MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Mar 2019, 17:19#1
This from the Guardian:
By Allister Heath
6th Mar 2019, 2:00 pm
If the Treasury was being honest, it would admit that EU membership has made little difference to our prosperity
Like almost everybody who voted for Brexit, I wanted to leave the EU with a trade deal. I certainly assumed that we would: it is in both sides’ interests, and EU manufacturers and farmers do especially well from the present arrangements.
I thought the Government would negotiate robustly and sensibly, following Vote Leave’s advice not to trigger Article 50 until the outlines of a deal had been agreed, all the while preparing for a hard exit. I expected the EU to realise that a refusal to play ball would mean a calamitous financial, defence and security hit.
It wasn’t to be. The abject lack of leadership provided by the Prime Minister, the Government’s staggering refusal to leverage the UK’s strengths, its bovine nastiness on the rights of EU citizens and, of course, the fact that so many on the UK side were trying to reverse Brexit, all combined to deliver the greatest failure of British statecraft since Suez.
The EU was emboldened into laying a series of traps into which we jumped enthusiastically, with what ought to have been the minor issue of Northern Ireland’s border turned into a case study in technocratic sabotage.
What now? Tory Remainers are in full swing, threatening either a delay or permanent membership of the customs union and single market – in other words, no Brexit – if MPs don’t sign up to the Prime Minister’s appalling deal. We must hope that, against all the odds, Parliament doesn’t fall for this madness.
Like most Leave voters, my position has hardened. I still don’t relish the idea of leaving without a deal, but I’m now, for the first time, reconciled to doing so. As matters stand, a so-called no-deal (in reality, we’ve already agreed lots of mini-deals) would be our least bad option. It wouldn’t be pretty, especially for one or two industries, but would probably cost just 1-2 per cent of GDP.
Ifo, the German think tank, is even more optimistic: it believes the cost of a no-deal accompanied by radical tariff cuts would be only 0.48 per cent of GDP. Indeed, the Government’s reported plan to eliminate 80-90 cent of tariffs, maintaining protection in only a handful of sectors, would dramatically reduce the net costs of departure. There can be no contest between a Hotel California Brexit or the greatest unilateral reductions in tariffs since the repeal of the Corn Laws.
Even the Bank of England believes the side-agreements it has signed and other preparations have halved the cost of no deal compared to three months ago (and that is before tariff cuts and other, as yet unannounced, palliative measures). The downsides of a clean Brexit have been massively exaggerated, as have the benefits of single market and customs union membership.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to our Premium content
Enjoy this Premium article? Get all of our exclusive articles from our award-winning journalists by signing up to an All Digital Access subscription now.
Start free trial
We have been led up the garden path, in the worst campaign of official disinformation since Tony Blair’s dodgy Iraq WMD dossier.
The foundational lie that underpins the myth that no deal would amount to economic hara-kiri, remains the Treasury’s preposterous claim that EU membership increased trade with member states by 68-85 per cent, or 115 per cent for goods and 24 per cent for services. Such numbers are bogus: the reality is that EU membership did boost trade with Europe, but not by much. As a liberalising venture, the EU has been a flop since the launch of the single market and euro.
Britain’s exports of goods to the EU’s 11 founder members have grown by 2.65 per cent a year since 1973, according to an analysis by Michael Burrage published by Civitas; exports to the rest of the world went up by 2.35 per cent. Does anybody really believe that our goods export growth to the EU would have collapsed to just 0.79 per cent a year, far less than to any other developed market such as the US or Australia, had we not been part of the EU, which is what the Treasury model implies? Of course not.
Between 1960 and 1972, before we joined the Common Market, UK exports to what would become the EU were growing strongly. Why would such growth have suddenly collapsed if we had remained outside the EU? The Treasury numbers are a gigantic con. They are not merely orders of magnitude wrong: they are a disgrace to the economics profession.
Gordon Brown’s Treasury, for all its flaws, was more honest about the EU than George Osborne’s and Philip Hammond’s. In 2005, it conducted early (and now conveniently forgotten) research, EU membership and Trade, a 21-page note released in December 2010 after a Freedom of Information request.
Our trade with the EEC grew significantly after we joined in 1973, it notes, but then, as the years went by, the impact dimmed, especially after the single market came into force in 1992, the very time when it should have accelerated.
The paper concludes that Britain’s trade with EU members increased by 7 per cent as a result of EU membership, but that this came at the cost of reducing trade with non-EU countries by 4 per cent.
By contrast, EU member states boosted their trade with each other by 38 per cent. “This may reflect the fact that the UK was more open to trade than some member states before accession, and therefore the relative impact may have been less,” it says.
The rest of the paper is equally fascinating. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) cost EU citizens roughly €100?billion (£86?billion) a year, it calculates.
“The UK, as a net food importer, suffers particularly from higher food prices, impacting both on the consumer and on the food processing industry,” it argues.
It then – oh, happy days – goes on to cite the great free-market economist Patrick Minford, who estimated that the CAP costs the UK 0.5 per cent of GDP, “and in economic and budgetary terms is probably the most costly factor of EU membership”.
So, this is my plea to Tory and sensible Labour MPs. Listen to your voters. Opinion among Leave supporters has changed radically. There is much greater support for no deal. Don’t kill Brexit. Don’t force us into an anti-consumer permanent customs union, or keep us stuck in the overrated single market.
In the absence of a miraculous breakthrough in the talks, there is only one sustainable solution: a clean break with the EU.
I write this with reluctance, and much trepidation, but it’s no deal or the Tory party will be finished.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Mar 2019, 17:25#2
This is the best piece have read on the subject.....not fearful, motivated with a few key facts.
It also leaves out the one huge plus a clean Brexit gives, the freedom to negotiate an excellent unilateral deal with the USA, which could swamp the small residual effects of a clean Brexit.
London is a loser in the short term whatever deal is reached. But as one of only two world class cities in the region, it's English speaking/open characteristics will beat Paris in the medium term.
Britain has a role to play as a world leader....best played as an independent, self determining country. Tell the Euro slime to shove it.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Mar 2019, 19:23#6
The biggest problem for the EU is the potential decline in the internal combustion engine....and the rise of anonymous battery brands like Tesla. Europe is an engineering machine shop....if Mercedes goes Germany goes.
Not that I'm looking forward to this....but the young people in the States are already swinging towards battery cars. I'm keeping my naturally aspirated, stick shift Porsche.
But I agree with Beeno and Mike here....in part for the reasons I mentioned. England is a more diverse economy than Europe and will prosper as Europe fades.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
08 Mar 2019, 21:23#8
The concept of Europe is too extensive. A free trade area is smart.... but it's concomittant implication is free movement of labour. And that's problematic because there are different attitudes to immigration. So right from the very first building blocks there is potential conflict.
The common currency, while convenient, has saddled Northern Europe with Southern Europe's economic failures and prevented Southern Europe from devaluing when that was the obvious tactic.
These basic issues have to be resolved before this experiment will have a sense of permanence.
Political union is a bridge too far.....significant populations that see themselves as a separate people should be able to govern themselves. The Basques should have independence, Ireland should be united...immigration should not be forced where it isn't wanted.
The whole thing is a mess and is now held together by weak interdependency. That and the fundamental economic challenges facing all these economies as technology changes and the Far East rises, makes for a bitter brew.
09 Mar 2019, 10:46#10
The biggest hoax of this entire thing is the UK’s so-called dependency on the single market. Of course we get a lot of our food products from Europe but we get just as many from the rest of the world.
The UK is a big meat producer albeit not a massive exporter but good enough to produce for the local market, but a lot of meat, especially lamb has been coming from NZ for ages, in any case. Most of the fruit and veggies come from outside the EU during European winter. And every time, during this time of the year, when we take a pack of grapes of the shelve, the chance of the country of origin being South Africa, is probably 95%. Chile or India covers the other 5%. Same goes for other summer fruit bar probably apples or pears.
As far as the so-called warnings against a no-deal... just check the sources. It’s either from the EU, Mark Carney (who has been wrong every time since day one) or some Remainer or Remainer In disguise or a BBC reporter.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Mar 2019, 20:10#14
One good thing about a second referendum is that it will get all the right people hopping up and down in an absolute rage.
09 Mar 2019, 20:18#15
“Posted by: Rooinek (7667 posts)
Mar 09, 2019, 20:10
One good thing about a second referendum is that it will get all the right people hopping up and down in an absolute rage.”
Who? The Remoaners?
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
09 Mar 2019, 20:25#16
Ceradunce, are you really that stupid?
Why on earth would the Remainers complain if there was a 2nd referendum?
Huh? What would they have to complain about? Try to answer the question.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
09 Mar 2019, 23:20#19
Let me explain Peeper....you said a second referendum will get all the 'right' people hopping up and down in rage.
And Draad pulled a neat play on words by asking "Who? The Remoaners", knowing you think the Remoaners are the 'right' people in a general sense.
By saying all the 'right people' you opened the door to two interpretations, and Draad cleverly picked the one that makes you look like a fool.
Enjoy your egg.
RORooinek
Captain18,117 posts
RORooinekCaptain18,117 posts
10 Mar 2019, 08:38#21
Moffie and his Servile Gimps having a little circle jerk because they think they got one over me but they're actually completely wrong again . . . in general the Remainers are the left, the Leavers are the right.
How embarrassing!
LMAO!
Ceradunce, the question remains . I know Moffie and Draad tried to speak for you and got egg all over their stupid faces, I'd still like to see you answer the question, why would the Remainers complain if there was a 2nd referendum?
10 Mar 2019, 10:04#25
“Ceradunce, the question remains. I know Moffie and Draad tried to speak for you and got egg all over their stupid faces, I'd still like to see you answer the question, why would the Remainers complain if there was a 2nd referendum?”
Easy peasy. They would complain after the second referendum, just like they have been complaining for the last almost three years. If they do manage to get their wish and they lose again, they will want a third one until “we” get it right. They have gotten the MO from their masters in Brussels after all. They’ve seen how it works when the Irish got the “wrong” result and were forced to go back and do it again until they got it right.
The problem for the Remoaners is that they just do not understand how pissed off and sick and tired the Brexiteers are of the EU.
That’s where Cameron went wrong as well. He did not understand it either. Had he understood it, he would either not have called the referendum or he would have made the question more complex.
I used to be a big fan of David Cameron. He was brilliant at the Despatch Box in the House of Commons and used to annihilate everybody opposite him from Tony Blair to Jeremy Corbyn and that was his downfall in the end.
He thought that his “deal”, that he came back from the EU with, was good enough.
He was so sure about it that he called the referendum a year earlier than he promised in his manifesto, when UKIP became a bit of a threat, and he did not even contemplate losing it. That is a fact.
I watched the interview with David Evans where Evans kept on asking him what he was planning to do should they lose. He had no answer and he had no excuse for not having an answer and he said so. His answer was that he had no contingency plans because there was no need for since there was no way he would lose the referendum.
Evans said to him, again and again and again: “But let’s just suppose, for argument’s sake then, that you do lose, what would you do?”. He just repeated the same answer. “I don’t worry about it because there is no way we could lose”.
I couldn’t believe what I heard. But I knew then that, should he lose, he would run away, and he did exactly that. That was when I lost my respect for him. Right there. And that was, and still is, the problem for the Remainers. They still do not understand how sick the Brexiteers are of the EU.
They cling onto this fantasy that they, the Brexiteers, did not “know what they were voting for and that they were lied to”. Problem is that they never, for one minute, sit back and consider whether or not they, the Remainers, could have been lied to and that they did not know what they were voting for.
And finally, this is not a matter of being (politically) right or left because most of the left also voted leave, remember? The only parties from the left who can probably say, with a fair amount of certainty, that the majority of their voters voted leave, are probably the Libdems and the SNP.
MOMozart
Captain49,914 posts
MOMozartCaptain49,914 posts
10 Mar 2019, 15:08#27
Peeper of course the 'Remoaners' are the left......the right people in your view.
So by saying a second election would get the 'right people hopping up and down in rage' you clumsily shot yourself in the foot. What you meant was 'it would get the Right hopping up and down in rage'.
Unless of course you are so stupid that you think the Remoaners would be unhappy with a second election
Game, set and match!
10 Mar 2019, 21:10#28
“Both the Conservative and Labour Parties campaigned on a Leave ticket.”
Nope. Not quite. The referendum was not a campaign along party lines at all, bar the Libdems and the SNP who both declared the two parties to be in favour of Remain.
The chairperson of Vote Leave was Gisela Stuart, Labour MP for Birmingham Edgbaston.
The CEO was Matthew Elliot who is Conservative but not even an MP. He is a political strategist.
Campaign Director was Dominic Cummings who was Insependent.
You can look up the rest.
10 Mar 2019, 23:23#31
“Posted by: Beeno1 (26871 posts)
Mar 10, 2019, 21:20
Not according to the Daily Express Windomp.
But there are people on the left and right firmly against globalism. ”
The Daily Express? Really? More of a tabloid paper than the Daily Mail.
In any case, I’ve given you a few names from the top structures of the leave campaign.
It was a referendum campaign across party lines. Believe me. I lived through it and I saw it in the media on a daily basis for months. The current situation seems to be a fight between left and right but that is just because Jeremy Corbyn has vowed to fight Thereas May every step of the way and Theresa May has flipped around so many times that she is battling to keep her own party in check.
The big tragedy, at this stage is that we have two weak leaders in both the Tories and Labour. Theresa May’s saving grace at this point in time is that Labour is in such a turmoil that it shadows her own struggle within the Tories. The fact that Anna Sourpuss pissed of and joined Chukka Umuna’s bunch has also come as a bit of a blessing in disguise.
Ou Anna has been overstaying her welcome ever since she broke down in tears on the BBC when they lost and then again when David Cameron ran away.
11 Mar 2019, 17:36#34
@Mike.
It is difficult to pinpoint where exactly everybody is standing but, IMO, the Brexiteers are more determined to get out than before.
A large number of fair minded remain voters, who have said beforehand that they would respect the outcome of the 2016 referendum and are doing so, are of the opinion that the politicians should just stop their shit and get Brexit over and done with.
It is difficult to say how many Brexiteers have turned Remain and vise versa. None of the Brexiteers I know have in any case. I do not know many Remainers but quite a few of them would now vote to leave.
The main reason for that is that since the referendum, quite a few of the stuff that the likes of Farage and Rees-Mogg have warned against have come true. Stuff like the establishment of the EU Army, the Italy issue, Greece, the decline of the German economy, the French political situation. Granted Le Pen did not win but things are on a knife’s edge and Macaron is hanging on by his finger nails.
Add to the above, very little of the “warnings” of the Leave Campaign turned into nothing but scaremongering.
Anna Sourpuss is arch Remoaners Anna Soubry, one of three Tories who broke away to join Chuka Umunna’s group of Labour Rebels. She was the one who broke down in tears on the BBC twice. The first one was when they lost the referendum and the second time was when David Cameron threw in the towel and pissed off.