Ruth Lea is trying to sell us a pup.

I don’t know its exact origins or whether it is unique to the part of England I hail from but ‘to sell a pup’ is to try to flog something that is not what it first seems. It is on closer inspection of poorer quality than the buyer envisaged, in short, a con. Today we have economist Ruth Lea trying to sell us the proverbial pup, this time in CityAM. What is alarming in this upbeat piece?

“Trade would continue under World Trade Organization rules if Britain left the EU; it would be the default position.”

This quote seems reassuring, everything will continue as normal, right?However if we left the EU relying solely on the above then trade would be adversely affected as these rules concern tariffs only and not the real obstacle to free flowing trade which are non-tariff barriers(NTB). In order to overcome the NTB the single market has developed elaborate systems to ensure regulatory convergence which means, of course, exports from each member state being accepted as conforming to the same standards and so being waved through quickly at customs. If we leave based solely on WTO rules this all stops.The UK would become a third country, it’s goods would not have the mutual recognition paperwork and so would be subject to rigorous border checks and expensive testing to show it met the required standards. The negative effect this would have on trade to a large export market cannot be overstated. Trade would inevitably slow down resulting in chaos, monetary costs to business and job loss.

Ruth Lea does state that we should conclude a trade agreement using Article 50 but worryingly gives no indication of looking beyond tariffs and wanting the problem of regulatory convergence solved. For example she states that the EU has no trade agreement with China, but this is only if you are looking at one that reduces tariffs and is registered with the WTO. There are other kinds of agreement, with China having 13 bilateral ones with the EU including an all important Mutual Recognition Agreement(for conformity of standards) signed in 2014. The situation is similar for other nations such as Australia and the US. An agreement on mutual recognition of standards is essential for modern trade, they can take many years to conclude and having a UK-EU one in place post-Brexit would be of paramount importance, yet in her piece Ruth Lea gives no indication that they even exist.

“…we could repeal or amend those regulations associated with the Single Market which businesses find most irksome.”

This seems to be the classic bonfire of the regulations meme that is still doing the rounds. Yet with the onset of globalization it is increasingly becoming the case that regulation is not made by the European Union but by global bodies under the aegis of the UN and then passed downwards, examples being UNECE, codex and the IMO. Ruth Lea even admits this in relation to the financial sector yet still argues that regulations in the social sphere could be gotten rid of; ignoring the fact that these originate with the International Labour Organization! Therefore outside the EU we would still accept the same regulation as if we were in it but instead receive said law directly. Therefore there will be no mass purge of red tape and it is wrong to suggest otherwise.

“And finally, we would no longer be a major contributor to EU funds…”

Many of you will recognize this classic trope, it is the old ‘think of all the money we would save that we could spend on…’(insert your preferred choice), but again this is myth. The UK will still have to pay out for: access to the single market, EU programs such as the Single European Sky and Erasmus and of course our own versions of CAP and CFP, which will not come cheap. In the end we are probably not going to save much money, so for the likes of Ruth Lea to suggest otherwise is simply inaccurate.

So you see Ruth Lea is trying to sell us a pup, all is not what it at first seems. Leave the European Union under WTO rules and with no Mutual Recognition Agreement in place then chaos will ensue. The bonfire of regulation that she suggests just ain’t gonna happen and as for huge amounts of money saved, well, you can whistle for that. Think about this for a moment; if I (and those of like mind, who are committed Brexiteers), can see the flaws in this kind of old Eurosceptic argument then imagine how gleefully the Remains will take it apart, publicly and timed perfectly just before the vote.

Postscript: If you are interested in a more up to date and progressive argument for Brexit than Ruth Lea’s then please look here and here.