There is no advantage to Britain in a soft Brexit.

Brexit-bill-Theresa-May-886616.jpgDespite being advised to the contrary by many acclaimed business and academic leaders, May is intent upon keeping us tied to the EU even if it is only for a so-called ‘transition period’.

Only a very small proportion of Britain’s Financial sector and an even smaller percentage of all British Business is directly concerned with the EU and the City of London has a reputation for versatility and will quickly recoup any losses of EU trade in the wide World as we open up our markets.  What is more, because of the City’s access to cheaper investment, most EU major concerns will still continue to raise capital through London.

She maintains that such a move is to prevent a ‘cliff edge’ scenario but businesses on both sides of the Channel have had more than two years to plan for the contingency.  If they have not done so, then they have no right to survive.  The beauty of ‘contingency planning’ is that it can be done simultaneously with existing operations and either implemented or discarded as required and any CEO worth his or her salt would have made such contingency plans long ago.

In fact, it has become patently obvious that for whatever reason she has, she is determined to keep Britain paying into the EU coffers and restricting our ability to trade on the World Market for as long as possible.  Her Chequers plan for the ‘Max Fac’ would continue to tie all British Manufacturers to the specifications decided by the EU and would prevent many trade deals outside of the EU as many would not choose to be restricted by EU trade rules and instead, prefer to make specific deals with a free trading Britain.

Countries have for centuries indulged in International Trade by the simple expedient of agreeing the specifications of the traded items at the time of the trade and it is inconceivable that any country wishing to trade with Britain would wish to do so if Britain were tied to the wholly restrictive conditions of EU trade.  Conditions that are completely weighted to serve the restrictive demands of the EU customs union with no ability to alter them.

In fact, a clean Brexit can be beneficial to both the EU and Britain.

In the first instance, Heath took Britain into the EC illegally in contravention of Treason Laws, the British Bill of Rights and in contravention of several Articles of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.  Each successive Government has equally been aware of this illegality but dare not acknowledge it because by keeping Britain in the EU, each Government has laid itself liable to a charge of Misprision of Treason in continuing (and enhancing) Heath’s original act of Treason.  (See:

The EU on the other hand, finds itself in a quandary.  It cannot be seen to favour Britain in its secession agreement as it lays itself open to demands from other EU States to be treated equally.  In the event of a clean Brexit, the EU can maintain all of its ‘4 Pillars’ without having to compromise them.

Britain has already taken the whole of EU derived Law onto its Statute Books and therefore, any trade with the EU will be to existing standards and Regulations and they can continue to be applied for as long as trade between Britain and the EU continues.

Further, the EU cannot apply tariffs to Britain and there would be no advantage to Britain to apply tariffs to EU derived goods.

As Rodney Atkinson points out in his ‘Free Nation’ blog.  It would actually be illegal for the EU to apply tariffs on its exports to the UK under the auspices of WTO.

“Since the EU has negotiated a virtually free trade agreement with Japan and is offering the prospect (after president Trump’s talks with the EU Commission President Jean Claude Juncker) of tariff free trade with the USA, the UK can now trade freely with the EU – and without paying a penny – because international law says so.

Japan and the EU have agreed to eliminate 90% of trade tariffs between them – without Japan being in the Single Market nor in the Customs Union, nor without paying a fat fee to the EU budget! So the UK can do the same under World Trade rules.

Trump and Juncker agreed to move towards nil tariffs on trade between the USA and the EU – without the USA paying for the privilege! So the UK can do the same.”  Read more

So, without the need for tariffs and agreed  specifications for trade, there is no need for Britain to be excluded from tariff free trade with the EU.  There would also be no need, as May proposes for a blanket adherence to EU standards as specifications can be agreed for each item.  CAP, on the other hand, may cause some minor problems in as much as a Britain free from CAP membership would not be tied to the EU quota system and it is likely that British farm produce will as a result be cheaper than its EU counterpart although some negotiation would be required on the terms of EU produce exported to Britain.

Britain would be considerably better off under WTO rules and without an FTA with Brussels.

A simple tariff free arrangement for all of the EU States and Britain would be the best for all concerned, but especially so for Britain.

Michael Burrage of the ‘Economists for Free Trade’ think tank has calculated that British exports to countries with no trade deal rose 3 times faster than with the EU15 between 1993 and 2015.

The report also states that UK goods exports have benefited “very little” from the Single Market.

In April 2016, a study by the Treasury said that Britain would be worse off by £4,300 a year per household if Britain voted to leave the European Union, with the figure increasing to £5,200 if it crashed out without a deal.

The Economists for Free Trade attacked the Treasury’s forecast in their report, describing their predictions as “dishonest, incompetent and shamelessly partisan”.

The study goes onto highlight that UK goods exports to 111 countries under WTO rules between 1993-2015 grew at an average rate of 2.88 percent, which was three times faster than those exporting to the EU15, which grew at 0.91 percent.

The report’s author, Michael Burrage, said: “Mrs May could deliver exactly what she promised at Lancaster House, and stay well behind all her red lines without the least difficulty.

“There would be no quarrel about the sequencing of negotiations, no reason for UK negotiators to be supplicants on their knees, since they would finally have some leverage.

The report also states that UK goods exports have benefited ‘very little’ from the Single Market (Image: TIM GRAHAM)

 “They would have no reason to make concessions or further payments to the EU, other than for past commitments and for participation in selected future joint activities.

“And Mrs May domestic political opposition would be limited to those who want to reverse the referendum, a far less daunting task than at present. The government could then concentrate on making free trade agreements with the EU and others over the transition period.” (copyright:

Leave a Reply

Help put the World to rights and leave a Comment

Notify of
Powered by: Wordpress
%d bloggers like this: