Professor Stephen Bush is an Emeritus professor at Manchester University. He works on polymer chemistry and he was originally a research manager at ICI. You can see his own far from modest website (HERE). I mention him because David Davis, the Brexit Supremo himself, has referred to him as some kind of authority on the economy and the EU because he has written a lengthy paper about it (HERE). He is not an economist and does not have any economic qualifications but his anti-EU, pro-Brexit stance coincides with that of Davis himself.
His paper is extensive – 136 pages including appendices – and he recognises and identifies many of the problems that have plagued this country for years. For this he deserves some credit. Unfortunately, he allows his anti-EU prejudice to step in and lead him to totally the wrong conclusion.
In the opening summary he talks of, “our persistent failure to produce enough things and thereby generate enough skilled jobs, to pay for our way of life, and a respected place in the world”. This is absolutely true – we have run trade deficits for virtually every year since about 1950 and these have been growing at an alarming rate in recent years. To counter this he proposes a lot of things including new forms of manufacturing organisation called Leopard Clusters, a five-fold expansion of new British-owned nuclear power stations with fast-breeder reactors to utilise the waste fuels from the past and a new shipbuilding industry. I don't know what he will do in the afternoon!
He reckons there is “an unprecedented mood to embrace change, a will to win again” (page 17) and but I confess it is not at all obvious to me. In spite of this he still thinks there is a need to inculcate a spirit of self-improvement in all sections of the population and quotes the words of John Bright from 1847 addressing a meeting of workingmen in Rochdale, about the virtues we all need of “industry, frugality, moderation and honesty”. Professor Bush calls for incentives to be built into the public sector to do this. Basically, he is looking for nothing less than a complete transformation of attitude in the populace but without any idea how to do it!
Having identified the problem (the one that British governments have wrestled with for a century or more - at least) he somehow then makes the leap to the wrong solution. We should leave the European Union as a means of “escaping from legal interference and constraints by the EU” and a “unique, never to be repeated opportunity, to revitalise Britain”.
What he and all the other Brexiteers for that matter fail to explain is what one (revitalising British industry) has to do with the other (leaving the EU). I see no connection whatsoever. Logic shows this is nonsense. Germany, a founder member, one might also say a pillar of the EU, is probably the world’s leading manufacturer and exporter and does it happily without needing to escape the legal interference and constraints of the EU. Indeed, they think we are crackers. Even the professor himself (page 33) says:
“The trading and budget deficits are both the result of deep-seated failure in our industrial and government systems which will not be reversed merely by our exit from the European Union, even on the most favourable terms”.
But he advocates a “clean break from the EU”. This is surprising because nowhere does he point to which particular thing it is about the EU that is holding us back. In fact he does the opposite. On page 63 for instance, by pointing out an opportunity in UK food production in horticultural products, which he says “the Dutch should be the model for”. But Holland are in the EU! Germany, he says on page 38 actually “maintained its goods market share over the last 5 years of recession, due essentially to increasing its share of world manufactures exports, putting it level with China as the world’s number one manufacturing exporter with about 9% each in 2011”. Again. Germany are in the EU! And on page 98 he notes a Chinese businessman saying “compared to Germany, France and Italy, Britain didn’t have much to sell”. These countries are all in the EU which somewhat ruins his entire theory.
And bizzarely, having advocated a “clean break” with the EU he says (page 30) “There are a number of EU institutions that we would wish to continue membership of including the European Space Agency and the European Medicines Agency, which is headquartered in London”. The break is looking a bit tarnished already. The EU have actually dismissed any idea of “cherry picking” and have said the EMA must move and they will charge us for doing it!
Overall he would like to see us out of the single market and the customs union and with a series of bilateral agreements like Switzerland and a free trade deal with the EU, despite the fact the EU has publicly said they do not want another Swiss like arrangement. He wants tariff free trade with the EU but brushes over the customs problems (non tariff barrier) with only a passing comment about Rules of Origin. To export to the EU goods need to have 65% local content (for the Swiss and Korean deals) but cars made in the UK only have about 41% so could be a big problem. We may be saved by most of the other 59% coming from Europe but how is this to be managed and what about paperwork and delays? Nothing is said.
He also wants to close the Department for International Development and repeal the 2008 Climate Change Act and the Human Rights Act. The professor begins to look like the bloke you hear in the pub at the end of the night when strong ale has reduced the world's problems to not much more than wiping the froth of his top lip. In any case the government have said no to all of these things.
As for rolling back regulation, he suggests “trade and professional bodies be invited to propose lists of those they wish to see disapplied”. In other words he doesn’t know of any himself. As far as I can see industry does not want to lose any regulations, indeed many trade bodies specifically campaigned to keep us IN the EU and have said they want to carry on following EU regulations because in many cases they were drawn up in consultation with industry.
