When Brexit nonsense hits manufacturing reality

A Brexit manufacturing timeline.

May 2016

Professor Patrick Minford, of Economists for Brexit, says of manufacturing:

Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely that we would mostly eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing and hi-tech. But this shouldn’t scare us.

Transitional arrangements should be made, lasting around 10 years, to help industries such as car manufacturing adjust.

June 2016

Mid-Derbyshire MP Pauline Latham, writing in the Derby Telegraph, explains why she wants to leave the EU:

At the weekend I made up my mind that Britain will be better off leaving the European Union. It is a decision that I have not arrived at easily, having been genuinely undecided since the referendum was announced.

Our manufacturing sector ranks number eight worldwide. The language we speak, English, is the international business language. Our judicial system is consistently rated as one of the least corrupt anywhere and our contract law is regarded across the world as the best for business. We have a long history of innovation, especially here in Derbyshire from even before the industrial revolution.

… Britain has a proud history and we want our children and grandchildren to enjoy the chances and opportunities we have had. I think this is possible outside of the EU and we should be confident that Britain can once again can stand by itself.

(This article has been removed since it was published, but fortunately I kept a copy).

March 2019

Johan van Zyl, head of Toyota’s European operations, speaking at the Geneva Motor Show to the BBC:

Mr van Zyl said it was vital that there was frictionless trade with the European Union.

He said Toyota would overcome any short-term problems at its Burnaston car plant near Derby, such as logistics, caused by leaving without a deal. But preparation for no-deal has been costly, he said, and in the long-term things could be “very difficult”.

Could work at Burnaston dry up after the current production cycle comes to an end? “The long-term effect could be that if it [Brexit] is very negative, that outcome is possible.”

Constantly improving competitiveness is vital, he said, adding: “But if the hurdles are becoming so high that you cannot achieve it then of course you can’t avoid it [hitting investment].”

Many people probably remember Minford’s comment about exiting the EU “mostly eliminating manufacturing”. It’s easier to forget that he was also arguing for a 10 year transition period prior to the referendum. One presumes he must be horrified by the negative consequences of a no-deal Brexit with no transition period. If so, he seems to be keeping very quiet about it.

As for my MP, Pauline Latham, she clearly forgot about a key reason why UK manufacturing was performing so well in 2016. The frictionless trade provided by the EU single market and customs union and required by Toyota to make sense of their investment here. Had that fact not slipped her mind, I’m sure she wouldn’t have advised her constituents to vote to leave. Surely? It wouldn’t have been rational, given the difficulty she found in making her decision.

We may be at the eleventh hour and 58th minute before Brexit, but if Latham is a genuine champion of manufacturing in Derby, she needs to take Minford’s advice. Rather than the no-deal desired by her ERG colleagues, she must vote for an extension to Article 50. That way, her government may stand an outside chance of obtaining Minford’s 10 year transition period.

Alternatively, she could recognise that she was poorly advised in June 2016 by the Brexiter elite. It would be the mark of a principled politician to acknowledge that, after all, EU membership provides the best chance of giving our children and grandchildren the opportunities we’ve enjoyed since 1973. Voting to revoke Article 50 would be a start to repairing the damage of the last two years.

The chickens are coming home to roost. Waiting for a disastrous Brexit.
The chickens are coming home to roost. Waiting for a disastrous Brexit.

Pauline Latham MP was seduced by Leave’s propaganda

Pauline Latham, my MP in Mid Derbyshire, wrote an article for the Derby Telegraph just a few hours before the EU referendum. In it she finally came out for Leave, stating that she’d carefully studied the pros and cons of membership. However, it would appear that even a professional was seduced by Leave’s propaganda, which if nothing else shows why no-one should blame the electorate for coming to their decision based on the series of half-truths they spread. Some of these, including the claim that the EU has never signed off their accounts, are naturally repeated in her article.

Leaving the half-truths aside, it’s the conclusions she makes that call her judgement into question most. Here’s an example:

One of the strongest arguments for remaining in the EU is that it provides economic security and offers the UK stability and a strong position in the world as part of a powerful trading and diplomatic bloc.

 

Ultimately I think such arguments undersell the strong position of the UK in the world and the clear power and potential we have to remain in this position. With more heat than light being generated in the debate about our place in the EU has everyone forgotten that 170 countries exist outside it? To say we cannot succeed on our own is wrong.

I’m not sure that any sane person would suggest that the run on the pound, the turmoil in the stock markets, the flight of capital from the UK economy and the downgrading of our credit rating that has resulted since Thursday is success. Maybe she’s hoping that things will get better? But hope is not a strategy.

She also claimed that one of the reasons for leaving would be to take back control over immigration. Her fellow Leave campaigners have been furiously rowing back from that assertion of course, and I wonder if she had realised that residual migration in Derby (of which her constituency covers part) meant that the population declined by 200 in 2013/14?

I’ve met a lot of shell-shocked people in Oakwood and around the city since the result was announced. People are naturally concerned about their prospects, pensions and livelihoods.

Now that Leave have won the debate, I think she owes it to her constituents to explain in clear terms what the plan is to restore prosperity. If she is unable to do that then she should apologise now and make way for someone who can.

A letter to Pauline Latham OBE MP

Dear Pauline,

I am writing to you to express my deep concern about the impact of the recently announced spending cuts in tertiary education and in particular their impact on the Open University.

I have been studying part-time for a BSc in psychology with the Open University since 2007 and should graduate this year, hopefully with first class honours. It has not been easy to achieve this for as well as the financial cost of study I have had to make considerable sacrifices of time and effort, as I work full-time, to achieve my goal.

As you are probably aware, professional careers in psychology require study to at least masters level. My intention in 2012 was to start an MSc in psychological research methods with the Open University. After all, David Cameron on a visit there in 2009 said “The Open University is a fantastic innovation that’s been copied worldwide and is a superb model of life-long learning” and he was absolutely correct.

Unfortunately, it looks as if this will not be possible, as the Open University have in the last few days announced the cancellation of all of their post-graduate degrees in the social sciences with a final intake this year, including psychology. See: http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/courses-and-qualifications/post-grad-courses.php for full details.

The only possible explanation I can think of for this is that the cuts to the tertiary education teaching budget means that they cannot as an institution afford to take the gamble of continuing to offer these courses in the hope sufficient students will continue to want to pay for them. As you are no doubt aware, these cuts have disproportionately affected institutions like the Open University whose primary mission is to provide excellent teaching rather than research.

In my own case, I would be happy to pay the full costs of my course as I am in the fortunate position of being able to do so, provided that I can continue to work at the same time. However, this choice looks like it will now be denied to me as the course I want to participate in will not be running.

I would appreciate your advice on how I may continue to work full-time from 2012 and continue with my goal of achieving an MSc in psychological research methods through part-time study, with an institution that is as well respected and innovative as the Prime Minister believes it to be. Perhaps you would also be good enough to pass this correspondence onto the appropriate minister within BIS for their suggestions as well.

Yours sincerely …