• 0 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4128
  • +75/-0
Posted By: Rodney Atkinson
on: July 10, 2018
In: News

 Print Email
In the May Government’s opening gambit for the potential trade deal with the EU virtually every principle, promise and manifesto commitment on Brexit was compromised or betrayed as she know towed to the Euro-business lobby.
“We seek a new and equal partnership”
Giving the EU and its laws power over UK trade and business is not “equal”
“ No partial membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half in, half out “
That is exactly what the Chequers proposals do. Half in customs, half in the single market, half in free movement half in the European Court’s power.
“We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave.”
But agreeing to follow “rules” (i.e. Laws) of the Single Market does just that.
One of the Government’s promises was to retrieve our own standards of trade especially in agriculture – for instance on live exports. The MP Matthew Offord forced May to admit in the Commons:
“We would be able to enhance our standards, but we would have committed to that rulebook in a number of areas”
May promised we would be free to make our own trade deals – for instance with the United States whose President has been particularly keen to help us (despite May’s continual criticism of him) But now May was forced to admit
“there is a challenge for us in relation to the United States and standards”,
No wonder the US Ambassador’s comment on the Chequers proposals was that the likelihood of a US UK trade deal was now “totally up in the air”:
Remainers and big business never thought we could leave, then that we ever would leave,… now they think they can force us to leave in name only – and Mrs May has kowtowed to them because in the modern corporatist Tory Party democracy and country come second to the needs of big business, supranational business and constitutional funny business!!
If we believe Airbus, BMW, Siemens etc ( then we must “save jobs” by capitulation to our new Euro-masters – which is what the CBI wanted in the 1930s (the then Federation of British Industry was making deals with Nazi corporations until June 1939!)
Airbus is based in Mobile Alabama, BMW exports 60% of the production from its Spartanburg, South Carolina plant, Siemens employs 50,000 in the USA based in Illinois. They all send finished goods and parts across the Atlantic to assemble there and export finished products all over the world.
But since these corporations trade with, export to, export from, construct in and obey the rules of the USA – without the USA being in the EU – how credible is their threat to abandon billions of pounds of investment in non EU Britain?
The collapsing EU Empire saw in Theresa May the ideal patsy – politically and intellectually weak, unelected by her anti EU Party so hardly influenced by it, ignorant of the EU and its corporatist fascist origins, self obsessed, principle-less and a loyal member of the Remainer Government of David Cameron whom the EU humiliated in his negotiations with them before Brexit.
Having promised an end to free movement of people from the European Union, May has now blown up that commitment as well by offering an area of mobility for EU citizens with preferential access to Britain. What this woman does not seem to grasp is that the number of “European Citizens” is unlimited.
WE have no control over their number. The EU has no control over their number. But other EU states can turn as many millions of immigrants into citizens of their nations as they want – who then become “European Citizens” with the right to enjoy Mrs May’s “mobility area”. Norris McWhirter and I pointed this out 24 years ago in the book “Treason at Maastricht”.
The Chequers policy says that UK courts would pay “due regard to EU” court rulings but not vice versa! The EU is not asked to pay due regard to the British courts’ rulings. And we know from the way the EU Court treats EFTA and European Economic Area members that the Court says its “judgements are binding”. We are not dealing with Governments of friendly countries making trade agreements we are dealing with an EU Superstate using economic and trade power to expand its empire.
So not one of Mrs May’s “red lines” is left without so many holes as to make them inoperative:
The European Court’s laws will influence us
We will accept obligations of the Single Market
We will come to a Customs arrangement
We will accept a form of free movement for an unlimited number
We have left the EU, that is clear – effective 29th March 2019. The 1972 Act will be repealed BUT EU LAWS WHICH WE HAVE TURNED INTO UK LAWS OVER THE LAST 46 YEARS WILL REMAIN. All we will have achieved is the right to undo those laws and make our own.
Any new EU laws, Mrs May says, we will have the option of accepting or not. BUT THE DEFAULT POSITION WILL BE THAT UNLESS WE REJECT THOSE LAWS THEY WILL STAND AND OUR PARLIAMENT IS REMAINER (not least because the British Declaration of Independence – see BDI on this site – which could have changed it was ignored or rejected by eurosceptic groups, UKIP, the media and many of the anti EU campaigns). Therefore they will probably slavishly follow those laws, except that in future we will have no say in their making!
We have proposed exceptional influence by the European Court of Justice which is and has always been an activist court pursuing the POLITICAL aim of “greater EU integration”.
And all for what? to continue trade with a bloc with which we have a massive trade deficit, takes all the wealth we have contributed to the EU over 46 years, demands we pay £40bn plus to leave, refuses to let us remain in a satellite project to which we have contributed £1.2bn, badmouths us in other countries ( and which has a built in prejudice against “Anglo Saxon economics”
And that is just our opening bid! What further compromises will the EU extract from this pathetically weak Government before an agreement is reached? Once you show weakness – and May’s entire negotiation has shown British weakness – then we are perpetually on the back foot. The only glimmer of hope from Chequers was that preparations for a NO DEAL would be stepped up!
Jeremy Good, a Director of Cryogenic Ltd in London, a medium sized British company, wrote to the Financial Times attacking the HMRC claims that post Brexit trade would be severely hit by higher costs. He wrote:
We are a 95 per cent export manufacturer of high tech instrumentation, so we have a lot of experience in overseas trade. …With £10m of exports, 75 per cent outside the EU, and £1.5m of imports, 85% non-EU, we are in a good position to give a realistic figure for these costs.
All imports enter under Inward Processing Relief, and no taxes are paid at the border. Goods may remain in the UK for up to nine months free of duty and value added tax. Duty and VAT become payable if the goods are sold within the EU, but not if they are exported outside.
Our largest tax is the 20 per cent VAT charged on importing goods from the EU, just as from the US or Japan. This will not change after Brexit, although there may be a 3-5 per cent duty if no deal is done.
The cost in additional paperwork will therefore be no more than 10 per cent of the present £32,000. We will incur an average 4 per cent duty on our £225,000 of EU imports, but will recover 95 per cent of this on exporting, so duties will cost the company about £500.Assuming we do business with the EU on terms no worse than the rest of the world, the cost will be around £3,700, or 0.04 per cent of our £10m turnover. Compared to currency exposure where rates can change by 1 per cent daily, this is a negligible figure, so Brexit on any terms will not change our business.
“An editorial in Die Welt newspaper recently implored Brussels to drop what it described as “Bätschi politics” – essentially meaning a taunting, I-told-you-so attitude towards Britain as its lawmakers stumble and fumble their way through the Brexit process.
The paper reminded export-proud Germans that, firstly, the UK is a hugely significant trading partner and, secondly, that in a world of big uncertainties – it would be sensible to keep the UK close.”
So there may yet be a business revolution against their national governments and then by those Governments against the dictatorial EU Apparatchiks………But the May Government has done irreparable damage to Britain and a clear Brexit (as set out in the Referendum, at the subsequent General Election and in Mrs May’s now defunct red lines) is disappearing fast.
60% of May’s own party reject Chequers. I am sure that will rise as they realise what is happening. She must go.

Share this topic...
In a forum
In a site/blog

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk