Some perspective on trade and Cameron's dangerous games

Supporters of the EU talk a lot about the impact on trade of leaving the EU. They tell us that leaving the EU will be devastating for trade and cost 3 million jobs.

This claim is simply based on just under 10% of our trade being done with the EU, an assumption that just under 10% of of jobs are therefore linked to trade with the EU and a ridiculous assumption that leaving the EU will mean ending all trade with the EU and therefore making those jobs redundant. The idea that we would cease all trade with the EU when we leave is just preposterous and there is no evidence of any correlation between the percentage of trade we do with the EU and the number of jobs in the economy. These jobs (whatever the number really is) rely on trading with the EU, not being a member of the EU. Almost every country in the world trades with the EU and almost all of them are not members of the EU.

Let's just put these claims about trade into perspective shall we?

How much of the UK's trade is actually done with the EU? Listening to the Remainians you'd think it was most of it but it's not. Less than 10% of trade carried out in the UK is with an EU member state, just over 10% is carried out with non-EU countries around the world and a little over 80% of trade in the UK is domestic trade carried out within the UK.

So only about 9% of trade carried out in the UK is with EU countries and the other 91% is either domestic trade or with the rest of the world outside of the EU. The impact of the laughably implausible scenario of all trade with the EU ending two years after our referendum is not insignificant but we're talking 9% of trade, not 90%. In the incredibly unlikely event that the EU stops trading with its largest export market - that's us if you didn't know and it's something that literally nobody but Guardian readers believe would happen - then we're talking about 9% of all trade carried out in the UK as it stands now without the increased trade from being able to trade freely with the rest of the world again.

So whilst trading with the EU is important and of course serious curtailment of trade with the EU (which would be illegal under WTO and EU rules) would have a negative impact on the economy, what about the benefits of not being shackled to the red tape machine that is the EU Commission? Being able to retake our seat on the World Trade Organisation would be a positive, obviously. Free trade agreements with the world's largest and fastest growing economies would of course be another huge positive. But remember that over 80% of our trade is with ourselves where free trade agreements and import duties are irrelevant. The biggest difference leaving the EU will make on our day to day lives is that the 91% of our trade that's conducted outside of the EU won't be regulated and restricted by the EU.

When we vote to leave we can do away with EU tariffs on energy saving lightbulbs that were imposed to protect german manufacturers from cheaper Chinese imports. Nor will we pay through the nose for "cheap" shoes because of EU tariffs imposed to protect Italian cobblers. We will be allowed to eat bendy (or straight) bananas and square strawberries. We won't have to cover the cost of the EU's carbon trading scam scheme through our energy bills. In other words, we will be free from the kind of clueless, self-perpetuating bureaucracy that can spend 6 months investigating the safe quantity of wine gums a lorry driver can eat before discovering to their utter amazement that wine gums don't actually contain any alcohol.

By drafting in big business to fight on the side of Project Fear, David Cameron and his cronies are playing a very dangerous game. They are backing these companies into a corner where they will be forced to react negatively to a leave vote to save face, having told the world that the UK outside of the EU will be bad for business. Investors aren't going to have faith in the board of a London-based company that predicts the collapse of their business when we leave the EU and then after we've voted to leave carries on as if nothing happened. If they can't get that right then what else have they got wrong and while we're at it, why is their investment being risked by using it as a political football? These are the inconvenient questions they will be keen to avoid.

The complete lack of planning for a leave vote is another dangerous game. It's sowing uncertainty and it's having a negative impact on the economy. This is deliberate of course because companies and investors like certainty and they're not getting any and what better way to scare people into thinking a leave vote will damage the economy than by sabotaging it while we're still talking about it? Companies and investors want to know that the British government has a plan for life after Brexit but all they're getting is lobbying from ministers and civil servants trying to get them involved in Project Fear.

But the most dangerous game of all is talking down our prospects. Having spent the whole referendum campaign telling the world that we can't survive without the EU, he can't then tell the world that the UK is the best place to do business outside of the EU after we've left. In his desperation to make voters think that the world's 5th largest economy can't survive outside of the world's fastest declining economic bloc Cameron is telling the world that we are weak and that they may as well give us a wide berth when we vote to leave.

These are not the actions of a capable leader, these are the actions of a desperate man who has staked his political career on this referendum and has no qualms about taking the economy down with him to try and secure the result most likely to keep him in a job.

Swiss referendum could make or break relations with Brussels

SWITZERLAND VOTES today in a closely fought referendum on whether its current bilateral relations with the European Union have a future. What began life as a vote on extending free movement of labour agreements to the newest EU member states, Bulgaria and Romania, has been linked by parliament into an all-or-nothing vote on relations with the entire bloc.

Final polls show a slim majority in favour of the two motions, although the final result has gone down to the wire in the face of growing economic uncertainty and strong populist opposition. As preveously reported here Switzerlands economy benefits from being outside of EU

Unlike the aftermath of Ireland’s No to the Lisbon Treaty, EU officials say a Swiss No today would automatically terminate half a dozen other linked bilateral treaties agreed between Brussels and Berne in the last decade, covering everything from lowering trade barriers to managing alpine traffic.

Traditionally opposed to full EU membership, Swiss voters agreed in 2000 to a collection of bilateral agreements with Brussels. A seven-year deal allowing EU and Swiss citizens mutual residency and working rights was up for renewal by referendum this year. After a lengthy and heated debate, parliament took the controversial decision to link that vote to another pending vote, on whether to extend current bilateral arrangements with the EU to Bulgaria and Romania. Pro EU politications fearing of a back lash have called the move an abuse of Switzerland’s famous system of direct democracy, where citizens vote in regular referenda to decide public policy. All main political parties bar one have campaigned for a Yes vote. But convincing voters to open their country’s borders to two of Europe’s poorest countries hasn’t been easy, particularly in these uncertain economic times.

The main opponent of the referendum, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), says that letting Romanians and Bulgarians into Switzerland will drive down wages and increase unemployment among Swiss workers. The party, led by industrialist Christoph Blocher, is notorious across Europe for previous referenda poster campaigns. This time around, posters show black ravens tearing strips from the flag this will no doubt have a effect on voters like previous posters have.

The effectiveness of the party’s poster campaigns is disputed: they have not yet swung a referendum in the SVP’s favour, but political analysts say it boosts the partys support. Leading EU officials have made is plain clear that snubbing its two newest member states is not the best basis for the start of a new relationship. If the referendum passes, officials on both sides are expected to upgrade current ad-hoc relations to a more formalised framework that will grow with new legislation and regulations.

The proposed new framework could cover everything from agricultural free trade to the conditions under which Swiss troops would automatically participate in EU-led peacekeeping missions. Brussels has made it clear the Swiss can not pick and choose EU policies - rejecting free movement could threaten those crucial free trade ties.Switzerland may not be in the EU, but it needs a good relationship with Brussels as one in every two Swiss francs is earned through trade with the EU, and one in every three Swiss jobs depends on that trade.

This once again shows the EU is willing to bully people in voting into the way they want threatening them with consequences if they vote NO, and if they Swiss do vote NO whats the bet of them having to vote again ? Is this really an organization the people of Switzerland want to join....