September 20, 2016

Auntie’s still determined to remain in the EU

Auntie’s still determined to remain in the EU

Remember the risks to staying in the EU’s Single Market? The BBC obviously hasn’t, argues Rory Broomfield. 

It may have been my imagination but didn’t Leave win the referendum? From my (admittedly hazy) memory of June 24th, I was under the impression that roughly 17.4 million people voted for the UK to leave the European Union in the largest democratic vote for anything in the UK’s history. Despite this though, it seems that the BBC still hasn’t got the message – and has a vapid memory of what was claimed about the Single Market during the campaign.

The risks of remaining in the Single Market were made clear in the referendum campaign – not least by the erudite Dan Hannan MEP. On this website, both John Redwood and John Mills have recently sought to explain and reiterate the benefits of our future outside the regulations of the Single Market, including by mitigating the risks.

However‎, the BBC’s insistence on‎ describing what they see as “hard Brexit” compared with what they describe as “soft Brexit” is nauseating, and doesn’t just naturally prefer debate about an “EEA / EFTA” option, but also misses the point.

It came to a head when Radio 4’s Today Programme interviewed Lord Lawson who, on being asked his views on “hard Brexit” said, quite rightly, that he preferred the term “clean Brexit”. Yet that, of course, hasn’t deterred the Beeb from using the phrase as if it wishes to constantly emphasise the difficulty that would – it tries to suggest – be associated with leaving the EU’s Single Market. In contrast, what Lord Lawson said during the referendum campaign – that the alternative to being in the EU is not being in the EU – seems to suggest that leaving might actually be the easier option.

The corporation during the campaign claimed it was neutral – even too worried about its impartiality, according to one presenter, but since the referendum the gloves have seemed to come off. We seem to be hearing more about the benefits of the single market and the risks of leaving rather than the other way around. This is a mistake. It also misses an opportunity.

The goal should be now to embrace a free trading future with the EU without getting drawn back into it. If the BBC were to ignore voices looking at this, it would be making a mistake and limit the terms of debate and discussion over the wider possibilities that are there for the taking outside the Single Market.

So my plea to BBC executives is, next time you are thinking about debating the EU, think to yourself how you can create a discussion and use language that embraces all the potential scenarios. Indeed, why not reframe the debate to look at how the UK can take advantage of all the trade deals that it can now make with the rest of the world?

There’s a world of opportunity out there. If only the BBC could see it.

4.77 avg. rating (95% score) - 70 votes
Rory Broomfield
Rory Broomfield is Director of The Freedom Association and the Better Off Out campaign. He is an authority on the EU and has written a number of books including his latest, co-authored with Iain Murray, Cutting the Gordian Knot: A Roadmap for British Exit from the European Union. He has previously worked in the City of London and in Westminster for a number of Members of Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, Theresa May; the current Chairman of the 1922 Committee, Graham Brady; and Sir Richard Shepherd.
  • Nockian

    No article ? Maybe it’s spread to comment central ?

    Central banks don’t work any better than any other kind of soviet style producer. They produce too many tractors when we need more ploughs. This is because banking isn’t independent, it isn’t laissez faire capitalism that is being practised, but the soviet style economics of central planning. It is not, per se, the fault of the central banks, anymore than it was the fault of the Russian tractor factories for under/ over producing as a result of state diktat. Unfortunately we have a mixed economy, which is 50% socialistic and has been expanding for several decades-most of us now give over 60% of our earnings to government directly (it’s probably a bit more depending on inflation and inflexible tax bands).

    The answer is to get the state out of commerce, then the central banks will either survive or collapse within a laissez faire banking system, but first we must begin to accept the truth, that we cannot continue to sustain such a gargantuan welfare system and its associated government. If we want to produce more, we need to be taxed less, we must save not spend.

  • ratcatcher11

    If everyone saved and did not spend there would be a massive worldwide slump, so it is obvious there has to be spending. Making things for sale is thus important, services alone cannot sustain an economy. One of the biggest problems is Keynsian economics that are basically tax, print and spend socialist policies. We do not need the government to build a railway we need a private company to build the railway which will compete with air travel fairly, not by taxing air travel to make it it less profitable. Thus the governments air taxes should be scrapped and private companies encouraged to re open rail lines closed by Beeching. This is the development we need not government spending 90 billion of money on an HS2 line built from somewhere to nowhere and never stops to pick up passengers.

  • Debs

    Expansion of economies cannot go on forever no matter what so called monetary policy is. You dont need to be an economics expert to realise it.

    All I know is governments and banks seem to be constantly coming up with schemes to leave we the lowly tax payer with less of our money.Forget about the trumpeted tax cuts ,everything else is going up accordingly except real wages of course. Dont even mention the Green scam or the cheap labour scam.

    Bail ins and cashless society are two more scams I have seen trailed in various media outlets over the past few years. Gradually our hard earned money is being prised away from us to fritter away on who knows what.

    They wonder why Trump got elected.

  • Nockian

    The market will raise rates eventually, regardless of wether the central bank wishes it or not. The problem is that we have all become mesmerised at central bank control, when, in reality, at this stage they have little at all. They cannot raise rates to normal, because, firstly, we don’t know what normal looks like (it could already be normal) and secondly any increases will create an avalanche effect-let’s face it, no one but the wealthiest wants to bring down countries governments through a collapse in public spending leading to actual anarchy on our streets.

    The bogey man of fractional reserve is a myth that has permeated libertarian consciousness, in a free market banks would have to take risk or they would, by any definition, not be free market. Banks are not currently lending to private individuals because capital requirements are already so high-they have become zombified businesses that look like they function, but are like the shops we set up as kids with funny money and plastic fruit. The market is broken as far as banks are concerned, they are no longer part of it.

    Fixing the problem cannot begin by looking at the central bank, nor the main banks. It’s far too late to consider than anything can be done at this stage, we are so far beyond normal that we aren’t looking at a functioning banking system at all. It would be like bleeding the radiators to solve a broken boiler.

    The problem we have is at its heart a simple one. It’s the problem that labour refused to accept when the banks blew up. We have an unsustainable welfare system and an over sized government. We have to tackle our public spending first of all and I see little sign that any current, nor perspective government is prepared to give the public the awful news about the reality.

    Even the great Tory saviours have flunked out of the monetary boiler rooms. The situation is dire, there is no fuel left, we have been ripping up the ships timbers to maintain the illusion of tranquil sailing progress, but eventually the ship will sink for lack of substance. There is no monetary policy that can save us, all we are going to get is an ever growing war on cash, savers and anyone who tries to make a profit. We are going to end up in the late stages of a soviet style melt down whilst spinning mirrors to pretend it isn’t happening.

    We all know what’s going on, we can offer solutions, make sympathetic noises and talk up any temporary progress, but the reality of the situation is now apparent. We have to do what every debtor must eventually conclude; that our spending has unfortunaly exceeded our earning capacity and all those red letters mean some drastic rethinking is required. We are going to reach the end of the road, not by a sudden explosion, but the drift into monetary authoritarianism which will result in ever greater protectionism and falling living standards. We are in great danger of losing the West to the East and ending up as country cousins of a world of declining freedoms and the rise mysticism.

Like us on Facebook: