The political and economic consequences of the UK leaving the EU

An analytical consideration from German view.

 

December 2012:
1. The consequences for the British
The EU lobby is making every effort to prevent Britain from leaving the EU. Under no circumstances, they believe, should the British be allowed to have a referendum on this question of fate.
They know the clear survey results: The majority of British people want to get out of the EU.

The fact that the British are in the EU at all is due to their former representatives of the people, who had enacted accession in 1973 (without popular consent). In retrospect (1975) there was a referendum on this important question of destiny - but a negative vote would have meant a complex reversal at a time when the effects of the treaties were still completely unknown.
The anti-democratic accession process was the EU's characteristic feature even then. To date, the EU has not yet abandoned its anti-democratic stance.

The EU costs Britain 53 million euros - every day!
EU critics have calculated that, despite all the special discounts granted, the EU is costing the island kingdom 53 million euros per day.
The EU lobby obviously does not want to know about these figures. It counters with scare mongering and predicts the economic collapse if Britain leaves the EU.

 

"The British industrial production would collapse ..."
In the German media, too, there is quite unanimous warning in the run-up to the worst consequences of an EU withdrawal from Great Britain.
The forecast: The import duty imposed by the EU countries would make British goods too expensive. Foreign investors would then close their factories on the island and relocate them to the European continent.
Admittedly, it is conceded casually that the UK, like Switzerland, could possibly negotiate special customs agreements with the EU. But this is very complicated and would have some disadvantages.

 

The healing counterforces are ignored!
But the prophecies of the EU advocates are devoid of logic. Even if there were no special bilateral customs agreements, the EU exit would be a blessing for the British economy!
The EU independence that would then exist would release undreamt - of forces. If the EU Member States impose their tariffs on British goods, the British Government will counteract in the same way.

Imports from the EU will then become more expensive in Great Britain! This in turn means that British industry is becoming more competitive!
It would then again be worthwhile to produce many consumer goods in your own country.

Thus, at least in part (depending on the level of import duties), the UK would be exposed to both intra-European and global wage, tax, social and environmental dumping competition. What would be wrong with that?
The British can not do anything better in terms of economics than out of the unfair European pseudo-domestic market. 

 

The European internal market does not really exist!

What is always concealed or misinterpreted in all the half-smart speeches about the EU:
A true EU single market does not exist!

The basic requirements for a genuine single market are met in only one point:

same gross wage rates

None

same tax

None

same social laws

None

same Law

None

same political structures

None

same mother tongue

None

same official language

None

duty-free

Yes

Except for the last point, therefore, all the requirements of a genuine internal market are in no way fulfilled.
The EU internal market thus turns out to be a deceptive wrapper, a deceptive illusion, a mirage.
A genuine EU internal market would bring economic benefits - but the current structure cannot work. It is absurd and contradictory - in a word: idiotic.

In 60 years, it has not been possible to make any progress on this crucial point. Because a genuine internal market requires a homogeneous single state, which most EU countries reject strictly.

 

"Britain's EU withdrawal would weaken the financial metropolis of London."
The propaganda machinery of the EU defenders is in full swing. Not only is there a warning (with dishonest arguments) against the "total decline" of British industry, but it is also predicted to have devastating consequences for the London financial market.
In fact, London's importance as a financial centre may well diminish (this is far from being a foregone conclusion). But if the assumption were to come true - what would be so bad about it?

At present, the financial markets are completely inflated and oversized.
95 per cent of all financial transactions are only speculative and therefore completely unproductive. They are more likely to be a cancer of capitalism - to the detriment of any economy.

This financial sector has become so absurdly established in New York and London only because the US and Britain needed a replacement for the decline of their industrial base.
The swelling of the financial sector made millions of speculators, traders, investment advisors, investment bankers, etc. worldwide rich - but at the expense of the population and the real economy.

The normalisation of the City of London and the move away from duty-free dumping would unleash undreamt-of forces which would help Britain to flourish again.

 

"Imports duties on EU goods would deprive the British of purchasing power!"
In order to avoid a positive exit example in any case, fears are fomented with all registers. An important intimidation argument is the assertion that the British import tariffs would make everything more expensive and the British purchasing power would decrease.

But even such fears turn out to be nonsense. After all, customs duties do not disappear into nirvana. Rather, they make it possible to reduce wage-related social security contributions. This reduces labour costs and at the same time strengthens the company's competitiveness vis-à-vis foreign countries.


2. the impact of Britain's EU exit on the European Union
So far, the EU's raison d' être has always been linked to the promise of prosperity, freedom and peace. "A country like Great Britain would go under economically without EU ties and would not be perceived from a world-political point of view. That, at any rate, is the official theory of prosperity, which should nip any doubts about the EU in the bud.

 

If Britain's EU withdrawal would set a precedent for the...
The
worst case scenario for the EU's powerful lobby and the tens of thousands of highly remunerated EU employees would be an economic revival of Britain after the EU's withdrawal.
Imagine Britain, as an independent sovereign state, overcoming mass unemployment and reducing the national deficit. And inflation-adjusted net wages and pensions would suddenly pick up noticeably after a period of more than 30 years of gradual decline.

How are we going to keep the continental Europeans at bay?
How will they be persuaded to continue to recognise the EU and the sacred "European internal market" (which in reality does not exist - see above) as prerequisites for prosperity? The whole house of cards of lies and propaganda would collapse and other stressful EU peoples will want to follow the British example.

For example, Britain's EU withdrawal could mark the end of the European Union.
The EU's profiteers (especially the 50,000 EU bureaucrats) would have to fear for their money. A terrible vision for those affected - but a blessing for all upright Europeans who really care about the well-being of the people.

 

Britain's EU exit would open the eyes of all Europeans. The nimbus of the prosperous and peace-building EU would be lost once and for all.

PS: According to a survey by the OpinionWay Institute in December 2014, 42% of Britons would vote for leaving the EU, while only 37 voted in favor. The real referendum should take place at the latest by the end of 2017. For the Dutch, 39% argued for and 41% against leaving the EU. In Germany, only 22% of Germans would welcome an EU exit. In view of decades of unilateral long-term propaganda in favor of the EU ("Germany particularly benefits from the EU and the euro"), the broad German acceptance of the EU can hardly be surprising. 

 

Supplement 25.5.2016:

Is that the much-vaunted freedom of the press?

Intimidation of the British population...

One month before the decisive Brexit referendum on 23.6.2016, the British newspaperstycoone will really get down to business. On the front pages of their opinion-forming tabloids, they aggressively weather against the threatening brexite. Nothing seems sacred anymore! One is light years away from a factual argument.

The newspaper publishers apparently see it as their Christian duty to insecure and intimidate the doubting population with bold statements.
For example, they predict an economic decline of 6% in the event of a brexite, accompanied of course by a drastic rise in unemployment. And they are already predicting an 18% drop in the price of real estate. And yes, of course: the danger of war in Europe will also increase as a result of the brexite.

Surely it is clear that such bad tidings fuel fears. I believe, moreover, that these predictions are criminal and totally unrealistic. Decoupling from the paralyzing Brussels bureaucracy monster can only have a positive effect in the end - whoever claims the opposite is not credible.

On May 23,2016 in England I looked closely at the daily newspapers - the atmosphere against the brexite was omnipresent. Hardly any catastrophe scenario has been omitted to intimidate readers. It is astonishing that it was not also claimed that the British island would sink into the Atlantic Ocean in the event of a brexite.

What is the value of referendums if the population is so massively influenced?
This shows once again how difficult it is to beat the dominance of big business. With the media in their possession, they can manipulate the opinion of their readers to a large extent and enforce or prevent almost anything that does not serve the benefit of corporations or big business.

Only once, in Switzerland, the systematic panic mongering has not yet worked. Despite all the prophecies of doom and doom, the Swiss once voted bravely against joining the EU.
So, has Switzerland subsequently perished or dwindled into insignificance? The exact opposite is the case! Despite the difficult environment, surrounded by a dwindling EU with excessive monetary dumping, Switzerland is doing better than ever today.

 

Background: British farmers' fear of brexite!
"But most industrial products can't be made in England anyway!" http://www.anti-globalisierung.de/globalization-production.html

After the referendum:
Reason has triumphed,
the ignoramuses have lost!

The 23rd of June 2016 will go down in history as a lucky day for both Britain and Europe. Because with this date, a people has finally renounced Brussels paternalism. In the medium and long term, even the most ardent EU fanatic will have to admit that the EU is an eternal trouble spot and a killer of prosperity.
The British economy can now breathe new life into itself, freed from bureaucratic obstacles and exempted from the perverted foreign wage and tax dumping through customs duties.

I hope that this will also bring more honesty and honesty back to the annoying EU debate. Fewer and fewer people will fall for the deceptive illusion of the beneficial "EU internal market" (which in reality does not exist - see above).

 

The EU divides Europe!
The transfiguring peace rhetoric is also increasingly losing its credibility. More and more people are beginning to understand: If the EU had not existed, the Ukrainian war would not have broken out in the first place.

And now Scotland and Northern Ireland want to become independent by hook or crook and degrade the United Kingdom to Little Britain for centuries. Here too, the question arises: would such separation efforts exist even without the "peacemaking" EU?

But there's more: the division runs through the entire island kingdom. Even before the vote, the financially strong pro-EU lobby initiated a petition for a second referendum in the event of its failure.What a shabby attempt! Do we still have to step down, show ourselves as bad losers, trample democracy underfoot and ignore clear referenda? Yuck!

 

"Young people voted to stay!"
The older and less well educated Brits voted for the brexite allegedly disproportionately. The constant reference to this voting behaviour is meant to tell us that the stupid and elderly (which will soon die anyway) were for the brexite and ruin the future of the young, educated generation.

Of course, this analysis can be interpreted in a completely different way:
The elderly British, who still knew the good times before the EU and had to endure the exodus of British industry, who were able to watch hundreds of thousands of factories being relocated to low-wage countries because of the tariff cuts - these long-suffering contemporary witnesses know from their own experience what the EU has done.

Young people, on the other hand, lack these own experiences. Their attitude was shaped by the mostly one-sided EU propaganda in schools and universities.
Young academics are still full of hope and dream of a steep career due to their long, expensive training, but at least of a carefree life in the upper echelons of prosperity. Not until ten or twenty years from now would many of them think differently, purified and disillusioned. Because (overall) the tariff-free dumping competition does not offer a rosy outlook.

 

"The populists have won!"
By the way, do you know what a populist is? The answer is actually quite simple: A populist is who speaks out against the EU.
Who is for the EU, however, may consider itself as cosmopolitan, intelligent do-gooder. At least that's what the EU establishment tries to portray.

Because I have the arrogant conclusion "The Populists have won!" worse, I have as a return coach with the heading used above "The reason has triumphed, the ignorant have lost!" countered.

Whereby, I think, my saying is justified far more than the stupid populist reproach. Because my theses can be justified in detail. You will find more details in my short essay "We have to explain Europe better!" - or in detail in my book listed below.

 

Challenge of the referendum because brexite supporters lied?
Does the EU cost Britain EUR 350 million or only EUR 100 million per week? Because the brexite camp allegedly argued with false numbers, EU supporters are calling for a repeat referendum. Such an approach seems ridiculous, however, because the powerful EU lobby has sinned far more with its unprecedented campaign of fear.

But let's analyse the figures!
Of course, it is not only the direct British transfers to the EU that should be used, but also the returns. However, the question arises as to the usefulness of these subsidies. Subsidies are not wrongly considered to be a cancer of the market economy. Because they cause momentous misdirections and misinvestments. In the worst case, they do far more harm than good.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of perception: when it comes to corruption and bribery, everyone knows the consequences of these excesses. However, in the case of subsidies (which can ultimately exert similarly counterproductive forces on the economy) this sense of injustice does not yet exist. It would be foolish to blindly register subsidies on the credit side. Because their true value is questionable, incalculable.

On the other hand, what matters most in fair accounting is the enormous expenditure on bureaucracy, the inflating of administrative expenses. Nobody can quantify these costs seriously. However, it can be assumed that these expenses alone exceed the disputed sum of 50 million euros per day.

But we are far from being at the end of our payroll. The unnecessary goods tourism caused by the EU not only sustainably damages the environment of the island state, it also affects the health of the people living there. How do you calculate all this?

But there's more. The "international division of labour" is highly inefficient. It only pays off for manufacturers because of the extreme wage and tax differentials.
It is the absurd wage differentials that are responsible for the closure of tens of thousands of factories in Britain, the insurmountable mass unemployment, millions of precarious (underpaid) jobs, declining wages and pensions.

So anyone who thinks that EUR 50 million in costs for the EU is too high has not recognised the true dimensions of the EU's debacle. In fact, the damage caused by the EU in the UK is more likely to amount to EUR 1 billion a day.

 

"There can't be a sovereign nation-state anymore!"
I find it disgraceful, as proven "EU experts" step in front of the camera and insolent again and again claim "sovereign states the size of Great Britain or Germany can't even exist today"!

How do these people come up with such nonsense?
Are all states outside the EU not sovereign?
If their governments no longer have power, do they only have to bow to the impenetrable world of finance and casino capitalism? Are sovereign states dependent on the "international division of labour" free trade zones and over 30 free trade agreements? Knowing well how absurd and inefficient goods tourism drives climate change and damages our health, nature and environment?

Since 1980, income and pensions have been falling in the old industrial nations. This paradoxical demise should surprise even the greatest ignorant and the most beautiful speaker! This should lead to a rethink or paradigm shift!

There are popular opinion leaders on television complaining about new trade agreements, exchange rates, increasing exports and so on. Even though you don't need it at all.
A state the size of Germany would be perfectly capable of producing the vast majority of its consumption needs domestically (even the small GDR, punished by the planned economy, was able to do so). World trade could be reduced to a reasonable level.

The British, too, do not have to negotiate reflexively new, complex and dependent contracts with the rest of the EU.
What's the point? In the past, such agreements were not needed either! What kind of "free trade"is it if only corporations with oversized legal departments can participate in it? Despite higher tariffs, world trade was a few decades ago more free and uncomplicated.

 

"The brexite hurts everyone!"
It is breathtaking to see the enthusiasm and self-confidence of established politicians and journalists claiming that the brexite is a pity without exception for all (both in Britain and the rest of the EU). Why are these "elites" so convinced that only the excessive import and export of goods leads to prosperity?

Is there no longer any confidence in the efficiency of one's own economy?
Do you really think that a country the size of Britain would be incapable of producing its own TV sets, household goods, cars, kitchen utensils, office machines, mobile phones, textiles and shoes? Do we think that the exploitation of labour slaves in low-wage countries is essential?

How does one come up with the idea of relying on a high export quota, duty-free access to the EU's internal market and thus automatically on 33 further binding free trade agreements worldwide?
80-90% of foreign trade is not only superfluous but also harmful! With a globally harmonised wage level, world trade would shrink to between 10 and 20% of its current level!

Whether the brexite is successful or not is now in the hands of the British government itself. Does it seize the opportunity to decouple the country from intra-European and global wage dumping? Will it initiate re-industrialisation by rejecting global destructive competition through cautiously rising tariffs?

Continuing along the same lines as before, replacing old EU trade agreements with new special agreements would be absolutely wrong. In fact, it would be of little use if the accumulated problems were not solved.

It would be catastrophic if the henchmen of big business were to assert themselves and impose a neo-liberal policy on the U. K. (reduction of capital gains taxes, social cuts, etc.).
With a neo-liberal policy, the capital lobby would not only be able to live out its primal instincts, but it would also thwart the success of brexite, incite the anger and disappointment of the British, prove the alleged usefulness of the EU and free trade and nip the growing criticism of the EU in the bud throughout Europe.

So let us hope that the capital lobby will not prevail this time!

 

Anyone who wants a strong Europe cannot also want the EU at the same time!
Because the EU means:

Instead of an efficient market economy expensive subsidy economy!

Instead of democracy paralysing bureaucracy!

Instead of clear decision-making structures negotiating and tackling eternal negotiations with the 26 other EU member states!

Instead of state sovereignty a creeping disenfranchisement and Brussels paternalism!

Instead of friendship between nations increasing resentment and resentment!

Instead of peace fear of social unrest and war operations in foreign parts of the world!

Instead of economic independence an absurd crisis-prone export-import devil's circle!

Instead of a manageable national banking system a Europe-wide and worldwide woven, uncontrollable network of speculation and banks!

Instead of independent central banks, their own currency and an interest rate, fiscal and economic policy tailored to their own economyan all-powerful ECB, rampant debt and transfer union.

Further delegations of competence to the EU or even a federal state of the "United States of Europe" would create even greater problems.

 

The inhomogeneous, bureaucratic subsidy and transfer union ultimately ruins all EU states.

If Germany were still sovereign and independent with adequate customs frontiers, our labour income would be roughly doubled (according to productive progress).
Germany would then export less, but import much less.

Excuse me!
There is no equal opportunity - also with regard to the formation of opinions. While the capital (corporations, speculators, lobbyists, media, governments) can afford the best translators, I have to settle for financial reasons with a simple language program. I hope that the text is nevertheless reasonably understandable and that no mistakes have occurred. Thank you for your understanding.

Manfred Julius Müller, D-24939 Flensburg (Flensburg has about 90,000 inhabitants and is located on the German-Danish border).

 

Background and analysis:
In Germany wages have been falling since 1980. Why?
Germany: The brazen proclamation of skills shortage!
Globalization: the ignorance of the facts
The political and economic consequences of an brexit An analytical consideration from German view.
"We have to explain Europe better!"
When will the Dexit? (the withdrawal of Germany from the EU)
The capitalist Powers Act
Globalization: "One cannot produce that with us anymore!"
The fairy tale of the international division of labor
The international division of labor is counterproductive!
The fear of British Farmers before the Brexit!
The impact of globalization on developing countries
Brainwashing: "We want an open Europe!"
How much democracy can withstand the EU?
Should the EU become a political union, new problems arise!
Is there indeed a general market saturation?

 

Ist die Globalisierung Basis unseres Wohlstandes?
Und leben wir auf Kosten der anderen?

(Eingangsseite www.anti-globalisierung.de)

Impressum

© Manfred J. Müller, Flensburg, Dezember 2012, Nachtrag Mai/Juni 2016


Current books by Manfred Julius Müller (unfortunately currently only available in German):
CAPITAL AND GLOBALIZATION - only Euro 13.50
THE CAPITAL and the world economic crises - only Euro 5.80
THE CAPITAL and the welfare state - only Euro 7.90
OUT OF THE EU or persevere until the sinking? - only Euro 5,90
The free trade delusion - only Euro 6.50
Humanity knows no boundaries. Stupidity, but not too! - only Euro 6.80
Only Fairtrade! The capitalist Reformation! 35 theses for a fairer world! - only 5,- Euro

Manfred Julius Müller has been analysing global economic processes for over 30 years. He is the author of several books on globalisation, capitalism and politics. Some of M. J. Müller's texts have also found their way into school books or are used for teacher training.

The analyzes and texts by Manfred Julius Müller are non-partisan and independent!
They are not, as is often the case, sponsored by state institutions, global players, corporations, associations, political parties, trade unions, the EU or capital lobby!