Exporting poverty
Our MPs have betrayed us. Britain is the fourth largest economy on earth and
one of the great trading nations of the world. Yet our MPs have given the power
to run our trading relations with the rest of the world to unelected
Commissioners in Brussels.
This means that the twice disgraced Cabinet Minister Peter Mandelson now runs
Britain’s trade talks. He takes part in those talks not as a spokesman
for Britain, but as a spokesman for Europe.
Only in the EU could a man who was twice forced out of office because of
allegations of misconduct, find himself elevated to one of the most influential
positions in world trade.
Glacial pace
While other countries outside the European Union are forging their own trade
deals with the rapidly expanding tiger economies, Britain’s businesses
are shackled to a bureaucracy which even its own supporters admit moves at a
‘glacial’ pace.
And it is not only Britain that suffers because of this. Many of the poorest
people on the planet are affected by Britain being powerless to strike its own
trade deals.
The hundreds and thousands of ordinary Britons who danced to the Live 8 tunes in
the hope off making poverty history cannot do anything to bring fair trade to
Africa because those decisions are now in the hands of unelected Commissioners
such as Mandelson.
Not one cent
Mandelson claimed during the talks that the EU had ‘offered a big cut in
subsidies’ and that the EU was prepared to slash “the most
trade-distorting subsidies” to farmers by 70 percent.
But the reality is, as Mandelson’s spokesman has admitted, EU subsidies
will not be reduced by “one cent”.
Now even the saintly Sir Bob Geldof is wondering whether Britain might be better
freed from this EU straitjacket. In a recent Newsnight broadcast, following the
collapse of the recent trade talks, he said that the UK may have to
‘shoulder an unfair burden’ of aid if the G8 is to meet its
targets.
He told viewers that it is ‘it is in Britain where we have political,
public and activist consensus’. And that if the talks failed we
might have to have our own ‘stand alone trade deal for the continent of
Africa’.
Geldof
and others know that the EU is the problem and not the solution. As the head of
Oxfam’s Make Trade Fair Celine Charveriat has said of the failed trade
talks: “the EU ……..has signalled its willingness to
sacrifice poor countries in order to protect its own dated and grossly unfair
farm policies.”
This sense of frustration is understandable. But this refusal to break
down trade barriers and end subsidies is also harming British business. One of
the Government's own top advisers on exports has warned that Britain's reliance
on the European Union to represent it at the World Trade Organisation could be
a mistake, delivering another blow to the project.
Bryan Sanderson, co-chairman of the Asia Task Force, said trade negotiations
conducted through the EU were ‘glacial’ compared with the bilateral
deal-making favoured by competitors like the US, Australia, New Zealand and
Japan.
He said the UK was falling behind the competition in the race to secure
international trade opportunities.
As the world’s third largest trading nation, Britain has a strong interest
in pulling down trade barriers. But many in the EU are heading in the opposite
direction, erecting barriers to trade to protect inefficient industries from
global competition.
Britain also has strong historical ties with a number of Commonwealth countries
whose economies are booming. India is an emerging economic colossus, and yet as
Sanderson says, our trading relations with the rapidly expanding markets of the
sub-continent are being held back by a bureaucratic and insular European
Commission.
Proved wrong
Britain now finds itself shackled to a bureaucracy which is not only unable to
respond to the changing global market, but to a ‘project’ which is
also doing serious damage to our own economy.
Six years ago, the British people were told that 3 million jobs would be lost if
we did not join the single currency. Companies across Britain were encouraged
to make preparations for the euro – the cost of which ran in to tens of
millions of pounds – and the public was primed for the imminent scrapping
the pound.
But that did not happen. So effective was the ‘no’ campaign, so
broad and deep its support, that Tony Blair never felt he could win the single
currency referendum. It was never held. Instead, the Chancellor’s five
economic tests were a useful figleaf behind which the Prime Minister could hide
his embarrassment.
He need not have been ashamed. Outside the euro, the British economy has
flourished. Millions of jobs have not been lost. Inward investment has not
dried up. The City of London has not become a ghost town. Indeed, as the
architect of the five economic tests, Ed Balls, has said recently – those
who argued that our economy would collapse outside the euro have ‘been
proved wrong.’
No
ifs or buts, quite simply the Clarkes, Heseltines, Pattens and Blairs were
wrong.
But even outside the euro, Britain’s economic performance has been dragged
down by its membership of the European Union.
Never mind the direct costs (see spending) of EU membership, what often affects
British business most is the indirect costs of regulations and other burdens.
A report by the independent think tank Civitas last year showed that the UK is
sliding down the international competitiveness league table and increased
regulation is to blame.
In The Red Tape Economy by Graeme Leach, chief economist at the
Institute of Directors, points out that many countries are loosening their
regulatory grip as the UK government tightens it. Over the 1997-2004 period the
UK fell from 4th to 11th place in the World Economic Forum competitiveness
league; from 13th to 30th on regulation; and from 11th to 26th on bureaucracy.
The most extensive study of this regulatory impact is the British Chamber of
Commerce (BCC) Burdens Barometer, which covers the direct costs of regulations
introduced since 1998. Last year it revealed that the top six regulations
were all of EU origin. While some bigger firms can shoulder this burden,
it weighs heavy on the small business sector, which not only employs the bulk
of the workforce but is also the source of much of the innovation and growth in
our economy.
And the spate of regulations seems to be increasing. According to the former CBI
President Sir John Egan: 'Europe's production of new regulations is actually
increasing at an alarming rate. Of the 22,000 pieces of legislation on the EU
statute book, about 12,000 have been introduced in the eight years since 1997,
compared to 10,000 during the forty years from 1957 to 1997.'
The irony is that while just 13 per cent of our trade is with the European
Union, its regulatory impact is felt by 100 per cent of our companies, small
and large alike.
Scare tactics
According to Ian Milne of Global Britain, if the UK were to leave the EU, there
would be no net loss of jobs or trade. In addition, we would be between
£17 billion and £40 billion per year better off, possibly more.
Milne exposes Tony Blair’s that 60 per cent of the UK’s trade and
three million jobs ‘depend on’ our EU membership, as no more
than a clever deception.
He shows 79 per cent of our economy is the result of domestic activity,
involving buying from and selling to each other, and exports of goods and
services to the rest of the world account for another 11 per cent. So Tony
Blair is being economical with the actualité.
Of the 20 per cent that is internationally traded, just less than half of it is
with the countries of the European Union. That is still a big figure and an
important market, but nothing like the 60 per cent used by government officials
to attack their political enemies.
So, what about the three million jobs lost? Again Blair is being slippery with
the figures. He assumes that all the jobs that are currently linked to trade
with the EU would be lost if Britain were to withdraw. But would they?
Milne cites a number of authoritative studies that have found that leaving the
EU would have little impact on jobs, including a report by the National
Institute for Economic and Social Research.
As he says: ‘If the UK left the EU, it is unlikely that UK companies would
be denied access to other EU markets. The latest figures are for the period
before enlargement and show that the other 14 members exported more to the UK
than they imported from us.’
Moreover, about twenty countries as diverse as Switzerland, Gambia and Mexico
have free trade agreements with the EU (with another sixty holding
discussions), and it would be extraordinary if the UK could not negotiate a
similar deal. In trading relations, self-interest tends to
prevail.’
Speak out
So, if we really did want to make poverty history, if we really did want to
expand Britain’s market base across the globe, if we did want to make the
most of our historic links with the booming English speaking Commonwealth of
nations, then it is time to speak out and demand a referendum on returning the
power to conduct trade talks to Britain.
We believe that if enough people speak out we can get a referendum on the return
of this and other vital powers from Brussels to Britain.
Join the 87% of people who want a say in getting these powers back – and
demand a referendum. It is time our elected politicians listened to the people
and defended our democratic rights
Footnote
Where percentages have been quoted research was carried out by
Yougov 6th-10th October 2006. 2205 responents were surveyed. Respondents who
refused to answer or didn't have an opinion have been excluded from the
figures.
Related articles
UK 'may have to pay more G8 aid' Newsnight:
Click here
The Red Tape Economy, by Graeme Leach:
Click here
Go to
For Bryan Sanderson's comments
Click here
Official sites
The Department for International Development:
www.dfid.gov.uk
Oxfam:
www.oxfam.org.uk
British Chambers of Commerce:
www.chamberonline.co.uk