Brexit and Mr Mark Carney are the subjects of today’s letters. The first letter is from our correspondent Geoffrey Lazell:

Sir,

“Project Fear Revisited” has now hit our TV screens! With Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, in his usual supporting role, ‘Spreadsheet Phil’, our ‘Star Remoaner’ Chancellor has produced another Oscar-winning performance in this latest sequel to his oft-critiqued ‘Doom and Gloom’ series. As ever, viewers are left wondering if this falls into the ‘Fact’ or ‘Fiction’ genre as the Brexit saga continues to unfold – or unravel.

Whilst not an economist, I can do simple calculations. According to HM Government’s own figures, our 2016 net contribution to the EU budget was £9 billion. So, just taking that figure alone, over the 15-year period this dire prediction of poverty supposedly covers, would we not be £135 Billion better off before we even consider the plethora of other costs our membership of this unaccountably expensive club involves?

Let us add the costs involved for the 92% of British businesses who do not trade with the EU yet are still forced to obey all its regulations. Let us add the cost to our beleaguered fishing industry in terms of revenue lost to foreign vessels. Let us add the cost of food imported from outside the EU, currently liable to high tariffs and the cost of food imported from within the EU which we could buy more cheaply on the world market – if only we were allowed to. What about that £39 Billion ‘divorce’ bill we could save too? The list goes on.

Finally. what about the value of being masters of our own destiny, of once again being a sovereign nation free from the shackles of the Machiavellian hegemony that is the EU? What price does this creative duo put on that? To those who voted “Leave”, it is priceless. The EU should view the UK less as “Treasure Island” and more as “Paradise Lost”!

Respectfully, Geoffrey Lazell

On the same subject is the following letter from our correspondent Roger Arthur:

Sir,

Mark Carney’s Brexit projections have NOT factored in any significant reduction in the cost of EU regulations. This Moneyweek article illustrates yet again why we must not be constrained in future by the EU rule book.

It imposes an enormous burden on the vast majority of UK companies (around 90%) which don’t even export to the EU but are expected to comply with it.

In 2005 Gordon Brown estimated the total cost of EU Regulation compliance at 7% of GDP, ie over £150bn pa. Offloading that burden alone would blow Carney’s estimates into deep space. But above all that is the need to be free of EU unelected tyrants such as the one here – just watch his lips.

They will only reform towards ever closer Fiscal, Political and Military Union. Their answer to every problem is more EU – and 408 (62.8%) of constituencies rejected that in 2016!

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

In the next letter, our correspondent Septimus Octavius proposes words Ms May may say – if she were a Brexiteer:

Sir,

Of all the lies and errors being trotted out by all and sundry these days, without doubt the one that irritates me most is the statement to the effect that “there is no Parliamentary majority for no deal”.

This is completely untrue, disregarding as usual the inconvenient truth that we are still full members of the EU, so that EU law still trumps UK law; and Article 50 is a rule of EU law.

Parliament has expressly authorised the Government to give the Article 50 Notification in 2017, and has no lawful ability to do anything about that now. Article 50 expressly provides that if no Withdrawal Agreement has come into effect before 11.00 p.m. UK time on 29 March 2019 (this moment now statutorily defined as “exit day”), then at that moment the UK is released from the Treaties of the EU. Accordingly, Parliament has already legislated for the possibility of no deal; and that is what will happen if there is no deal. It is well worth emphasising the essential aspects of this position.

Firstly, it is indeed a matter of EU law, which means that no person or institution on earth has any power to change it; EU law is positively tyrannical in this respect.  Secondly, in expressly authorising the Article 50 Notification, Parliament is actually demanding that a no deal exit occurs if there is no Withdrawal Agreement in force at exit day.

The Prime Minister, who has proved to have a remarkable ability for political survival, can turn the certain defeat of the dreadful, terrifying, abject surrender known as the draft Withdrawal Agreement into a triumphant declaration of victory!  This is all she needs to say:

I can now reveal that the whole reason for this charade is that it gets us exactly where we want to be; it is absolutely certain that a no-deal Brexit is the best option for the UK.  It saves us £39 billion. It avoids the potentially fatal EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 trap that Dominic Grieve so cleverly inserted. We exit on WTO terms which simply need a few technical tweaks to implement.  It leaves us entirely free to negotiate whatever we want with whomever we want, including the EU. There will of course never be a hard border in Ireland because nobody is going to build one. So, we now leave the negotiating table and leave the EU to stew in its own juices.  They can usefully use the time between now and 29 March to consider what deal they wish to seek with the newly independent UK.”

But will she?

Respectfully, Septimus Octavius

Finally, our correspondent Mr King writes about the resignation of Mr Gyimah, the now former Universities and science secretary:

Sir,

Sam Gyimah seems to be the first of 10 ministers resigning, who was a Remainer.  He says “I have seen first-hand the EU stack the deck against us time and time again.” So is he still a remainer?

He likens dealing with the EU to playing against a team that includes the referee. Dyson has been telling us something similar for years and things will clearly not improve if we continue to dance to the E.U.’s tune as proposed by Mrs May.

The man favours another referendum but does not seem clear on what questions might be asked. Why would he not instead fight for no deal on WTO rules? That would give more certainty than an another drawn out referendum, followed by yet more negotiations and would better reflect what 17.4m voted for.

Should he be taken seriously, or not?

Respectfully, Mr King

Print Friendly, PDF & Email