Rage on the Right

In a somewhat hysterical leading article today (14 November 2016), The Times claims that “a surge in support for populist and nativist movements threatens the prosperity, values and collective security of the West.”  It is argued that the common ground of these movements is a revolt against openness and integration.  Quite so, and what the article shows is that the introverted pursuit of “liberal values” by the governing classes in Washington and Brussels is precisely what is fuelling the revolt but they, for they are surely all in it together, just don’t get it!

Only the economically illiterate would dispute the benefits to global prosperity brought about by free trade.  But globalised trade requires globalised labour mobility.  In the human hierarchy of needs liberal values and being nice to other people only feature at the top of the pyramid, long after the fundamentals of safety and security have been satisfied.  The trouble is, our technocratic ruling elite are comfortable in their general security needs and, apparently, blind to that deficiency in others.  Worse, their empirical world of evidence-based argument is always ready with a supporting answer which usually boils down to a patronising “we know best.”  We all know, from a succession of expert forecasting blunders, that “they” seldom know best.  Indeed, expert predictions are not, necessarily, inevitabilities.  Who would have given the British Empire a chance in 1940 – only those with a faith in human spirit to overcome and shape our own destiny? The same argument should be deployed against the seemingly endless stream of data designed to undermine our exit from the EU and foment mischief about our commitment to collective defence.

To say, patronisingly, that “there is much that democratic governments need to do to alleviate the inequalities that have given plausibility to nationalism and nativism,” is to state the blindingly obvious but to recommend that “democratic movements have an obligation to face down what is happening to Western societies,” is Orwellian indeed.

The Times and others wringing their hands over the rebuff to their cosy authority should recognise the human needs for family, security and, yes, nationhood otherwise that, indeed, will be a mistake of grievous consequences.

Calais Children - My Mistake

Looking at the joyful BBC footage, it appears that most of the "children" look surprisingly well-developed for their age.  Presumably, then, they will be straight into employment and looking after themselves without becoming a further burden on our hard-pressed social services?

Who Wins with WTO Tariffs?

The fifth column of Remainers never seem to lose an opportunity to point out the importance of concluding a deal with the “single market” and warn of the danger of otherwise having to rely on World Trade Organisation rules for the conduct of our trade.

In 2015, according to the ONS, 44% of the UK’s goods and services were exported to the EU whilst 53% of our imports came to the UK from the EU.  The value of UK exports to the EU was £223.3 billion whilst the value of imports from the EU was £291.1 billion.

Assuming no single market deal and, for example, a uniform tariff of 6% levied on everything coming in together with the same tariff being charged on everything we sell, our imports would yield revenue of £17.466 billion whilst we would have to pay the EU £13.398 billion on our exports.

So, relying on uniform WTO rules, UK would be 17.466 – 13.398 = £4.068 billion each year to the good on the trading account with the EU.

That is £4.068 billion per year that we would not have to borrow from overseas investors who, for the time being, are keeping UK in business by financing our huge current account deficit.

Surely, even the Wallonian Parliament could do the math?

PS, as John Redwood points out in his Blog on 20 October -

"They still seem unable to grasp that there is no such thing as the Single Market detached from the full panoply of EU laws and policies which a state can belong to, nor that the debate is only about access to each other’s markets which should be relatively straightforward"