Arguing that the benefits of the EU outweighs the cost is unreal

Early this week, an impressive gaggle of leading multinational business voices asserted that the economic case to stay in the EU is ‘overwhelming’, and ventured that to suggest otherwise is to put politics ahead of economics. Can they really be serious?

Their published letter glosses over the issue of the costs of our EU membership – and with good reason: every serious economic appraisal, including those conducted by the Commission itself, demonstrates that the benefits of the Single Market are small in comparison with the costs (typically of a magnitude of around two-and-a-half to one). Their argument that we should push to strengthen and deepen the Single Market is to deny the essential character of the construct, and to ignore the political realities in the eurozone – most critically in France, which seems set to get yet worse.

The Single Market is not a free trade area – and our key focus should be trade. Were we to enjoy a free trade relationship with the EU, we would not be bound to adopt their regulations to trade – any more than the USA or China has felt compelled to adopt the social legislation so embedded within the Single Market. Membership of the Single Market is unduly costly and restrictive: the Commission has conceded that the bureaucratic costs of business compliance with European legislation could be equivalent of 5.5 per cent of EU GDP – equivalent to the size of the entire Dutch economy. As only around fifteen per cent of our domestic product is attributable to our trade with Europe, though the entire economy is subject to the totality of the Single Market regulations hitting our economy, those costs seem an even higher price to pay.

Can these distinguished souls really be arguing that we need to be in the European Union to trade with member states there?  Have they looked at their own businesses? Is it their contention that we could not survive as an economic trading nation apart from the EU? The reality – of which they, as leaders of highly-successful multinational corporations, should be most aware – is that it is companies who trade: not nations. Given the magnitude of our trade deficit with European Union member states, it is inconceivable that they would not want to sustain and enhance our trade relationships irrespective of our membership status with the EU: it is in their best interests so to do.

And the relative importance of the EU to the global economy is shrinking, and we should be ambitious in reaching out to those new opportunities with growing consumer markets and favourable demographics. We should be proud of being one of the leading world economies and trading nations, and our international links are envied in many foreign capitals. It seems patently absurd to argue that we could not reach perfectly advantageous free trade agreements with other countries and regions – and we would be able to tailor those agreements more closely to suit our individual commercial needs, opportunities and prospects, without the cumbersome, time-consuming expense of an introspective, self-serving bureaucratic machine hamstrung by the need to achieve satisfactory resolution amongst twenty-seven individual partners on one side of the table to any discussion advanced. Let us not forget that two of the wealthiest and most successful European economies – Switzerland and Norway – are not in the EU, and the flexible ‘City States’ of Hong Kong and Singapore are triumphantly successful.

These grand magnates also argue about maintaining the City of London as the major financial centre in Europe. I agree. But the solutions to the global banking crisis must be just that – global. The European Union’s zeal for regulation could be to the detriment of all financial centres in our continent, and we need an international consensus when acting.  Some of the more enthusiastic disciples of ‘ever-closer union’ fail to hide their resentment at the compelling potency of the City of London, and are ambitious to usurp one of our economy’s greatest assets. When these multinational grandees assert that we should ‘promote the cause of EU membership as well as defend our position’, they risk placing themselves in the centre of a terrifying contradiction: how can these positions be mutually compatible given the content of measures such as the European financial transactions tax, recently attacked by the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King?

Most fundamentally, however, these emissaries seem to be in a state of denial about the changes which are inevitable in Europe. The path out of the eurozone crisis will require increased levels of integration towards the vision of ‘ever-closer union’. That is a vision which is harmful to our interests, and to which the British people do not wish to be enlisted. Our correspondents may choose to disparage those who do not agree with them with the charge of putting politics before economics: but isn’t it high time that the entire issue of our relationship with the EU was put before the British people for adjudication?

I agree with the Prime Minister’s strategy that making sure that the changes within the European Union best reflect our national interests should be the first priority; and putting that settlement before the people to decide. Though, frankly, I am staggered that such eminent businessmen seem to lack the ambition for our country which, in their individual cases, served to make them so successful in their own business lives.

The Truth About Labour’s Immigration Shame

Deceitful, shameless and utterly disgraceful! I’m referring, of course, to Labour’s approach to immigration during its calamitous period in Government. In thirteen years of Labour rule more than 2.2 million immigrants came to the country. Now that’s a staggering statistic on its own, but it’s even more jaw-dropping to think that it was actively engineered by those in charge. To quote Lord Mandelson (a phrase I never thought I’d use!) Labour were actually “sending out search parties” to get immigrants to come to the UK. Unbelievable, isn’t it? It says an awful lot about their arrogance that Labour are only now just beginning to acknowledge the problems that are plain for the rest of the country to see. Up to now they’ve flatly denied the negative impact of their irresponsible policies – Mandelson himself even said there was “no adverse effect on employment of British nationals.” Utter nonsense – any Brit struggling for work in the face of cheap foreign workers could have told you what absolute rubbish that was.

But why were Labour so determined to flood the country with immigrants? Well, the former Labour advisor Andrew Neather has said that the policy was designed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” and to “make the UK truly multicultural.” So, in other words, it was about political point-scoring while engineering a population more likely to vote for them. And that’s Labour through and through: incompetent, insidious and ready to ransom the country for the sake of a few more votes. Over thirteen years they gambled with the economy, played fast and loose with immigration and threw money at a bloated, overblown benefits system. And they’ve spent the past three years denying the damage they’ve caused while undermining any attempt to repair it. Even their own supporters think they’ve completely lost it now. A survey by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed that scepticism about the welfare state is growing even faster among Labour voters than Conservatives. Yet Mr Miliband, ever at the beck and call of the Unions, still refuses to back the necessary reforms. He labels the Conservatives as “out of touch” at every opportunity but it’s his own party that’s faced the wrong way on every issue that matters to the voters.

UKIP and its supporters now need to think long and hard about what they really want. They may not be happy with the direction of the Conservatives but the alternative of a Labour Government in 2015 is something that surely doesn’t bear thinking about. The UK simply cannot afford to return to the days of spiralling immigration and feckless spending. Certainly, the Conservative leadership must do more to reassure those conservatives with a small ‘c’ who think we’ve abandoned them. But those considering voting UKIP must also stop and think whether it’s worth the risk of letting Labour back in. Come 2015 we must all stand united against the common foe that is Labour. They’ve done enough damage. Don’t let them have another opportunity.

London Midland should demonstrate its commitment to Northampton rail users seeking group discounts

The following was circulated a few moments ago.

London Midland should demonstrate its commitment to Northampton rail users seeking group discounts

Northampton South’s Member of Parliament, Brian Binley, has written to the Chief Executive of London Midland to demand that rail users travelling to Wembley next Saturday from the town be able to use group discounts usually available all day.

A number of football fans – planning to travel to Wembley to see Northampton Town Football Club’s game in the npower League Two play off final – have been told that the group discount which is usually available all day on a Saturday, cannot be used until after noon on that day. With the match due to kick off at 1pm, this would prevent Cobblers’ fans from travelling with the benefit of the discount.

Mr Binley said: ‘London Midland has delivered abysmal performance to the long-suffering rail users from Northampton, and their poor record is firmly on the radar of the Secretary of State. In raising concerns, they have responded with warm words designed to provide reassurance, but cynical exercises like this make those gestures ring pretty hollow among people in Northampton’.

He continued: ‘I have written to Patrick Verwer, Managing Director of London Midland, to demand an answer to this most unsatisfactory situation. Some passengers have been told that they can use the discount from Long Buckby station further up the line, so the very least that I want is a proper explanation of what appears to be an attempted racketeering exercise. I would hope that London Midland – who talk of their commitment to Northampton – will honour those fans who want to travel to see our town’s team play at Wembley with the discount that they could expect to use any other Saturday at any other time during year’.

ENDS

Notes to Editors

1. Brian Binley M.P. represents the Northampton South constituency in the House of Commons, and is the Chairman of the Northampton Rail Users’ Committee.

2. The text of Mr Binley’s letter to London Midland’s Chief Executive is below:

I write to express my indignation at concerns which have been expressed to me about the availability of group discount fares from Northampton to London next Saturday.

A number of constituents have reported that, when seeking to obtain a group discount for travel on that day – many of whom wish to go to Wembley to see Northampton play at this significant match for our Football Club – are unable to do so before noon. This discount is normally available all day on a Saturday, and, with the game due to kick off at 1pm, seems a cynical exercise in extorting additional fare revenue from those fans who wish to see their Club play.

You will be aware of the concerns which I have taken recently to the Secretary of State, and London Midland’s promises to demonstrate its commitment to the long-suffering rail users of Northampton. The inability of our town’s football fans to travel to Wembley with the group discount which is usually available all day on a Saturday sits very awkwardly with the words of reassurance otherwise generated by London Midland.

To add insult to injury, a number of rail users have been told that the discount can be obtained from Long Buckby station – some six or seven miles towards Birmingham from Northampton.

I await your swift response, and urge you to re-consider what seems a grossly unfair abuse of the spirit of London Midland’s commitments to rail travellers in Northampton.