EU Referendum


Brexit: a bundle of lies from Wolfson


06/09/2013



000a ES-006 Wolfson.jpg

Following his intervention in January, when he was calling for the UK to remain part of the EU, but on renegotiated terms, Lord (Simon) Wolfson is back in the fray. This time he is working up a case for the Evening Standard, in preparation for the coming debate on 9 September.

We must radically reform the EU or prepare to leave it, says the headline under which writes the noble shopkeeper – he of the retailer Next. The legend is that Britain benefits hugely from the Single Market but we need to halt Europe's rush towards a federal state.

This is total garbage – totally total. The European Union is never going to give up its "rush towards a federal state", which means that Wolfson should be heading us towards the exit.

But this time, he is adding layers to his argument, asserting that "the debate about Britain's place in Europe is in danger of being hijacked by two dangerous extremes". On the one hand, there are "those who argue that we should pull out, regardless of the economic consequences". Those are "needlessly reckless".

But there are also, "those who say we must simply accept the EU's ever-increasing political and economic costs". Those are "just as bad, if not worse".

The slyness of this is not immediate apparent, but what the man is doing is framing the debate – artificially constraining the argument and pointing us in the direction he wants us to go. At this time, he says, the debate should not just be about "in" or "out". Instead, he tells us, "our politicians should be fighting for a better European settlement, a looser Europe based on free trade — an EU most of us would want to remain within".

The point here is that the debate isn't just about "in" or "out". It should also be about how we get out, and under what terms. But Wolfson wants us focused on what he defines as "the heart of this debate" - his heart. This is " the enormous trading benefits the EU brings to the UK". If we left, says Wolfson, "British goods could be more than 10 percent more expensive to European customers. This blow to our competitiveness would damage exports and jobs would be lost — the EU accounts for nearly half our foreign trade".

Now, this simply doesn't follow. It only becomes true if we adopt the "needlessly reckless" option of pulling out "regardless of the economic consequences". If we sought EFTA/EEA membership and retained our membership of the Single Market, there would be no blow to our competitiveness and no jobs would be lost. Wolfson is creating a straw man of his very own.

But the man is nothing if not sly. Having so carefully constructed his straw man, he further distorts the argument, by creating yet another. Ignoring completely the EFTA/EEA "Norway" option, he graciously concedes that we could "mitigate some of the damage if we were able to negotiate free-trade agreements in place of full EU membership".

This, though, is damage that Wolfson wilfully embraces by setting aside an option that would completely remove it. Instead, he offers us the sop of a partial answer, but only so that he can knock it down.

These (free-trade) arrangements allow the two-way flow of goods between trading blocks, unencumbered by import duties, says Wolfson. Europe is a net exporter to the UK and such arrangements would be in their interests. So scare stories about losing three million jobs wildly exaggerate the threat.

And now comes the downside. "Nonetheless, exiting the EU would still come at a price. Our current membership gives us a vote on rules governing the entire European market. Without a say on these we would find our EU trade subject to damaging regulation over which we had no control".

Without saying so directly, this is the "fax law" meme – in spades. The man does not even attempt to cosy up to the truth. Not for him, losing influence. This is a "no control" scenario, worthy of the very best the BBC has to offer - a naked, unadorned lie.

The lie isn't enough for the shopkeeper, though. "And while free-trade agreements might well help manufactured exports", he says, "they would not help the City and our other service industries".

So does he ladle on the hurt. "London’s pre-eminence in European financial services is deeply resented by its Continental competitors. Those suspicious of 'Anglo-Saxon' finance would quickly regulate to lock us out of their markets — our most valuable industry could suffer a crippling blow, one which would affect the entire country's prosperity".

This is pure FUD. But it would not happen, not with a careful Art 50 negotiation, membership of EFTA/EEA and rigorous application of WTO agreements. Add Basel III common standards, and the impact of our departure on the City would be minimal.

But still our man isn't finished. Remember that he has eschewed the Norway option. Now he lays on the FUD, highlighting problems that would not exist if we adopted the Norway option. This is dishonesty in spades.

Says Wolfson: "Our ability to move freely within Europe’s borders and our access to affordable European imports is enormously beneficial to UK consumers. Reduced access to the Single Market would push up prices and limit choice in our shops. Protectionism, that absurd but seductive belief that the restraint of foreign goods can make us richer, is a sure-fire road to ruin".

You can see why the likes of Wolfson so desperately need to ignore the Norway option – why they need to push the "no control" meme. Take those two crutches away and their arguments fall apart.

But, with the FUD in place, Wolfson allows us a brief glimpse of a vision of hell. "Yet whatever the EU's economic advantages, we must not allow ourselves to sleepwalk into a federal Europe", he says. And then pretending to be a good guy, he "despairs" of those who talk of preserving our "influence" by not rocking the boat. These terrible people are "plainly weak".

And now comes the message from the sponsor. "Europe desperately needs reform, and it will not happen without a little boat-rocking", he says.

Thus, the tortuous and almost certainly unsuccessful process of reform, which will require an IGC and the unanimous agreement of all 28 member states, is reduced to a "little boat rocking". Who could possibly object to that? It is so easy when you protect the truth with a bodyguard of lies.

"Without reform Europe will continue to become more bureaucratic, less democratic, less efficient, and much more expensive", Wolfson goes on to say. The implied "promise" is that with "reform", Europe will miraculously become less bureaucratic, more democratic, more efficient and much, much cheaper.

Wolfson, though, is nothing if not clever. He knows he needs some "dog whistle" issues to throw to the anti-EU brigade. "The EU debate is not, and should not be, just about money", he declares. "It is also about liberty".

In a litany that could come from the lips of Farage himself, we are told that, "The EU is not a democracy. Most power resides in the unelected Commission and part-time Council Of Ministers. The political aspirations, cultures and economies of Europe are simply too diverse to be governed centrally". So, says Wolfson, "if the EU continues its march towards federal government, it will become Big Government of the worst kind: out-of-touch, divided, profligate, and tyrannical".

All that is going to change if Wolfson has his way. But change is always implied, never promised overtly. If it was an up-front promise, Wolfson would have to tell us how it would be brought about. But because it is not overt, the impossibility of the task is not evident. And it is shrouded with platitudes.

"The task at hand is great", says the man, in a script that could have been written by Peter Sellers. "If we are to succeed in changing Europe we must do much more than negotiate the odd concession and rebate. We must re-define Europe's central mission".

"In place of the deeply undesirable goal of ever-increasing political union, the EU must have a new simple, clear objective: free trade — the unimpeded movement of goods, services, capital and people. Only once we have redefined the EU's purpose can we hope to roll back damaging regulation and cripplingly high costs".

This is BS. No one should be able to say with a straight face: "once we have redefined the EU's purpose". It simply isn't going to happen – not Wolfson nor anyone else can tell us how it is going to happen. Not anyone in mainstream EU politics is going to accept that the EU's purpose needs redefining, or will be redefined.

Yet here is the Evening Standard allowing a man to indulge in unrestrained fantasy. Promising a moon made of green cheese would be just as unrealistic. But this man even has the nerve to say that, "the process of change has begun". It hasn't. Change requires an IGC. This is all or nothing: IGC or bust – and it's going to be a bust.

Without admitting that, Wolfson tells us the decision, whether to stay in the EU or chart our own course outside, "is finely balanced". Says our man, "If the EU cannot change, and will not temper its headlong rush to an expensive, unwieldy federal state, then we should leave".

Yet there is no "balance", fine or otherwise.  The rush to the "federal state" is the very object of the EU. We should leave. But Wolfson will not allow that: "we are not at that stage yet", he says. Evidently, more fantasy Europe is needed: "The British Government has the chance to make a difference. It should take heart from the fact that, if successful, it will be laying the foundations of a better Europe, not just for the UK but for all its peoples".

And so, with that final dash of fantasy, we get the peroration: "Ministers must be clear in their thinking and bold in their demands". What is it about these hard-headed businessmen that turns their brains to jelly when they confronted with the EU? And how can Ministers be clear in their thinking, when Wolfson can't think straight?

COMMENT THREAD