Six impossible things before breakfast

il_340x270.507621764_r1q5

In “Alice through the Looking Glass”, the White Queen commends the ability to believe the impossible, and claims once to have believed six impossible things before breakfast. I fear that the Daily Telegraph may be developing the same skill.

Yesterday I was struck by the Business Comment column by Ben Wright. He covered two topics.  First, looking at the possible outcomes of this year’s General Election, he lays great stress on the concern felt by big companies about the possibility of an EU Referendum and subsequent Brexit.  Wright points out that while a substantial chunk of the voting public is eurosceptic, “the business community is far more europhiliac”.  So we could see (says Wright) a Labour administration (pro-EU but anti-business), or a Conservative-led administration (pro-business but toying with a referendum) – neither palatable to business — or even (and this seems far-fetched to me) a grand coalition of Labour and Conservative.

But then Wright’s second topic was the disaster of the €urozone.  Titled “Euro point of no return?”, Wright summarises the latest €uro crisis.  Germany and the whole eurozone possibly headed towards deflation and a debt spiral.  He believes that the Bundesbank may be obliged to accept the need for QE — but fears in may be too late, and that QE may not work.  “We could be living with the consequences for decades”, he opines.

Astonishingly, Wright appears utterly unconscious of this conflict of ideas.  He is saying that business leaders are terrified that we might loosen our attachment to an economic zone that is headed for the buffers.  They are desperate to consolidate their ties to a sinking ship.  They relish the prospect of being handcuffed to a corpse.

The EU is in relative – and perhaps absolute – decline.  Dogged by disastrous monetary policy, and energy policies, and employment policies, and an unsustainable tax and welfare system, it appears to be beyond help and beyond saving.  Surely if business leaders had any sense, they would be desperately looking for ways to minimise the damage, to loosen the ties, to turn outward to the world that’s growing, not inward to a declining and protectionist EU.

One of the great mysteries of the EU debate is this blind commitment to the European idea.  I worked in the private sector for more than thirty years, yet I just can’t understand the attitude.  What do they imagine they will lose when Britain leaves the EU?  I’m sure they’d reply “market access”.  But since the UK is Europe’s largest customer, and largest net customer, continued British market access would be a clear economic imperative for Brussels.  The EU has free trade agreements with dozens of countries around the world, large and small.  The idea that they would not countenance a free trade deal with their largest customer is risible.

The consequences of Brexit for British business would be more flexible regulation, lower regulatory costs, lower energy prices, and in due course lower taxes.  What’s not to like?

And I can’t complete my list of impossible beliefs from yesterday’s Telegraph without reference to Owen Paterson.  He is a man for whom I have a high regard.  He has taken some very sensible positions on both of my key issues – Europe, and energy.  And yet he seems to have come up with a pretty preposterous statement, if reports are to be believed.  He said “Even if we were to leave (the EU) it is inconceivable that the UK could negotiate a trade deal with the EU that did not involve some agreement on freedom of movement”.

Sorry, Owen, but the facts and the precedents are all against you.  Please don’t quote Switzerland and Norway to us: they don’t have simple free trade deals: they have quasi-associate-membership status, which is why they get roped in to a significant fraction of EU regulation, plus free movement.  But the EU has dozens of free trade deals around the world.  Some, admittedly, like Turkey, include provisions for visas and work permits.  But that’s because we still maintain the fiction that Turkey is a candidate for EU membership.  And Turkey wants access to the EU for its citizens.

Look at proper free trade deals like Korea, which came into force in 2011, or Canada (expected to come into force next year).  These do not include free movement provisions, and nor should we expect them to.  Of course the UK is much larger than either Canada or Korea, both as an economy, and as an external customer of the EU.  Nonetheless the comparison with Canada and/or Korea is hugely more relevant than any comparison with Norway or Switzerland.

I am sure that the negotiations which we shall have on Brexit with Brussels will include agreements about who may come to Britain, and on what terms they can stay and/or work, (and vice-versa), but Paterson’s suggestion that open borders would be a pre-condition for a UK/EU trade agreement is way off the mark.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Six impossible things before breakfast

  1. The White Queen, “Jam tomorrow. jam yesterday…but never jam today”. Typical establishment political position.
    Keep ’em real Roger, tell it as it is, not what they would try to fool us into thinking.
    Britain has a new force in the land and the people are realising it.

  2. Peter Palmer says:

    The problem is, Roger, neither you nor I will be negotiating on Britain’s behalf. Goodness knows what sort of deal will be hatched but one thing is certain – it will not be a particularly good deal for the Britain.

  3. omanuel says:

    To avoid believing six impossible things before breakfast, I recommend avoid listening to or reading any of the government propaganda generated and distributed as “news” for the masses.

  4. Flyinthesky says:

    My contention with Owen Patersons proposals, I can see what he is trying to do and that is provide the most palatable solution for both the electorate and industry, don’t scare the horses et al, although as a result we may be notionally out of the eu we would remain so inextricably entwined as to make near no difference. The resulting paper instruments and treaties, mountains of them, could actually make the situation worse.
    The last thing the collective would want is the UK to make a success of it, with all the attendant unrest with the remaining members it could well start an avalanche.
    The biggest threat to me isn’t the logistics of regaining independance it’s the possible spite element.
    The greatest advantage to the eu is us asking them how they’d like it to be, whereas we should, considering our trade imbalance, be tellling them how it’s going to be. If we play the defensive scenario they’ll walk all over us.

  5. David says:

    Also depends on how good or bad are our deal negotiators, Im not content from much Ive seen, but expect a good deal if say Roger & Nigel were there.

  6. Patryk says:

    Paterson is right and UKIP don’t say the truth. Following Brexit (which I favour) the choice is simple: we take free trade plus free movement or we reject both.

    Your assertion that we are more similar to Canada and S Korea than to Switzerland and Norway is deceitful and ludicrous. When is the last time you looked at the map?

  7. Anne says:

    I dont even try to do six imposible things before breakfast. I simply wait to get up AFTER DINNER TIME.

  8. Jane Davies says:

    I’m just pleased to wake up and to find everything is still working!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s