Further personal
analysis 20/6/16
I have continued following the debate and seeking to find out more on
underlying issues. I haven’t identified anything which would change my
analysis, although I have acquired more information. The Remain campaign has
particularly focussed on economics, minimising or ignoring the sovereignty
issues, which could have far greater impact. Even on economics, all is not as they
would have us believe, with financial risks of Remaining often simply ignored.
Economists have been presented as if they can predict the future. From their
past record, they can’t! .
1.
Sovereignty
#
Ambrose Evans Pritchard (Business Editor of the
Daily Telegraph) wrote an interesting article on 13 June entitled “Brexit vote
is about the supremacy of Parliament and nothing else: Why I am voting to leave
the EU” in which he said
”Stripped of distractions, it
comes down to an elemental choice: whether to restore the full self-government
of this nation, or to continue living under a higher supranational regime,
ruled by a European Council that we do not elect in any meaningful sense, and
that the British people can never remove, even when it persists in error.
We are deciding whether to be
guided by a Commission with quasi-executive powers that operates more like the
priesthood of the 13th Century papacy than a modern civil service; and whether
to submit to a European Court of Justice (ECJ) that claims sweeping supremacy,
with no right of appeal.
The Project bleeds the lifeblood
of the national institutions, but fails to replace them with anything lovable
or legitimate at a European level. It draws away charisma, and destroys it.
This is how democracies die.”
#·
Aspects where the EU already holds exclusive or
shared competency (i.e nations either cannot legislate or must accept supremacy
of all EU edicts) include trade, fisheries, social policy, economic, social and
territorial cohesion, agriculture and fisheries, environment, consumer
protection, transport, energy, tax, migration, crime, civil liberty, security
and justice (per Wikipedia). Not a lot left! But there are further plans under
consideration including introducing EU taxes on energy, VAT and banks.
#·
EU lawmaking is cozy and opaque. Lobbying is
endemic with the Guardian in 2014 reporting this to be a multi-billion industry
employing over 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels alone, influencing 75% of
legislation. Business obviously believes this is more effective for them than
democracy. The annual output of thousands of laws and regulations is produced behind
closed doors with no transparency or reporting on the process and results in
decisions which cannot be amended or appealed by any Government or citizen.
However, there seems to be substantial sympathy for this
system from politicians, intelligentsia and experts, possibly considering that they
should be the decision makers whilst avoiding scrutiny from the public.
Unfortunately the schemes of experts often fail to live up to their expectations
and it is ordinary people who suffer as a result.
2. Risks of remaining in the EU
The substantial risks of remaining may not have been sufficiently
recognised. It is human nature to take the freedom and economic status we enjoy
for granted. It is not and what we think we have may already be in danger. Britain
is particularly at risk as our economy and traditions are not in line with most
of Europe. For example, our government and courts are different (more
democratic), we are far more international in our trade, far more reliant upon
services as part of our national economy (and far more likely to be paying in
support to the EU).
#·
The EU struggles to co-ordinate its response to
any emerging issue and constantly does so by greater centralisation and
diminishing the role of states.
#·
Rich Eurozone members have ‘walked by’ on the
other side whilst economies of southern Europe have been wrecked by misguided
EU policies. (The ongoing 40-50% youth unemployment in countries such as
Greece, Italy and Spain is a disgrace and a disaster.) European banks and
countries are expected to struggle to pay debts and Britain will not be able to
avoid fallout when obligations cannot be met.
#·
EU budget spending is spiralling, with a €20bn
budget deficit currently and more to come. Member states cannot paying these
costs.
#·
The migrant crisis is growing and however
sympathetic one is to the situation, it has the potential for massive costs and
social impact on the EU. In France the army is reported to be already fully deployed
in protecting Jewish and other targets against potential terror attacks.
#·
Uncontrolled migration of European passport
holders has a cost for the UK. Even if beneficial for business, this impacts
employment housing and services for ordinary people. Given that there is no
mechanism of control this could have unforeseeable future consequences.
#·
Accession of Turkey would be a costly enterprise
and given the increasingly repressive and Islamist nature of the Turkish
government such aspects of the project are fraught with danger.
#·
The burden of regulation and tariffs on imports
from outside the union consistently decreases efficiency and increases costs
for the consumer.
3.
Christian
#·
Christian groups such as Prophecy Today and
Intercessors for Britain have a focus in the hand of God upon nations and from
this perspective are in favour of leaving, having consideration for aspects such
as sovereignty, the secular nature of the EU project and its growing antipathy
to Israel.
# If you believe in the gift of
prophecy it is worth considering these excerpts from a prophecy published on
the web from David Noakes last December
"Rather than rely on Me and
my faithfulness to you, you chose, for worldly purposes, to join yourself to an
institution which has denied my Name and refused to acknowledge Me in its
councils. My fierce anger is upon that institution on account of its rebellion,
its defiant rejection of me and its hardness of heart towards my ancient people
Israel.
I warn you now that the European institution will not repent, even though I
bring disaster and destruction upon it. I urge you, O Britain still beloved by
Me for the sake of your godly forefathers, come out of her, so that you may not
be caught up in that same destruction, for I am even now arising in judgment to
bring to nothing what she has sought to achieve. If you will separate yourself
from her declared rejection of God, I will have mercy upon you and restore my
hand of protection; and I will use you once again to bring light to many lost
in the darkness which is now steadily increasing.
Hear Me, O once godly nation and
respond to my call, or you also will come to ruin in that same judgment of
destruction. This is not my will for you, but you must choose the course which
you will take. I urge you to respond to Me and choose life under my hand of
discipline and protection, rather than death in the disaster which is even now
coming upon Europe."
#·
Since the Magna Carta power has been constrained
in the UK and the principles of “no taxation without representation” and checks
and balances on exercise of authority have been enjoyed. In the Civil War
Cromwell and his model army were primarily non-conformists and sought to
establish a system of Government where the people had a strong influence on government
and legislation (which we enjoy to this day, with increasing numbers
progressively enfranchised). The Christina aspect of this approach is emphasised
in the ‘Coronation Oath’ which the monarch takes promising to govern in line
with God’s laws. The EU does not begin to acknowledge such principles and was,
in fact, designed to bypass the power of electorates (considering that they
could not be trusted). Whilst it may be currently be benign, since power is
divorced from representation, it is gaining the power to govern as a supra-national
dictatorship.
4. Financial
Warnings from David Cameron and George Osborne have become
progressively more strident to the point that fellow Remainers Jeremy Corbyn
and Nicola Sturgeon have publically warned them against their exaggeration.
Former Tory Chancellors (Nigel Lawson and Norman Lamont) and the former
Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King take a different view and back leaving.
#·
Lord Rose (Chairman of Remain) told The Times
that ‘“Nothing is going to happen if we come out of Europe in the first five
years, probably. There will be absolutely no change’.
#·
Neil Woodford has confirmed that he is standing
by his analysis (which I quoted previously) and that in the scale of economic
threats, Brexit is not unduly significant and that ultimately he doesn’t expect
a material impact one way or the other.
#·
Michael Geoghegan, former Head of HSBC, wrote in
the Telegraph on Saturday ‘Leave: It is absurd to suggest Britain cannot thrive
outside the EU' in which he dismisses the alleged benefits of remaining and
instead emphases the risks, stating
“Remaining inside is very
worrying for British competitiveness, jobs and prosperity. The financial
system, on which everyone in Britain and all its businesses depend, is probably
the most vulnerable part of the economy.
Clearly, the headline costs to
the taxpayer are going to increase. Brussels is running out of money and that
is likely to mean a substantial rise in the UK’s £10bn net contribution.”
Other risks he identifies include
costs to support potential Greek debt costs, bank rescues, , underwriting of
Eurozone costs and financial tax
transaction costs of £4bn for UK pensioners and savers.
#·
Norman Lamont recently published an interesting
article entitled “Not only can Britain leave the EU and have access to the
single market, we'd actually get a better deal” Extracts follow:
“The impression given is that the
EU single market is a walled garden and that we and the other members have some
special silver key that gives us privileged access to its delights that others
cannot access.
But this is wrong. Every
developed country has access to the single market. The EU has a relatively low
external tariff with the exception of certain goods such as agriculture. The
inconvenient truth is that non-members of the EU have often exploited the
single market far more successfully than we have.
The importance of trade deals can
be exaggerated. Countries primarily succeed with or without trade deals if they
produce goods of high quality and services that other countries want to
purchase. In the modern world, tariffs between developed countries are low and
are small compared with movements in exchange rates. The flawed myth of the
single market is that is that it is seriously advantageous to its members. The
paradox is that non-members have managed to benefit from it more than members.
There may be arguments for
remaining in the EU but they do not revolve around the single market. On trade
we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Which is exactly what the Remain
campaign has been attempting to stir up.”
An analysis has been issued showing that if we were to
export to Europe without any agreement, we could still be better off, in that the
minimal tariffs under WTO rules would be less than the membership contributions
we currently pay.
Personally I would expect some initial uncertainty
if Britain votes to leave, although ultimately there could be significant
upsides economically if we can avoid some of the current senseless regulation
and put good policies in place (for example removing the tariffs the EU currently requires
us to impose, agreeing international deals which the EU has failed to progress
over the past 30 years and a introducing an intelligent migration policy).
