We import far more from the EU than we export to them…who needs who?
The Today programme ran two interviews, one each with a pro and anti EU group. Justin Webb did both interviews, the pro-EU managed to bag the apparently prime 08:10 spot on Monday and the antis got 07:50 on Tuesday.
Perhaps the barrage of criticism the BBC received for the highly inaccurate/dishonest programmes by Jonty Bloom and the subsequent attention on their EU coverage meant that Webb was given a heads up on how to deal with these interviews in a balanced and impartial manner for the interview with Lord Rose from the ‘in’ campaign (08:10) was highly critical of the campaign’s propaganda and Webb did his job as well as anyone could expect.
In contrast the interview with Jon Moyniham from VoteLeave (07:50) was a mixed bag and rather uninspiring, a let down for either side in the debate. Webb seemed more interested in trivial matters and off-thread themes than keeping to the attack.
Moyniham said that we don’t have a say in how any money the EU generously returns to us is spent…Webb made the odd counter that ‘We know how it is spent’….which wasn’t Moyniham’s point at all….that being, we want a say in how it is spent.
Similarly Webb went off on a tangent and alluded that Moyniham’s policy was to cut spending on agriculture as if Moyniham himself would have that say. Moyniham of course would not be in government, he is only part of the Brexit campaign….as he pointed out it would not be his job to make the decision, the important thing was that it was the British government that did make it and not the EU….a difference that Webb couldn’t seem to grasp.
On trade with the EU Webb preferred to say that 50% of our exports (later he corrected that to 45%) went to the EU and 10% of the EU’s exports came to us…he could of course have said that 53% of our imports came from the EU…a different emphasis and it shows how statistics can be used to change a narrative.
Webb insisted on mentioning that although we give a large contribution to the EU we get some back, what he didn’t mention was the cost of all the EU regulations imposed upon our businesses which amount to £33 bn a year apparently.
From a government briefing paper:
Various studies have attempted to quantify the benefit or cost to the UK of its membership of the EU. This is a very difficult exercise and depends on a wide range of assumptions. Estimates vary significantly. For example, a 2005 study by the Institute for Economic Affairs found a cost of between 3% and 4% of GDP while a 2013 study by the CBI found a net benefit of between 4% and 5% of GDP. A 2015 study by Open Europe found that the cost of the 100 most burdensome EU regulations was £33.3 billion a year.
Webb ended on a duff note about the campaign group itself and whether or not it would join forces with other Brexit groups which seemed more a weak attack on the Vote.
David Keighley notes the links the BBC has to pro-EU groups such as the CBI…
In effect, a Radio 4 programme broadcast on Thursday [by Jonty Bloom] was a clear declaration that the Corporation will be actively campaigning to amplify such messages – especially those about the single market.
Perhaps there is no surprise in this – after all an ex-BBC strategy chief, Carolyn Fairbairn, is now director-general of the fanatically Europhile Confederation of British Industry and has been declaring her referendum plans to the Guardian; and Sir Roger Carr, a former president of the CBI, is now deputy chairman of the BBC Trustees. The Corporation is so steeped in the importance of Brussels that it cannot see or think outside that bubble.
At what point, however, does biased BBC reporting tip over into being deliberately untrue?
The most important point from these interviews is the claim that we would be shut out of European markets….just how likely is that?
The EU bloc is massive…,..
How large is the EU Economy?
Since its formation in 1993, the European Union1 (EU) has become larger than any individual economy in the world, with its GDP surpassing the USA’s in 2003, for the first time since 1998, as shown in Figure 1. Despite this, the EU’s share of global GDP has fallen from 30% in 1993 to 24% in 2013. This is because growth in non-EU economies has outpaced growth of EU economies, mainly driven by strong growth in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) economies.
But would it lock the UK, the 5th largest economy in the world and an important trade partner with the EU, out of its markets? Hardly seems likely when it is committed to open markets and free trade……import tariffs very low or zero…..
The EU benefits from being one of the most open economies in the world and remains committed to free trade.
-
The average applied tariff for goods imported into the EU is very low. More than 70% of imports enter the EU at zero or reduced tariffs.
-
The EU’s services markets are highly open and we have arguably the most open investment regime in the world.
-
The EU has not reacted to the crisis by closing markets. However some the EU’s trading partners have not been so restrained as the EU has highlighted in the Trade and Investment Barriers Report
and the report on protectionism. -
In fact the EU has retained its capacity to conclude and implement trade agreements. The recent Free Trade Agreements with South Korea and with Singapore are examples of this and the EU has an ambitious agenda of trade agreements in the pipeline.
And to re-emphasise that….. the EU is only 10% of world demand….there is a whole wide world of opportunity out there…..and the EU is very keen to make deals with non-EU trade partners……
Over the next ten to 15 years, 90% of world demand will be generated outside Europe. That is why it is a key priority for the EU to tap into this growth potential by opening up market opportunities for European businesses abroad. One way of ensuring this is through negotiating agreements with our key partners.
As tariffs are relatively low in world trade today, trade barriers lie behind the customs borders: hence the EU aims to conclude Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DCFTA) that, on top of removing tariffs, also open up markets on services, investment, public procurement and include regulatory issues.
If the EU was to complete all its current free trade talks tomorrow, it could add 2.2% to the EU’s GDP or €275 billion. This is equivalent to adding a country as big as Austria or Denmark to the EU economy. In terms of employment, these agreements could generate 2.2 million new jobs or an additional 1% of the EU total workforce.
Highly unlikely that the UK will be locked out of that.
Fascinated to know what we import from Antarctica (£2,771) and North Korea (£1,654,042)
Alan
You are making the same mistake that the SNP made. We cannot predict what the EU will do if we leave. They may get arsey. An agreement may be good for us both but…..
The big question is how many free trade deals can the 5th largest economy on the planet do between voting to leave and actually leaving (about 2 years, they say) . Most Commonwealth counties would sign up with no problem, that would be India, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, etc. If the EU wants to play then fine, if not we don’t need them.
Glenn
“We cannot predict what the EU will do if we leave”
Nonsense.
We can predict, with total certainty, what they will do.
They will cheat, they will pretend that the OUT vote never happened.
They will try to delay our departure, supported by millions of traitors in the UK.
Let us have another referendum, but this time, instead of ten billion Euros spent on pro-EU propaganda, it will be fifty billion Euros (our Euros).
More certain than night following day.
Just watched the Justin Webb/Jon Moyniham interview via BBC website and my first reaction was has Justin Webb got head lice?
Just to observe that so far the coverage of Brexit – on the BBC and the MSM – has concentrated largely on the economic impact. It seems to me that neither side actually knows – indeed, no-one knows – the economic cost (if there is one) but IMHO I suspect the fifth largest economy in the world should just about be able to survive. However, and I don’t underestimate the importance of the economic consequences of Brexit, the societal consequences of remaining in a sclerotic, undemocratic, bureaucratic, incipient United States of Europe far outweigh the possible economic cost of a short-term period of ex-EU adjustment.
As to the BBC’s role: the Stayers have wisely adopted the BBC Chomskeyan set-up of faux-debate by narrowing the area of discussion to the short-term financial consequences whereby the politics of fear and uncertainty can be effectively applied. I guess the BBC (and, to be fair, the lion’s share of the MSM) will be happy to keep the major part of its coverage to that aspect of Brexit.
BTW one aspect of the economic cost of staying which gets no leverage on the BBC – or the “quality” press – is that the Google settlement with HMRC is nothing to do with HMRC or Osborne “selling out” to big corporate. it’s all to do with the way the rules of the EU are applied: Google’s arrangements obey the EU financial rules (to which HM Goverment is subject) in every minute aspect. The case that had we not been a part of the EU, Google’s tax bill might have been substantially bigger goes by default and all we’re left with is the arch-hypocrite and child-abuse enabler Lady Hodge given star billing in the Murdoch press to whine on about the matter while deliberately missing this central point.