The problem with giving people freedom is that most normal people don't want too much of it. Anarchy is the epitome of freedom, but when politicians want to boost their ratings they don't say they will disband the police and close the prisons, they do the opposite - they promise more law and order - less freedom.
That is why the term 'red tape' is so useful when someone wants to deregulate a market. Red tape just means 'laws and regulations', and 'reducing red tape' means getting rid of laws and regulations. Of course, when someone uses the term 'red tape' what they are talking about are "laws and regulations that hinder me or my business and I want rid of". They call them 'red tape' to imply is that they are unnecessary bureaucracy.
They hope that by saying 'red tape' people won't even think to ask why the laws were made in the first place, and will instead assume the laws really are unnecessary.
So what laws do the Brexiteers want to be shot of? And what are the likely effects?
Tariffs
While we are in the EU we have to charge non-EU importers a fixed tariff on their imports. Outside the EU we can choose what to charge, if anything.
Reducing tariffs on imported goods that we also produce ourselves would lower prices in the shops by at most 1%. It would also mean our industries would have to reduce their own trade prices to compete, so people would have to work harder, work longer or work for less money. Any government that caused that would be out on their ear.
Of course, ewe could just drop tariffs on goods we don't produce - netting less than half a percent drop in overall prices. However once we have done that then we don't have anything to offer when we want other countries to reduce tariffs on goods we are exporting to them.
Keeping tariffs, on the other hand, means we will need to police all imports to ensure importers pay the correct duty. Currently EU goods just sail through customs, as there are no tariffs on them. Once we leave the EU we will have to check them, including those crossing the Irish border. That means more customs infrastructure and staff - the financial and political costs of all that has yet to be worked out (we still don't know how the Irish border will work, even now, with 14 weeks to go). Our exports to the EU will also need to be checked at the EU border - the total cost to our exporters will be £29 billion a year.
The only real power of tariffs is in keeping out imports, as President Trump is attempting. The 'free trade' Tory Brexit-brains don't want to do that, the irony is that their socialist nightmare, Mr Corbyn, would love to be able to do that - and the Brexit-inspired chaos in the Tories may give him the chance to have a go.
So, rather hard to see the benefit of controlling tariffs (unless you want a re-run of the protectionist stagflation of the 1970s).
Trade deals
In the EU we have only the trade deals that the EU has negotiated. Outside the EU we can make any deal we want.
Sounds great! However, another way of putting it is:
In the EU we have every trade deal that the EU has negotiated using all the leverage of being one of the biggest economies on the planet, without us having to do a thing. We also have free and frictionless trade with the whole of the EU - one of the biggest economies on the planet (as just noted) - customs-free and tariff-free. Outside the EU we will have to negotiate every single deal separately ourselves, starting from scratch (and with a protectionist in the White House, and having mightily annoyed one of the biggest economies on the planet - see above).
Oh, dear.
Immigrants
In the EU we have to allow free movement of EU citizens. Outside the EU we can choose exactly who can come in.
Now this is a clear win... Well, you would think so. Isn't it?
The Leave campaign credit their anti-immigration campaign with tipping the balance of votes their way. Leave-voting friends and relatives of mine say controlling immigration is a key benefit, and not for racist reasons either (they quickly added). One said it will prevent Syrian terrorists from coming here (honestly, he did), another said it will reduce the demands on social services in some areas.
On the other hand, a lot of our economy depends upon immigrants. The NHS is an obvious example, as is farming. A lot of other sectors are also now asking to be given special treatment - from fish canneries to advertising firms. Not to mention education - overseas students are a big earner for the UK, but Mrs May insists on counting them as immigrants that need to have numbers cut..
The government's record is not reassuring either. Even ignoring the civil service's incompetence - exposed by Windrush and evident in many smaller but equally nasty incidents before that - immigration won't be managed any better than before. With the economic hit of Brexit we won't be able to afford to step up enforcement.
Mrs May never managed to reduce immigration in her time at the Home Office despite creating the 'hostile environment' policy. She counted students into her totals, despite being advised not to, and still couldn't bring down the numbers. Ms Rudd couldn't even manage to stay in post, let alone reduce immigration.
Blue passports
Actually, we could have had EU passports in blue (or any other colour) if we chose
Sovereignty
Yes - we will have lots of that. Sorry, I'm just not very excited about it. Albania had total sovereignty. The USSR had total sovereignty. We can isolate ourselves or we can follow international rules.
With the Brextremists wanting shot of the Court of Human Rights, I am not convinced that giving all the power to our rulers and removing any oversight is really such a wise idea.
As Mr Lee said when he resigned his ministerial post, "I could not look my children in the face in 20 years' time and try to explain why I did nothing when I knew that this government was taking the wrong course and sacrificing important principles of parliamentary sovereignty and human rights in the process."
That - and for the sake of Great Britain and her people - is why I am still fighting against Brexit.
No comments:
Post a Comment