Over 20 Years in the European Single Market...

[threegee]

...has achieved precisely nothing for the UK Economy:

 

 

Notice that our exports to Europe were steadily increasing in the 20 years before The Common Market (EEC) was formed, and continued increasing at the same sort of rate for 20 years after.  And, this was despite all the crises and industrial unrest that we were told were disrupting and disadvantaging British industry over that period.  BUT... with The Single European Market (EU), with all its bureaucracy, and regulation, and other nonsense, they then stagnated.  Since just before the millennium they've been falling.  Who has benefited in that 20 years?  Well, certain not the British people!

 

This is exactly the opposite of what politicos of the three major parties told us The Single European Market would bring.  They also told us that we must join the Euro or we were sunk, and it was only a miracle of fortune that saved us from that stupidity.

 

And, the next 20 years if we don't stand on our own feet again?  My best guess is a mirror image of what started around 1958 - the signs of a failing EU are there already.  Better Off Out - certainly!

[mercuryg]

Of course, to balance this, we have to show what the UK economy would have been like had we not entered the market. Which we can't.

 

As is always the case, a set of figures is no use at all without something to measure it against. Would we have achieved unbelievable levels of export had we not been party to this agreement? I doubt it - after all, what would we have been exporting?  Where was the industry to come from? Let's say we remove ourselves from this little party: what happens then? Does the country suddenly start producing oodles of goods that the rest of the world wants to buy? Or would the rest of Europe continue buying from cheaper markets, as they are now? I think we all know the answer. It's rather unfair to compare our exporting prowess now - in 2015 - with the growth achieved in, say, the 1990's, as these are - to coin a phrase - different times. Countries that are now manufacturing powerhouses were not back then. There's a much, much bigger picture here than 'the EU has ruined us'. There's the rest of the world to consider.

[Maggie/915]

A balanced and fair comment mercuryg.

Figures can give a false impression

We have to ask 'Who Gains' from any opinion published.

[Canny lass]

I second that, Maggie and Mercury. We have to remember that whatever we read is always somebody else's choice of facts and there will always be a risk for predjudice and manipulation.

[threegee]

Of course, to balance this, we have to show what the UK economy would have been like had we not entered the market. Which we can't.

 

As is always the case, a set of figures is no use at all without something to measure it against. Would we have achieved unbelievable levels of export had we not been party to this agreement? I doubt it - after all, what would we have been exporting?  Where was the industry to come from? Let's say we remove ourselves from this little party: what happens then? Does the country suddenly start producing oodles of goods that the rest of the world wants to buy? Or would the rest of Europe continue buying from cheaper markets, as they are now? I think we all know the answer. It's rather unfair to compare our exporting prowess now - in 2015 - with the growth achieved in, say, the 1990's, as these are - to coin a phrase - different times. Countries that are now manufacturing powerhouses were not back then. There's a much, much bigger picture here than 'the EU has ruined us'. There's the rest of the world to consider.

 

You've missed the essential point: everything the politicians have told us has turned out to be the truth standing on its head, so why should we continue to believe them and vote as they say?  You are also discounting all the doom and disaster scenarios that were run by us if we didn't adopt the Euro.  Politicos just love people with short memories who don't recall really basic things like that (or the impressionable young who don't have any - yet!)

 

Any economist looking objectively at that graph would say that the precise placing of the inflection points are too big a coincidence.  Even if other factors did come into play it was a huge coincidence that they did exactly when they did - no?  Nothing can ever be known with certainty, but ignoring the best available evidence and proceeding regardless will generally get you into deep water at some point.

 

What you are actually doing is just what the politicians want you to do: opt for the status quo.  But there's the really big lie - there is no status quo!  It's either a united states of Europe under German domination, or a return to the same sort of trading relationship we had under the EEC. The EUphile politicos don't have the statistics you demand.  If they did we'd be bombarded with them incessantly.  All they have is the usual empty scare stories of what will happen if we don't do what they want.  What statistics there are actually point in the other direction, which is precisely the purpose of my post. i.e the EUphiles have nothing to point to as evidence, and a great deal they want to conceal, but there IS NOW useful evidence to the contrary.  So much evidence that many independent economists are coming down on the side of leave.

 

The bright people in the EFA countries have already realised that they are better off with a non-political trading relationship and are praying that we'll join them, even take the leading position.  Greenland is prospering since leaving.

 

Regarding your "Does the country suddenly start producing oodles of goods that the rest of the world wants to buy? Or would the rest of Europe continue buying from cheaper markets, as they are now? I think we all know the answer."  The UK does already produce oodles of goods (and services) the World wants to buy,  We are pretty good at self-deprication but are actually the world's fifth largest economy and forecast to overtake Germany and become the fourth largest before too long. It's what that graph shows: world trade is racing ahead whilst the EU is already declining in importance to us (and in ITS position in the World). EU barriers would actually work in our favour if we left, because we already produce to meet the layers of EU regulation, whilst lower labour cost producers would struggle to replace us. 

 

But... here you are falling for the myth that our exports to the EU would be much affected - they won't!  Nothing much tradewise will happen for the first two years after our giving notice. During this period there is a treaty obligation for rump EU to negotiate a trade agreement on favourable terms with us.  Germany can not afford to drag its feet on this because they have far more to lose than us, and their current growth is anaemic by former measures.  The reality is that we'll ultimately get a trade agreement which is pretty much indistinguishable from what we already have, but without all the political twaddle.  This is something which the EUphles won't even discuss, because any sort of speculation as to likely outcomes kills their arguments stone dead. Others will ultimately want what we got - that's certain death of all their political pipe dreams!

[mercuryg]

I'm not falling for a myth nor opting for anything. I'm simply stating thst the world is bigger than the EU. The graph is a stand alone set of figures. It is a narrow set of statistics that, says nothing in particular, other than giving the anti EU brigade what they want. By the way, at no point have I declared a pro or anti stance.

[threegee]

I'm not falling for a myth nor opting for anything. I'm simply stating thst the world is bigger than the EU. The graph is a stand alone set of figures. It is a narrow set of statistics that, says nothing in particular, other than giving the anti EU brigade what they want. By the way, at no point have I declared a pro or anti stance.

 

I have to agree with your first sentence, but when you criticise my posting the graph because "The graph is a stand alone set of figures" we part company.  Trade with the EU is what it is all about; at least that's what we were told it was about by lying politicians (most notably the execrable Ted Heath).  It's the only defence the EUphiles have for the tragic damage the EU has done to our traditional industries.  It's what all the shrill warnings of the likes of Clegg focus on (those mythical three million jobs dependant on our seemingly booming exports to the EU).

 

The "anti-EU brigade" - 51% of the electorate according to a recent poll, so perhaps the biggest brigade in history - have to go where this fallacious argument takes them. Of course there are many other issues like our sovereignty, right to self-determination, democracy, and basic freedoms, but the economic argument is the one that got us into this mess in the first place, and not to address the lie is to accept it.

 

I do hope we can discuss the other matters at length, but the fundamental fact that over the last couple of decades the EU has represented an ever smaller part of our trade is undeniable!  And, in answer to Maggie's point of who benefits, just ask any Greek!

[Maggie/915]

Well done threegee.

However it could be said to be a good example of 'conflation'.

Would the Greeks gain from the UK export figures?

Use and abuse of argument perhaps!

Anything can be justified.

[mercuryg]

"he fundamental fact that over the last couple of decades the EU has represented an ever smaller part of our trade is undeniable!"

 

Not disagreeing with that at all; it simply highlights what I'm saying - there's the rest of the world to consider. The concern I have is that withdrawing from the EU represents just a very small part of the problem. Can we compete with non-EU markets?

[Canny lass]

I'm already afraid that we  can't compete with the non-EU markets.Just to give you a personal example of why I Think that way let me tell you about my old man's job.He's worked with ship design all his Life. When I met him, 35 years ago, things like steel and Labour were becoming very expensive in Sweden so the Swedes were looking further afield for these two valuable commodities. At that time, my old man was sent to such  exotic and far away places as Denmark and even  the North East of England in search of these vital requirements. As the years have gone by the search has taken him further and further afield: France, Poland, Croatia, Yugoslavia, India, Korea and China.

 

For many years the prices were rediculously low. However, you get what you pay for and even  if the price was low the standard of the work was even lower and many times it had to be re-done - not just once but several times. Despite all this reworking and numerous extra costs to the Company in Sweden they still came out very much on top.

 

But, the Chinese, and all the others, soon caught on to the idea that they too could increase profits by getting the job done better and more quickly. So, they started getting things like equipment and job training written into the contract. This made them just as skillful as EU countries and attractive to even more countries. Prices have increased but even today are nowhere near those of the EU. This type of contract is by no means restricted to the shipbuilding industry.

 

I think it's a trend that's going to continue for a long time to come and the far east is certainly a market force to be reckoned with.