EU politics: FUD, FUD, predictable FUD
Saturday 3 August 2013
 Thus do we get in the low-circulation Guardian today the tedious, ill-informed lament that leaving the EU's would be "suicide" as this would limit or restrict our access to the this mystical Single Market, which has assumed epic proportions. The thoroughly dishonest claim is based on propaganda from the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), fronted by Martin Baker, owner of Rowan Precision Ltd, in the heart of the industrial West Midlands. He has been manufacturing precision turned parts for over 25 years, for sectors including aerospace, medical, defence, lighting, automotive, scientific instrumentation, electronics and telecommunications. Strangely, from one who is preaching such woe, only fifteen percent of his products go to EU customers. Nevertheless, Baker argues that expansion of the EU single market has "opened up a lot more doors for us, providing us with many more opportunities to export". Without the single market, he says, "my company simply wouldn't have the same work turnover as we presently do". Even if one conceded Baker's point in its entirety, though, it would seem that we must accept the entire corpus of European political integration, and all that that entrails, just so that his firm can enjoy a fifteen-percent enhancement on its turnover. And one does not have to be hard line to assert the obvious – that is far too high a price to play. As always though, there is this wilful error, in eliding membership of the EU with participation in the Single Market, with no recognition that such benefits as do accrue from participation can be gained, almost in their entirety, from membership of the EEA. That there are problems with EEA membership, and that this is by no means the perfect solution to our trading relationships with EU member states is a given. And that is where the debater lies, in how we can develop a firm, stable relationship without having to buy into the integration agenda. But that is very much a different debate to that on offer from the likes of the Guardian, the British government and europhiles in general. They would have the debate confined to the simplistic question of "in-out", with no discussion of alternatives or suggestion that there might be different was of achieving Mr Barker's objectives. And the point here is that, if the trading arrangements that Mr Baker needs can be protected, then he and his kind have no locus in the greater debate. Business, as we have said before, has no business, in telling us how we should be governed. What emerges from all this, though, is that if the europhiles played is straight, and had a fair debate, they would lose it. You would get a situation like Norway, where over 70 percent of the voters rejected the idea of membership, so much so that the issue was not even on the political agenda. Thus, what we are seeing is the core tactic of the europhiles. They are attempting to shape and control the debate, excluding the wider issues from the discussion because they demolish their case. And once again, we see the almost total reliance on FUD. Never mind that, with the opportunity to renegotiate a new trading arrangement alongside Norway and the rest of EFTA, which would be a far better deal than we have at present. Our minds much be focused on leaving the EU, in the most negative of terms. Take the fear away and the very tenor of the debate changes. And that is why the europhiles love their FUD. It is the only thing that can work for them - they have nothing else on offer. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 03/08/2013 |
Norway: back in the European Union
Saturday 3 August 2013
 When we met Anne Tvinnereim, state secretary for the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, we asked her about local government and she sent me a useful primer. A similar publication is on the net and there is more detail here. In a country which values democracy, we immediately saw the difference. Norway has approximately five million inhabitants, yet there are 428 municipalities and 19 county authorities. More than half the municipalities have less than 5,000 inhabitants and only 14 have more than 50,000. The largest municipality is Oslo, which is also a county. It has approximately 620,000 inhabitants. The smallest municipality is Utsira with 209 inhabitants. Despite the differences in size, the municipalities and counties have most of the same rights and responsibilities. At county level, they deal with upper secondary schools, regional development, county roads and public transport, regional planning, business development, culture (museums, libraries, sports), cultural heritage and environmental issues. The municipalities deal with primary and lower secondary schools, nurseries and kindergartens, primary healthcare, care for the elderly and disabled, social services, local planning, agricultural issues, environmental issues, local roads, harbours, water supply, sanitation and sewers, culture and business development. The sector accounts for nearly 50 percent of government consumption and their revenues make up 17 percent of (mainland) GDP. Nearly 20 percent of the workforce is employed in local government. More than half of local authority income comes from local taxes and charges. Compare this with England. Local government takes only about a quarter of government expenditure and council revenues make up about ten percent of GDP. Less than a quarter of local authority funding comes from local taxation and central government grants exceed 60 percent. And, with a population eleven times the size of Norway, England has a mere 193 district councils in two-tier areas, 27 shire counties, 32 London boroughs, 36 metropolitan districts and 55 unitary authorities, plus two others, making 345 in all. Noting that water supply is still a municipal responsibility in Norway, we see that none have the same extent of powers as the Norwegian authorities. By contrast with the British system, local government in Norway is regarded as strong, with turnouts in the order of 70 percent in most elections. That is on a par with general elections in the UK. And, moving with the times, in twelve municipalities during the 2013 election, internet voting was permitted. What stands out, though, is the size of the local authorities. With the exception of the capital (and capitals always do tend to be different), the typical local authority is 30 times smaller than its English equivalent. Despite that, they have a greater range of responsibilities, and take a higher proportion of public expenditure, with the majority of income found locally. The bare statistics tell their own story. When it comes to localism, Mr Cameron could do no better than to come to Norway and see how local government is done. Not only do they have national independence, the Norwegians put the British local system of government to shame. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 03/08/2013 |
Brexit: economically neutral at best
Friday 2 August 2013
 Britain's net contribution has now doubled since the economic downturn began, leading campaigners to argue that the overall increase year-on-year represents 1.4 billion further reasons for us to leave. Tory MP Peter Bone says: "My solution is to come out of the EU, then we would have £20 billion to decide how to spend". Fellow Tory Mark Reckless says, "If we left the EU and we were mad enough not to agree a free trade area, the £20 billion saved could pay the cost of any tariffs three times over". One trusts that we would not be "mad enough" to leave without some form of agreement, otherwise leaving the EU could end up costing us – in the short-term – a great deal more than £20 billion a year. And, while the top-line figure of £20 billion is great propaganda, we need to be a little careful how we use it. Representing less than two month's borrowing, we would not actually save any money if the net effect would be simply to reduce the deficit. That is good enough, but it does say that we would have nothing more to spend. Secondly, if we left on the basis of a negotiated settlement, part of the deal would undoubtedly be that we honoured any multi-annual commitments. It could, therefore, be some years before we say any fall in net contributions made to the EU. Third, as members of the EEA (to which we would aspire) some payments would continue, while we would also have to fund things like agricultural subsidies, regional payments and the multi-annual framework research programmes. These costs would eat heavily into our "savings". In all, it might be many years after leaving the EU that we begin to see significant savings, and the first few years could actually see an increase in costs. But the answer to that would be, "it's worth it". The point, of course, is that – just as we should not let economic reasons prevent us from leaving – we should not seek economic justifications for leaving. We would be lucky if, in the first decade or so of independence, withdrawal was economically neutral. The reality is that leaving the EU would entail costs. Call that an investment in our future. And, whatever the price, it is an investment we cannot afford not to make. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 02/08/2013 |
Saturday, 3 August 2013
Posts
