There is an absolute howl of impotent rage at Brexit Central (HERE) from that embittered anti EU campaigner John Longworth, the former head of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), calling for the Chequers proposal to be dumped and for the UK to trade with the EU on WTO terms. He writes as if WTO terms are an earthly paradise rather than an economic wasteland. He acknowledges that this would lead to "a bumpy ride but after this initial period of adjustment sees a Global Britain taking its place on the world stage".
Britain, would be dealing with it's biggest customer and biggest supplier, the world's largest, richest, closest market responsible for nearly half our exports and more than half of our imports, on the most basic terms available, worse than every other advanced nation in the world. You have only to say it to see how ridiculous it would be. The ride would be far more than bumpy, as the overwhelming majority of economists believe.
Longworth's fanatical hatred of the EU blinds him to reality. Again and again, he uses arguments that have been discredited. This is what he says:
"The alternative to the Prime Minister’s proposal, a World Trade Organisation (WTO) Deal, would cover aviation, visas, residency, passports, customs admin and all of the practical stuff but would enable the UK to have complete freedom to make our own laws, do trade deals and control who comes into Britain".
He seems to think the WTO deal would also include other areas including aviation and residency, things that have nothing to do with the WTO. And as for it covering "customs admin" what on earth does it mean? We have spent the last two years trying to find a solution to "customs admin" without success. All the "practical stuff" - whatever that is - would be resolved on a Tuesday afternoon in Brussels, eh?
And you can see the anti immigrant root of his thinking:
"Every migrant entering the UK into a low-skill job costs British tax payers a net £3,500 per annum in benefits and public service costs".
This is just not true. I see no research supporting this assertion. Full facts (HERE) from 2017 says it's difficult to say whether immigration is a benefit or a cost to the Exchequer but there is plenty of research indicating it's a benefit. And EU migrants are likely to pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits and public services. In many cases these migrants actually provide the public services, especially in health and social care. I would not accuse Longworth of being racist, but he's in danger of sounding like one.
As for tariffs, no problems:
"For cars, the imposition of tariffs by each side would simply mean that German and French cars are more expensive and consumers would buy more British manufactured cars, a fillip to UK jobs".
He doesn't seem to realise there might not be any British manufactured cars since makers could all leave for the EU after just-in-time manufacturing proves impossible to sustain with all the paperwork and border checks. And since half the parts for UK cars come from Europe anyway, our own cars would be more expensive. He goes on:
"Whether tariffs are erected between the UK and the EU or not, Britain will be the winner. Tariffs on food and consumer goods are relatively high, typically 20% to 50%; by contrast, most industrial tariffs are insignificant at an average of just three percent. Cars are an exception, where tariffs are ten percent".
"In respect of many food and consumer goods which the UK does not produce, tariffs can be removed unilaterally. This would damage continental producers but boost the UK and reduce the cost of living".
"Because we would be able to remove tariffs, it would reduce the cost of living – especially for the poorest – boosting disposable income and the economy in the process. Trade deals would include non-tariff barriers, further boosting the economy and reducing living costs".
Only a few days ago, the OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility), the statutorily independent body that assesses the economy expressly says Brexit will weaken the public finances and warns in 50 years time public sector borrowing would reach 300% of GDP, on present policies. At the moment we are at about 85% of GDP or £1.7 Trillion. As someone pointed out at the weekend, if the interest paid on our debt was handled by a government department, it would be the third highest spending after welfare and health. Unless things change, in 50 years time we will spend more on interest than anything else.
Longworth either doesn't know or doesn't want to know. He's happiest alone with his prejudice that Brexit and Utopia are one and the same.
