 |
REVOKE ARTICLE 50 - NO-DEAL - DELAY -
OR MRS MAY'S THRICE FAILED DEAL?
7th APRIL 2019 |
7 April 2019 - by Brian Hardy FCA LLB - ex-oil-industry CFO, Oxford
In the moments between
wakefulness and sleep last night in bed, I got to thinking about Brexit, and
particularly the hard right views on it. I share these thoughts with you.
It has always been my
contention that Brexit was a NeoCon construct dressed up in populist
propaganda. The hard right jumped onto the UKIP xenophobic wagon when they saw
that it had traction (as wagons tend to have). They talked about
control over laws, control over immigration, control over fishing rights
in UK waters, control over the money sent to the EU, etc, etc.
But their more recent
arguments have been largely about trade deals; they seem to be quiet nowadays
about all the other claims they previously made.
In error (or more
probably deliberately), the hardline Brexiteers have in the past denied a
number of truths and made some huge unsupported claims. Examples:
- They denied that the EU’s existence has been the
reason, or at least one of the major reasons, for Europe being at peace in
the 60-odd years since the EEC (the EU’s predecessor) came into being.
- They (notably Boris Johnson) claimed that leaving the
EU would save us £350 million per week, monies that could be spent on the
NHS; to his credit, even Nigel Farage refused to be associated with that
porkie.
- They claimed that since many EU businesses (the
German car manufacturers for example) would still want to sell to us, the
EU would in return ensure our continuing preferential access to the EU
market,
- They claimed that there were no dangers in the UK
separating itself from the EU, either in terms of defence or trade,
- They claimed that our continuing membership of NATO and
our “special relationship" with the USA would protect us.
These and many other
such claims were at best self delusion or at worst downright lies. Looking at
just this last point, it means that they refused to accept that there is no
longer much of a “special relationship” with the USA, especially with the
current isolationist President in the White House, and that neither it nor NATO
can be relied on for our future defence or trade.
Indeed, their whole
Brexit justification more recently seems to have resolved itself into a single
issue - trade, or as they put it, the ability to make beneficial trade deals
around the world. Of course, what is missing in that claim is any indication as
to whom the deals would benefit: the nation or the NeoCons personally.
There is nothing inherently noble or ignoble about trade. But, in
my way of looking at political, economic and social matters, I rate
fairness, openness, equality, social harmony, consumer standards, environmental
standards, consumer goods standards, labour laws, and other such issues, far
higher up the nobility scale. Do we really want to risk sacrificing all
of these for the chimera of better trade deals?
Now, for the sake of
discussion, let's assume that the essential issue of Brexit is indeed trade, or
even economics more generally. If this were the case, I would still fail
to see the strength in the hardliners' viewpoint. The UK already benefits
enormously from having the EU (population 450 million excluding the UK) as its
biggest single trading partner. These (monetary) benefits include: the
absence of tariffs; the absence of border delays and administration; economies
of scale for our exporters; and, importantly, a centralised EU trade negotiating
body that is greatly more effective and cheaper than would be case if the UK
(population 67 million, or 60 million if Brexit were to cause us to lose
Scotland and Northern Ireland) were to handle its foreign trade policy on its
own behalf.
Of course, the saving of
our annual contribution to the EU (£9 billion net) is likely to be fully offset
by the costs of increased numbers of trade negotiators and their staffs, border
patrols who now have to monitor European visitors, the need to set up our own fully
self-financed research facilities and monitoring agencies in various areas,
etc. And in any case, unless we trade with the EU in future on a fully
arms-length basis, we will be required to make continued contributions, though
possibly at a lower level.
The hard Brexiteers say
we will be OK since we can rely on the World Trade Organisation. But,
this is a mirage. Although most of the world’s nations are members, only a few,
and mostly the very small, nations actually use the WTO as the basis for their
international trading arrangements. Most of the largest countries,
including the USA, China, Japan, India and, of course, the Europeans are
members of regional trade organisations. Indeed, it has been recently
announced that 16 Asian countries, including Japan, China, India and Australia
are discussing a new trading organisation that would cover one-third of the
world’s economy. It seems that only Russia amongst the large countries
trades on WTO terms to a significant extent. So what is so good about the
WTO that makes it a magnetic attraction for the UK?
One only has to look
into the WTO’s organisation and trading rules to realise that it is not likely
to suit the UK unless, having cut ourselves off from the EU, we find ourselves
grasping at any solution to permit us to continue buying and selling
internationally.
Just look at the summary
I am attaching of the WTO’s set-up and rule-making procedures, and you will see
this is probably best seen as a default option, not a first choice we should be
making. It certainly cannot be used easily, and would require a huge new
bureaucracy - it has 30,000 pages of rules! NeoCons are free-traders,
essentially pirates at heart, and don’t want to be constrained by a 30,000-page
rule book. And, of course, in addition to such future “default"
WTO-based trade, the deals we would make unilaterally with other countries
(such as Burkina Faso, Papua New Guinea and Tuvalu) would require more, and
more expensive, negotiation and management over the years. And the WTO
rules do not permit individual pricing - in other words, all members must be
able to purchase goods on the same terms; so we would not be able to make any
“sweetheart” deals, which is what free trade often involves. So it can be seen
that to have to rely on WTO terms and individual trade deals with numerous
small countries would be a ludicrous, complicated, expensive - not to mention
unnecessary, solution to what was a non-existing problem.
In summary, the NeoCons
don’t win the Brexit argument, even if it is reduced, as they want, to a matter
of trade deals.
Whoever is up there,
save us!
Brian Hardy, Oxford
World Trade
Organisation
The
World Trade Organisation (WTO), based in Geneva, Switzerland, was founded in
1995 as a successor to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It has 164 members (who account for 98% of the
worls economy) and 23 observer governments.
The EU as an entity, and each individual member (including the UK), are
members.
It
states its aim as being “a non-discriminatory trading system” and its main function
“to ensure that trade flows as smoothly, predictably and freely as possible”.
Its
top-level decision-making body is the Ministerial Conference, which meets
usually every 2 years.
It is a “multinational
trading system”, meaning that trade rules are determined by the members, and
are not bilateral.
The
system is big and complex, with rules contained in some 30,000 pages and
consisting of 30 agreements and separate commitments (“Schedules”) made by
individual members in specific areas.
The
system covers trade in goods and services, such as banking, insurance,
telecoms, tour operators, hotel chains and transport.
Members first try to settle
disputes between themselves. But, when
no agreement is reached, a panel of experts can arbitrate.
******
And from another perspective, following a conversation about Nigel Farage:
On 6 Apr 2019, at 13:34,
Steve wrote to his ex-business-partner:
But nothing ……
Farage
is an odious little opportunist without conscience, beliefs or respect for the
truth who should be tried for treason .
He
is a demagogue with no pedigree other than of the street. His reasoning and
arguments are devoid of evidence or intellectual rigour and he brings out the
worst from the worst of this great nation.
He
was bought and sold by big money - most of it from a small clique of Russian and
American ultra-right billionaires. He is sitting in the wings as the country
self-destructs. Mein Kampf is on his bedside table waiting for his foreign
sponsors and domestic thugs to sweep him to power.
The
referendum and the US election were manipulated using weaponized social media
techniques and delivered by St Petersburg based GRU units in what amounted to
an information warfare attack against the democracies.
The
objective was to weaken the alliances NATO and the EU confronting Russia and in
that they have been singularly successful and Farage was knowingly complicit.
The
Brexit issue which he provoked has torn the Tory Party asunder, polarized the
nation and may yet deliver the far-left Government by a hijacked Labour Party
and a Marxist prime minister.
We
will be disarmed and broke beyond redemption and you will not like what raises
from the ashes. Russian
advisers and military bases in the UK are not now a dot on the horizon but I
will bet they are in someone’s playbook. Putin
must be dishing out medals till his hands are sore .
As
to Brexit:
The
truth is out. White, educated, skilled, European immigration with common
cultural values is now in reverse and African and Asian immigrants
are pouring in; not because of the EU but because Theresa May as home Secretary
has dismembered the police, reduced the Armed services to a rump and cut the Border
Agency by half. Our prisons are a disgrace and a breeding ground for
radicalization and the worst that we have let in we let out to continue their
agenda virtually unchallenged. If you think that the security service and CTC
has tabs on them you are deluded. They don’t have the manpower they need and if
they did we would have to sacrifice much of our democracy to allow them to be
effective. The Genie is out of the bottle and we won't get it back in. Whereas
it may suit our politicians to blame the EU, it is our own doing .
The
Conservatives gave away control of our borders to save money - and previous
Labour governments for ideological reasons. The EU had no role in UK
immigration problems either in practice or by legislation. Getting out of the
EU will not give us that control back and will in all probability instantly
exacerbate the problem.
"Brexit
means Brexit" is a meaningless slogan born of a referendum obfuscated by a fog
of lies by both sides and with no clarity as to what it meant. Now the British
people may shortly gain some clarity as to what the deal is and what the risks are. This should go back to the people if they want any semblance of legitimacy. If
the people understand what the bill is and what the consequences are and they consent; that may at least deflect the responsibility for any disaster
away from our self-serving and gutless politicians.
If
Brexit goes through and this Government is seen to have presided over an
economic disaster for party political reasons, they will not be forgiven by the
electorate - and Corbyn knows that, which is why he has not opposed it. If he
gets in God help us. I will become a lampshade and you will be taxed into
penury and stuck into a re-education camp if you are lucky.
I
hope you are well and that you continue to flourish.
Very
best
Steve
