Export of services – a British success story

The lates briefing note from Global Britain summarises the growth in export of services by the UK.

In the period 2004-14, notwithstanding the Great Recession, exports of services grew at an  average rate of 6.7% – a remarkable achievement in the circumstances.

Significantly, export growth to non-EU countries was higher than that to the EU. British exports of services to the EU grew at a “respectable” average rate of 5.8% per year, but British exports of services to the Rest of the World (“RoW”) grew 26% faster, at an average rate of 7.3% per year.

Insurance and Pension services recorded the fatest growth rate – an average of 9.9%.

The full analysis can be read here

Why the EU would benefit from a free UK

The advantages to the European Union (the EU) of the United Kingdom leaving its failing political Superstate experiment are seldom mentioned. Yet “Brexit” would benefit the countries of Europe even if the political class and bureaucrats don’t or won’t acknoweldge these benefits. There is plenty of historical evidence to prove that a strong, free UK is much better for Europe generally, especially for its ordinary peoples. We would be far more use to everyone as an independent country than as a subservient vassal administered by EU puppet politicians.

The UK, the Empire and Commonwealth have often come to the rescue our European neighbours in their ‘hours of need’, not least during the Napoleonic and World Wars. It is somewhat humbling to read a letter of gratitude dating from the 1920s from the British colonial administrator to the local inhabitants in Bechuanaland (now Botswana) thanking them for their generosity in helping to save the poorer starving people of Poland.

The positive impact of these islands on mainland Europe goes back many centuries. During the Dark Ages, Christianity was kept alive on the Celtic fringe whose missionaries subsequently helped to re-introduce the faith to a largely heathen continent. John Wycliffe’s ideas and teachings spread from Oxford to the Continent and provided an intellectual spark which was taken up by Jan Hus in Bohemia and later by Martin Luther, becoming the Protestant Reformation. Many of the foundations of Enlightenment thought and its predecessor, the revolutionary scientific thinking of the late 17th and early 18th centuries, were laid in these islands by such great luminaires as Isaac Newton, Adam Smith, John Locke and David Hume. In the nineteenth century our country saw great advances in science and technology as the Industrial Revolution gathered momentum.

These are a small selection of the cultural, intellectual, industrial and political developments which have spread outwards from this enterprising country.

Over the centuries, the United Kingdom has provided Europe with stubborn military resolve, preventing the subjugation of the continent by ambitious, delusional, autocratic leaders. At the same time our ideas have contributed to the advance of enlightened material progress. How could such a small place, with so few people, achieve so much? The simple answer is because our history, philosophical outlook and national characteristics are so different from those of neighbouring countries.

Our history, somewhat by serendipitous accident, has evolved over a long period, traceable from at least as far back as King Alfred of Wessex and moving – at least until 1973 – towards increasing rule by consent under just and equitable (common) law. The concept of government of the people, for the people, by the people first appeared in 1384.

Our philosophical divergence (mainly empiricism, where knowledge and reality come from experience, versus idealism, where reality is a product of the mind) can be traced through William of Ockham, David Hume, John Locke and others; their empiricism providing a stark contrast to the idealism of continental Europe, exemplified by, for example, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Immanuel Kant. This is a subject briefly explored by Peter Oborne in an article entitled ‘Europe’s dogmatic ruling class remains wedded to its folly’.

Our behaviour tends to be more individualistic than our European counterparts as shown through research by John W. Hunt (Professor of Organisational Behaviour). He noted, “This helps explain why talented people in Britain often prefer to work in the media and professions or start their own businesses, where there is greater freedom and teamwork is less important.”

We appear at our happiest and best when can exert our colourful, irreverent individuality instead of being forced to conform to some drab overpowering orthodoxy. This national characteristic is powerfully expressed in our great literature. For example, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, which features sometimes bawdy individuality, rather than pious conformity or Jane Austin’s opinionated heroine, Elizabeth Bennett, in her popular novel Pride and Prejudice.

Yet it is in our attitude to the future where our national temperament really stands out, for we believe –  sometimes against formidable odds – that tomorrow can be better than today and many of us share the belief that we have a responsibility as individuals to make life better for family, friends and indeed, society as a whole.

By nature, we don’t feel comfortable with  EU solidarity, EU autocracy and pursuit of (naked) power over others. So it is obvious that our country, differing from the European mainstream, will always sit uneasily within an ideological federalist EU superstate, and as long as we do so, our potential will be dramatically diminished.

However, politicians and bureaucrats are happy with the current direction of EU travel; it means more power to them  – indeed, they are free to increase the degree of control over ordinary people both here and in the rest of the EU because there is no restraint except that which they impose upon themselves. There is no alternative political socio-economic model for their performance to be judged against. An emasculated UK within the EU can be ignored and dissent suppressed.

The situation changes dramatically for the better  – both here and in the EU – with the emergence of a free, independent UK. We can do our own, democratic, self-reliant, enterprising thing and provide an  alternative model for to the peoples of Europe and beyond  – a model they could possibly emulate and from which they could certainly gain inspiration. An independent UK would provide a reality check on the EU’s ruling élite and act as a potential facilitator of popular restraint upon their self-delusional excesses. It would be harder for the EU élite to continue to ignore the wishes, hopes and fears of their subject peoples when people could look across the Channel and see the benefits of, for example: lower tax,  fewer and better thought out regulations, more transparent, accountable and therefore, effective government, greater personal liberty, less corruption and waste, the rule of law and protection against arbitrary actions by an overbearing state.

Our example, as a free country, independent of the EU and focusing on what we do best could help ‘toughen up’ the rest of Europe, helping our neighbours survive in a dangerous world and inspiring them to build prosperity in a competitive one. Most of all, Brexit could provide the peoples of Europe and the wider world, with something that is sadly missing these days – hope for tomorrow.

Toyota:- a Letter from our Chairman to the Derby Telegraph

Sir,

Back in 2000 Derby City Council issued a leaflet to businesses entitled ” New Century, New Currency” , telling us that the euro currency was coming and we had jolly well better get ready for it.

At the same time, the most senior management in Toyota was telling us that they would not invest another penny in Britain if we did not adopt the euro. So did Mr Dyson, the vacuum cleaner manufacturer.

Other colleagues and I wrote respectfully to Mr Toyoda in Japan, pointing out that his esteemed company did a great deal,of trade with China. Yet, as far as we knew, he was not advocating political union between Japan and the People’s Republic of China to help him sell his motor cars there. We have written to the company several times since along similar lines.

Mr Dyson (now Sir James) has long since recanted his view and thinks we could prosper outside the EU,  so I have removed his company from our household embargo list and will have pleasure in doing the same for Toyota, now the company has withdrawn its support for Britain’s ever closer political union under the government of the EU Commission.

It would be nice to think that our letters played some small part in this decision. However, I think it is more likely that other considerations prevailed. It used to be thought that Britain and its motor manufacturers needed to be in the EU to be at the ” top table” where regulations were made.

This is no longer the case. Whilst regulations governing motor cars come to us via EU Directives, they are not made in Brussels any more. The EU Commission is merely the conveyor belt for global regulation made elsewhere – in this case by UNECE ( The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) which is based in Geneva.

Our EU membership actually keeps us off that top table. Yet independent Norway with no car makers is represented there. Little Norway actually chairs the division of the world food standards body Codex Alimentarius which deals with fish – and this is the organisation which tells the EU what to do in that respect.

For twenty years now the EU has been legally bound to accept global standards, made by bodies like UNECE, the World Trade Organisation ( WTO) and others. Again Britain is not represented there. Our representation has been outsourced to the EU where we are only one voice among twenty eight and have to do as the Commission decides in its ” common position”

Yours faithfully

Edward Spalton

The critical path out of the EU

This latest briefing from Futurus analyses the critical path to leave the EU. It concentrates on two areas. These are, winning a referendum and organising an effective and beneficial departure.

These require a clear aim and a clear plan, taking account of existing legal agreements and political realities.

(We normally display these articles in full on the CIB website, but due to the length of this piece, it needs to be accessed as an attachment)

 

 

Ministers’ Metrication Conspiracy

The British Weights & Measures Association (BWMA) has prepared a 12-page booklet of the lies told by Ministers and others in order to force metrication on us as if it were our own choice. It was, of course, a condition of joining the EU that we should go metric. Most of the booklet consists of copies of correspondence between Ministers and high-ranking officials.
Here, for example, is a shockoing quote from Francis Pym to sir John Eden:-
“Previously, we have committed ourselves to metricate on a permissive and voluntary basis. Now we are going to impose it.”
Copies of this booklet are available as a pdf file or as a hard copy from Michael Plumbe at BWMA,
98 Eastney Road,
Croydon,
Surrey CR0 3TE
A remittance of at least £1 would be appreciated

 

Photo by eamoncurry123

Peer slams Nick Herbert’s ‘scare’ tactics on EU referendum

THE PRESS OFFICE OF                                                           

The Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)   

News Release

 18th January 2016

Peer slams Nick Herbert’s ‘scare’ tactics on EU referendum

The independent Labour Peer, Lord Stoddart of Swindon has rounded on Tory MP Nick Herbert for his “quite ridiculous use of language” and for trying to “scare people” into voting to stay in the EU, in the forthcoming referendum.  Mr Herbert has described leaving the EU as a “jump into a void.”

Lord Stoddart said: “It is a quite ridiculous language use of language, designed to scare people. A ‘void’ is nothingness.  The truth is that by leaving the EU, the United Kingdom would be taking a bold step forward into the real world, by retrieving our right to govern ourselves unhampered by decisions taken by 27 unelected officials from other countries, most of which are inimical and unsuitable to the status and interests of the UK.  This much needed freedom would enable us to trade on a worldwide basis, rather than on terms dictated by Brussels.

“The only ‘void’ would be in respect of the immediate cessation of our net annual payment of £10 billion and rising to Brussels, which could then be used to put funds back into our much neglected public services and give aid to industry and agriculture.

“In my view, staying in the costly, incompetent, chaotic and corrupt EU is the biggest leap into darkness imaginable.”