Jeremy, for the love of the party, please just resign.

Every time I feel like this car crash can’t get any worse, somehow the wreckage of the labour party reverses away from the wall, only to smash full speed back into it. This week has been the most unedifying spectacle and it breaks my heart knowing how hard activists, MPs and the party as a whole have worked these last few weeks. We’ve seen experienced members of the cabinet resign from all wings of the party, from the left wing, such as Lisa Nandy and Kate Green, to Hillary Benn and Charlie Falconer on the right. Sections of the membership continue to attack MPs in the most disgraceful of ways, from vile abuse to the standard “Blairite war mongerer” dig directed at everyone regardless of their views or history. Never mind how did we get here, how do we get out?

Corbyn’s leadership was always going to be rocky, given both his history with the press and how he began his leadership by picking them for his first target. I don’t disagree that they’ve been awful to him, and they have been ridiculous from the start, but it was always going to be that way. To continue picking fight after fight with them was never going to help get his important message across. In the same theme neither were the constant communication own goals we have seen leading to an impression of not just chaos, but sheer incompetence.  Everyone can make a mistake but only a fool repeats the same actions expecting a different outcome. This has to end or the party will disappear and the country will be left dangerously vulnerable to a hard right conservative party unbound by European regulations.

Let me make this clear, I did not vote for Jeremy, but I sympathise with those who did and even more so with those such as Angela Eagle who literally gave it all they had in the hope of making it work. I too wanted to make it work, but seeing her so broken on national television made my heart ache. And this is not the first time she has been treated terribly. Too often we have seen Angela fronting the media when labour is in crisis after crisis, usually not of her own making. Not only this but too often announcements have been made without communication, leaving people like her tirelessly slogging it out in the media only to be undermined live on air about an announcement Corbyns team have made off the cuff, that the shadow cabinet have not been consulted about. It’s not how to manage a team in and it’s not how to run a government. It’s just disrespectful.

There have been some great electoral successes and some of McDonnell’s ideas about private sector right to buy have been just the sort of new thinking we need. The victories of Sadiq Khan, Jim Mcmahon and the metropolitan mayoral contests are great successes we should be proud of. But it isn’t enough. We are not seeing enough signs of labour moving into new seats outside of the big cities. Worse still, we’re seeing UKIP encroach all over our northern heartlands. Not only is UKIP now second in countless northern seats, but they straight beat us in the referendum. As a proud person from Hull this send chills down my spine. If what happened to labour in Scotland happens in these seats then we are toast. The decision to leave the European Union potentially affects these seats most, as I have written about before, and so the decision really is as devastating as I am trying to make out. If this doesn’t worry you, then I fear that you are not really Labour. Labour is not about wearing  a badge of your socialist purity, “old labour” values or whatever other name people are ascribing to, it’s about making an actual difference and doing the best you can for our communities.  

This back and forth war between Jeremy and the press, Jeremy and the right of the party and now Jeremy and all wings on the Parliamentary Labour party has to stop.  New polling has now shown what I feared would happen and a majority of 2015 labour voters now want him to step down. Not only this, but anecdotally even amongst friends who joined the labour party because of him, he is becoming a figure of ridicule. The labour party is not about one person; it’s about a cause and seeking electoral power to fulfil that cause. If the increasing evidence, and there is more than just the recent polling, continues then Jeremy is clearly not the right person. Jeremy is a nice, charming person, but he isn’t cutting through.

I know many have shouted me down when I raise this point. Without question they ask “what is the point in power if you get there with a right wing Blairite agenda?” And I would agree if that were the case that anyone was proposing a right wing agenda, but they’re not. I think that you really don’t know the parliamentary labour party if you’re willing to believe that caricature. When Jo Cox died we all agreed how inspiring her work was. But to believe that she is unique and that no other MPs work as tirelessly for labour values is just obscene. Either you don’t know much about our elected members of parliament or you chose not to because it challenges your views. I have met several Members of Parliament and the people who work for them. They work ridiculous hours, believe passionately in their causes and put up with being treated like punch bags from people on all sides. And they don’t deserve it.

I have my favourites to replace him, but that is for another discussion. What is important is that he and his supporters are given space to consider his position without it being as confrontational as it is now. I am not attacking you because of his or your views, I respect them and largely agree. This is about being able to lead, communicate with the country and run a team and campaign properly. So I ask, please, Jeremy. For the sake of us all. Just go. 

Has the EU really done UK fisheries a disservice? Or is it just Farage CODswallop?

Everyone by now I hope has managed to forget the event that was the Brexit Flotilla and erase it from their memory. I expect that most were somewhat moderately to extremely embarrassed, whatever your views, by the prospect of British politics being defined by a pair of rich eccentrics having it out across the Thames. I personally had sympathies both ways, I am voting for remain and so was clearly rolling my eyes when I heard of “our Nige's” latest stunt, however, like most I have sympathy and respect for British fishermen and the difficulties they face. We have all been told how wasteful the common fisheries policy is, how fishing as an industry has been on the decline and how, if we believe our press, foreign ships are taking unfair catches from British waters.

Farage and Hoey camping it up on the Thames

But is this the case? It is a narrative we have all swallowed and a genuine sympathy and respect I expect we all feel for fishermen. Fishermen work incredibly hard in an extremely dangerous job. When they are at sea there time can be sleepless, cold, lonely and away from family and missing out on some of the most formative parts of their children’s lives. Not just this, but we all know of how the industry has changed, as the employment share of fishing has gradually declined. But is the EU to blame?

A look at the decline in employment shows that the number of jobs in fishing had been declining as fishing stocks were also falling, well before the common fisheries policy was implemented. There has been some decline since, but this is not necessarily due to the policy, as other changes have also occurred. As with all industries, overtime productivity increases and the labour intensity also declines.

Landings by profit

The aim of the common fisheries policy is to allow fishing stocks to recover. Over-fishing, particularly in the North Sea, has led to a decline in many of the most popular stocks of fish. This is a big problem, acknowledged by most fishermen at the time of the creation of the common fisheries policy. If this had been allowed to continue, it would have led to greater declines of the fishing industry, across all countries using the North Sea, than we have actually seen. Since then many stocks have recovered and quotas, including Britain's, have began to be increased. In addition the practice of dumping when vessels over fish has been reformed.

Landings by value and weight

Another important point on this topic, which surprised me, is the advantageous position UK fisheries get vis a vis our neighbours. The quota system was set in relation to the level of national catch taken in the 1970s in order to preserve fishing communities at their then levels. Within this, the UK has the second highest catch of all countries. In addition the UK has the largest profit on its sales of any country and is in the top three for the weight and value of its catch. 

Many people are angry about foreign fishing vessels active in British waters, but it is worth considering what action could realistically be taken here. The UK as mentioned gets larger quotas then other countries and also fishes in many other countries waters, as well as selling in their harbours and receiving repairs there. So any ban on other countries could have detrimental consequences for UK fisheries.

Tonnes of allowed fish by EU member states 2016

Of the UK fishing catch £1 billion is exported to other EU countries, particularly Spain and Southern Europe, which lack many of the cold water fish stocks located in our waters. David Cameron has pointed out that no country in the world exports fish into the EU market tariff free, including Norway and Iceland the big bogeymen of British fishing, and so British fishing could be massively hit in the event of a Brexit. 

The biggest irony appears to be, particularly for smaller fishing vessels,  that it is the UK government which has done the biggest damage to British fishing. A look at the level of quotas given out within the UK shows that the government has continuously given the majority of it's fishing quotas to just 3 companies, with massive effects on the smaller vessels and smaller fishing towns. It is the British governments responsibility, and always has been, to decide how it allocates its quota. It was the British law which allowed the infamous dutch ship the cornelis vrolijk part of the British quota and again, a British government which gave over 60% of the quota to just 3 companies, leaving just 39% for everyone else.....

There clearly are other issues which I am unaware of and would not want to comment on around health and safety and other regulations in the fishing industry. I also think until it was reformed the practice of dumping was still a massive issue, but has since been looked at and has improved. My point being that there are clearly other big issues. 

The position of British fishermen in the EU is therefore not as simple as the CODswallop Farage has been spinning. Contrary to what he has been saying about the EU quota system, designed to ensure larger stocks in the future, the UK has a better position then it's competitors; it has larger quotas, catches and profits then other countries. The problem appears to be that the UK government has showed constant and blatant disregard for the industry. They have ignored smaller British vessels and favoured big businesses .Not only this, but the very scare stories blamed on the fisheries policy are  actually the UK's fault. It was British law which allowed the infamous dutch vessel to take so much of the British quota and not the common fisheries policy.

Please see below for further reading and refferences on data etc

 https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/griffin-carpenter/eu-common-fisheries-policy-has-helped-not-harmed-uk-fisheries-0

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/factcheck-the-eus-impact-on-uk-fisheries?error_code=4201&error_message=User+canceled+the+Dialog+flow#_=_

How would Brexit affect British manufacturing and is Hull most at risk?

The majority of Brexit campaigners have accepted that their will at least be an immediate short-medium term hit to economic growth in the event of a leave vote occurring next Thursday. This is the result of the uncertainty such an event will likely cause, with the potential job losses and turmoil being described in the Sunday times as "difficulties". Indeed such “difficulties” have already began to show themselves with over £100 billion disappearing from UK stock markets in the last 10 days alone affecting both levels of investment and the very assets our pension funds depend on. But what would this mean for the future of the economy in terms of what we make, produce and sell to the world and, in particular, what would it mean for Hull?

In a recent interview a prominent Brexit campaigner admitted when discussing the likely changes to the UK economy which will occur following a vote to leave that, whilst he thought the economy would thrive eventually, it would largely mean an end to manufacturing production within the UK. This candid and rather stark omission seems more befitting of a pre-financial crisis analysis of the UK’s economic future with the then typical adulation of the financial services sector.  It is really quite striking how far debates have come since 2007 that it seems, at least to me, so jarring with current political consensus on the future of the economy and the re-balancing agenda. This can be seen, even as presented by a conservative chancellor George Osborne, on the need for the UK to re-balance and the talk of the Northern Power house.

That said, whilst it may seem at odds with much political discourse on the economy, it does contain a large element of truth on what would likely occur in the event of a Brexit to UK manufacturing. In the event of a Brexit there are at least 4 major risks to UK manufacturing;

1) Any increases in tariffs will make already expensive UK exports even less competitive

2) Any trade deals with big blocks like China, the EU or USA will likely favour their terms and, in the case of China, almost certainly mean the UK economy opening up earlier to free trade than in China, with terrible consequences for UK companies. 

 3) A loss of investment as EU institutions, which have favoured industrial regions in the UK, such as Hull, plus a further loss as companies looking for an EU base for their production look to EU locations rather then an isolated UK ( e.g Hitatchi, Toyota). 

4) If the UK does move more to financial services, as would likely be the case, it will lead to massive strengthening of the pound due to the inward flows of capital and a further increase in the price of UK exports making them less competitive.

But why does this matter if, as many people believe, “we don’t produce anything anymore” . The problem is that this often spun misconception simply is not true, industrial production has never actually declined in the UK and the country remains one of the largest exporters of manufactured goods in the world. The only change which has occurred is the total share of employment within industry which has declined, as productivity has increased with new technologies and innovations. Indeed even in spite of this change in productivity many northern industrial belts cities still contain some of the largest industrial shares of employment, ranging up to nearly 20% employed directly within manufacturing. This is then supported by many more employed in ancillary services supporting those industrial companies. 

This is unquestionably true of my home city of Hull. As can be seen from the industrial employment share map of the UK above, Hull's share of employment in manufacturing is one of the highest in the UK. Not only this, but it is also one of the most industrially diverse manufacturing cities which has not fallen into  the regular trap of specialising in one particular type of production like steel making. Many big household names have large production sites in Hull and East Yorkshire, including Reckitt Benkisser one of the worlds largest pharmaceutical companies which started in Hull, employs 1200 people and is investing over £100 million in the city. As well as this, Hull's thriving caravan and temporary building construction industry is one of the biggest in the UK and relies on exporting to the continent. The sector employs nearly three times as many people in Hull, as proportionally in the country as a whole. Other big companies with big shares of employment and production in Hull include BP, Smith and Nephew, Henner, Cranswick Foods, Arco and now the massive Siemens renewable energy investment in Hull creating 1000 jobs and representing a £160 million investment. 

The proposed Green Dock and Turbine proposed by Siemens representing 1000 jobs

In addition the largest share of Hull exports goes to the European union and would be at risk both from increased tariffs in any form, but also from the disappearance of European direct investment in the UK. This includes investment from companies looking for a European Union base for their production, but also the direct funding from European economic institutions which have favoured the region.

Hull has the second highest level of investment per head of all English regions by European economic institutions, such as the European investment bank. I accept the argument that this is UK money going via the EU, but does anyone in Hull really believe that a likely Boris Johnson led Conservative, or even Labour government would prioritise the region? They have never done so before and even the "Northern Power House" agenda has largely ignored the city. None of the big transport projects will be coming to the region and so the argument that a UK government would maintain the investment or, even increase it to Hull, is at best frankly farcical and at worst down right insulting.

There are also massive none economic projects in Hull which have relied on European Union investment. The deep received £9.4 million of European Regional Development Funding, the Kingswood development was funded by the same scheme, Hull and East Riding museums have received over £1 million in funding, the Hull truck theatre received £1.5 million towards it's development, £25 million is being invested in Hedon Parklands to turn it into a business centre, the Gypsyville transformation too, Ferensway and also Bridlington Spa have benefited. Many of these within the Arts and Culture sector have become reliant on European funding at a time when the UK culture budget has been decimated by an austerity focused conservative government. 

A look at the employment shares within Hull below shows just how dependent Hull is on manufacturing compared to the rest of the UK. A number of 1.0 means that the employment within that sector in Hull is proportionally the same as across the country. Any number above represents a higher share of employment in Hull then across the country as a whole, with vice versa any number below less. For example the share of manufacturing employment in Hull is 1.8 compared to the UK as a whole, meaning manufacturing makes up proportionally nearly twice as much of Hull's employment as the national average. This could potentially mean dire economic consequences for Hull should manufacturing indeed be hit in the event of a Brexit.

Source:Office For National Statistics

There are clearly many other arguments to leave which I have not touched upon here, the point of this is to show just how vulnerable Hull is to a Brexit, if as is likely manufacturing were to be hit. Hull is a proud trading city which, increasingly rarely for the UK, has a very diverse industrial sector which it should be incredibly proud of. Hull exports all over the world and indeed massively to the European Union. An outward looking Britain being an active part of a dynamic European Union makes Hull stronger not weaker. This international focus has been and continues to be the key to some of our biggest success stories. In the event of a Brexit manufacturing will be massively at risk and the economic future Hull has been working for and deserves will  be needlessly put in jeopardy.  The rules of the European Union mean regions like ours who have been hit hardest by the recession and changes in the global economy are prioritised for funding. Does anyone honestly believe that this funding would be given back to us in the event of a Brexit by the very domestic institutions and politicians that have ignored us for so long? I doubt it. When you hear those promises from the likes of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage, remember the past. They have never delivered for us before so we would be a fool to believe them now.....

Personality or Policies? How do we vote?

In a recent Guardian interview acclaimed feminist and gender theorist Susan Faludi commented on the American Presidential election with frustration at what she perceived as an irrational approach to choosing elected officials.  She remarked that “people want to fall in love with candidates, to identify with them, rather than to address the election as rational citizens”. The implication being that people do not judge candidates based on their solutions to complex problems, but on how they identify with them on a more instinctual level.

The motivation for Faludi’s opinions is clearly her frustration at the emotional and energetic support politicians like Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama incite from their supporters, which she perceives as absent from Hillary Clinton's. The first two energetically identify and simplify complex problems, such as stagnating wages, inequality and target sections of society left behind by changes in the international economy; most notably those resulting from the trebling of the international labour market. Indeed China’s WTO entry  and also economic integration of the former soviet countries is one of the defining, yet least commonly understood economic events of the last 25 years.

Their solutions are simple to understand and their rhetoric loud, powerful and emotive. In the case of trump the solution to problems involves rejecting the “lazy lefty liberal” status quo and being more assertive against the world, most notably China and the Middle East. For Sanders the target is the rich, the powerful and those who succeed from collective effort whom seek not to return the favour. His solutions are higher taxation and massive increases in services and spending, with little regard for the likely political impasse in the American legislative system or how it fits within current institutional frameworks or the fiscal position. What they both have in common is that their personalities are loud, emotive, confident and whatever your views on them personally, incredibly compelling.

But for Clinton, whilst in many ways her analysis of the problems is the same, if meeker and less bellicose, the solutions proposed are, in contrast to Sanders and Trump, often highly detailed, complex and respected by experts. The problem with this is that a complex plan which aims to extend and reform the regulatory legal framework of the shadow banking sector, insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industry is not going to set the campaign on fire. Indeed when comparing this to an easy to comprehend, soundbite appropriate ban on Muslims, tax the 1% or rein in Wall Street, a wonkish regulatory proposal will have little traction. Nor is a much needed overhaul of family policy, such as child care, which evidence says will do much more to tackle poverty and inequality then most proposals put forward by her competitors. Indeed promoting full time labour market attachment amongst women is one of the single biggest ways of reducing poverty and inequality. It has long term benefits if the care also includes effective education for the child, but also higher household income and lifetime wage growth.

Clearly, however Clinton v Sanders or Trump is not a perfect test case for any theory that personality matters more than policy in elections. There are a plethora of other factors at play in someone’s motivation for choosing a candidate and to assume such a binary model of decision making is just a tad reductive. Indeed Clinton is a much more established candidate in which much of the public already have solidified feelings, which would always be difficult to challenge; as many have put it there is a lot of shit already stuck to her wall…..

What is more, in the current anti political, even toxic climate, having a breadth of experience is a fundamental weakness. At a time where there is such political dissatisfaction and a yearning for a greater pace of change, having a reputation for consensual compromise and incremental progress within a messy US political system is not a good look. Not only this, but people are deeply suspicious of Clinton, potentially rightly so…

There are other anecdotal examples too closer to home, such as the results of elections in Scotland, the labour leadership and also the last general election. In the first example of the 2015 general election in Scotland, areas like Glasgow were a straight fight on the left of politics between the SNP and Labour.  In light of the eventual result and SNP victory therefore it is notable that Ed Miliband’s policies were commented on as actually being more radical and effective by many left wing commentators; indeed many have acknowledged how the SNP copy and pasted several policies from the labour manifesto, including many they had previously denounced. But this had no effect on the eventual result with a full on labour rout in well-known left wing bastions. The crucial factor, arguably, was that that the bumbling, awkward demeanour of Ed Miliband was never a match for Nicola Sturgeon, a fearsome orator with sass and a piercingly sharp wit.

Another anecdotal example is that of the Labour leadership election; Jeremy Corbyns supporters repeatedly highlighted his warmth, character and asserted, rather insultingly to his opponents, that “he’s a real person, he’s not a robot”. He had no history of messy compromise and his plans were often off the cuff, simple and with a clear populist target in mind; the rich, the banks and the big businesses avoiding tax. In contrast, Yvette Cooper, had detailed plans and an incredible grasp of policy details whether it be on immigration reform, the banking sector or how family policies improve ordinary people’s lives.  Like Clinton she too viewed child care and parental leave along the same lines, that they should be viewed on a par with transport infrastructure in their fundamental importance to the economy. But yet again in the eyes of her opponent’s voters it was her personality which was her weakness; they argued that she lacked charm, seemed too polished or even, rather offensively, robotic and so could not be trusted. She is in many ways the archetype politician who when asked a difficult question triangulates, equivocates and defensively avoids answering directly. Perhaps this is a product of experience too. As a government minister most of their contact with the public and the press will indeed be defensive. Trying to spin, react and avoid saying what everyone largely already knows, but to admit would be to lose the argument.

The last example offers the potential for a more robust assessment of how people vote, however with less reliance on anecdote and subjection. A study by Sheffield University conducted a panel survey of voters in the general election with repeated interviews over a year or more before the election regarding their opinions. It controlled for their opinions of their party, their voting intention and also their opinion of party leaders as well as individual characteristics such as education. They found that, after taking account of party allegiance, which is clearly the largest factor, for both David Cameron and Ed Miliband peoples personal opinion explained 15% and 14% of why people voted for them. What is interesting however that is for smaller parties the figures were much larger, with 35% for Nick Clegg and 43% for Nigel Farage.

The results are informative and interesting, but obviously cannot really be extrapolated beyond the case of a general election. They don’t dispute that long term party allegiance is still the most important determinant and, as such it doesn’t inform much about contests where voters largely agree, such as selecting a new party leader. In these contests it is arguable that policy vs personality is more important. Indeed it’s questionable whether party allegiance is really a good instrumental variable or proxy for policy. In these contests, or those where parties fight on very similar positions we’re left with anecdote and assumption, with the usual danger of selecting the cases to fit your predisposed narrative (which I admit I could be accused of too).

Indeed there are clearly politicians and cases which are contrary to this. Angela Merkel with her considered, consensual and cautious approach is arguably the most notable and successful example. Her power in Germany is almost hegemonic in spite of a career largely in absence of any strong opinions or charisma. Her approach is the archetype of a politician who seeks consensus and the best achievable outcomes given each situations constraints. Indeed for those who think it is a particularly female problem, the likes of Nicola Sturgeon, as well as Angela Merkel require some consideration.

From a personal, anecdotal perspective speaking to people in Sweden where I live about how they vote is incredibly informative.  It is always shocking as a Brit how rational and calculating they are when it comes to important decisions. For them it is a case of simply judging the status quo against the likely outcomes of the policies proposed by each party. Indeed in discussing the referendum with them they are always shocked at how emotional and personal it has become, pointing out quite wisely that this is how regrettable decisions are made. One look at their recent leaders and you can clearly see it is not personal charisma on which they base their decisions…..

What then is the cause behind the apparent difference, if anecdotal, that we perceive in how people chose to vote? On the one hand education and the ability to understand complex issues and solutions is clearly important. The level of anger in the political climate and the urgency with which people yearn to see change is also fundamental. For example, in the context of Sweden and Germany, both countries are relatively wealthy, with low unemployment and as such have less urgency to seek a politician for radical change and have the luxury of slow, cautious, reform. In countries like the UK and America which have sections of society which have been affected differently by the integration of the east in the global economy, this is arguably different.

Perhaps though, fundamentally what is different is the respect people have for the politicians, experts and institutions in different contexts. Without confidence in these, how is it possible for voters to make a judgement on the outcomes of any potential proposals? When one looks at polls regarding who voters trust in terms of the media, institutions and politicians the trends have not only been negative for sometime, but are at their most negative amongst Trump Voters, Sanders voters and in Britain UKIP. 

If the perception is that a politicians promise is worthless, that the predictions of experts are nonsense, and the yearning for change so great, then perhaps the judgement of a personality is all that is left? Perhaps in this context, it is actually the most rational option available to voters?

Trade Deals: Does Europe really need the UK more than the UK needs Europe?

At this point in the referendum the proliferation of various claims from each side can become daunting with the sheer volume meaning little scrutiny or perspective can actually be given to both their truth and also the bigger picture. One such claim is with regards to the economy and the economic impact on our prospects and also investment in our country in the event of a Brexit. 

The central claim of the leave campaign is that any post Brexit trade deal would not be difficult to organise as the incentives to trade will not vanish, which is true.  Additionally as the 5th largest economy in the world Britain is an important market, also true. Moreover a Brexit would free Britain to create new trade deals with the US and China, also true. 

So far so good I hear you say, however this is where the argument becomes unstuck. As Farage claimed in yesterdays ITV debate, Europe needs us more the we need Europe and it is businesses that organise trade not governments.....NOT TRUE. 

The incentives to trade would not dissipate but one of the central tenets of the trading game is that the terms of trade matter, just ask any developing country or even Japan and the USA trying to trade with Europe. There is massive pressure to protect your strategic industries and institutions which are important to electorates; just look at the furor over TTIP and TPP and you can see how difficult these are to settle. With this in mind you can understand why countries would fight tooth and nail to set the terms of trade, including tarrifs and rules of production in their favour.

This brings us to the position of the UK in establishing trade deals with both Europe and other large countries and blocks such as China, the USA and ASEAN. What can be seen from the image above is that by GDP PPP (which takes account of currency movements and different prices) the UK is a significantly smaller market then those with which it would seek to establish an advantageous trade deal. It is true that the UK is the 5th largest economy by nominal GDP, but this is not the best measure. By GDP PPP the UK is actually 9th and growing slower then many developing countries. In addition, the UKs' key industries services and financial services have major competition in each of the big blocks it would seek to create a trade deal with; Frankfurt in Europe, Wall Street New York in USA and Hong Kong in China. What this means in the cold hard world of trade deals is that each would seek to set the terms of trade which would help them steal business from the UK. To expect anything else would be naive. 

What Europe gives the UK is the power to set terms of trade in our favour and to protect our key industries in a way our economic size alone would not. This is not to talk down the UK, but to set out in a clear and realistic way the options we face and the advantages remaining in the European Union give us in negotiating terms of trade which would protect our jobs and allow us to grow more quickly. This applies not just to economics but politics, the power to influence other countries by harnessing Europes collective economic heft magnifies British power, it does not diminish it.