The case for hard Brexit

For all the talk of Brexit meaning Brexit what has become abundantly clear over the past few months is that most politicians and political commentators haven't got a clue what Brexit means or should mean, and nowhere is this confusion more apparent than in the Labour Party. At the heart of this confusion is the single market. Time and again we hear politicians from both the Leave and Remain camps declaring that while we might leave the EU, we will still need to be part of some aspects of the single market. On this they are all completely wrong to the point of delusion.

The problem is not that they want to cherry-pick which parts of the single market they want to keep, and thereby appear to trying to have their cake and eat it. The problem is that (a) they clearly do not fully understand what "access to the single market" (as they term it) means or entails, and (b) they have still failed to realise that all aspects of the single market, not just the freedom of movement of people, represent an existential threat to the very concepts of nationhood, sovereignty and democracy in the UK and in the rest of Europe. As a result it is not just small parts of the single market architecture that we need to reject, like the free movement of people, it is ALL of it.

Today Theresa May finally seemed to get some of this. Speaking from the same venue, Lancaster House,  where Margaret Thatcher once extolled the virtues of the single market, the current prime minister finally admitted that Brexit is incompatible with single market membership. Of course the big irony in this whole debate is that the single market in its current incarnation is primarily a child of unbridled Thatcherism. It is economic neo-liberalism in its purest form. In which case one would think that the Labour Party should be the party above all others that opposites it tooth and claw while the Tories should be the most vociferous advocates. It's a strange old world. No wonder the public are confused.

As we are forever being told, the single market is constructed around four fundamental freedoms: the freedom of movement of goods, the freedom of movement of labour, the freedom of movement of capital, and the freedom of movement of services. This is my reasoning on why we need to reject all four of them.

The freedom of movement of goods

On the face of it this is the one aspect that everyone agrees that we should keep. After all we are all in favour of free trade aren't we? Well yes, maybe, up to a point (although in a future post I may proffer a more contentious view). But we can protect most free trade using World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements, and as most global tariff barriers now average less than 2%, any further reductions will have diminishingly small economic gains. Unfortunately this aspect of the single market goes much further than just free trade. It also seeks to create a "level playing field" within the EU by prohibiting any form of state aid and outlawing any government action or policy that could be construed as having distorted the market. Now while this may appeal to the neoliberal free marketeers, it should fill anyone with a social conscience with profound horror.

This freedom, in concert with EU competition law, effective curtails many socially progressive state interventions, ranging from taxation policy (such as minimum pricing of alcohol) to industrial strategy such as support for key industries like steel or nuclear power. If we accept the freedom of movement of goods, then we will be compelled to accept the rest of EU competition law and thereby be prevented from running our own economy in a way that allows us to protect it against external shocks and predatory pricing from outside the EU. If we can't set minimum prices for socially damaging substances like alcohol, then we can't set minimum prices for anything else such as labour. So you can kiss goodbye to the national minimum wage. If we can't support key industries in a recession then you can kiss goodbye to Keynesian economics. In short you can kiss goodbye to any form of economic choice at the ballot box. That is one reason why support for social democratic parties has fallen across Europe. It has fallen because those parties can no longer offer the policies that they once could. Instead they are forced to offer a sanitised version of centre-left neo-liberal economic orthodoxy and so democracy effectively dies.

The freedom of movement of labour

The negative effects of this part of the single market have become obvious. More than any other it has led to mass migration across the continent and widening inequality in all member states. The result has been catastrophic depopulation in the east and high structural unemployment in the west. Yet it didn't need to be this way.

Before most of the eastern former communist states joined the EU they were granted interim status where they were able to trade freely with the EU but had no freedom of movement of people, much as many Brexiteers want for the UK now. The result was that firms inside the EU, including a number of major German car manufacturers, moved some of their production out of the EU and into these states attracted by the lower wages and supply of labour. The jobs moved to where the labour was. Then, when these states gained full membership of the EU it all changed. The jobs stopped moving east and the people were forced to move west instead. Why? Because it was cheaper and more profitable for the corporate sector for people to move to where the jobs were rather than the opposite happening. The result has been one of the greatest economic migrations Europe has seen since the Irish potato famine of the 1840s, and both have been driven by the same laissez-faire liberal economic free-trade ideology.

This highlights one of the key objections to the freedom of movement of labour: it transfers the economic cost of matching jobs to people from the firm to the worker. In effect the costs are socialised and the gains are privatised. There is nothing remotely socially progressive about that. In fact it smacks of moral hazard as was illustrated in extremis by the financial sector pre and post 2007 where the benefits of an unequal system are privatised and the costs socialised. The result for member governments is also potentially calamitous. Their potential liabilities in terms of future welfare and education payments will become unlimited due to immigration while their income could become squeezed by tax avoidance from an increasingly mobile upper-middle class. The result would be either economic insolvency at a national level or a collapse in public services, and before either of these happens we would see a rise in income inequality and unemployment as migrant workers drive down wage rates ever further.

Then there is the effect on tax revenues. Those that support freedom of movement claim it benefits the UK economy, that it leads to increased taxes and that immigrants make fewer demands on public services than the average UK citizen. What they fail to note is that many migrants are temporary and so are exempt from UK tax, and those that stay often send money back to their country of origin. According to the World Bank (pdf) this could be over $11.5bn. This has the double whammy effect of both reducing jobs and GDP per capita in the UK and worsening our current account deficit.

So freedom of movement of labour represents a complete volte-face in terms of economic rationale. It treats workers as little more than a commodity that exists to serve the economic machine rather than treating the economy as a system designed to optimise the happiness of the individual. When coupled with other measures that effectively remove any form of democratic choice for the individual, then it really is the stuff of a some nightmare dystopian future that has so far only really existed in the pages of a few sci-fi novels.

Even more worryingly given that most in the Labour Party appear to support it, it is not even remotely socialist. For a start you cannot have full employment if you have open borders because the faster you create jobs the more migrants will flood in. It is like trying to bail out a rowing boat with a hole in the bottom. And if social democracy is about anything it is about aiming for full employment. On top of that freedom of movement of labour increases inequality. It allows rich countries to strip poor countries of their best talent to the disadvantage of the least well of in both countries. So much for international solidarity.

The freedom of movement of capital

The ability to move capital freely between member states may at first glance seem relatively harmless, but actually it has had a major detrimental impact on the ability of states to balance their budgets. The recent controversy over Apple's tax dealings with Ireland illustrate how multinationals can exploit the freedom of movement of capital to avoid tax. And it is not just Apple. Google's Dutch double-Irish sandwich tax avoidance scheme also plays heavily on this freedom, not to mention that of GSK and many others.

It is of course not just corporate tax avoidance that benefits from the freedom of movement of capital. Tax avoidance by individuals does as well. In my last post I argued for the taxation of UK ex-pats, partly as a way of tackling tax avoidance by the rich. Yet as long as we are in the EU, and more importantly, obliged to respect the freedom of movement of capital such measures will be impossible. In short freedom of movement of capital is at the heart of most tax avoidance, and so as long as we cling to it we will be unable to tackle the scourge of tax avoidance and governments will find it ever harder to raise the taxes they need to fund the services we all want.

And then there is the issue of financial speculation. For years there have been calls for something akin to a Tobin tax to be levied on financial transactions in order to suppress both the size and the volatility of the financial markets in order to improve market stability. Yet such a tax, particularly if imposed on currency trades, would again violate the principle of the freedom of movement of capital.

The freedom of movement of services

Of all the four freedoms this is perhaps the most rarely used, overvalued and misunderstood. The principal argument in favour of it is that because the UK has a large service sector that accounts for up to 80% of its economy, and also because a large part of that is the financial sector that accounts for a large part of our invisible exports, then we desperately need to retain access to the single market in order to protect jobs in London and to generate wealth and taxes. At the heart of this freedom is the concept of the financial passport. This allows any financial institution to operate in any other EU member state once it has been given regulatory approval in another EU state. The problem is that this just doesn't work.

This financial passporting is the system that allowed unregulated Icelandic and Irish banks (among others) to operate within the UK before 2007 and then collapse. It also allowed UK banks to import much of the financial crisis in 2007 from the US and the Eurozone. Do we really want a repeat of that?

The fact is the freedom of movement of financial services is a red herring. After 2007 the City was complaining about excessive future EU regulation. Now it says it needs to be part of the EU. These two positions are contradictory. The reality is it is easy for a UK financial company to open an office inside to EU for regulatory reasons and the cost is negligible. Moreover the financial benefits of exported financial services are puny. Financial services may account for about 13% of the economy, but exported financial services are a mere fraction of that. It really isn't worth the hassle.

Summary

What I have shown is that none of the four freedoms of the single market brings any real benefit. The freedom of movement of services exposes our economy to high risk lending and other dubious financial practices. The freedom of movement of capital prevents governments taxing the rich and large corporations, and will ultimately lead to a collapse in national tax receipts. The freedom of movement of people leads to social disintegration and alienation, inequality and unemployment, and will ultimately lead to a collapse of national finances. The freedom of movement of goods leads to a loss of democratic choice and sovereignty.

What I think all this illustrates is how the EU has lost its direction and its soul. The EU could have been a force for social good. It could have protected workers rights while promoting equality across the continent through the redistribution of income and resources such as through a common industrial policy. Instead of exporting jobs to China and importing labour from Poland we should have been exporting jobs to Eastern Europe thereby re-industrialising the continent and not de-industrialising it.  The result would have been an EU that was richer and more equal. Instead it has become consumed by a neoliberal monster that ultimately has had the opposite effect. That monster is the single market.

The EU, and particularly the single market, has become little more than a protection racket. As we are now seeing as we try to leave, the EU not only bullies those countries that have chosen to join, like Greece, it also bullies those outside. The message it is sending out, even to non-members, is play by our rules or we will trash your economy. This is another reason why it must be stopped.

Time to tax ex-pats

Apparently, John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, wants Sir Richard Branson to be stripped of his knighthood. Why? Because, he claims, Branson is a tax exile living (for most of the time) on his private island in the Caribbean (well the British Virgin Islands to be exact).

According to McDonnell:

"The whole purpose of the honours system is undermined when the rich and the powerful can collect their gongs without giving anything back. It's even worse when tax exiles are given honours."

Now John McDonnell may have a point, but is his solution the right one? Is the right solution to strip Branson of his "gong"? Or is the better solution to make him pay more tax in the UK?

According to McDonnell the problem is the honours system but I would argue that the real culprit is the tax system. What we are dealing with here is tax avoidance, even if Sir Richard Branson claims his choice of residence is driven by the scenic location and not the potential tax advantage.

Sir Richard Branson is, however, not the only alleged tax-avoiding knight to be domiciled outside the UK. Sir Philip Green has attracted controversy recently, and it is probably only a matter of time before a neighbour of his in Monaco, Lewis Hamilton, receives his own gong as well. So why does this matter? Well, because this issue highlights one of the key issues in tackling tax avoidance: residence.

In previous posts I have discussed how different types of corporate tax avoidance schemes work such as transfer pricing and the abuse of debt interest relief. Other possible techniques involve the abuse of royalty payments, but more on that some other time. Unfortunately it is not just corporations that are guilty. The super-rich, celebrities, sports stars and entertainers are all complicit. And so too are millions of middle income professionals living and working in places like Dubai, or retiring to sunnier climes with lower tax rates. In 2010 it was estimated that 3.97 million Brits were living abroad. Today the figure is probably even higher. Most are earning much more than the average wage in this country and many are earning that money virtually tax free. As I pointed out when discussing Brexit, tax avoidance within the EU is a major factor in undermining the finances of sovereign member states, but so too in tax avoidance from outside the EU.

At the heart of the problem is the tax system itself and its rules. Most countries only tax people who are resident in that country. Additionally they may tax their citizens living abroad, but only on income earned in their native country. The exception is the USA. Only it of all the industrialised countries taxes its citizens wherever they live.

What is now becoming abundantly clear is that taxing individuals on the basis of either their country of residence or the place/location/country of their income does not work. In a globalised world with freedom of movement of labour and capital it is impossible to definitively allocate a person's earnings to a single territory. The result is that it is relatively easy for the rich (and not so rich) to avoid tax to the detriment of their fellow citizens whose employment is less mobile. The only way to solve this problem is to tax people based on the thing that they cannot change or disguise easily: their nationality. So why don't we?

Well part of the reason is historical, but another reason is the EU, and in particular the single market. Single market rules currently prevent us from taxing our citizens living in the rest of the EU, but as we are about to leave the EU there is now no legal reason why we couldn't follow the example of the USA. If we did we could also apply the same rule to UK citizens living in overseas crown dependencies like the British Virgin Islands, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. 

So how would this work? Well tax should be payable in two stages. The first obligation should be based on residence (as now) with all individuals being obliged to pay tax first on income derived in their country of residence to the government of their country of residence. However, the second stage would be based on nationality with the payee paying additional tax to their country of origin (i.e. the UK) equal to the difference between what they would be expected to pay if they resided in the UK and all their income was generated in the UK, and the tax on their total global income that they do pay. 

So, for those who are already living in countries that do tax their income on the basis of residence, standard double taxation rules should apply with the UK citizen paying the difference to the UK Treasury between what they pay abroad and what they would pay on their entire global income if they had remained in the UK and all their earning had been generated in the UK. For completeness we should of course continue to tax overseas nationals on their earnings in the UK based on residence. 

In short, the only changes would be that British citizens living abroad would be obliged to pay tax as if they lived in the UK while British citizens living in the UK would be taxed in the UK on their worldwide earnings. 

Taxing UK citizens in this way would have a number of positive advantages. Firstly, it would be easier to enforce. Secondly, there would be no tax advantage for UK nationals to move their country of residence away from the UK. That would make it easier for governments to adjust the tax rates without losing tax through avoidance schemes. Thirdly, it would reduce emigration of highly skilled professionals such as doctors. Fourthly, it would reduce demand for tax havens, and finally it would increase tax revenues. In fact it could raise over £100bn in extra revenues; enough to fund the entire NHS. And then if UK citizens did still decide to go and live on their own private Caribbean island, we could at least be more certain that the decision was more likely to be motivated by a love of the scenery and not by a love of their bank balance.

Lies, damned lies, and EU statistics

According to virtually every major economics organisation (IMF, OECD, IFS, BoE, The Treasury) the EU is such an enormous benefit to the UK economy that leaving would amount to economic suicide. Yet despite 95% of mainstream economists supporting the Remain campaign the public is unimpressed. Why? Well perhaps the reason is this: there is no definitive data to support their claim.

One of the arguments against Brexit from economists such as Simon Wren-Lewis is that it would make it more difficult for us to trade with countries next to us and that would hurt our economy. It is the classic neoliberal free-trade argument even though Wren-Lewis claims to be a New Keynesian. But no-one who supports Brexit is arguing that leaving the EU is for the purpose of reducing trade with Europe. Nor can any rational and informed thinker possibly believe that a reduction trade with the EU would be the end result. The lobbying power of the multinationals would ensure that. This then is a spurious argument. The fact that it relies on a contentious, unproven and ideological belief in the universal benefit of free trade makes it even worse.

Another argument put forward is that because 40% of our overseas trade is with the EU then our future economic growth will be greater inside the EU than outside. This is the argument put forward by George Osborne. In addition he and David Cameron have claimed that leaving the EU would result in a massive recession and a third world war (or both), while our membership of the EU has delivered greater economic growth than would otherwise have happened. The problem is that claim is untestable because the alternative scenario is counterfactual. That said, we can attempt to test it simply by going back in time.

If we assume that leaving the EU represents the converse process to joining, then leaving should deliver the converse results of joining. So the question then becomes: what was the economic consequence of joining the EU? Well the graph below shows the growth rate in real GDP in the UK over the last sixty years.

source: tradingeconomics.com

If joining the EEC was the economic boon that the Pro-Europeans claim then there should have been a significant increase in the growth rate after 1973, yet according to the graph above there was none. Moreover, after the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 there should have been a second boost. Again none is detectable. What there is instead is a clear decrease in the amplitude of the fluctuations in growth rate, possibly in part due to a decrease in the inflation rate over the period in question. To analyse the above data more clearly it is perhaps better to present it as a plot of real GDP per capita versus time (rather than growth rate versus time) and calculate the compound growth rate. This is shown below for the period 1960-1973 covering the period immediately prior to the UK joining the EEC.

source: tradingeconomics.com

The above data shows that real GDP per capita rose by a factor of 53% over this period. This equates to an average growth rate of 3.3% per annum. Now if we look at the period immediately after joining the EEC we see a different behaviour.

source: tradingeconomics.com

Over the period 1973 to 1992 real GDP per capita rose by 38%. This equates to only 1.7% per annum.

source: tradingeconomics.com

Finally, if we look at the period after the Maastricht Treaty was signed real GDP per capita grew by 42% equating to an annual growth rate of only 1.6% per annum.

What all this clearly demonstrates is that there was no spurt in economic growth after joining the EEC, or after signing the Maastricht Treaty. In fact in both cases the growth rate went down. So this appears to torpedo the principal claim of the Remain camp that EU membership boosts growth. The reasons of course are easy to understand.

Firstly, over much of the last thirty years the EU has been obsessed with enlargement, and most of the new member states have been economically underdeveloped. It therefore follows that any process of economic convergence must have involved a transfer of economic growth from the old member states to the new ones. This will inevitably have had a negative impact on growth rates in the developed countries. In effect at each level of increasing EU integration the developed countries have effectively exported an increased amount of their economic growth to other countries in the EU.

Secondly, migration has had negative impacts on wages, tax receipts and investment. According to Simon Wren-Lewis:

"Migrants tend to be young, healthy and working. They provide more in terms of resources than they take out by using public services."

Well the first part of this may be true but the second is most definitely not. What Professor Wren-Lewis has conveniently omitted from his thesis is that most migrants pay little or no tax because most of them are seasonal workers, and under EU rules, if you work in a country for less than 6 months you are exempt from income taxes. In addition, most migrants are net savers and they spend those savings in their country of origin, not here, so there is no multiplier effect. The result is that they do not create as many new jobs as they take away. The best migration is permanent migration because it is more likely to involve people with tradable skills, in high income professions who invest all their earnings in this country thereby creating as many, if not more, jobs than they take away. On top of this, migration also has a negative impact on investment because employers don't need to train or retrain their existing workers if they can source the necessary skills from elsewhere at zero cost. 

The analysis above all seems to have passed by the economics establishment. The big question is why?

The Labour case for Brexit

You would be hard pressed to deduce this from the current political mood music but, like the Conservatives, the Labour Party has always had a pretty ambivalent attitude to the EU. That much is at least self evident if one looks back at the history of the party and how it split over the 1975 EEC referendum. The main difference though between the two parties is that the things Labour likes about the EU (the Social Chapter, protection of human rights etc.) tend to be the things the Tories hate, and vice versa. What is therefore surprising is that there is not the same debate about the EU in the Labour Party this time around as there was in 1975. My view is that there should be because the potential threats posed to our democracy and to the viability and effectiveness of any future Labour government by the EU (at least in its current form and with its current direction of travel) are now much greater than they have ever been.

These threats I believe are two-fold. The first is economic, the second democratic. The economic threat comes from the increasingly unviable state of national finances and taxation frameworks and the negative impact on both of these posed by the single market. For a government to function effectively it needs to be able to borrow what it needs when it needs, and it needs to be able to tax who and what it needs in a similar vein. This is because taxation is not just a means of raising revenue to fund services: it is also a macroeconomic tool that should be used in conjunction with borrowing to correct imbalances within the economy and thereby promote economic stability. Yet even outside the euro this will become increasingly hard as the EU becomes more integrated and the single market becomes all-powerful and all-consuming.

This is because at the heart of the new EU is the single market. The single market is everything. The single market is sacrosanct. Nothing will be allowed to interfere with the single market. That means all government policies will be tested against this question: do they distort the single market? If so then they will be deemed to be illegal. We have already seen the start of this trend with the decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to vote against minimum pricing of alcohol in Scotland. Next it will be differences in excise duty that come under the spotlight, then VAT. After that it will be corporation tax on companies, and possibly even income tax. But you don't need the single market or the ECJ to bring about harmonisation of tax rates: that will happen automatically if we continue to allow the freedom of movement of people.

The freedom of movement of people or workers is one of the four pillars of the single market, the other three being the freedom of movement of capital, goods and services. Implicit in these is a fifth freedom, the freedom of movement of jobs. Most criticism of the first of these, the freedom of movement of people, has concentrated on its effect of immigration. However, there is a secondary impact. If you allow people to move country then you effectively allow them to choose which taxation regime they wish to work under. In other words they are able to exercise consumer choice to choose their tax rate by selecting a country of residence with as low a tax rate as possible.

We have already seen the effect of this when President Hollande raised the top rate of income tax in France to 75%. Many of the wealthy moved to London or across the border into Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany or Switzerland, and then commuted back to France for their work if they needed to. Of course if your income tax was dictated by your nationality and not your country of residence (as is the case for US citizens) such movements would not be financially beneficial, but of course EU rules and the single market prevent this.

The impact of all this will be two-fold. Firstly it will undermine democracy because it will effectively allow some voters to circumvent the democratic outcome of national elections. If you don't like the result then you can just move somewhere else. If your fellow countrymen vote for a socialist government with better public services and higher taxes on the wealthy, then the wealthy can just move to a country with lower taxes. The rich get to have their cake and eat it.

The second impact is a direct consequence of the first. If the voters can move from country to country in search of the best tax deal, then countries will be forced to compete for income. This competition will force them to outbid each other in terms of tax cuts. The net result will be an inevitable race to the bottom in terms of tax rates. As a consequence the tax gap that governments currently suffer from will widen, revenues will fall, spending will decline, and services will worsen, whether these are in social security, healthcare or education.

The one great virtue of the EU in the eyes of Labour voters and trades unionists has always been the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty. This encapsulated the core ideal that the EU should be for the benefit of workers, and not the owners of capital, by setting common standards for working rights and conditions that multinational corporations in particular operating in the EU would have to abide by. The rationale was that individual member states were too small and powerless to implement these standards unilaterally because multinationals could effectively force nations to compete against each other for the jobs those multinationals could provide. The irony now is that it is competition within the single market that is the great threat, not to wages but to government finances. Once you allow freedom of movement of labour then you undermine the fiscal sovereignty of individual states. Eventually they become financially non-viable with only the EU itself being able to levy income tax across the EU and across national borders. The result will be a push towards introducing a federal income tax and a federal budget with more loss of sovereignty and democracy at national level.

The result of all this is that it will become virtually impossible to elect a left wing government because a left wing government by definition is one that will always want to intervene in the market, either to prevent economic crisis or to stabilise an economy that is already in crisis, or to reduce the impact of inequality. All these interventions will necessarily result in a distortion of the market, and even though the market is imperfect and may be in crisis, this will be deemed to be against the rules of the single market. So while you may still be able to vote for a left wing government, that government will not be allowed to implement anything that resembles a socialist platform. It will be like voting for a Labour local council but finding that they still have to implement the same austerity-driven cuts as would have happened under a Tory administration. And of course the Greeks have already discovered this. They elected Syriza (twice) and still ended up with their economy being run by Dr. Strangelove in Berlin.

To put this into perspective imagine some of the policies that a future Labour government might wish to implement to raise extra taxes and tackle wealth inequality: the mansion tax; a citizen's income, support of key industries (e.g. steel) in times of external shocks; taxes and controls on intellectual property. All of these could be at risk from EU rules and regulation. The citizen's income (or basic universal income) in particular is one idea that is gaining support across the continent. The Swiss are currently voting in a referendum on this issue, but one concern is that the freedom of movement of people would make it unworkable whereas if eligibility were based on nationality then immigration would have little or no negative impact. But under EU rules countries are not allowed to "discriminate" on grounds of nationality.

The worrying thing is that the current Labour hierarchy seem oblivious to most of these potential pitfalls of EU membership. Moreover, by hitching his wagon (and by association most of the Labour Party) to the Remain campaign, Jeremy Corbyn has made a massive tactical miscalculation. If the electorate votes to leave them he will have made Labour unelectable for a generation as no-one will trust the party in government to keep the UK out of the EU. After all who is going to vote for a pro-EU party and prime minister if the country is negotiating to leave the EU? At least if a significant number of senior Labour figures (other than the commendable Frank Field and Gisela Stewart) had signed up to the Leave campaign then there would be sufficient alternative leadership candidates, or cabinet members who could be entrusted to lead future negotiations. And even if the public votes to stay in the EU the Labour party will likely lose significant votes to UKIP in future elections as a result. It is an outcome Frank Field has warned about but no-one seems to be listening.