25 2 mins 10 yrs

As you know, I firmly believe that the UK must leave the EU. No good will come from staying within this failed totalitarian project. Here’s a rather interesting angle on the issue;

“The only shot the pro-Brussels brigade have left in their locker is the claim that three million jobs in Britain depend on trade with the EU and could be lost if we left. This argument is nonsense. We import far more from other EU countries than we export to them and thus they would have no possible reason to put up the shutters on trade. In any case, continued free trade is guaranteed in European law for any country leaving the EU.

 Now this scare tactic has suffered a fresh body blow with a landmark moment being reached for ourexports: for the first time since the early Seventies we are exporting more to the rest of the world than to the EU. For the three months to May 2012 there was a 7.3 per cent fall in EU exports and a 13. per cent rise in non-EU exports. This trend is likely to accelerate as the eurozone remains mired in crisis, while other parts of the world economy –including many Commonwealth countries – go from strength to strength. With every passing month the fear factor will further recede and the clamour for a referendum will build. The EU is in terminal decline and the future for Britain lies as an outward-looking merchant nation trading once more with the whole world.

I entirely agree.  It’s a BIG world, lots of commercial opportunities outside the failed EU.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

25 thoughts on “TIME TO GET OUT?

  1. Only a matter of time until it implodes.

    Hopefully the UK will be out well before then.

  2. I agree Phantom.

    The claptrap from the pro EU crowd would have you believe that we can only trade whilst being members.

    It is ridiculous and false.

  3. There is generally free trade in all the world today, more than ever before

    Erecting trade barriers against UK trade would be against the EUs economic interests and would be against relevant global treaties

  4. Trade isn’t the issue. That argument has been won so often that it’s not a battle any longer.

    The point of the “Project” is to build the European State, and the ruling elites across the EU nations are prepared to see 400 million people descend into poverty and starvation if that’s what it takes.

    The march along the orad of “ever closer union” to that central State has always been predicated on the notion that it’s inevitable and irreversible. This is understandable from the enemy point of view, because merely halting that march, declaring a final stop has been reached, would inevitably lead one day to backsliding and reversal, so it must progress onwards relentlessly come what may.

    A major country like the UK renouncing the EU would blow that fiction apart. It would be genuinely catastrophic for the EU superstaters and terminal as far as the European State is concerned.

  5. Holding a referendum would be the first step, and then extract the uk out, and repeal all eu contracts, and legislation, which would be quite simple after the referendum, which would then be an annexe to the outcome (if of course it is a result in favour of leaving), and that would be that.

    Pete,

    I look forward to your final sentence coming to pass.

  6. The jobs lost would be the ones we need the most right now ie manufacturing. Does anyone seriously believe that the likes of Honda, Toyota, Nissan, General Motors, Delphi etc would continue to invest in the UK if we were no longer in the EU? Of course they wouldn’t. It wouldn’t happen overnight but it would happen.

    The most likely outcome would be for us to end up like Norway and pay more into the pot than we do now but with no say on any of the key decisions.

    No thanks.

  7. Declan,

    why ever not?
    A more stable country, in control of interest rates and unaffected by the impending collapse of the eu would be EXACTLY the place I would be attracted to for investing into.

    As for paying more in with no say, that is exactly where we are at present.

    A better option would be pay nothing in and trade freely with complete control of our taxation and trading agreements, without any interference from outside.

    That is MUCH more preferable than the present situation.

  8. Trade isn’t the issue. That argument has been won so often that it’s not a battle any longer.

    Yes – the argument has been one by countries which conduct a managed trade policy. ‘Free’ trade is irresponsible and reckless, a dereliction of duty by government which should ensure that the wealth of the nation is not drained by others.

    As for the UK “ending up like Norway”, if only…

  9. Declan

    The auto companies have plants in Ontario and in Mexico to produce for export to the US and their US plants also export freely to Canada and Mexico. Despite the lack of qny political union.

    In an era of generally free trade, EU membership or not should be a very minor issue as relates to viability as a mfg base for the UK going forward. The battle for free trade has been won, and you are not just a manufacturing platform, you are a valuable market. So it is not in the interest of either the EU or private companies to treat you unfaily. You are not without leverage.

  10. LU because very few big companies manufacture an entire product in one country. Components are constantly going back and forth between different countries. This is not an issue within for countries within the EU as there is freedom of movement in both goods and people. The rules and regulations are also the same across the jurisdictions which also keeps costs low. The reason Norway pays so much is for access, they also adopt the same rules and regulations as the rest to keep down the differential costs of doing business there.

    Norway of course is in a much stronger position as us as they saved all the royalties and revenues from North Sea oil and now don’t have to worry about the costs of an ageing population. We had Margaret Thatcher who squandered the lot.

    We do have a say. The EU only has the powers that Member States agree unanimously to share and policy decisions are taken by elected Ministers (with UK almost never outvoted) and MEPs, not by bureaucrats; We elect these MEPs every 4 years.

    Incidentally we are free to trade with anyone we like irrespective if we are in the EU or nor. If we are now trading more with the rest of the world thats good news.

  11. Declan, your first paragraph is easily countered. If a manufacturer makes say, engines in Spain, then the UK and Spain make a bi lateral agreement for the good of both countries’ benefit.
    If not, then the UK can source somewhere else, as the imperative is for the company to be stable in a country free from as much risk as possible.
    As for Thatcher, you are vastly incorrect. Thatcher clawed back a lot from the EU and from France, only for Blair to concede not just what she had gained, but more besides.
    The fisheries and agricultural policies are a disgrace, and just one example of how we could and should rectify our nation’s trade in those sectors.
    The EU has the power, as the treaty of Lisbon states;

    ‘Article 16 of the “Treaty on European Union”,[18] as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon, stipulates that the Council voting arrangements of the Nice Treaty will apply until 31 October 2014. Moreover, until 31 March 2017, any member state can request that the Nice rules are used for a particular vote. Article 16 also states the conditions for a qualified majority, effective from 1 November 2014 (Lisbon rules):
    Majority of countries: 55% if acting on a proposal from the Commission or from the High Representative, or else 72%, and
    Majority of population: 65%.

    A blocking minority requires—in addition to not meeting one of the two conditions above—that at least 4 countries (or, if not all countries participate in the vote, the minimum number of countries representing more than 35% of the population of the participating countries, plus one country) vote against the proposal. Thus, there may be cases where an act is passed, even though the population condition is not met. This precludes scenarios where 3 populous countries could block a decision against the other 24 countries.’

    In short; we are better off out, than in.

  12. Allan@Aberdeen –

    .. a dereliction of duty by government which should ensure that the wealth of the nation is not drained by others.

    A sure way to make everyone but the politically-connected poorer (and foster rampant corruption) is for government to start “managing trade”.

    When our government imposes tariffs on imports it makes us poorer. In terms of trade it doesn’t matter if you buy from China or Bristol as long as you’re happy with the trade. National borders are econmically irrelevent and a red herring. If you think that Britons will be better off if the government made you buy British, then presumably Scotland will be better off if you never trade outside of Scotland, and Aberdeen will be better off if you never trade outside of Aberdeen. Let’s take it all the way down to your road. You can only trade with your naighbours. Do you think your road will become richer or poorer?

    If foreign governments want to subsidise their exports to us then great. They’re looting foreigners to make goods cheaper for us. We can use the difference to save or spend as we wish. This is the very definition of expanding wealth, getting more outputs for a given number of inputs.

    And anyway, who’s been doing business in northern Italy and Germany recently? Do you think the government should tell that oil engineer that under the new “managed trade” policy, he’s not allowed to do that sort of thing?

  13. Declan Wilson –

    Does anyone seriously believe that the likes of Honda, Toyota, Nissan, General Motors, Delphi etc would continue to invest in the UK if we were no longer in the EU?

    As long as taxes and regulations remain tolerable, of course. You think they’d rush off to invest in the EU? Capital is fleeing the EU.

    The most likely outcome would be for us to end up like Norway and pay more into the pot than we do now but with no say on any of the key decisions.

    Norway chooses to opt in to many voluntary agreements and programmes, hence their financial contribution. We can have Norway’s status with regard to the EU without signing up to anything else.

  14. And anyway, who’s been doing business in northern Italy and Germany recently?

    The reason why I have to get pipe and forgings from Germany and Italy is because UK industry was shut down and no longer makes (enough of) what I need. Think of the absurdity: an industrialised nation shuts down the very industry which would have supplied the hardware for its offshore industry. Seriously, there is no argument in favour of doing so, yet it was done.

    Government doesn’t have to manage trade because it would mange itself. We could only import what we have earned just as any household can only buy what it has earned. Living with huge trade deficits is like a household living off credit cards and will bring the same result with the reality of unsustainable trade deficit hitting the US first.

  15. Allan@Aberdeen –

    If “UK industry was shut down” it was done so only by costs and regulations. If Italians and Germans can made some hardware at a better price than someone in Britain then it makes sense to buy from them.

    As for the balance of trade, we need to be aware of enormous red herrings there. You buying pipe and forgings from Italy and Germay does shift sterling over there, but assets come back to britain in return, and those assets will be used for wealth-generating purposes.

    Further, Sterling is useless in Italy and Germany. It might be flipped in exchange throigh banks or brokers, but one day it must and will come back to Britain, and when it does so it will be because somoeone over there bys something from over here. In the end the balance of trade is always equal.

  16. If “UK industry was shut down” it was done so only by costs and regulations

    No

    Your unions were impossible to deal with. Impossible.

    The German unions were smart enough to realize that it was in their interest to work with the owners and to have a healthy company and to make a great product that the world wanted to buy. These were alien concepts to militant British unions.

  17. Yes, sometimes trade were impossible. As I said: “costs and regulations”.

  18. Pete,
    the strongest economies are those which produce stuff that other people need, and sell them at a reasonable price. That’s how we built an Empire. Losing our big industries weakens our economy and our society.

  19. German business is if anything more regulated than UK and US firms. It hasn’t been a problem for them. Or for the many non German companies incl my clients who have plants in Germany.

    The important thing for employers is that there be a high quality work force and infrastructure. If you have these, you don’t mind paying for quality.

  20. Pete

    But you imply that its always the govt

    Which is not true

    There are many factors and it is only one and it can be very helpful at times

  21. but assets come back to britain in return, and those assets will be used for wealth-generating purposes.

    Go on, Pete – show me.

Comments are closed.