA, T, SHAH, N AND SOURON, L (CEBR). 2008. The need for indigenous aggregates production in England. British Geological Survey Open Report, OR/08/026. 74pp. Copyright in materials derived from the British Geological Survey’s work is owned by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and/or the authority that commissioned the work. You may not copy or adapt this publication without first obtaining permission. Contact the BGS Intellectual Property Rights Section, British Geological Survey, Keyworth, e-mail [email protected]. You may quote extracts of a reasonable length without prior permission, provided a full acknowledgement is given of the source of the extract. © NERC 2008. All rights reserved Keyworth, Nottingham British Geological Survey 2008 BRITISH GEOLOGICAL SURVEY The full range of our publications is available from BGS shops at British Geological Survey offices Nottingham, Edinburgh, London and Cardiff (Welsh publications only) see contact details below or shop online at www.geologyshop.com BGS Central Enquiries Desk Tel 0115 936 3143 Fax 0115 936 3276 The London Information Office also maintains a reference collection of BGS publications, including maps, for consultation.
  • The History of Transport Systems in the UK

    The History of Transport Systems in the UK

    The history of transport systems in the UK Future of Mobility: Evidence Review Foresight, Government Office for Science The history of transport systems in the UK Professor Simon Gunn Centre for Urban History, University of Leicester December 2018 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Dr Aaron Andrews for his help with the research for this review, especially for creating the graphs, and Georgina Lockton for editing. The review has benefited from the input of an Advisory Group consisting of Professor Colin Divall (University of York); Professor Gordon Pirie (University of Cape Town); Professor Colin Pooley (Lancaster University); Professor Geoff Vigar (University of Newcastle). I thank them all for taking time to read the review at short notice and enabling me to draw on their specialist expertise. Any errors remaining are, of course, mine. This review has been commissioned as part of the UK government’s Foresight Future of Mobility project. The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent those of any government or organisation. This document is not a statement of government policy. This report has an information cut-off date of February 2018. The history of transport systems in the UK Executive summary The purpose of this review is to summarise the major changes affecting transport systems in the UK over the last 100 years. It is designed to enable the Foresight team to bring relevant historical knowledge to bear on the future of transport and mobility. The review analyses four aspects of transport and mobility across the twentieth century. The first section identifies significant points of change in the main transport modes.
  • Why the Industrial Revolution Was British: Commerce, Induced Invention, and the Scientific Revolution Author(S): R

    Why the Industrial Revolution Was British: Commerce, Induced Invention, and the Scientific Revolution Author(S): R

    Why the industrial revolution was British: commerce, induced invention, and the scientific revolution Author(s): R. C. ALLEN Source: The Economic History Review, Vol. 64, No. 2 (MAY 2011), pp. 357-384 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Economic History Society Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41262428 Accessed: 29-10-2018 16:15 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Economic History Society, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Economic History Review This content downloaded from 168.122.222.242 on Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:15:11 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Economie History Review, 64, 2 (2011), pp. 357-384 Why the industrial revolution was British: commerce, induced invention, and the scientific revolution1 By R. C. ALLEN Britain had a unique wage and price structure in the eighteenth century, and that structure is a key to explaining the inventions of the industrial revolution. British wages were very high by international standards, and energy was very cheap. This configuration led British firms to invent technologies that substituted capital and energy for labour. High wages also increased the supply of technology by enabling British people to acquire education and training.
  • Transport Investment and Economic Performance

    Transport Investment and Economic Performance

    9/10/14 Transport investment and economic performance: Implications for project appraisal* Anthony J. Venables James Laird Henry Overman * Paper commissioned by UK Department for Transport. Thanks to referees, contributors to the seminar and the call for evidence, and staff of the Department for their inputs. 0 Transport investment and economic performance: implications for project appraisal Executive summary and recommendations Transport and economic performance Transport is an essential input to income generation, and to consumption and wider domestic life. Estimates suggest that if all other drivers of growth were to increase by 10% and transport infrastructure were to stay constant, then realised growth in income would be just 9%, i.e. 1% point less than it otherwise would have been. Studies of particular projects or types of transport improvement point to positive impacts on a wide range of economic variables including city size and employment. The increases in land values associated with urban transport projects are well established. While these effects are well documented, the research literature has not been able to provide good estimates of the ex-post benefit-cost ratios (or rates of return) on particular transport investments that have been undertaken. This is partly because the benefits of a transport improvement can be quite diffuse, affecting many different individuals and firms, and partly because of the difficulty of establishing a good counterfactual; what would have happened if the project had not been built? Projected benefit cost ratios are generated by ex ante project appraisal, using techniques that are well-grounded in economic principles and empirics. For the UK, even taking a fairly narrow view of benefits, these indicate BCRs greater than two for more than 90% of projects undertaken.1 The impacts of a transport improvement are wide-ranging, particularly for large projects.
  • The Impact of the English Civil War on the Economy of London, 1642-1650, by Ben Coates

    The Impact of the English Civil War on the Economy of London, 1642-1650, by Ben Coates

    The Impact of the English Civil War on the Economy of London, 1642-1650, by Ben Coates. Abstract. The purpose of this thesis is to ask to what extent and in what ways the economy of London was affected by the English Civil War. This w ill be placed in the context of the evolution o f London’s economy and society in the 16th and 17th centuries. Comparisons with the impact of the C ivil War on the economy of other parts of England will be made. The focus w ill be on the short term effects of the C ivil War. In the first part of thesis the impact on the economy of London of Parliamentary taxation, loans and contracts for Parliament’s war effort w ill be assessed, as well as the policies of economic blockade pursued by the belligerents. Subsequently the impact of disruption brought about by the English C ivil War on the major props of the London economy w ill be examined, namely London’s role in the internal and external trades of England, and manufacturing in London. It w ill be argued that the C ivil War caused a major economic crisis in London partly because the economy of the metropolis rested on its interrelationship with the test of England, and also because of its function as the capital as the centre for the social and economic networks of the kingdom. The Civil War disrupted those networks. However the impact of the war was limited because the disruption of the national economic networks was partial, and because different aspects were disrupted at different times.
  • The West Midlands Strategic Transport Plan

    The West Midlands Strategic Transport Plan

    MOVEMENT FOR GROWTH: The West Midlands Strategic Transport Plan Contents Foreword............................................................................01 1. Introduction..............................................................02 2. Our Challenges................................................................03–06 3. Our Vision.........................................................................07–08 4. Our Approach.........................................................................09–30 -Policies -Long term approach to meet the policies -Twenty Year Vision for the Four Tiers of the Transport System -National and Regional Tier -Metropolitan Tier -Local Tier -Smart Mobility Tier -Supporting operational, revenue and policy measures 5. Benefits Of Our Approach............................................................31 6. Delivery Of Our Approach......................................................31-32 7. How We Will Fund Our Approach................................................33 8. How We’ll Know We’ve Succeeded.............................................34 9. Concluding Remarks...................................................................34 Appendices....................................................................35–46 -Appendix 1 Policies to Meet the Objectives -Appendix 2 Proposed Performance Indicators -Appendix 3 Transport Development Principles -Appendix 4 Glossary Foreword Positive, enduring change is happening in the West Midlands. A new Combined Authority, and recently announced devolution deal,
  • 2016 Research Note: 'Brexit and Real Estate'

    2016 Research Note: 'Brexit and Real Estate'

    OAK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP JUNE (2) 2016 Brexit and Real Estate If General de Gaulle had not lost a popular referendum in France in 1969 (by a margin of 52/48) maybe the Britain would not have been admitted finally into the EEC in 1973. Britain had tried to join twice in 1963 and 1967. De Gaulle sensed with his intimate knowledge of the British from his wartime sojourn in London and North Africa that they could not belong to his vision for European co-operation. Maybe it was their merchant- nature, their pragmatism or their ruthlessness. Certainly, all of these characteristics were on display when the UK voted to leave the European Union on 23rd June 2016. Economically speaking, the EEC/EU had served the UK well between accession in 1973 and the financial crash of 2008 but then the block has failed to recover its GDP, its vivacity and its allure for UK voters. Unlike other European countries the community / Union was never a political project - so when the tangible economic argument was lost in the minds of the people, all the political irritants that had been boiling away for over forty years came to the fore. ‘Taking back control’ - the slogan of the leave campaign was predominantly a political not an economic argument. Now that the people of the UK have made a political decision (decision is derived from the Latin to cut), the economic question of free market access comes back to the fore. On what basis may goods and services be sold to and from the European continent? The UK is exposed as never before since (perhaps even including) the time of Napoleon to ‘fortress’ Europe that has mercantilism in its DNA - and which the UK found so restrictive when it was part of the EU.