Minford, Corbyn and May – Confederates in the destruction of British manufacturing.

Minford, Corbyn and May – Confederates in the destruction of British Manufacturing

Robert Braban

February 2018

After last week’s inane speech by Johnson, we are going to be treated to further offerings this week. There is a threat of being told more about Brexit and the government’s vision. To most active Remain supporters it will not be anything new. We shall hear about great opportunities and one nation Conservatism: what we should not expect to hear is the unpalatable truth.

As the debate takes this new twist, a notable absentee will be Jeremy Corbyn. He will perhaps continue the trend of recent weeks by uttering a few pro-Brexit phrases on Sunday political forums, but he will almost certainly not come out in support of those in Britain who most need him to do so.

Of course a third of Labour voters supported the Leave vote, but based on propaganda perpetrated by untrustworthy politicians who have since admitted they were lying. They did not vote to become poorer or to lose their employment, as many certainly will. Corbyn and his cabal have a duty to act to rectify the damage. Such can only be achieved by opposing Brexit.

Of all the eminent Economists in Britain, Professor Patrick Minford of Cardiff University is the only one to unreservedly advocate Brexit as good for Britain.

His logic is difficult to follow and his vision puts the working man on the scrap heap and restricts his access to services. Trades Unions should cringe with fear at following his lead. Nevertheless, that is precisely the road Jeremy Corbyn is choosing to follow.

In 1999, Patrick Minford wrote for the Daily Telegraph arguing that the NHS “cruelly constrained” private health providers and that NHS services should be “rationed severely and brutally to the vast majority who ought to be paying for themselves”. In simple terms: “Get rid of the NHS”.

As well as accepting privatisation of the NHS, a certain outcome of Brexit, in 2012 Minford also confirmed his willingness to sacrifice manufacture industry in Britain. He told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee: “It is perfectly true that if you remove protection of the sort that has been given particularly to the car industry and other manufacturing industries inside the protective wall (the EU), you will have a change in the situation facing that industry, and you are going to have to run it down. It will be in your interests to do it, just as in the same way we ran down the coal and steel industries.” This is the inevitable consequence of the Brexit that Corbyn supports.

Understanding the inevitability of the death of British manufacturing is simple. A major element of this manufacturing sector is the foreign owned car industry. They came to Europe to gain proximity and tariff free access to the EU. Britain was far from first choice, but became the chosen option as a direct consequence of our very poor industrial performance. We were recognised world wide as ‘The Sick Man of Europe’ with high interest and tax rates, high unemployment, poor productivity and factories closing on a daily basis. We were desperate!

Contrast that with the core of the EU where industry was forging ahead, but where shortage of labour was a serious problem. German industry needed strong support from overseas workers with many factories staffed at more than 50% by guest workers from other nations. Foreign companies, for practical reasons, could not open factories in the locations they preferred.

Britain’s failing industry, plentiful unemployed labour and vacant factories were among incentives that made us attractive to foreign investors. Being off shore was a problem, but they had no other options.

Corbyn and Professor Minford are prepared to sacrifice this industry and Minford is quite correct that Britain will do so. There are now massive incentives for companies to stay inside the tariff barrier by moving to the core EU. There is absolutely nothing in Britain to justify doing otherwise.

Minford justifies, and by implication Corbyn willingly accepts, the closure of our manufacturing base, assuming that improved Financial Services performance will compensate. Corbyn should see that reasoning as totally abhorrent. It accepts a situation where millions lose the right to work but the wealthy become even wealthier. GDP may rise, but at vast human cost.

In fairness to Minford, he did not foresee Brexit following the crazy path forced on May by Johnson and his henchmen, and accepted by Corbyn. In February 2016 Minford said: “In fact, subsequent to a Leave referendum result, no changes would be noticed for several years as treaty negotiations took place, with the rest of the EU desperate for agreement, since they sell so much more to us than we to them. After that, there would then be a decade or so of transition to allow all sides to adjust”. This has proven to be nonsense.

Why is Corbyn prepared to abandon the interests of Britain and particularly the working classes to Brexit?

Labour cult excusenics have offered all manner of reasons in denial of Corbyn’s Brexit fever. They range from “He’s not anti-EU” to “He’s clever and playing the long game”. Given his record and statements, the excuses are all laughable.

A good lead into Corbyn’s stance comes from his record of opposing the EU at every opportunity right back to 1970. In addition, he has made some ‘opportunist’ statements that were patent nonsense.         In an article on his web site, quickly deleted, Corbyn wrote that the EU was responsible for the gross abuse of human rights in  Western Sahara. In another deleted article on his website, he complained: “The project has always been to create a huge free-market Europe, with ever-limiting powers for national parliaments and an increasingly powerful common foreign and security policy.”

Perhaps the reason is simply ideology.

No extremist, left or right, can accept a moderating influence that will potentially interfere with their power. Whatever claims to the contrary or currently declared policies, Corbyn is a self-declared Marxist. If his supporters see a different Corbyn they do need to go to ‘Specs Savers’.

The appointment of rabid Stalinist and Putin worshipper, Seumas Milne to direct the party’s strategy and communications, confirms that the adherence to Marxism/Stalinism has not been abandoned. Milne lives in another world. He claimed recently: “Putin’s absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive.” Corbyn’s choice regards Stalin as a hero and his murder of millions of Russians as collateral damage.

There could be no complaint if commentators concluded more sinister motives for Corbyn’s propensity for supporting policies that are clearly against Britain’s interests. Examples would fill a book but a sample suffices to tell the story.

Even placing the most favourable construction on his activities, they reveal someone seeking acceptance in dissident circles , reckless as to the consequences. At worst, something far more damning.

At the height of the Troubles, Corbyn was a regular face at Republican protest events and attended events to honour dead terrorists.  He was involved with the notorious Balcombe Street Gang and appeared at a rally in Dublin alongside Angelo Fusco – a wanted IRA man who was on the run after escaping during his trial for shooting dead an SAS officer.

More recently, released documents reveal that, designated Agent Cob, he accepted money from an officer of the Czech Intelligence Service. Whilst his involvement with Czech Intelligence, who of course acted on behalf of Russia, may have been the act of a fool seeking recognition and importance, his involvement with the IRA was not and would have hindered rather than advanced progress to peace. Terrorist organisations thrive on recognition and support from those who owe their support to their nation.

Supporters offer all manner of excuses, but even if some hold water, the majority leak like a sieve.

Some people like a rebel cult figure. They look good on tee shirts and posters and are objects for discussion. As political leaders, they can be toxic.

Minford is certainly right that Brexit will be the end of manufacturing in Britain. He may also be correct that GDP will eventually catch up via improved invisible exports. However, the latter is predicated on his belief that Britain will be in a very special relationship with the EU, Financial Passporting arrangements are favourable, and there is a ten year transition period. Very unlikely outcomes.

Corbyn may be content that Minford is right, but it looks as if he has taken him at face value and has not bothered with the detail.

According The the World Literacy Foundation and other studies, we have up to twelve million people of voting age who are either functionally illiterate or short on literacy skills. Those people have limited job prospects and are certainly not candidates for the Financial Services Sector. However, they are mostly very employable in manufacturing. Get rid of the major industrial producers and the smaller businesses that support them will soon follow. So too will the service industries. Corbyn is quite knowingly throwing poorer people on the scrap heap.

What does Corbyn intend to do with Britain’s lost sector of industrial workers? Why are the Trades Unions silent? How much longer will Corbyn support the Tory Policies? Why does the Labour Party tolerate a leader who does not lead?

Get rid of Corbyn and Brexit becomes the biggest problem on the government’s agenda. Keep him and the Tory Government is basking in the sunshine of safety.