Saturday, 2 April 2016

Should Britain join the Euro?

It seems weird now, but there was a point during those heady early days of the Blair government when it seemed possible that Britain would join the Euro at its launch. Nobody had done much of the technical preparation, but it seemed plausible that the government would announce its intentions and everything would swing into place. We now think that would have been an awful decision, but would it have been quite as catastrophic as the consensus would now have it?

If the UK had been part of the Eurozone from the outset, the Eurozone would have looked very different. The UK is the second or third largest economy in the EU, so what happens in the UK would have been of interest to the policy-makers in Frankfurt. The first few years would have been quite tough, probably, because money would have been too tight. Back in those days, UK interest rates were significantly higher than those in Germany et al.. Our boom would have been much more bubbly, or the government would have had to try and hold it back with fiscal restraint, or perhaps a bit of both. But Euro interest rates would have started to catch up if Britain's inflation rate had started to take off, albeit not as responsively as under an independent monetary regime.

Ireland's boom and bust might not have been quite as bad if the UK had been included. Spain's boom might not have got so quite out of hand. Overall, the EU economy might have done quite a bit better if Eurozone rates had been higher, earlier. When the crash hit things would have been dire, of course, but perhaps the UK would have been arguing for looser money sooner, so we may not have had quite the same tight-money-led depression that has engulfed Spain and others. 

Despite the facade of virtue of Brown's famous five tests, at heart of his veto on Euro-membership was the Chancellor's political ambition. He knew that the treaties would hold him in check when it came to election-winning spending sprees. While he preached "prudence for a purpose", Gordon Brown was (as we know now) planning a massive expansion of the British state. Brussels would have soon been criticising and even censuring Britain for its profligacy. Who knows quite what the outcome might have been, but even if spending had been a couple of percentage points lower in the run-up to the crash we may have been in much better shape to deal with it.

Why am I doing a post about joining the Euro when there is basically no prospect of it? Because the lessons of outsourcing economic policy to the EU still implications now. We keep hearing that the UK government cannot bail out Port Talbot because of EU rules, both on external trade and internal state aid. 

Good.

The state aid rules are basically a British imposition on the rest of Europe. They absolutely make sense. The alternative would be a constant competition between members of the single market to undercut each other with subsidies and preferential treatment. The current setup is a victory for Britain, so how ironic that many (even on the supposed "right" of politics) are calling for state intervention in the steel industry. Thank goodness that it is all virtue signalling, for nothing much can be done while we are bound by the EU rules.

This is the best single reason I can think of for staying in the Union. To get our childish politicians from making absolutely horrendous decisions, just to meet the needs of today's news cycle.

The second best reason is to have the weight of the biggest consumer market behind you at the trade tariff negotiations. Nobody would say that the EU is brilliant at negotiating trade deals, but when China slaps on protectionist tariffs what better leverage than to be able to respond on behalf of 500 million prosperous consumers? 

Then there is TTIP, which looks like it ought to create a huge planet-spanning single market with the US and EU at its core. I have briefly looked at the trans-pacific deal which includes the US, Aus, NZ, Japan, Malaysia and others. Despite what the lefties tell you, it is mostly perfectly reasonable. If minnows like Kiwiland can do it, think how much stronger the EU's hand is in those talks. TTIP and TPP combined basically creates a massive single market with sensible membership. We basically get the "Anglosphere" economy which Hannan et al. have been calling for, but get to carry on popping over to France when the cellar gets a bit empty. This is the bigger picture.

So what we should do after we have voted strongly to stay In (which is what is going to happen), is to ignore the inevitable whinging from the cyberkippers, and crack on with embracing reality. We should start with closing down the national institutions which double-up with continent-wide ones. In one of the areas I work in, we have an EU agency and 28 national agencies (OK, not quite, because the Benelux countries have a joint office). The EU agency sets its fees deliberately high so as to maintain demand at national level. So not only are taxpayers supporting a massive duplication of effort, businesses who use the central agency are paying well over the cost price for doing so. By getting rid of the national agencies we would all save twice. In other areas there are massive barriers to intra-EU trade where national regulators - whether deliberately or not - protect incumbents.

We should join the Euro, and convert the Bank of England into much needed flats. We could have a clear-out of Westminster and free up office space and infrastructure capacity for productive businesses. We could slash red tape and "gold-plating" by simply legislating for Directives to have direct effect. Government efforts in Brussels negotiations could be redirected from trying to opt out of individual measures to making the whole system itself work better - and goodness knows the system needs to be improved. Instead of nationalising policy areas, we could push for the sorts of market-based reforms which were so successfully implemented in the 80s and 90s. Imagine, for example, if we could get the other 27 countries to copy our employment rules. Think how much more dynamic the continent would be and thus how much better the UK economy would perform. We could push for a sensible EU-wide welfare and pensions regime to make it much easier to move our jobs and homes and investments about. Starting from scratch would be a boon for every member state, and the whole thing could be put on a much more sustainable footing. 

The future in a properly-constructed EU, trading freely with our prosperous allies around the world, could be bright and free.

So let's stop playing the underdog, and (re-)embrace our place in the world as leaders.

44 comments:

raedwald said...

Sorry BE you're a day late with this

Antisthenes said...

That did make me a very committed Euro-sceptic think a bit. Then I thought about what I cherish most and that is to be able to determine for myself what choices I want to make. Preferably as part of as small a group of people as possible. I am not alone in thinking that localism is the best form of government as it brings democracy closer to my front door and it allows me to hold those who govern me more accountable. The UK governments past and present have recognised that localism is the future as they have been devolving power for more than a decade now. Sometimes I admit reluctantly and without knowing why or what they are doing it is just evolving.

The EU does not fit into this pattern it is antithesis of it. There is a place for the EU or at least some of it's institutions but only in acting as a facilitator certainly not as another layer of government. It can achieve what you see as beneficial but without things like a parliament, ECB or the euro or political union. It can operate a common market and it can aid interstate cooperation build single central agencies like Europol and more. No we do not need more centralised government we need less.

Demetrius said...

Curses, Raedwald beat me to it. Also, given the capacity for Westminster to make a muck of everything, perhaps you are a tad optimistic. Our presence may well have been the cause of a much stronger Franco-German pairing.

Bill Quango MP said...

I'm in lanzarote. The main road is brand new. Every road sign is new. The paint is gleaming white without so much a skidded tyre mark on it.
The eu flag flies proudly over the road and at every hotel off of it.

If we want to be in the Eu.. We should be in fully. We should, like the rest of Europe, be proud of this road. Paid with German and French taxpayers money. And think, this a great achievement for a tiny island of 100,000 people to have a brand new motorway. Without the eu this would just not be possible. So good job, EU.

I don't feel that way. I think we should leave the EU and set up whatever comes our way post Brexit.

However, as it is highly likely we will vote to remain, then BE is right. If we insist on being in the club, we must realise that we are a part of the European project. No more blocking. No more opt outs, if we vote in, it means going I. With idea of a ferpderal Europe. A central bank. Eu wide economic and military policy.

It doesn't make sense otherwise.

Steven_L said...

Without the eu this would just not be possible. So good job, EU.

You sure it wouldn't it be worth Avis, Hertz and friends having a whip around? The tunnels in the south of Gran Canaria look very expensive though.

Best Social Plan said...

We’ll help you exponentially grow your social media following to improve your reputation. Use our services to Buy Facebook Likes, Buy Facebook Followers, Buy Twitter Followers, Buy Instagram Followers, Buy Instagram Likes, Buy YouTube Views, Buy YouTube Likes, Buy Soundcloud Followers and Buy Google Plus Followers, all at highly competitive prices. To place an order, visit our pricing page and pick out a package that suits your needs, and we will begin your campaign immediately. We are No.1 supplier of social media services - bestsocialplan.com

James Higham said...

Reading this with disbelief. The attitude of the EU leaders is what it's all about - taking the UK for as much as it can. Much better out.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

BE's post is up there as probably the most specious tendentious wank I've ever seen on this site. Who the country? Not us. And how do we vote them out? Ah, we can't. That's a feature, not a bug.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Shit. Supposed to,say who runs the country. Don't know wtf happened there.

Bill Quango MP said...

Ww. As I understood it, and I may be wrong, I'm sure BE will comment himself...but as I read it, if we are going to be in, go in properly. Don't piss about pretending we aren't in and making it harder for the other main eu countries.nthe uk is a drag on a federal Europe.
The eu can only work as either a federal European country or a customs union.
From all the evidence every other eh nation wants to be a federal date within the European. So if we are willing to stay in we should accept that and join it.

Wether you agree with that position, it has the most logic.
What's the point of voting REMAIN and then bitching about the conditions in three years time?

Bill Quango MP said...

Sw nor ww . That's your autocorrect name.

Blue Eyes said...

I think any "point" here is quite straightforward.

BQ is spot on: if we are In we should be properly In and In the driving seat.

James Higham can't see that dragging our heels is exactly why our EU partners are so frustrated. We got much more done in the EU under enthusiastic Thatcher than under reluctant Major and Cameron.

By all means campaign for Out, but when the country votes enthusiastically for In don't be like those idiot cybernats with their The 45 Twitter badges...

Electro-Kevin said...

I go for the simpler answer.

We ended up in economic straits because Nu Labour were incompetent, dishonest, wrong headed and very clever at hiding the fact from the voters.

To suggest that surrendering economic sovereignty to the EU - an organisation which can't even control or account for its own finances - to avoid that is defeatist.

Our present salvation is owing to what we don't have in common with the EU rather than what we do.

Electro-Kevin said...

BQ - If we are to be in the EU wholly then we must get rid of the Britsh government.

Where is the EU flag in their literature btw ? It should have proud and equal status with the Union flag if they are going to be honest about it.

Blue Eyes said...

I think I was partly proposing that, EK. Glad we agree as usual.

Kevin Peat said...

BE

I am unsure that others realise the finality of a Remain result.

If we are to be part of a federal state then we should dismantle our parliament and proudly raise the EU flag over the minor institution that replaces it.

Under QMV you know that the UK has its vote handicapped in the interests of national equality, so being in the 'driving seat' is, and never was, an option. It would be dishonest to suggest to voters that this is likely.

The answer to our - and the EU's - ills (according to Europhiles) is, as ever, that there wasn't enough EU.

Perhaps the EU should have been more honest about herself and our people might have understood better.

No.

The people would never have voted for it at all had it declared its true nature and intent from the outset. It well knew this, disguised itself and changed its name and structure (many times) during its insidious creation.

England does not exist in her plans. On the 23rd we vote not for membership of the EU (we are already in) but the abolition of our government and our nation. If the result is Remain we can expect that things will (in the same way as our monarch) be kept in place but only to give the masses a sense of continuity - such is the dishonesty of it all.

If we cannot do things EU proudly, openly and foremostly (putting the EU flag above our own in our hearts and on our emblematic buildings of state) then we ought not do things EU at all.

------

Peter Hitchens is saying the same things as me on privatisation and UK industry this morning. It was with my own eyes that I saw masses of proud British industry and it being stripped from our shores, regardless of how compliant and adaptable the workers were. (I and they voted Thatcher three times in misguided belief.)

Blue Eyes said...

How does Peter Hitchens suppose we should have competed with the emerging nations on low-value manufacturing? Perhaps by keeping Glaswegian ship-builders in penury? Steven L covered this point comprehensively the other day in another thread.

"We" can be in the driving seat because "we" are a brilliant society. Brits are amongst the most gregarious in the world. Brits make up about 1% of the world's population and yet we have one of the largest diasporas. Not because Brits flee oppression or grinding poverty but because we go and seek opportunity and adventure.

"We" would still be represented in the EP, in whatever the Commission looks like in the next phase, in successful business, in ideas generation, and so on.

One thing I cannot get my head around is that people who claim to be the most patriotic often seem to be the most defeatist and the most likely to talk down our prospects and successes.

Did you know that the French are often frustrated by the EU because they regard it as "too British"?

Anonymous said...

the French are fed up with the EU just because the British are in it.

Remain should use that as a reason to stay. "It annoys the Socialist French no end"

James G said...

Dear Blue eyes,

With regard to euro entry, I suggest you read Bernard Connelly`s book, “The Rotten Heart of Europe” where it is made clear that in the lead up to ERM, control was in the hands of the Bundesbank, often in cohorts with the French state. Hence the rules were set, ignored, and broken, to crush other European nations who didn`t do what the controlling French/German axis required.

No assistance to Italy, Ireland, Denmark, England, Spain, Portugal, Greece when they needed it, causing wild swings in these country`s economies.

If we join the euro in the future can we trust these nations to exercise non-national control. I doubt it.

Connolly also makes the obvious point that a currency union should be accompanied by a political union. Today Germany is the dominant nation in European affairs, thus,
a vote to remain would be to accept that as the status quo.

I prefer to have one whole vote rather than one twenty-eighth today, and possibly reduced to one thirtieth shortly.

raedwald said...

The piece presupposes that the EU will stay the same - and the smoke-and-mirrors continental scale fraud that built all those underused roads - most of them pre-2008, except the new ones funded by QE (i.e. printing money) - can be repeated ad infinitum like some grand Ponzi scheme.

Our vote may prove to be quite irrelevant if the whole shambles collapses under its own weight, the economics catching up long before they succeed in creating a full political union. And half the people in the UK will be doing whatever they can to sabotage, demoralize, detract from and withdraw co-operation from full membership.

Hey ho.

Kevin Peat said...

We were originally in an economic community in a state of comparable wealth and cultural advancement. Not a hegemonic political, economic and military superstate.

THIS is the next phase of the EU.

We can become a central part of it - but this sort of thing is most UN-British.

The point of a sovereign government in a social, economic and cultural context is for it to be protectionist (the Hitchens comment.)

Our government has not been economically protective since Thatcher nor culturally protective since Major. The result is that we now decide on its continuation or termination on the 23rd June.

Oh yes. The UK Parliament will live in body if the result is Remain but it will be dead in spirit - there only to assure the British public that they have not surrendered their country once and for all.

Blue Eyes said...

Thanks James G. Sadly Bernard Connelly (am I supposed to know who he is?) has based such a view on a totally false premise. The setup of the ECB is quite clearly set out in the Treaties. This is something that wild 'kippers often don't understand: the whole EU is defined by the Treaties. They are publicly available documents, and agreed after much discussion by all the member states.

Denmark isn't in the Euro, not quite sure what you are saying there.

The ECB's monetary policy is set for the Eurozone as a whole. That is how it works. It is not set to accommodate one member country or another. The ECB doesn't say ooh Germany could use tighter/looser money, it says Eurozone inflation is too low/high, let's act accordingly. FYI: ECB policy is pretty wrong for Germany at the moment. The ECB is printing money galore while Germany runs a huge current account surplus. Thus, your argument is easily disprovable.

My point is that if the UK had been in the Eurozone, Eurozone inflation would have been much higher on average than it was, so money would have been tighter in response. It is not a complicated or unique argument!

Blue Eyes said...

Raedwald, the piece pre-supposes nothing of the sort. In my piece I argue for Brits to push the EU forward into something better. That definitely does not promote the status quo. It is the cantankerous Kippers who claim that we should stick our collective head in the sand.

EK, I don't want the UK government to be protectionist, either economically or in any other way. At what point was it decided that a government's job is to be protectionist? That is certainly not what we have been voting for since 1979. Presumably you think that Britain would be much better if it had a different electorate.

Kevin Peat said...

It is a mistake to think of the referendum as being about leaving or remaining.

It is about accepting or rejecting our own government.

Kevin Peat said...

Blue @ 10.13

If government is not to protect then what is it for ?

Blue Eyes said...

Good question, and one which has been discussed for centuries. I think a good mission statement would be that the government should do things which its electorate thinks are desirable but that the voters cannot do individually. So for example I cannot stop the Argentines from invading, but government forces can. I can't bind everyone into a dispute resolution regime, or punish thieves etc..

Then there is the slightly greyer stuff like providing opportunities for people to get on, by providing education and training, an open market-place for goods and services, regulation to prevent abuses of dominance such as by providing legal employment rights and anti-discrimination rules.

For me a core function of government is to maximise economic opportunities for people so they can thrive and make their own way. Not by mollycoddling people but by enabling a dynamic thriving economy, and the chance to do what interests people.

Honestly, do you think the pre-war mining/smelting/metal-bashing economy was the high point of development? The Chinese certainly don't think so. They are trying to move on to higher value activities.


What are you protecting? "Culture"? English breakfasts? One particular steel mill? If you want to live in a museum by all means go and do that.

andrew said...

@KP - +1

And more - it is one of the first major skirmishes in the next area of conflict:-

What is a country for.

We have spent (not anyone here specifically, but collectively) much of the post war era being generally in favour of global free trade and this has given rise to multinationals where it has been shown that they can run companies more efficiently, and this is a growing trend.

I would say that one of the hidden features of IT is it has made this easier - someone far away can know what is going on here faster, more accurately and at a lower price than we could even 10 years ago.

(if interested RH Coase wrote the foundation of this back in 1937)

Why are we shocked and surprised when the same centralising logic is applied to countries I am not sure.

However, it is different when the logic is applied to a country.
If you do not like frosties for breakfast, you can always buy fruit.
There is no such flexibility with the country you live in.

This tension over who decides what you have for breakfast, or whether you build a third story on your house, can use neonicotinoids in bug sprays, or whether you can apply massive tariffs to Chinese steel
- is it you, the local parish council, county council, Wales, Westminster, the EU.

The foundation of most/all of western economic structures are placed on the concept of mostly free trade, one of the implicit barriers to free trade is regulations and so it cannot be a surprise if there is pressure over time to standardise the rules. One of the other barriers is state aid and that is why it is (supposedly) banned in the EU.

This is why TTIPS (of which others know much more) is the next step.

At every level there is a basic conflict between people who want to centralise power (academy schools reporting to Westminster's DFE and not LEAs) and decentralisation.

Sadly I cannot think of a good example of that.


raedwald said...

"Sadly Bernard Connelly (am I supposed to know who he is?) has based such a view on a totally false premise."

Uhm, Connolly is a British economist of note well known to any knowledgeable financial commentator; Mark Carney (you must have heard of him?) credits him as one of the few who have accurately predicted our current stste.

As he was head of the EU's EMS department, amongst other things, it's possible that you know more than he does, but I doubt it ..

Electro-Kevin said...

Andrew - I am deperately trying to change the paradigm on what this referendum is really about.

It is a sly way of getting the British people to close down their own government whilst making them think it was their idea.

(AKA KP)

Blue Eyes said...

Raedwald, that is fantastic. Great news, in fact. That doesn't alter the fact that the treaties were drawn up in public, with plenty of democratic scrutiny. British voters certainly knew what the deal was when Maastricht was passed, are you saying that Irish/Spanish/Italian/Greek ones did not?

The Germans wanted a German monetary regime. Full marks for pointing that out. The other EU leaders at the time obviously thought that was a good idea too. As Germany is by far the Eurozone's biggest economy, obviously its economic conditions are going to be influential on Eurozone monetary policy. Which bit of what I said are you telling me is wrong?

In my post did I say that the Euro has been a resounding success? Please show working.

James G said...

Dear Blue Eyes,

Thank you for your reply. My post referring to the run-up to the erm, in which Denmark participated, was intended to be a metaphor for the way that any union within the eu would operate.. Rules agreed to by the 6 nation participants were, according to Connolly`s narrative, could not be relied upon to be activated.
Bernard Connolly was influential in this operation as he worked in the European Commission, becoming head of the unit responsible for analysis of the EMS and national and Community monetary policies..

I am following the tribulations of the ECB in trying to manage the economies of the euro nations and wonder how the current policies of more QE, and negative interest rates, are going to lead to a different outcome than that for other nations who have tried a similar policy, such as Japan?

I read that :
Capital flight from one Eurozone country to another, continues to rise. That capital flight is a measure of trust of a nation’s banks.
Capital flight is ongoing in Spain, Italy, Greece, France, and Portugal in that order.
The recipient countries are Germany, Luxembourg, Finland, and the Netherlands in that order.
Target 2 Balance is + €885.78 billion .of which Germany`s share is €605.00 billion
Does this lead one to have confidence in the stability of the euro, and hence its continuity, or that of its political parent?

Anonymous said...

The idea that the UK could take the lead into driving the EU into something better is a pleasant fantasy. I'd cheerfully vote 'remain' if that was even something with an inkling of being a possibility.

Realistically, our Mandarins would simply become EU Technocrats and the whole thing would keep on rolling.

The EU's biggest problem is that it follows an imperial model (not that it's an empire), where it expands whilst centralizing power.

There are always two consequences of that model, the first being that it has to be undemocratic. You can't have long range planning if you don't know who's going to be at the wheel. It's why we have such a large civil service, they knew this when they had an empire to run.

The second is you have hinterlands. Be they geographic, economic, social or political. And it's there that the whole edifice crumbles.

So we wouldn't improve matters at all, we'd entrench them, the EU works a lot like out Civil Service, just on a scale they used to work on, so they'd just seamlessly merge. The big difference being the British Empire effectively dismantled itself, because the age of empires was over, I can't see the EU being quite so self-aware.

They can't even allow recognition there are distinct blocs within their own grouping, with distinct problems needing solutions, they learn neither from mistakes nor successes.

The idea of the EU is noble and fine, but the reality is farcical, and until that looks likely to change I can't see how remaining in is helpful to our long term future. We've seen the stress points with both Greek finances and Schengen shenanigans, and on both it has failed to come up with any medium to long term plans, and we've seen just how (dis)united the individual members truly are. We're hardly the only the only members of the awkward squad, just more vocal and more on the surface.

andrew said...

EK

I understand, but a bit like 'letter to brezhniev',
to the small person at the bottom in liverpool trying to get something changed in their school in 2020,
London and Brussels are about the same distant distance.

Indeed, the ruling classes in London and Brussels have more in common with each other than an ordinary person in bristol/ liverpool/ york.

The brexiters point to the lack of democratic accountability. However, realistically there is not much effective difference in the ability of a small group of people to make a change in London or Brussels.

I think people know and understand this - practically speaking it does not make much difference and look at people who are exercised by the topic and place them in the same pidgeonhole as I place people who campaign for a bypass through their town when it happens I was not held up.

Roger said...

I agree, the Brits should stop trying to be Little America (Big America no longer cares). Brexit will help speed up the inevitable. About ten years from Brexit the economy will be flat on its back (being driven by dreamers and has-beens) and the UK will be forced to go cap-in-hand to the EU. By then we can join the Euro with King Charles's head on the Brit Euro.

Kevin Peat said...

Andrew

London v Provinces is not a bad way of defining the referendum.

andrew said...

KP,

True

But my point is the provinces are losing no matter how they vote.

Blue Eyes said...

James G, I didn't realise you were talking about the ERM. The ERM was a disaster, because there was no central authority. Effectively everyone else had fixed their exchange rates to the Deutschmark and there was no mechanism for telling the Bundesbank that their monetary policy was wrong for that country. The Euro itself is slightly different. I am not suggesting that the Euro has been a roaring success! All I am saying is that if the UK had joined the Euro, the Euro might have been a slightly different beast. That is all.

Thanks for the interesting discussion everyone!

Electro-Kevin said...

Thanks for the stimulating post, Blue.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

"if we are In we should be properly In and In the driving seat."

But we won't be in the driving seat, ever. The Frogs and the Krauts will be in the driving seat, always.

It's either Out, or servitude; I know which I prefer.

But this was all an April fool, wasn't it.

adham said...



شركة تنظيف بالطائف شركة الهدي افضل شركة نقل عفش بالطائف كذلك هى افضل شركة رش مبيدات بالطائف
شركه الهدى
شركة رش بالطائف
خدمات الطائف
شركة تنظيف بالطائف
شركة تنظيف فلل بالطائف
نظافه عامه بالطائف
شركة تنظيف منازل بالطائف

adham said...



شركة تنظيف شقق بالطائف
نقل عفش بالطائف
بالطائف شفط بيارات
تسليك مجارى بالطائف
تنظيف خزنات بالطائف
رش مبيدات بالطائف
نقل عفش بخميس مشيط
شركة عزل اسطح بالطائف

adham said...



شركة نقل عفش واثاث بالدمام ابيات الشرقيه لخدمات نقل العفش والاثاث بالدمام
شركة نقل عفش بالدمام
نقل عفش بالخبر
شركة نقل اثاث الدمام
نقل عفش الدمام
نقل عفش بالدمام

adham said...



ان اردت نقل عفش منزلك بالدمام ابيات الشرقية من اهم شركات نقل العفش بالدمام والخبر والجبيل والقطيف والاحساء
شركة المتحدة
شركة نقل عفش بنجران
شركة نقل عفش بخميس مشيط
شركة نقل عفش بالطائف
شركة نقل عفش بمكة
شركة نقل عفش بينبع
شركة نقل عفش بابها

adham said...


شركة نقل عفش بالرياض
شركة نقل عفش بجدة
شركة نقل عفش بالدمام
شركة نقل عفش بالمدينة المنورة
شركة نقل عفش ببريدة
شركة نقل عفش بالقصيم
شركة نقل عفش بتبوك