VOTE LEAVE

As a result of the deluge of false statistics, bald assertions and outright lies peddled by the Remain side of the referendum campaign, the media have pushed the idea that the Remain side have won the economic argument – as if nonsense and lies are made truth by the sheer scale of which they are asserted.

The Leave campaign has now drawn level in the polls (possibly pulling ahead), and this has been put down to the strength of their arguments regarding immigration, although Boris Johnson has rightly highlighted the Leave campaign's triumph on the issue of democracy, about which the Remain side keep very quiet.

The English Rights Campaign does not accept that the pro-EU Remain side have won the argument on the economy at all. Such a victory should be measured by the sense of the argument and its persuasiveness, rather than by the numbers of entities spouting it or by the noise with which it is spouted.

Increasing attention is being focused on the EU Single Market (and rightly so, given that it is arguably the key issue, a strategic issue, and a Remain fall-back position in the event of a Brexit referendum victory). We are told by Remain that we are lucky to be a member of the Single Market and must stay so. In fact, we do not need to be a member of the Single Market to sell to the EU. Countries across the world sell to the EU. The issue is on what terms trade takes place.

Despite the alleged benefits of membership of the Single Market, Britain has a substantial balance of trade deficit with the EU. Each year, month after month, Britain is having to sell assets to foreigners and borrow from abroad in order to fund that trade deficit. Britain has had a balance of payments deficit with the world since 1983. It is very harmful and, despite economic theory, has not been self-correcting. This is a very serious problem that is getting worse. The Treasury's own long term report itself sets out a table showing that Britain has a trade surplus with the rest of the world (despite the huge trade deficit with China), whereas there is a massive trade deficit with the EU. China and the EU are the problem. Membership of the Single Market has been a disaster for Britain.

Despite a preference to ignore the issue, the Remain side have tried to exploit the trade deficit to their advantage. The Treasury's long term report (entitled: 'HM Treasury analysis: the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives') states: 'The UK ran a trade deficit of £67.8 billion with the EU (3.6% of GDP) in 2015. This was comprised of a deficit in goods of £88.7 billion (4.8% of GDP), but a surplus in services of £20.9 billion (1.1% of GDP)', and that: 'The UK’s current account deficit means it is also a net borrower from the rest of the world. In turn, this implies the UK is exposed to changes in the perceived riskiness of lending to the UK. This exposure has been noted by the Governor of the Bank of England, who has said “the possibility of a risk premium being attached to UK assets because of certain developments exists, and that plays into the riskiness of the situation”. In other words, if concerns about lending to the UK increase, investors will require a return – or premium – for bearing that risk, making it more expensive for the UK to fund its current account deficit', and that: 'there might be a sudden stop in the UK’s ability to finance its large current account deficit outside the EU'.

The Treasury's short term report ('HM Treasury analysis: the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU') states: 'The UK current account deficit of 7.0% of GDP in 2015 Q4 is high by historical and international standards'. It should be noted that this 7% deficit is double the US deficit which prompted the USA to instigate the Plaza Accord in 1985 (an agreement between France, West Germany, the USA, Britain and Japan to depreciate the US dollar against the Japanese and German currencies). The Plaza Accord was a success and the USA bounced back from a recession as its trade deficit fell.

Yet despite the scale of the escalating trade deficit, the British Ponzi class are more than happy to simply blunder on, consuming assets as income and running up debts along the way – in true Ponzi fashion. They intend to allow the deficit to continue. That is their stated policy. They have not been challenged about this during the referendum campaign. They should have been.

Between 2000 and 2012, tax paid by small businesses rose almost three-fold – despite the lending squeeze caused by the credit crunch. Meanwhile, large businesses were paying 20% less tax despite a 65% increase in profits. Had the tax paid by large businesses increased in line with that of small businesses, then the government would be receiving £50billion a year more in tax. Part of the reason is down to corporate tax dodging, and partly it is down to the scale of the foreign takeovers of British industry.

The Treasury reported that between 1997 and 2007, foreign ownership of quoted British companies rose from 30% to 50%. £440billion worth of British companies were sold to foreigners between 2005 and 2015. In 1991, British pension funds and insurance companies held 50% of British shares long-term. That figure had fallen to 15% by 2015, with foreign ownership increasing to 41%. Those sectors most affected by foreign takeovers were paying lower or virtually the same levels of tax, and thus a falling share of the total. This trend cannot continue indefinitely (see The Ponzi Class: Ponzi Economics, Globalization and Class Oppression in the 21^st Century, by Michael William, chapter 11 – available from Amazon, Kindle or direct from CreateSpace).

The English Rights Campaign supports the policy of balanced trade. On leaving the EU, the policy should be one of implementing a strategy to bring our trade with the EU into balance (and the same policy should be applied towards China). Taking the deficit with the EU to be in the region of £80billion, then, by definition, British production will increase by £80billion to bridge that deficit. Either we will export £80billion more, or import £80billion less (because we are now buying British goods rather than foreign ones) or, more likely, a combination of both. Those who would now benefit from these extra sales would, in turn, having more to spend, buy more from others, who, in turn, would do likewise. Thus output will increase further (Keynes made much of this multiplier effect). Tax revenues will increase.

In the event of tariffs being applied, then the government will receive more tax revenues still from the tariffs on imports, in addition to the extra tax revenues from increased economic growth. Thus, tariffs on foreign goods would help the government finances and help reduce, if not eliminate, the government spending deficit. The Osborne policy of austerity would end. The application of tariffs in 1932 was what propelled Britain into a boom. Although the world has become accustomed to lower tariffs, the fact remains that we should not be frightened of them. They are a tool to be used in the right circumstances. The Remain side's scaremongering about tariffs is tripe.

The wild allegations of Britain's economy going into recession due to a shock are nonsense. The allegations are simply wishful thinking peddled by the anti-British, pro-EU lobby. They should be ignored.

We have nothing to lose on leaving the EU, and have much to gain. We need to hold our nerve, and do what deep down we know needs to be done. Vote Leave.