Singapore On Thames Cannot Be Allowed To Succeed

9
631

This is one of those things to be greeted with an “Well, of course” for the European Union would be severely threatened if Singapore on Thames were to be allowed to succeed:

The European Union is preparing to offer the UK a trade deal on tougher terms than its deals with Canada, Japan and a host of other leading trade partners, the Telegraph has learned.

In what will be seen by industry as an unusually harsh move, the European Commission has warned EU member states that it would be a mistake to allow some UK industry bodies to be allowed to certify that goods conform to EU standards.

The so-called Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) are granted to other key EU trade partners to facilitate the smooth movement of goods in key sectors, but could be withheld from the UK if it only seeks a basic trade deal.

EU regulation has some costs. It can indeed be argued that said costs are worth it – the EU does. But as with any other form of economic valuation whether something is worth it or not is a matter of personal utility, not something that can or should be defined for people. Thus it is necessary ,for the correct decision to be taken on the level of regulation for people to see the actual costs of that regulation. Only then, when the burden of the entire system is obvious and clear can a rational decision be taken.

Take, for example, this idea of Singapore on Thames. It’s trivially easy to rally the peeps against one or other relaxation of regulation. Chlorine washed chicken for example. But what about lifting the entire burden? Singapore is, after all, about 50% richer than Britain on a per capita basis. The correct question therefore is would you like a 50% pay raise at the price of shooting all the bureaucrats? Given the manner in which the bureaucrats don’t want the question even asked we have a reasonable enough guide that the answer would be yes.

Which is why the terms on offer to a Britain which could do the SonT thing are so terrible. Because of SonT succeeded it would be a death blow to the entire idea of how Europe is regulated. Lille, Leipzig and Livorno will all put up with interfering bureaucracy because that’s just the way the world is. But if Les Rosbifs become richer by half again simply by that bonfire of the regulations then the auto da fes will light up all over Europe.

So, yes, of course the EU is offering shit trade terms. They can’t allow an independent and free Britain to succeed. That we will anyway is what will bring that freedom and liberty to the continent – once again. For as so often it will be us that saves Europe from itself.

9
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
8 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
8 Comment authors
David MooreRichard Jamey BarnesPhoenix44Quentin VoleGavin Longmuir Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mr Yan
Guest
Mr Yan

So why offer a shit trade deal that we might not take. I know our supine bureaucrats rolled over before but it’s a risky strategy. Oh forgot, they hate us.

David Moore
Guest
David Moore

I always found the most interesting argument for staying in the EU was the fact they hate the UK so much they will punish them for leaving. That was promoted as the reason to stay in a political union with those people.

Spike
Guest
Spike

The campaign against Britain having the option of deregulating (or merely deviating in regulation) is the same as the campaign against the actual deregulation: fear over what MIGHT happen.

And the response should be the same: As long as public approval constrains those governing (which is MORE likely after Brexit), the worst won’t happen. A public wanting foreign goods will demand that regulators/diplomats make it possible. A public overwhelmingly not wanting its chicken marinated in bleach will put purveyors of it out of business.

John B
Guest
John B

Except the public in question will be in the EU and protectionism is an inherited characteristic and taught in schools.

The UK will not be affected as there is no reason for the UK Gov not to continue to allow imports with standards that the UK of course accepts as part of the EU.

Gavin Longmuir
Guest
Gavin Longmuir

Singapore on the Thames is a joke! Which came first? — Singapore’s relaxed regulations in some areas. (Try spitting on the street in Singapore to see how relaxed their regulations are!). Or Singapore’s intelligent, well-educated, hard-working, entrepreneurial population.

Don’t get me wrong — de-regulation would be a wonderful boost to any economy. But the UK voted for a “Conservative” government that wants to make the UK “carbon neutral” by … imposing regulations, subsidies, taxes. And the people of London voted for parties which are even further Left-Wing regulatory mavens than that.

Quentin Vole
Guest
Quentin Vole

But a shit trade deal would penalise the populace of the EU as well. Sorry, I forgot, the fonctionnaires negotiating the deal don’t give a rat’s arse for the people they rule over. It’s not as though they have to worry themselves about getting elected.

Phoenix44
Guest
Phoenix44

Not “as well” but pretty much “only”.

We can set the terms of imports, which is what matters. If the EU wants to make stuff more expensive its citizens wants more expensive, then so be it. It’s going to sink even quicker relative to the UK doing that.

Richard Jamey Barnes
Guest
Richard Jamey Barnes

“Fuck the EU”.

As Victoria Nuland said.

trackback

[…] the Continental Telegraph, Tim Worstall explains why the EU negotiators are reportedly offering a much worse trade deal to the United […]