We asked Sovereignty subscriber Barry Harding for his thoughts on the claim that "3 million jobs depend upon membership of the EU".
Mr Harding is a consultant on international trade matters with clients including UK industries and companies, as well as foreign governments through internationally funded programmes. During the previous 30 years as a Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) civil servant, his tasks included being UK trade agreements negotiator for the Tokyo Round, head of DTI's Southern Africa unit during the late 80s sanctions pressures, and DTI head of metals as the international steel over-capacity problems built up in the 90s. He has represented the UK at scores of EEC, EC and EU meetings.

When I was with the DTI, I got our economists to come up with the number of UK jobs dependent on our trade with South Africa.

What I remember is that the antis demanded to know the methodology and beavered away to try and discredit it.

That is what we should be doing. We should insist on the methodology being released and then find its faults.

However, the claim will be based on two main factors:
1.  Exports
2.  Inward investment

We are able to trade with other WTO members (currently 145 and effectively all our export markets now that China has joined WTO) on a most favoured nation basis, which means that we cannot be asked, for example, to pay a higher rate of tariff than another WTO member.

Since the average industrial tariff in the developed world is in any case under 5%, then tariffs are no longer the major barrier that they were when the EEC and EFTA were established.

So firstly, we have WTO rights -- which are sometimes stronger than our EU rights.

Secondly, we import more from the EU than we export so if they were silly enough to try a trade war we would have more ammunition.

INWARD INVESTMENT
The inward investment picture is always hard to pin down because the reasons companies invest in the UK are very varied.

Undoubtedly some see the UK as a way into the EU -- but we could attempt to negotiate a bilateral agreement to minimise the potential obstacles, just as Norway and others have done.

But possibly a bigger reason for inward investment in the UK is the comparatively smaller number of regulations and aspects of government interference -- but, of course, these are being erected at a frightening rate both by the EU and the BLiar regime.

A UK free of the EU would be free to have a bonfire of these regulations and base its Inward Investment strategy on freedom for the entrepreneur.

Another factor is the UK pound v other currencies and how it affects exports from UK for companies investing here.

Whilst we can control our own currency we can influence it to our own benefit -- just remember how difficult it is for EuroArea companies to export at present.

Interestingly, the DTI inward investment website puts comparatively little emphasis on the EU. The following is lifted from it:

The UK has 28 million skilled and adaptable workers, and high standards of education with a strong emphasis on vocational education and training. Labour market regulations in the UK, including working hours, are the most flexible in Europe, and staffing costs are highly competitive.

The UK has a strong science and technology base, with world class design, research and development disciplines. Many UK universities and scientific institutes are taking part in collaborative research projects with businesses.

Finally, the UK's business environment gives every incentive for companies to grow, innovate and compete in a global marketplace. It has the lowest utilities costs in the European Union, and a telecommunications industry that is one of the most advanced in the world.

There are tax allowances available for companies setting up in certain areas of the UK. Plus, the UK has the lowest main corporation tax rate of any major industrialised country, and there are no additional local taxes on profits.

To conclude, since we cannot tell the future, we cannot be certain that Great Britain will thrive when it leaves the EU.

But neither can we be sure it will prosper if it remains a member of the EU with a decreasing say in its increasingly centralist economic planning direction.

We can be certain that, contrary to the claims of the Euro-fanatics, the UK outside the EU will continue to have access to most if not all of its present markets (including in EU member states) through its WTO rights -- which are a key to our international trading position.

Our trade deficit with the EU is a further safeguard -- in simple terms they have more to lose than we do if trade barriers were erected.

Perhaps we can gain an insight by contrasting key indicators for members of the EU with some non-members.

Austria is in its worst state for over 20 years. Growth was 0.75 per cent in 2002, compared with an average of over 2.5% during the 1990s and unemployment 4.3%.

Contrast these with the success of Norway, outside the EU. Norway showed an increase in GDP of 3.6% in 2002 (OECD figures).

Similarly the unemployment figures are impressive for Norway and Switzerland, both non-EU members; in 2002 Switzerland had 3.2% unemployment, Norway 3.9%, UK 5.1%, Germany 8.6%, France 8.8% and Italy 9.0%.

It seems inevitable that the question is not whether the United Kingdom will leave the EU but when.

The "Little Englander" accusation has already proved to be hollow as the UK continues to take, as is fitting with its history, a global rather than a Little European view of trade and investment.

And even though the Government stubbornly refuses to undertake any formal cost analysis on this critical subject, it becomes nonetheless obvious that the costs -- not only financial -- simply outweigh the benefits of EU membership.

Meanwhile the Commission, the ECJ, the European non-Parliament and all the rest of them continue to re-arrange the deckchairs on the EU Titanic.