This morning I
listened to an interview on Radio 4's Today programme with Andrew Lilico, executive
director of Europe Economics and Professor Ngaire Woods, dean of the Blavatnik
School of Government at Oxford University. From their responses it was clear that they were on opposite sides with Lilico supporting "Leave" and Woods supporting "Remain".
Nevertheless, both
agreed that there had been no trade deal negotiated between the EU and a non-EU
country in less than 10 years and some had taken 14 years. Lilico considered that the fact that the EU and the UK were starting from a common position should shorten the time required, but in my opinion it's quite likely that the negotiation would start from zero (in terms of agreed items) and take just as long as a negotiation with any non-EU country would.
Both also agreed that, over the next 5 years, people in the UK will be worse off than at
present due to rising prices for imported goods as a result of the fall in the value of sterling, stagnant wages
and reduced or zero growth arising from reductions in investment and reductions in confidence affecting consumer spending.
When
asked the direct question "will people in the UK be better off in 10 years time" the answer from both was more or less positive.
So
the UK can expect about 10 years of low or zero growth, which would put it
behind most of the countries of the EU. When compounded over 10 years, 2% growth annually is a 24%
increase, and this is probably what the leading economies in the EU will achieve.
Britain on the other hand will lose a major proportion of this growth, the effects of which will show in terms of
unemployment, falling real incomes (after the effects of inflation on pay rises) and reduced tax income to
the exchequer to fund public services.
Of
course you could take the Gove position “Who needs experts?” But when opposite
sides agree then perhaps one should take them seriously.
But
I have a radical plan to replace this loss of revenue!
England First!
Britain
spends about 60bn/yr on defence, representing about 2% of GDP. Since we have
decided to be more isolationist, to reduce our influence in the world and become a Norway or a
Switzerland, why do we need an Army, Navy and Air Force? Especially, why do we
need nuclear weapons and submarines? Scrap all that and recycle the
savings by spending them on public services and infrastructure.
In addition, give Scotland and Northern Ireland independence, thus saving the money given to
them under the Barnett Formula .
While we’re thinking along these lines, in return for a financial
settlement, we could also give the Falklands to Argentina, and Gibraltar to
Spain. That should at least pay for the large warehouses and customs facilities
that we'll need to avoid the 30 mile queues on Kent’s motorways which will result from
leaving the Customs Union. It would also justify the decision to scrap the
Navy.
This could be the key to a successful hard brexit. Assuming that there are no U-turns from Theresa May, everyone who voted “leave” to stop immigration will be happy. After all, there
are hardly any “Pret a Manger” sandwich bars staffed by young Europeans North of Watford, so not many people would be inconvenienced, and there are plenty of people on
zero hours contracts in different types of employment who would love to fill the full time, low paid jobs currently done by other European immigrants.
Sovereignty would be well and truly returned to England, and there would be no need to waste two years on trying to negotiate with those very difficult Europeans. Even the Tory right wing, Nigel Farage and Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail would be likely to agree with this "England First!" approach.
Perhaps
like Johnson and Gove I should buy a Battle Bus that I could use to promote the simplistic falsehoods (otherwise known as lies) associated with this plan. The £350 million per week lie worked for them and
successfully duped a lot of people, why shouldn't a similar approach work for me!