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

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his company from our household embargo list and will have pleasure in doing the same for Toyota, now the company has withdrawn its support for Britain’s ever closer political union under the government of the EU Commission.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

William Hague’s political schizophrenia

William Hague stated at the end of last year that he is minded to vote for Britain to remain in the European Union partly because he fears “Brexit” could lead to the breakup of the UK and partly because “Brexit” would weaken the EU. This has hardly been a case of coming off the fence. Hague’s euroscpticism has always been suspect. The general public saw through its shallowness in the 2001 General Election when they returned Labour to power and ignored the Tories’ half-hearted campaign under Hague’s leadership. His current position is much confused both intellectually and politically. He has failed to grasp that it is not possible to believe in democracy as well as EU membership.

BREXIT

William Hague may have been in the forefront of politics for many years and is much respected. However this does not confer any automatic right for his confused views on the EU to be takne seriously.  On the other hand, it is useful for those of us who support withdrawal to listen to such a Europhile ally of the PM as it will help us to sharpen our attacks on supporters of “”remain”.

In this piece, where I comment respectfully upon his words in a Daily Telegraph article dated 22nd December, I will be using the excellent rebuttal of the Europhiles’ arguments by Robert Oulds on this website, which also contains a rebuttal by CIB of 7 major Europhile issues.

SECURITY AND NON-DEMOCRACY

The security of Europe rests not with the EU; indeed the EU does much to unsettle it. Most certainly security depends not upon the forces of Luxemburg or even of the other smaller 25 EU members nor even with the might of the UK with France and Germany but upon NATO, where we work with the USA. It is NATO that provides security for Europe and the wider world. [Please see footnote A].

The EU has endangered that security with interference in the internal affairs of states from the Balkans, the Ukraine, Iraq, and North Africa as well as by its trade negotiations, as in Ghana for example. The EU provides no safety for anyone through its sclerotic involvement in foreign affairs. Yet Mr Hague says “We still need the EU to provide the safe harbour for the docking of fragile democracies, and it would be strange to champion that idea but abandon it ourselves.”

I need hardly remind Mr Hague that there is not an ounce of UK-style Democracy in the EU.  The EU “parliament” has only limited powers [Please see footnote B] and Mr Hague has acknowldged its limitations: “As to the European parliament, it does not remotely provide democratic accountability for the simple reason that most voters across Europe do not take elections to it seriously and are not usually aware of the identity of their MEPs. It is not possible to be accountable and anonymous at the same time.” He misses the point of course. It is just because the EU parliament is without a strong set of democratic teeth that no one can take it seriously. Ask the MEP’s in the UK.

Accordingly the idea of there being a democratic dock within the EU for “fragile democracies” is nonsense. The EU actually destroys national democracy. It was designed to do so and will not change its course.

EUROSCEPTICISM OF MR HAGUE

“And I am often asked whether the years I spent in EU meetings and negotiations made me less Eurosceptic than when I toured the country 15 years ago with my ‘Save the Pound’ campaign” said Mr Hague. “The answer to that is “no”, since close acquaintance with central bodies of the European Union does nothing to create enthusiasm for them. The Commission itself, generally the best-performing of the EU institutions, could benefit from the spending cuts and rigour to which most national governments have been subjected. The European Court of Justice has pushed the boundaries of treaties and is capable of imposing burdens on businesses which suggest a detachment from reality.”

“Even more worryingly, some of the most cherished projects of European unity are in deep trouble – the Schengen zone buckling under the weight of new migration, and the euro bedevilled by flaws which were obvious at the start. There is a legitimate question as to whether the EU can survive in its current form two or three decades from now.”

These statements are unquestionably true. The totalitarian Commission maintains its fundamental straight course onwards towards an united non-democratic federal auperstate, as it alwasy has done. Mr Hague knows this full well.

“It is high time for a vigorous debate to get going. So far, what I have written above would be cheered on by my old friend Liam Fox, who has advocated withdrawal, by old Cabinet colleagues tempted to campaign to leave in the forthcoming referendum, and even by Nigel Farage as he reels from the discovery that a rebel who joins you from another party simply becomes a rebel in your own.” Correct in part only!

EUROPHILIA AND FEDERALISM OF MR HAGUE AND THE IRRELEVENCY OF THE PM’S NEGOTIATIONS

“Yet here I part company with these fellow critics of the EU, distinguishing between deploring the state of an organisation and deciding it is best to leave it. I wait, first of all, for the outcome of the negotiations the Prime Minister has launched, the importance of which should not be underestimated in continental capitals.”

Mr Hague forgets that how many issues which desperately need addressing are not on the PM’s little list of four items which he is discussing. There is no reference to the ECJ and its control over the UK Supreme Court, Fisheries, the Free Movement of Peoples, the UK’s right to represent itself on global bodies (The Top Tables), the cost of our membership, the red tape suffered by the 80% of UK GDP involved only with internal UK trade, reform of the CAP and so on.

In conclusion there is no substance to the PM’s negotiations or “thin gruel” as Mr Rees Mogg called them. Their conclusion will be trumpeted as a success but in reality, the fanfare will merely be a repeat of Chamberlain’s “Heston moment” in 1938 as John Petley refers in his January 2016 Article on the CIB web site.

THE ECONOMY OF THE UK

“The arguments about what is best for our economy will rage back and forth. Those who say we have to be in the single market to shape it and benefit from it have the edge and that will be a vital edge as the public weighs the implications of their choice for their jobs and businesses” says Mr Hague.

Many businessmen and economists would disagree. We can access the Single Market from outside the EU, by joining Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, who have plenty of say in the formation of EEA- relevant regulation, even if they do not take part in the final vote. People like Lord Bamford and Sir James Dyson may not have made detailed analyses of the best exit strategy, but thier confidnece that we can not only survive but prosper outside the EU is well founded. With only 20% of UK GDP linked to total global exports and of that only a diminishing 7% of UK GDP comprising trade with the EU, it makes little sense for that tiny dwindling tail of 7% to wag the growing dog of 93%!

CONCLUSIONS

It is clear that Mr Hague is politically and economically generalising and being economical with the actuality. There is no attempt by Mr Hague to support his line of argument with facts and reasoning. Mr Hague’s current position is much confused both intellectually and politically. It is not possible to believe in national democracy and at the same time support our bondage to the EU?

Furthermore, how can Mr Hague think that the UK has any possible useful influence inside this total disaster?

Why a tariff union, Mr Hague? It is entirely counterproductive to the UK trade outside the EU which comprises 64% of UK exports.

Why must the UK guarantee the obligations and debts of the Euro and its failed experiments to the ECB and the IMF? This weakens the UK and makes it vulnerable as it borrows ever more to do this and then borrows more to pay interest on the borrowed sums! Hence Mr Osborne imposes more and more taxes on those who can least afford it!

Why has the UK lost so many of its seats on important world bodies just to be represented by one member acting for 28 with conflicting and confused objectives? Why support our membership of a political union if all we are talking about is a free trade area, Mr Hague?

In short, Mr Hague, who seemed to show such promise when he made that memorable speech at the 1977 Conservative Party Conference when he was only sixteen years old,  has proved one of the great political disappointments of recent years.  His schizophrenia over the EU suggests that for all the hype of his early years, he possibly never was a suitable person to lead our country after all.

FOOTNOTES [FOR WHICH I AM INDEBTED TO THE CIB.]

A) NATO: Since 1999 NATO changed from being a highly successful defensive alliance into an aggressive, go anywhere- bash anyone organisation with unlimited ambitions to “humanitarian interventions” anywhere in the world which suit US/EU policy. The first such adventure was Yugoslavia (1999),an unprovoked attack, admitted to be illegal but thought, as in “1066 & All That”, to be a “Good Thing”- also completely contrary to the then existing NATO charter but Blair & Clinton just did it. And the Bundeswehr used the opportunity to cease being “citizens in uniform” and become a force able to operate overseas. As General Naumann (whose title would have been Chief of the Great General Staff in palmier days) put it “German forces will be engaged for the protection of the market and access without hindrance to the raw materials of the entire world”. NATO is up to its neck and beyond in the operations in the Ukraine and elsewhere, targeted against Russia. Victoria Nuland, US Under Secretary of State, boasted of spending 5 billion dollars destabilising Ukraine and the EU itself, plus sundry intelligence agencies (like the Bundesnachrichtendienst and state funded NGOs like the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung) are not far behind). The EU has a slightly different terminology for these operations and calls them “The Export of Stability”.

B) The Powers of the EU parliament: – Actually the parliament (so-called) has acquired some powers, like confirming or rejecting the proposed President and members of the EU Commission. Whilst its function is mainly “advise and Consent”, it can withhold consent in committee and sometimes does. The Commission with the vital and perpetual sole power of initiative then has to come back with a modified proposal. What the parliament (so-called) does not have is any democratic legitimacy, as Mr Hague rightly points out. There is not much demos but quite a lot of kratos in it. It is by no means powerless and is asserting more power and influence than ever. If the parliament’s majority opinion (taken from the large central groups that control the EU parliament) coincides with that of the Commission, it is very likely to prevail. The European Council (of prime ministers and presidents) would have difficulty in resisting determined, long-sustained, combined pressure by the Commission and Parliament singing from the same hymn sheet. The EU institutions do have a life and power of their own – just as Dr. Hallstein (see Edward Spalton’s CIB earlier paper) intended.

Photo by Foreign and Commonwealth Office

UK trade is reorientating itself away from the EU

It is vital to state at the outset on any study of UK trade that our country must retain access to the EU’s single market on independence. However, analysis  of the latest trade figures in the government’s Pink Book by Ian Milne of Global Britain indicates that the EU is declining in importance as an market for UK exports.

Two stastistics highligh this. Firstly,  the absolute value of UK exports to the EU in 2014 was lower than before the Great Recession – in fact, the value of UK exports to the EU in 2014, of £ 289 billion was slightly less in terms of value than almost a decade earlier, in 2005/2006. (The average of 2005 & 2006 export values to the EU was £ 293 billion.)

Secondly, the share of UK exports going to the EU as a proportion of UK exports to the whole world shrank from 48.5 % in 2004 (£ 225 billion divided by £ 464 billion) to 42.6 % in 2014 (£ 289 billion divided by £ 679 billion).

The full analysis can be read here

Government reveals £78.9 billion deficit in trade with the EU in 2014

THE PRESS OFFICE OF                                                           

The Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Independent Labour)  

News Release

19th November 2015

In response to a written question from the independent Labour peer, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, the Government has revealed the 2014 figures for UK trade with the EU and which expose a £78.9 billion deficit with the EU.

Responding for the Government , Lord Maude of Horsham, from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said:  ‘The UK’s trade in goods deficit with the EU was £78.9bn in 2014. The overall trade in goods and services deficit with the EU was £61.7bn.’

Lord Stoddart, commenting on the Government’s response, said:  “We are constantly told that EU membership is vital for our trading interests.  The Government’s answer exposes it as a deceit.  The EU countries sell far more to us than we do to them, so we can see who really benefits from EU membership.  Even more seriously, the deficit has to be financed and it is quite clear that much of it comes foreign companies buying up British businesses.  This is not a bottomless form of funding and cannot be relied on indefinitely.  Our trade deficit with the EU has been going on for decades and is something the public needs to understand, when considering how to vote in the forthcoming referendum on EU membership. We need a simple free trade agreement with the EU, not the whole panoply of membership and the huge financial and regulatory costs that come with it.”

Ends

The full text of Lord Stoddart’s question and the Government’s reply is as follows:

From: Written Parliamentary Questions and Answers
Sent: 17 November 2015 17:53

To: STODDART, D Lord
Subject: Written answer to your QWA HL3451 received from Lord Maude of Horsham, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

Lord Maude of Horsham, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (HL3451):

Question:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the deficit in trade with the EU in 2014 in (1) goods, and (2) overall in goods and services; and how that deficit is financed. (HL3451)

Tabled on: 09 November 2015

Answer:
Lord Maude of Horsham:

The UK’s trade in goods deficit with the EU was £78.9bn in 2014. The overall trade in goods and services deficit with the EU was £61.7bn.

The UK’s total trade deficit is financed by a net inflow of investment in the financial account, for which data is not available on a geographical basis. The UK’s financial account surplus was £89.4bn in 2014.

Source: ONS Pink Book 2015

The Citizens’ Initiative – or damp squib?

The appealing “European citizens’ initiative” was an innovation brought in by the Lisbon Treaty. EU citizens could demand action on a particular subject provided they collect a million signatures. It has proved remarkably ineffective. After three years there have been many initiatives, but not a single one has yet led to a new legislative proposal.  György Schöpflin, a Hungarian member of the EPP group, stated in his report that there have been 51 initiatives launched yet not a single one has attained its goal.

Particular frustration has been expressed over the “Stop TTIP” initiative, which collected well over a million signatures, but the Commission obstructed it by claiming that it doesn’t comply with the criteria. Mr Schöpflin said, however, that legally, the Commission is in the right. Firstly, under the existing procedure anything that is a current process cannot become a subject of a citizens’ initiative. Secondly, and that is more complicated, a European citizens’ initiative procedure cannot stop, reverse or negate legislation.

To his credit, Mr Schöpflin said “I think that should be changed. It should be possible for an initiative to ask for an existing directive to be overturned.” It is hard to see this ever happening. Essentially, EU “citizens” have no input into anything which the EU is actively pursuing. They can only whinge about it after it has become a fait accompli.

So while a strong case exists for enlarging the powers of the Citizens’ Initiative, the idea of the Commission agreeing to ordinary people overturning or changing in any way their grandiose schemes is impossible. The reality is that any improvements in the scheme look remote.