BREXIT and beyond ....

Wednesday, 1 June 2016

Britain is in denial. If population trends continue, by the year 2050, Britain will be a majority Muslim nation

Vincent Cooper

On 13 June 2013 07:33

The future of Britain?

Britain is in denial. There is no real public debate on a historic event that is transforming the country. Mention of it occasionally surfaces in the media, but the mainstream political class never openly discuss it.

What is that historic event? By the year 2050, in a mere 37 years, Britain will be a majority Muslim nation.

This projection is based on reasonably good data. Between 2004 and 2008, the Muslim population of the UK grew at an annual rate of 6.7 percent, making Muslims 4 percent of the population in 2008. Extrapolating from those figures would mean that the Muslim population in 2020 would be 8 percent, 15 percent in 2030, 28 percent in 2040 and finally, in 2050, the Muslim population of the UK would exceed 50 percent of the total population.

Contrast those Muslim birth rates with the non-replacement birth rates of native Europeans, the so called deathbed demography of Europe. For a society to remain the same size, the average female has to have 2.1 children (total fertility rate). For some time now, all European countries, including Britain, have been well below that rate. The exception is Muslim Albania. For native Europeans, it seems, the consumer culture has replaced having children as life’s main goal.

These startling demographic facts have been available for some time (see ‘Muslim Population “Rising 10 Times Faster than Rest of Society”’, The Times, 30 January 2009. Also the work of the Oxford demographer David Coleman). But on this historic transformation of the country there is silence from the political establishment.

Not everyone agrees with these demographic figures. Population projection, some say, is not an exact science. Perhaps the Muslim birth rate will drop to European levels.

But this seems to be wishful thinking. For years it was believed that Muslims would enter what is known as “demographic transition”, with European Muslim birth rates falling to native European levels. But that demographic transition has not happened. In Britain, for example, the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities continue to have significantly higher birth rates than the national average, even after more than 50 years in the country.

Over the short term (a few generations) demographic forecasting is as scientific as any social science can be. Britain and the rest of Europe are in native population decline and European Muslim birth rates are up. If that trend continues, then the projection of a majority Muslim population in Britain is sound. Even the highly respected economist and historian Niall Ferguson accepts the figures.

Many British people find it hard to believe their country could become majority Muslim. After all, it was never what they wanted so why, in a democracy, should it be happening? But we’ve had such disbelief before. Back in the 60s and 70s, many people scoffed at the notion that London could ever be majority non-white. But today it is.

The fact is that the deathbed demography of native Britons has come up against increasing Muslim birth rates and the result is a classic Malthusian geometric increase in the Muslim population. As Malthus emphasised, populations increase geometrically, not arithmetically. Given two populations, one declining one increasing, within a few generations the geometric increase of one over the other can be substantial.

Why has the Muslim birth rate not fallen to native levels? Just as there may be consumerist-cultural reasons for the low birth rates of native Britons, there may be strong cultural reasons for higher Muslim birth rates. As the journalist Christopher Caldwell puts it: “Muslim culture is full of messages laying out the practical advantages of procreation. As the hadith saying has it: ‘Marry, for I will outnumber peoples by you.’”

Yassir Arafat understood the political power of high birth rates. The Palestinian population increased sevenfold in one generation from 450,000 in 1967 to 3.3 million in 2002. The wombs of Palestinian women, Arafat said, were the “secret weapon” in his cause. The Israeli government is very much aware of Palestinian demographics.

Population projections over the long term can be wrong. But for Britain, over the short term, whatever way you do the numbers, they all point in one direction: Britain will be a majority Muslim state by the year 2050.

The political and social consequences of all this will be significant. Britain’s traditional foreign policy, particularly regarding the US and Israel, would very likely change. In fact the US and Israel are already anticipating the consequences of a majority Muslim Western Europe.

Britain’s social landscape would also be changed. The Adhan, the Muslim call to prayer, would very likely be heard throughout most of Britain. The traditional iconic sights and sounds of the country would also change from church bell-towers to minarets.

Very likely all of this would happen gradually but there can be little doubt that it will happen, and it would be perfectly democratic.

Given that such a historic change is taking place, the silence of the political class is curious, to say the least. Britain, until the 1950s, could trace its ethnic and cultural ancestry back thousands of years. In 1903, in Cheddar Gorge Somerset, the remains of a pre-historic man were found. Known as Cheddar Man, DNA tests on this almost 9000 years old skeleton showed that he has living descendents today, still in Somerset.

In fact, genetic studies show that the populations of the British Isles (and Western Europe) have been stable for millennia, giving the lie to the oft quoted liberal comment that “Britain has always been a country of immigrants.” That’s false. Until the mass immigration of the 1950s, Britain was ethnically homogeneous. (See Bryan Sykes’s Blood of the Isles.)

The long stretch of Britain’s exclusively European identity is now coming to an end, yet the political class refuse publicly to discuss such a culturally transforming event. Why the silence from the politicians? Are they not proud of their achievement?

The answer is that the demographic projections of a majority Muslim Britain show the British political class to have been catastrophically wrong on multiculturalism and immigration, and they are genuinely afraid to admit it. The British political establishment cannot give the full truth about immigration.

The former Conservative MP George Walden, considering the fears of his fellow MPs in discussing particularly Muslim immigration, wrote:

“I’d be so alarmed by the situation I’d do everything possible to suggest it was under control. It’s up to politicians to play mood music in a crisis, and up to the people to understand that there’s little else governments can do. The last thing they can say is that we face a threat to which we can see no end because it’s based on a clash of cultures. On the IRA we told the truth; on the Islamic problem, we lie.” (Walden, Time to Emigrate? p.120)

Back in the 60s and 70s, the British political establishment united in condemning Enoch Powell, not just as a racist but as being factually incorrect in his demographic predictions. Since then, the subject of immigration has split British politics between the truth-denying, but morally superior, political mainstream and the truth-telling legacy of the bogeyman Enoch Powell.

For good or bad, the history of the last 40 years has vindicated Powell on many issues and shown the political establishment to have been wrong. Some major figures on the liberal-left now acknowledge this fact.

David Goodhart, the founder of Prospect magazine, in his new book The British Dream, argues convincingly that he and others on the liberal-left got it wrong on immigration.

But they also got it wrong on democracy. The projection of a Muslim majority by the year 2050, coupled with the fact that the vast majority of the British people have consistently opposed large-scale immigration, post-war British politics must represent the greatest ever failure in democracy. If ever the “Iron Law of Oligarchy” were proved right, then it is post-war British politics that has done it.

Vincent Cooper is a freelance writer with a particular interest in philosophy, mathematics, and economics

Boris Johnson calls David Cameron a 'merchant of gloom', says UK would 'thrive' outside EU

David Cameron warns that a post Brexit trade agreement with the EU based on the Canadian model favoured by Boris Johnson would bring 'seven years of uncertainty'

By Laura Hughes and Kate McCann

4:10PM GMT 11 Mar 2016

Boris Johnson: The only thing to fear is fear itself, and even that isn't scary

Our political correspondent Laura Hughes has provided this summary of Boris Johnson's speech this morning.

Boris Johnson has said he would like Britain to strike a new free trade deal with the EU, based on the one Canada has struck with Brussels.

This would be a deal based on trade and tariffs and would mean Britain would not be forced to allow the free movement of people.

Speaking at a factory in Dartford this morning he said: "I think we can strike a deal, as the Canadians have done, based on trade and getting rid of tariffs. It's a very, very bright future I see."

Boris Johnson is known for his oratory skills.

Boris Johnson? Photo: PAUL GROVER

Asked to comment on the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on the EU, Mr Johnson joked that he wasn't sure what the bible says on the issue of Europe, but added that "prayer is all that's going to be left if we don't vote Leave."

The Mayor urged Brexiters to "hold our nerve and vote for freedom" and described the EU as an "anachronism" which "costs us a huge amount of money and subverts our democracy".

Mr Johnson said the In campaign think Britain "doesn't have the guts" to burst out of the "shackles" of the EU.

He said the remainers are "underestimating" Britain and what it can achieve, as he called on voters not to be "timid" and to resist the "gloomadom poppers."

He said: "The tragedy is that we didn't get any real reform and everyone knows it. The only way to get real reform is to leave.

"I think the only thing we have to fear is fear itself and fear isn't even that scary at the moment."

Mr Johnson said that if the public were asked if they wanted to join the EU in 2016, they would see it as "a bit mad and idealistic" and some of the demands made on Britain as "deranged."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12190687/

Where next? A liberal, free-market guide to Brexit

This report sets out recommendations for liberal policies in the fields of trade, immigration and regulation, which we believe are required in the event of a Brexit in order to offset the costs and maximise the economic benefits.

Original ThinkerREPORT Britain & the EUExperts: Raoul Ruparel,Stephen Booth, Vincenzo Scarpetta

13 April 2016

The EU referendum is a crucial decision about Britain’s future, but the campaign so far has failed to adequately address how life outside the EU might look. It will not be an apocalypse and it will not be a utopia. The growing economic evidence suggests that there would be a small negative economic result from Brexit, probably in the region of 0.5% – 1.5% of GDP in the long run, presuming a reasonable trade agreement is struck between the UK and the EU. The question then is whether the UK can use its new found freedoms to offset this cost or reverse it to a positive outcome.

We believe it is possible, but the path to prosperity outside the EU lies through: free trade and opening up to low cost competition, maintaining relatively high immigration (albeit with a different mix of skills), and pushing through deregulation and economic reforms in areas where the UK has historically been sub-par compared to international partners. There is no doubt that such an approach would disappoint a number of people on the ‘Leave’ side and whether there is appetite for such changes in the UK is unclear. One thing that is clear is that Brexit cannot be all things to all people.

Below, we outline the key priorities for a UK Government post Brexit:

Trade

a) The first step would be to try to strike a Free Trade Agreement with the EU and to maintain the FTAs Britain has with other states via the EU. As we outlined in our previous report, this is not an easy task and could take many years. The emerging consensus is that – taken by itself – there would be a small negative economic impact from leaving the customs union and the single market in the long run.

b) The second step would be to build FTAs with other states to try to offset this effect.

Contrary to popular belief, countries don’t only strike free trade agreements with large states or economic blocs. Medium-sized economies such as Norway (80%), Australia (77%) and Canada (69%) have managed to strike FTAs covering a significant proportion of their trade – more than the UK at 63%. For Norway and Canada this is reliant on having reached an agreement with their largest trading partner – the EU in the UK’s case. However, Australia and New Zealand have proven a more diversified approach can also work. Striking deals with US and China would bring the UK’s share of trade covered by FTAs to over 81% – slightly higher than Norway’s.
Evidence suggests this will take some time. Globally, trade deals have usually taken anywhere between four and ten years to negotiate. The EU is not uniquely sluggish.
There is a trade-off between speed and scope. A more complex agreement addressing services and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) does seem to take longer. Basic agreements focusing on goods tend more towards the four year end of the scale while more comprehensive deals tend towards ten years.
One option for the UK to speed up this process would be to dump the EU’s all or nothing approach. That way, the UK could strike initial agreements on removing tariffs on goods and revisit negotiations on services and NTBs at a later date. This would make sense for emerging market economies where tariffs are relatively high and the majority of UK trade is in goods – China, India and Brazil fit this category.
Striking a series of FTAs with Asian economies (China, India, Japan and ASEAN) could deliver a boost of up to 0.6% of GDP for the UK, going some way to offsetting the negative impact of leaving the EU customs union and single market. Alternatively, a unilateral free trade approach could deliver a boost of around 0.75% of GDP in the long run.
A case study of the agricultural sector highlights the tension between opening up to the rest of the world or continuing protectionism and subsidies. There are potential savings for both taxpayers (£1.5bn) and consumers (between £400m and £1.4bn) from liberalisation. However, this would mean creative destruction and would see a number of farms going out of business, not least because 19% of British farms do not currently make any profit. So far, comments from politicians suggest they are not willing to take on the established interests in this sector. How much more widely would this apply post-Brexit?
Recent controversies, particularly around the steel sector, highlight the potential political challenges to opening up trade with emerging markets and particularly non-market economies such as China. Striking trade agreements with such countries may well face significant grassroots opposition.

c) The third step could be revisiting and updating older agreements.

Only eleven of the 33 EU FTAs currently in force cover services. Often the biggest difference between trade agreements does not come from the size of the negotiating parties, but whether it is a first generation agreement (basic, focused on tariffs and goods) or a more comprehensive second generation agreement (dealing with services, NTBs and regulation).

Immigration

a) While there would be political pressure to reduce immigration following Brexit, there are several reasons why we believe headline net immigration is unlikely to reduce much:

The business case for maintaining a flexible supply of labour. The evidence suggests that, with a record high employment rate, the UK’s labour market is already tightening;
the political and economic challenge of finding policy alternatives to relieve pressure on the public finances caused by ageing demographics, where immigration can help smoothen the path to fiscal sustainability;
the effects of globalisation on migration flows, which the UK is not alone in experiencing;
and the likelihood of some constraints on UK immigration policy under a new arrangement with the EU.

b) Nevertheless, free from EU rules on free movement, the UK would likely pursue a selective policy more geared towards attracting skilled migration, which could be more politically acceptable.

c) Open Europe would recommend a system seeking to emulate the points-based systems of Canada and Australia. The system could be weighted strongly towards those with a job offer, but also offer a route for skilled migrants seeking work. Such a system could give priority to UK industries and employers suffering skills shortages but also allow a flexible supply of skilled workers to enter the UK labour force subject to a cap which could be varied depending on economic circumstances. However, there is likely to be a continued need for migrant labour to fill low-skilled jobs. Therefore, the UK would also need a mechanism to fill low-skilled jobs or meet labour shortages where employers have recently relied on EU migrants.

d) However, there is likely to be a trade-off between the depth of any new economic agreement with the EU and the extent to which the UK will have to accept EU free movement. The evidence from the precedents of Norway and Switzerland suggest that the deeper the agreement, the more likely the UK will need to accept free movement. This might mean building in preferential treatment for EU citizens in the UK’s new points system, which would give EU nationals priority over non-EU nationals, or it could create a separate temporary migration scheme for migrants from the EU.

e) The UK is far from alone in its migration experience in terms of developed economies. Between 2000 and 2015 the UK received 3.7 migrants for every thousand people, which puts it just above the average but below countries such as Canada, Australia, Norway and Switzerland. If the UK had experienced the same level of immigration as Canada or Australia there would have been an additional 3 million or 4.4 million migrants respectively coming to the UK over the past decade – though of course the UK is a more crowded country.

Regulation and competitiveness

a) There is certainly scope for deregulation outside the EU, though maybe not as large as assumed. We estimate a politically feasible deregulation agenda could lead to permanent gains of 0.7% of GDP – with savings coming mostly from three areas: social employment law, environment and climate change and financial services. But even such a scenario would involve difficult choices such as scrapping renewable energy targets and deregulating social and employment laws.

b) More broadly, the UK remains one of the most competitive developed economies, particularly in areas such as: labour market, business environment and product market regulation. Yet there are of course potential gains, especially in areas such as: education, skills, infrastructure and costs of certain services. There is little evidence that the EU holds us back in these areas, but their reform and the ensuing competitiveness boost will become increasingly crucial in the case of Brexit.

Implications

These findings have important implications for the type of relationship the UK should seek with the EU post-Brexit. Realising the potential economic gains we’ve identified – notably via immigration and deregulation – means a relatively high degree of flexibility from the EU. The confines of a Norwegian or Swiss-style arrangement would not deliver this. As such, the best option would be for the UK to pursue a comprehensive bilateral free trade agreement, aimed at maintaining as much of the current market access as possible while also adopting a broader liberalisation agenda over the longer term. Of course, this is easier said than done.

This paper is not an endorsement of Leave or Remain, but an attempt to flesh out some of the policies which we believe the UK may reasonably have to adopt in the event of a Brexit in order to offset the costs and maximise the economic benefits.

http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/guide-to-brexit/

A4_Report_Brexit-II_Cover-V4-Web_Digital

Talking of our Report

The study by the free-market thinktank Open Europe found that other large developed countries with low unemployment outside the EU also had high migration. It points out that Canada, Norway and Switzerland, all countries sometimes highlighted by Brexit campaigners as representing a model for a better relationship with the EU, have all experienced higher levels of net immigration.

The Guardian, 13 April 2016

Respected think tank Open Europe says Britain will take a short term hit to its economy if it walks out of the EU. Growth will be as much as 1.5% a year less if we lose access to the single market.

The Sun, 13 April 2016

Britain’s economic output would probably be between 0.5 and 1.5 percent smaller than it would otherwise be by 2030 if it decides to quit the bloc in a referendum in June, according to Open Europe, a pro-market research unit.

Reuters, 13 April 2016

Open Europe, a think-tank, will publish a report on Wednesday setting out recommendations for how the UK could function outside the EU. This would involve trying to strike a free-trade agreement with the EU and making new agreements with other states.

The Financial Times, 12 April 2016

A range of estimates compiled by the think tank Open Europe suggests that our economy would take a hit of around 0.5 to 1.5 per cent in annual GDP, in large part due to the hassle of having a customs barrier between us and Europe. But as Open Europe also points out, without the strictures of EU policy we will also be free to take measures that offset these costs. The question is how we use this freedom.

The Telegraph, 13 April 2016

EU Referendum - A "make or break" time for Britain

EU Referendum

The EU referendum is a once in a lifetime opportunity to shape Britain’s future inside or outside the European Union.

It’s sure to cause a lot of short-term economic turmoil – and the final decision will have far reaching consequences. And while there are pros and cons of EU membership, MoneyWeek is backing Brexit. Here’s the place to find out why.

Britain must leave the EU.

And we must do so at the earliest possible opportunity – before our country is imprisoned and stripped of its sovereignty for good.

In the report below - 'A "Make or Break" Time for Britain', you'll discover the truth about what Brexit means for our country… and for your money.

A "make or break" time for Britain

A clampdown on non-doms. Taking away the tax advantages of private-equity funds. A higher tax on dividends. As the election campaign gets under way, the main political parties are rolling out policies one after another that will directly hurt the City.

- Why it’s not an exaggeration to call the EU: a blueprint for slavery
- The three ways the EU controls you every day
- What “Brexit” will do for the UK economy

You may find some of what follows controversial. You may even disagree with it whole heartedly. But you owe it to yourself to hear both sides of the story before you cast your vote.

Ultimately the most important vote you end up making will be with your money. This report will also show you how to stay informed as the Brexit vote approaches. The risks, the consequences, the opportunities… all the economic and financial repercussions will be discussed in detail, on an almost daily basis.

But first, to learn why the stakes are so high, and how we reached this crucial moment of national decision, let me show you how we got here. It begins with a plan.

The EU: a blueprint for Slavery

First let's begin with an important point. Being against the European Union doesn’t mean you hate Europe. The EU is an organisation that’s trying to increase its power, in the name of promoting unity in Europe.

For instance, you may well have voted in the 1974 referendum, held during Edward Heath’s government. If you did, you’ll remember that the choice back then was to become a part of a common European market… not the European Union as we know it today.

Britain chose to join a club based on free trade, only to find that the rules could be changed without our agreement… and that it’s nearly impossible to leave. What began as an amiable and beneficial trading accord has morphed into a proxy parliament… and now into a prison.

The illusion of freedom and democracy remains… but the reality of the EU has always been opposed to these values. The same is true across Europe. Take the Treaty of Lisbon. Its first incarnation was the EU Constitution in 2005.

The people of France rejected it. So did the Netherlands.

And then what happened? Did the EU respect the decision of the people?

Nope. The legislation was recycled into the Treaty of Lisbon, and passed in 2009.

The idea that an unelected organisation can reach into the heart of a sovereign state’s inner workings and DEMAND that the laws of the land change is reprehensible.

But that is what is laid out in the EU’s operating manual… a recent issue of the European Yearbook, published by the Council of Europe, states that:

The centre of decision of economic policy will be politically responsible to a European Parliament...

These transfers of responsibility represent a process of fundamental political significance…

Handing the control of your affairs to a stranger is a recipe for disaster… whether that’s the UK’s political leaders abdicating power to bureaucrats in Brussels, or you as an investor handing control of your money to someone else. It’s a bad idea either way.

The critical moment is right now…

Not once in the history of the EU has a nation like ours stood up and said we’d be better off outside of it.

That is what our referendum is: a challenge.

It’s a direct threat to the EU’s real agenda – which is to concentrate political and economic power in the hands of unelected elites.

That’s why our challenge terrifies them.

Right now, we’re at a critical stage. There is no way to maintain the status quo. We are at a fork in the road.

A ‘stay’ vote commits to the EU in ways we will never be able to undo. Over the years, it will continue to centralise power, like a black hole sucking everything towards itself, to strip us of our autonomy piece by piece.

A ‘no’ vote is the ultimate threat to the EU.

The EU already influences a minimum of 13% of British laws directly… and perhaps as many as 64%, depending on where you get your figures.

It already regulates certain foods, important financial matters, climate change rules, how many migrants can cross our border… and the list goes on. In fact, the 100 most burdensome regulations cost the UK £33 billion a year. It commandeers between £8 billion and £20 billion of taxpayer money – your money – every year.

No matter what our politicians say, a ‘stay’ vote gives the EU a mandate to reach across the channel and strip our nation of its sovereignty.

It happens with one little law… one obscure regulation… one indecipherable directive at a time… until, one day, in the near future, the ideas of freedom and liberty that Britain has stood by for centuries will have been destroyed.

It’s only then that people will wake up and realise what the EU really is: a blueprint for slavery.

The three ways the EU is gaining control

The EU may not openly control what Britain – or any other state – does, but it advances its agenda subtly… largely unseen… and without restriction. There are three particular methods the EU uses to increase its power. Remember, it’s all about control.

Control #1: the money

As any Greek, Cypriot, Portuguese or Irish citizen will tell you, debt forces nations to do things they’d never freely choose to do otherwise.

And it’s why the creation of the European Central Bank – and ultimately the Euro – has been vital in helping the EU acquire power, something Margaret Thatcher warned of in 1979:

“[In] that kind of Europe,” she said, “[there] is no democracy.” The point is “having a single currency, a monetary policy and interest rates which take all political power away from us.”

Thatcher was right then. But today, the EU’s control of the finances also affects you on a much more personal level.

For instance, did you know that at the start of 2016 the amount of money you have guaranteed in any UK bank dropped from £85k to £75k, entirely to bring it in line with EU ‘standards’?

It might seem innocuous now. But as the Cyprus “bail-in” showed, allowing the EU to dictate the financial laws and regulations between you, your bank and your government can have disastrous consequences.

Control #2: law making

Our elected Parliament should have the ultimate power to make laws in Britain.

The EU has turned that rule on its head.

The European Court of Justice asserts its own supremacy over and above the role of national parliaments. The UK’s parliamentary website explains:

“Provisions of EU law that are directly applicable or have direct effect, such as EU Regulations or certain articles of the EU Treaties, are automatically… incorporated and binding in national law without the need for a further Act of Parliament.”

This idea has been challenged in court in several nations across Europe. But the EU still asserts its own law-making supremacy above that of national member state parliaments.

Again, it did this without the people of the EU ever having the choice.

But it’s the third control that causes the greatest concern.

Control #3: the language

Vladimir Lenin once said: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

Take the Treaty of Rome. If you’re unfamiliar with this, it’s generally seen as the official beginning of the EU in 1957 (or the European Economic Community, as it was known back then). It committed the states to “ever closer union among peoples.”

Those five innocuous-sounding little words gave generations of European elites the weapon they needed to keep pushing for more Europe, closer ties and more centralisation of power.

The EU charter nearly prevents any member nation from being able to leave without receiving approval.

Consider Article 50.2 of the Charter:

“A Member state which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.”

In other words, the rules state that we must negotiate our way out if we decide to leave the EU. That means we sit at a table with the European Council… and we cannot leave until they “agree” to terms acceptable to them.

In short, it means that even if we vote to leave, the European Union can dictate the TERMS we leave on.

In 2008, the people of Ireland clearly and decisively rejected the Treaty of Lisbon.

But again, instead of listening to the people’s choice and dropping the bill, the Irish were told to go back and do the vote again!

This time, in 2009, the ‘correct’ result came in.

That’s almost certainly what will happen if we vote to leave the Union. At first we’ll be told: “Go back and do it again.”

If that doesn’t work, the recriminations… sanctions… and heavy handed negotiations will begin.

What Brexit will do for the economy

A more entrepreneurial, less bureaucratic British economy should be good news for our economy.

But the reality, as Vicky Redwood of Capital Economics says, is that both the purported gains and losses from Brexit are overstated.

Even if the EU imposed tariffs on UK exports, “this 4% cost would be fairly easily absorbed” while any hit to EU trade would be offset “over the long-term by the extra opportunities to boost trade with emerging economies.”

There’s also the £10bn-odd in savings that the UK would make on its contributions to the EU.

A big player in the debate is Britain’s finance industry.

The City itself is split on our membership of the EU. And while the press tends to assume that they act out of self-interest, a vocal minority speaks from the heart.

For example, talking to hedge-fund manager Crispin Odey (an Outer), he’s less concerned with the impact on his business one way or the other, than with a desire to see British democracy fully restored.

But as far as the risk to the City goes, Michael Petley, chief executive of investment manager of the ECU group, points out that the City was 100 years or more in the making and has huge competitive advantages over potential post-Brexit rivals.

London is a world leader in accounting, financial technology, regulatory matters, banking and capital markets.

Petley reckons it would take 25 years to create a financial hub to replicate this. On top of that, London’s success has brought in hundreds of thousands of expatriates and their families from around the world.

A major financial centre needs schools, housing, hotels and an airline hub. The population is 8.5 million, but it touches a multiple of that each day. London is more than a city, it is a network – and that is irreplaceable.

Another big concern is trade.

The UK has a trade deficit with Europe – we buy more from them than they buy from us. So a trade war is no more desirable for Europe than it is for Britain.

And sure, new trade deals would have to be struck. But as Jonathan Lindsell of the Civitas think tank points out: “Swiss negotiators close more deals than the EU does, often with larger economies.”

Business for Britain has put together a detailed analysis of how a new trade deal with the EU could be pre-negotiated before any Brexit. The rest would quickly fall into place.

Steve Baker MP, head of Conservatives for Britain, notes that Britain is already a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Under these rules, Europe must offer us “most favoured nation” trading status. As a result, says Baker, “our membership of the WTO defrays even the worst-case scenario of trade barriers being erected under WTO rules if we left”.

More broadly speaking, global trade tariffs have been falling under globalisation.

Free trade benefits all involved, so it is in no one’s interests to reverse that. In any case, the EU promotes the trade in goods over services – it wasn’t built for Britain, a world leader in services. And overall, the EU is becoming less important in our overall trade mix.

The Office for National Statistics states that the EU’s share of global GDP has fallen from 30% in 1993 to 24% in 2013.

That reflects the growth of the emerging markets. The proportion of trade accounted for by the EU “has fallen consistently since 1999”, reports the ONS. In fact, as MEP Daniel Hannan points out, “Britain is the only EU state that sells more outside the union than to other members.”

Conclusion: we should go on alone

We do not hate Europe... but we don’t have to like the EU.

Winston Churchill believed in a united Europe.

He wanted to see the free movement of goods, capital and labour, and believed that free trade would bind nations together and create a lasting peace.

But as he once said, “if you make 10,000 regulations you destroy all respect for the law.” Excessive rules feed a bulging bureaucracy; they don’t create a better European economy.

While the EU may have embraced free-market ideals early on, it has moved away from them.

The EU’s actions and structures drive its members towards a centralised social and political model, fed by high taxation.

In turn, that means that power will always flow towards and serve the interests of the biggest, most influential partners in the EU – Germany and France.

That attitude is holding back the rest of Europe, particularly those countries locked into the euro. That’s a great pity. But we don’t have to remain part of that.

There is no doubt that Britain would thrive alone. The EU in its current form serves neither Britain nor Europe. It must undergo radical change. And if it can’t or won’t, then Britain should go it alone.

http://www.capitalandconflict.com/make-or-break-time-for-britain