That is plain disingenious.

The point is movement of goods from one side of the globe to another in preference to a movement over a shorter distance.

The shorter movement will almost always cost less in transport costs.

If i order a book from amazon UK and one from amazon Oz, the costs will be higher to transport the same book from Oz.

I wasn’t disputing that? 😮

But a large UK based firm, looking to sell a large quantity of products to another area of the world, would be better served by having a base in the area they’re looking to sell to.

Basic business theory, economies of scale.

Neither of which perceptions are accurate.

There is no dictation of laws and immigration is a UK government issue.

There are plenty with an agenda that continually shout very loudly lies such as those two you have illustrated.
It is sad that the populance seem incapable of asking the simple question who benefits from this? The answer in my opinion is mainly the city and the large corporate interests it represents.

Both perceptions are accurate. Freedom of movement never works in favour of wealthier countries, unless you’re willing to live with a huge benefits culture.

Surely the corporations and the city benefit from mass immigration?

It started well before then, pre WWI.
Blaming it on Labour is a massive oversimplification,

As I don’t want to write an essay, on an off topic subject, the oversimplification shall have to suffice.

Your distance comment doesn’t make any sense. Distance equals additional cost. That’s not good.

It allows you to reach a greater target audience, more quickly.

Or perhaps every company that has distribution centres is doing it wrong?

There’s too much distance there. It won’t work unless one (presumably the US) dominates, controls and exploits everything else for it’s own benefit. That’s how the British Empire worked.
Where is the benefit for the UK as a sovereign nation?

Distance works well for distribution, the distribution of goods and influence.

The benefit for the UK would be to remain a sovereign nation, instead of a small state in a federal Europe.

Also, the ‘Anglosphere’ nations are relatively wealthy, so we’re not having to prop up poorer nations.

We would be ideally placed as ambassadors to Europe too.

So the US is a failure is it? Why would you want to be a minor part of that failure?

Britain unfortunately ceased to be “Great” shortly after the second world war. Partly due to the US ensuring that it happened, partly due to inept Brit leadership.

The USA hasn’t just been thrown together. It’s hundreds of years old, and has progressively evolved. There is also a much larger wealth gap in the USA, so I certainly wouldn’t want to emulate them.

Any loss of greatness of our country can be placed squarely on Labour governments nationalising our main industries, which resulted in the demise of them all. Our one remaining one is finance, and both Labour and the EU are trying to kill that off too. I’d love to know where they are intending our money to come from when the banks up and leave 😀

While the USA didn’t loose any sleep over our fall from the top, I think general attitudes towards colonialism had shifted, and that put paid to any chance of us being a great power.

Note the top four grouping in both export and import tables. The UK is in the same league as USA, Russia, and China, in importance to the EU. We are in a strong position on trade negotiations.

I think the main gripe people have with the EU, is the perception that they are dictating laws to us, as well as the enormous immigration elephant that’s always in the room.

One example of where the EU is shafting the UK:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-20078143

My suggestion would be a formal ‘Anglosphere’ partership between The USA, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, (and other nations, such as India if they agreed) headed by the USA. Geographically positioned to exploit trade all over the world, with no language barrier. Similar ideology and defence interests.

No doubt some small minded person will accuse me of being racist, merely for suggesting some common sense.