Free trade and the retreat from globalisation

I accept the theory of free trade, that all nations would  be richer if they traded  freely with each other. Successive rounds of GATT followed by the work of the WTO have boosted world economic activity a bit.

I also agree that for any individual country in theory  it could be better off if it went for unilateral free trade, on the grounds that it would benefit from cheaper imports, though would not gain extra opportunity for its exports. I do not however recommend such a policy because it does assume that other countries would not exploit the perceived weakness of a country welcoming more  imports without demanding something in return. Were other countries to accept the freedom to sell to that country and at the same time exploit it by making imports from it more difficult it might harm the country making the unilateral offer. It can also lead to strategic weakness by being import dependent on countries that may later become hostile or unhelpful. Trade theory assumes rational economic actions by others, when they may act in a harmful economic way for other reasons.

I am a free trader who believes in offering to remove tariffs and barriers in return for similar offers from trading partners. Today we must recognise that there are strong winds of economic nationalism. President Trump called out China for her trade and IP practises. He  moved to ban certain Chinese trade in goods in technologically sensitive areas, and imposed tariffs in an attempt to stem the tide of imports. President Biden is continuing with the same policy albeit with a different choice of diplomatic language. He is reinforcing the idea of making more things in America to replace imports. China retains higher tariffs than the west, controls inward investors through joint ventures and restricts access to some markets.

There have always been cultural and administrative restrictions on free trade and investment in countries claiming to believe in open markets and the free movement of capital. Some  UK  companies have found it very difficult to invest and work in France and Germany despite being members of the single market for many years. UK retailers for example, reckoned to be world leaders in our early days in the EEC/EU,were unable to build profitable chains of shops on the continent. There have also always been aggressive strategies pursued by some countries to grab market share for their companies and put others at a disadvantage. We have just seen some of this over vaccine production and supply within the EU.

Given the avowed America First, EU first and China first policies  being pursued currently, the UK needs to do more work on import substitution and domestic capacity.  There is a fixation with marginal changes to export volumes and opportunities, and too little study of how we can become more  independent in timber, energy, fish, temperate food,and much else besides. The recent expansion of vaccine production here at home has been a  great strength and shows what can be done when there is a concerted effort to use our new freedoms to good effect.

139 Comments

  1. Mark B
    February 2, 2021

    Good morning

    It is time that we stopped foreign companies owned by foreign governments taking over UK companies, especially utility companies. The EU have made it clear that foreign owned airlines cannot use their airspace. Whilst I do not believe in tit for tat I think it would be a good idea that any foreign owned UK company sporting the words British, UK, English, Scottish etc should be made to change that part of its name. Country of origin and all that.

    Finally. Competition, competition, competition ! Make the EU compete in OUR market. They’ve had it easy over the last half century.

    1. Lifelogic
      February 2, 2021

      It should not cost more than about £10k to remove cladding from each flat perhaps just 30 M2 of it on average.. And yes the “leaseholders” (in effect the owners) whose flats are bing improved should surely pay for it in their service charges. Who else taxpayer who do not own the flat and have their own bills to pay? Labour and the BBC do not seem to realise “leaseholders” are in reality the owners.

      The problem as so often is lawyers, freeholders, mortgage companies, management companies, fire experts inspectors, walking watch charges, insurance companies and many other hangers on all conspire to get their cut from this racket. So it often ends up with unmortgageable flats and rip off charges of ÂŁ100k+ for this minor job. This is what needs sorting out. As usual far too many parasitic jobs around. Government largely regulations and poor legal structures have created and augmented the problem.

      The main reason for the high death toll at Grenville anyway was people being sent back to their flats by “trained fire experts”-long after it was clear to anyone with half a brain that the fire was totallyvout of control. This even from a glance at the TV pictures. Hopefully this total lunacy will not happen again anyway.

      1. Peter Parsons
        February 3, 2021

        For someone who talks a lot about property, you seem not to understand the difference between owning and leasing. Leaseholders do not own their property. By definition and in law, they are leasing it. Usually on a very long lease, but the owner is the freeholder, not the leaseholder.

        1. Lifelogic
          February 4, 2021

          I said they are “in effect the owner”. The value of a 125 year lease for example might be say 300k where the value of the freehold per flat might well be less than 1% of this unless there are high ground rents (which would have been clear on purchase). Plus they usually have the right collectively to buy out the freehold should they want to. As I say the real problem are the legal structures and various parasites that profit in the process push up the cost removing a bit of cladding from something reasonable like £10k per flat to perhaps 10 times this.

          1. Peter Parsons
            February 4, 2021

            They are not “in effect” the owners. They are only become the owners if they buy the freehold, irrespective of the cost of the lease.

            Those who should pay for this are the freeholders and the developers, those who have taken large sums of money from those leaseholders and need to take responsibility for the decisions they made.

    2. MiC
      February 2, 2021

      But global private equity looks for countries where it expects deregulation.

      It is queuing up to take over British companies right now.

      Any idea why?

      And as for globalism, the UK has just applied to join an association spanning the Pacific. What exactly does John mean?

      1. jerry
        February 2, 2021

        @MiC; That has been true for the last 40+ years, I wonder why, the UK inability to diverge from Brussels diktat perhaps?…

        1. hefner
          February 2, 2021

          a quick look at wikipedia ‘History of private equity and venture capital’ would show that these two financing ‘tools’ have essentially been in increasing use only since the ‘80s. So could one try another bright idea: would it be possible that the availability of such capitals has had anything to do with globalisation and the foreign purchase of British companies?
          Just asking.

          1. NickC
            February 3, 2021

            Hefner, Wikipedia? Seriously? You ought to know by now that Wikipedia is frequently biased – typically pro left, pro Remain, and pro Biden, for example. Private equity has been around a lot longer than the last 40 years, whatever Wikipedia says.

          2. hefner
            February 3, 2021

            Absolutely wonderful comment: Do you know how Wikipedia works, who are those writing articles, how quickly an article is published, what type of revision process is applied, who are the referees?

            That’s what I thought: completely clueless …

            And the wikipedia article is obviously pointing out that private equity has been with us since the beginning of the 20th c, in a more modern form since 1946. But this has little to do with my original point that the availability of such ‘loose money’ might have been as much a reason for the buying of British industry by foreign capital as the presence of the EU.

            Another serving of your dialectics, NickC?

          3. jerry
            February 4, 2021

            @Hefner; You are speeding up a blind alleyway. The problem is not the availability of offshore private equity but the laws and regulation that allow the ‘boardrooms’ of UK companies to move offshore, sometimes beyond what limited control the UK govt still has. For the last 30+ years UK laws and regulation have kowtowed far to readily on the face of EU laws and regulations when at the same time many EU27 States found ways to circumnavigate such diktat – not the UK – Whitehall tended to send such diktat off for gold plating, especially between 1991 and 2010…

            If you’re going to cite a Wikipedia ‘fact’ you should be able to cite its source, where the inline reference points, byway of the [#] that points to a published URL or ISBN etc. found at foot of the page. No reference means no cited source, thus the ‘fact’ might not be a fact at all – the strength of Wikipedia is also its greatest weakness!

      2. NickC
        February 2, 2021

        Martin, Some countries – and blocs – use trade as a weapon, as an alternative to actual war, but a weapon nonetheless. The EU empire does. It has just been demonstrated to us over the last four and a half years, and is baked in to the WA and the T&CA. And you just love it. Provided it is the EU doing it, and not the UK, of course.

        1. Billy Elliot
          February 2, 2021

          You are 100 per cent right.
          EU is a trade empire and in deed it acts like an empire. Just like British Empire in the past.
          It is next to us and won’t go away in near future . Things like this will be happening in the future. Surprised that it happened so soon. But what else to expect?
          We chose to put our selves in this position with “democratic vote” so we can’t really change that aspect but when time goes by I am positive that we can co exist as good partners.

          1. NickC
            February 3, 2021

            Billy, The Referendum really was a democratic vote. And it was about one issue only, so the decision was clear. And your advocating we should remain in the EU because the EU is a bully rather gives the game away. I wouldn’t boast about it if I were you.

        2. Billy Elliott
          February 3, 2021

          Just stating a fact NickC

    3. Peter
      February 2, 2021

      The UK needs economic nationalism not free trade.

      It does not benefit the U.K. workforce if plants are closed down and production is moved abroad to low wage countries as part of the so called ‘race to the bottom’.

      Cheap imports can be acceptable but we must not impoverish the country or put ourselves at a strategic disadvantage just to benefit from them. Bigger profits might suit global elites but their power needs to be held in check.

      As regards foreign ownership of cherished UK companies and utilities, it is now a case of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

      1. NickC
        February 2, 2021

        Peter, I agree, though I would prefer enlightened – or strategic – economic nationalism. We should ensure that no one competitor or enemy, such as the EU empire, or China, etc, can cripple us in order to force their odious political practices on our country.

        1. hefner
          February 3, 2021

          The ‘Economic Nationalism’ page on wikipedia lists some pros and cons of such an approach. The last paragraph ‘Criticism’ has some interesting points.

          But it is good to see ‘enlightened’ people on this blog with such ‘strategic’ ideas.

    4. turboterrier
      February 2, 2021

      Mark B

      +1 absolutely correct.

    5. Shirley M
      February 2, 2021

      +1

    6. ian@Barkham
      February 2, 2021

      The Governments enforce un-level Competition, meaning that a Free Market and Competition will never be permitted.

    7. Enrico
      February 2, 2021

      +1

    8. a-tracy
      February 2, 2021

      I agree Mark if the company isn’t at least 51% owned British then it is no longer
      ‘British’ Xy Company.

      The Royal Mail should have an aligned business that is like an Amazon for small British companies to sell their products through. They say Amazon is a retailer with a transport/logistics arm. So visa versa this company could organise worldwide customs paperwork at a competitive cost and the taxes would be onshore, to the UKs benefit.

    9. Peter Parsons
      February 2, 2021

      “The EU have made it clear that foreign owned airlines cannot use their airspace.”

      Where do you make this stuff up from?

      I think you will find that US-based airlines, Middle East-based airlines, Asian-based airlines etc. are all using the airspace over the EU to fly not just to and from EU airports, but elsewhere as well.

      If your complaint is that UK-based airlines are no longer allowed to offer services between two EU airports, well, tough, that’s a consequence of Brexit and walking away from that market. UK-based airlines are not allowed to offer services between two airports in the USA either.

      1. Billy Elliott
        February 2, 2021

        “well, tough, that’s a consequence of Brexit and walking away from that market. ”
        Hah, I love the way you simplify the situation. Just walk awway. You knoww it means big losses so I guess in practise airliners just do as easyjet or British Airways: they make sure majority of the shares are in EU based company.

      2. NickC
        February 2, 2021

        Peter P, Your EU empire used the threat of excluding UK flights – along with many other threats – to leverage unfair terms in the deals. Contrary to the EU’s own treaties.

        1. hefner
          February 2, 2021

          The UK flights have never been excluded from continental European skies, you are making this up. As already pointed, what has changed is the possibility for UK airlines to carry on doing ‘cabotage’ within the EU27.

          1. NickC
            February 3, 2021

            Hefner, The threats were made. For example in mid 2018 there were many industry and newspaper reports about EU threats to exclude UK planes unless we capitulated on no deal. I did not say that UK planes were excluded – you are just making that part up.

    10. Hope
      February 2, 2021

      JR, tangential to trade is freedom of choice that includes big tech and its advertising.

      Poland has introduced a Freedom Act to prevent far left from dominating freedom of choice or directing and influencing our choices including what we buy. As the minister explained cancel culture is more akin to soviet Russia than western democracy. Poland should know having experienced it and is determined not to allow it through the far left wing ideology of silicon valley.

      The far left has progressed from disguised restraint of thought under “alleged equality” to political correctness to cancel culture. It is akin to China’s and Russia’s reprogramming camps for people who think differently.

      This is real in our country today. To everyone’s surprise your party is not fighting back or standing up for freedom, liberty, self-responsibility, less state, freedom of choice. But state control over everything in our lives with more and more tax. Taxation at a Seventy year high.

      Raab was unable, or too stupid, to realise what he said and wrote yesterday about Russia not allowing dissent, in total contradiction to what he and his govt is doing which is far worse in this country! Is he stone deaf to what Brady and co have been saying? Govt rather listen to far left SAGE members, some undoubtedly have an agenda in additional to health, than his own MPs!

      Katela of Poland: The signals from the left are clear — if you do not agree with us and you criticise us, the ‘system’ we have created will not only get you fired, but it will also limit your access to certain services and products.

      1. Timaction
        February 2, 2021

        +1

  2. Lifelogic
    February 2, 2021

    Free trade yes please, but the UK has to be able to compete. Britain now has a tax burden that is highest for 70 years -and Sunak seems set to increase it even further by increasing for example Capital gains which is far too high already. His first act as Chancellor was to slash entrepreneurs relief to 10% of what it was, hardly a good sign from this PPE dope. This at a time when many businesses will struggle to even keep up with repaying their Covid loans and deferred VAT. Public services, despite this huge burden of taxation are still fairly dire too. Endless waste on renewable subsidies, expensive energy market rigging, HS2, Hinckley C and indeed almost anywhere else you care to look in the over paid and “working” from home state sector. Endless red tape, excessive planning controls, counterproductive shutdowns and restrictive employments laws.

    The government very clearly does not want UK businesses to compete in the world they seem to want them to relocate.

    1. jerry
      February 2, 2021

      @LL; You say the UK has the highest tax burden for 70 years, yet the UK was very good at exporting our goods and finished products back in the 1950s (nor primarily to our old Empire, as was the case pre WW2). So the level of taxation is not necessarily linked to the ability to compete on the world stage and certainly not here at home. What are the taxation levels in the PRC (100% minus what ever the State wish to hand back?…), yet China has no problem with exports, nor their ability to compete!

      Surely the issue is the willingness of UK owned companies to invest, and for UK investors to take risks, in UK R&D, and UK based manufacturing, rather than simply re-exporting finished imports (with the bulk of the profit being made in the country of origin) -we need to get away from ‘Warehouse UK’ in other words.

      1. lifelogic
        February 3, 2021

        People and businesses will rightly invest where it is most sensible to do so. High taxation, expensive energy, restrictive employment laws, restrictive planning and endless red tape clearly does not help.

        1. jerry
          February 3, 2021

          @LL; “Sensible” – you mean most profitable.

    2. Mike Wilson
      February 2, 2021

      Heaven knows I agree with you that we are very heavily taxed, but do you have a link to any figures that show we are paying the highest taxes for 70 years?

      When you look back at when Maggie came to power in 1979, the basic tax rate was 33%. But tax allowances were much lower than today (although is that true if you allow for inflation!). When people say ‘the basic rate is now 20% and it used to be 33% and personal allowance now is 12500 and it used to be 1000 in 1979 (that 1000 figure is a guess, can’t find the actual figure – in 1989 it was 2605), they make no allowance for inflation and that National Insurance rates are much higher (but, again, the allowances are higher too). Throw in the massive rises in Council Tax and VAT and car tax and fuel duties and I find it impossible to determine whether we are more highly taxed now than, say, at any point in the last 70 years.

      Do you have any figures? I would be very interested to see them. Our current level of high taxes is one of my hobby horses when responding to half wits on the Guardian who think we are not taxes highly enough.

      1. a-tracy
        February 2, 2021

        Mike
        1978-1979 the personal allowance for a single person was ÂŁ985 married ÂŁ1535.
        1979-1980 the personal allowance for a single person was ÂŁ1165 married ÂŁ1815.
        1990 was the introduction of independent taxation

        1978-1979 Lower Rate 25%, Basic Rate (limit ÂŁ8000) 33%, Higher Rate 40-75%, 83%

        Source: fiscalfacts 2000 – various Tolley’s Income Tax

        1. Mike Wilson
          February 2, 2021

          Thank you for those figures. Do you have a view on whether we are paying the highest taxes for 70 years?

          1. a-tracy
            February 2, 2021

            Mike, it is difficult to have a view on taxation right now because the government has given so much out this past year, much more than they’ve taken in. My worry is what taxes are going to be imposed from April to recoup it and to pay for the ever expanding benefits, we were collectively already paying high taxes but I think we are all wealthier than we were fifty years ago, even people I know on benefits are doing better several don’t do a stitch of work and can feed their kids (whatever is being reported all the time, £400 per week net for a single parent with two kids is a lot more than people used to get 50 years ago). Councils in particular aren’t providing any value for tax money, if they were a private business offering these services with competition they’d be bankrupt just as many pubs and shops are being forced into.

            Employee + Employer NI = 25.8% over ÂŁ9500
            Employee + Employee NEST pension = 8% over ÂŁ6240-ÂŁ50,000 With no guaranteed outcome.
            VAT = 20%
            Insurance Premium Taxes = 12% to 20%
            Claw back on personal allowances giving an effective tax rate of 60%
            Child benefit claw back if one earner goes over ÂŁ50k
            Excise Duty, air passenger duty
            The highest tax rates on petrol and diesel in Europe + relentless fines – reduce speed increase speed traps increase road taxes, tolls on new bridges in England, Congestion charge taxes. It all mounts up.

      2. Lets Buy British
        February 2, 2021

        I seem to recall that my father was a standard rate tax payer ( 1970s ? ) but no VAT when Tony Jacklin was scuttling away to the USA because of super tax rate of 98p in the ÂŁ.
        Successive Govt argue that the top 1% of tax payers contribute 25-27% of income tax collected but I would like to see a clearer picture and comparison of when all taxes are paid – vat, income, petrol, road tax, council tax, stamp duty, tax on alcohol, etc – and see how we stand then but to do so properly we might need to adjust for all the tax give aways and subsidies handed out to the wealthy, and the giveaways are many, and usually not available to the lower income famillies. An unlevel playing field.

        1. Lets Buy British
          February 2, 2021

          Correction — 37.5% tax payer but no vat

      3. Hope
        February 2, 2021

        Taxpayers Alliance.

    3. Hope
      February 2, 2021

      JR failed to examine/include scrapping Servitude Agreement and NIP. Already border check staff withdrawn for safety fears. Dodds, Wilson and Forster views not taken on board, promises made to them and broken. There will be consequences for only listening to the views of RoI. Again, weakness and pathetic appeasement by Johnson to get a deal, no matter how bad, at any cost. Johnson sold out N. Ireland there can be no doubt.

      Fake Tory govt will have to address its “mistakes” and change or get rid of the Servitude Agreement and NiP. Top priority is food security from other sources and home then Tell the EU to F off. The UK food security weakness being used as a threat in December by EU.

    4. ian@Barkham
      February 2, 2021

      Tax is the way our own elected representatives get to cripple the drive an imitative of the people that put them there

  3. Lifelogic
    February 2, 2021

    Prof. Steven Powis yesterday said the vaccine priority order had been determined by JCVI (experts) to give “the greatest benefit to those at highest risk”. Alas not or they would clearly vaccinate men about five years younger than women to reflect their relative risk. This would save hundred of lives and thousands of extra hospital admissions. Hancock, Zahari and JCVI have been told this but do not even reply. They clearly seem to prefer that these extra (mainly men) to die and the NHS to be more over loaded than to be accused of any anti-female bias or having just got it wrong. So they persist with their deadly anti-male bias.

    Far more than died at Grenville Tower will be the result and it could be changed at the stoke of a pen but no it seems JCVI and government ministers prefer not to be seen to change their minds and put it right. Fingers in ears and keep whistling. They are clearly not remotely following any logic, reason or science here. Why also vaccinate people who have certainly already had it while vaccines are in short supply ( or even at all).

    1. Shirley M
      February 2, 2021

      Still beating the same drum? Keep it simple, by using age and vulnerability so that the vaccines can be rolled out quickly. You want criteria on gender, others want criteria on profession/trade, others want criteria on race, and how about your blood group being included in the criteria, as that can also make you more vulnerable (apparently O blood groups are more resistant to covid). Then you end up with one unholy mess of everyone arguing they should be first. Therefore men with blood group O should not get the same priority as those with other blood groups. Do you see where we would be heading? Keep it simple. Everyone will be offered vaccination.

      1. a-tracy
        February 2, 2021

        I agree with you, Shirley. My husband is happy to wait his turn.

        I’m more interest in who gets to choose what type of vaccine is used by postcode. Which postcodes/age groups/people are getting what is considered by Europe the superior Pfizer? Then we’ll know for sure if Britain does stand behind the efficacy of the AZ one.

      2. TIMH
        February 2, 2021

        +1

      3. Richard1
        February 2, 2021

        Good points it is simpler and quicker to do it by age.

      4. NickC
        February 2, 2021

        Shirley, Women have a better immune system than men.

        1. a-tracy
          February 2, 2021

          Women didn’t fair so well a couple of years ago Nick. From the ONS 30 Nov 2018 — Females and the elderly were most affected by excess winter mortality. Of the estimated 50,100 excess winter deaths (EWD) in 2017 to 2018, there were 43.7% (21,900 EWD) among males and 56.1% (28,100 EWD) among females.

          Plus a lot of the women I know have been much more cautious and careful than the men over covid. I saw three men chatting on Sunday all not distanced, no masks, up to them but they’re taking more risks.

          1. NickC
            February 3, 2021

            A-tracy, But did you look at the average ages of those who died? From the ONS: “Life expectancy at birth in the UK in 2017 to 2019 was 79.4 years for males and 83.1 years for females”. So in general even if the numbers of women affected by EWD is higher than men, it is irrelevant in comparison to average age at death. You are right with your anecdotal account of men taking more risks than women: it is a noted effect.

    2. Fedupsoutherner
      February 2, 2021

      O/T but relevant reharding Covid. Much as I admire Captain Tom and his fund raising efforts I’d like to know why he is allowed to have his family on the ward when there are strict rules for everyone else? If we all fund raise can we have visitors too if admitted to hospital? I am sick of different rules for people.

    3. Iain Gill
      February 2, 2021

      correct

    4. Mike Wilson
      February 2, 2021

      Notwithstanding the numbers, I think comparing things to Grenville Tower is a bit tactless. Thinking about those people trapped and waiting to be burned alive is as upsetting as those images of people leaping from the Twin Towers.

      Surely you would make your point by posting the gender mortality rates for COVID.

    5. Caterpillar
      February 2, 2021

      LL,

      One has to wonder generally about the wisdom of pushing the mRNA technology products down to the less vulnerable groups full stop. Even though long term effects have not been evaluated there is of course an argument to inject the most vulnerable, and inject them twice as designed to increase likelihood of protection. Though they offer protection, the mRNA products may not stop contracting and spreading the virus (still under debate), particularly with single shot. One should consider how this impacts viral evolution and total risk. If the result of distributing the mRNA technology products is to limit the usual route to evolving to less deadly strains then the net risk to the population may not reduce. Moreover, one might guess (not known yet), that greater cross-reactive immunity may occur in the less vulnerable from infection with the full virus, than just one protein stimulating the immune response. One recognises the likelihood of this (if it is not just tyrannical dictatorship) in comments form the P.M. such as, “We don’t want the massive success that NHS and others have had with the vaccination to be put at risk by having new variant come back in.” This sounds like a policy of reliance on repeated narrowly specific mRNA technology products, rather than widespread improvement in health and immune systems, and increased cross-reactive immunity.

    6. boffin
      February 2, 2021

      Well said, Lifelogic, and to get the UK back to work and competing with the world as swiftly as possible it would have been so easy to implement a simple points-accumulation-based system to ensure that vaccinations were allocated quickly where most needed –
      e.g.
      male +1
      non-Caucasian +1
      age +N according to band
      occupation +N according to exposure and spread risk, not limited to healthcare alone.
      (for instance police, exposed teaching staff, bus drivers, RN crew, etc., etc.).

      – Fat chance of that whilst we have a non-rational, non-numerate Nutnut government …..
      (Arise, ye 1922 Committee, from your slumber!).

    7. weary eye
      February 2, 2021

      We’re interested in what President Xi is doing and don’t forget that the UK was the first country to sign up to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, so we are very pro-China,” he said, referencing the Beijing-based bank.
      Johnson said that he was “very enthusiastic” about Xi’s signature Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) investment project and celebrated Chinese investment in the United Kingdom.
      The then-foreign secretary even said his daughter was learning Mandarin in China. “Learning Chinese is very important, definitely,” he said.

      So John are you as enthusiastic about trade with China as the PM once was? The Conservative Friends of the Chinese that Boris Johnson inaugurated can you assure us that it isn’t acting as a fifth column for the Chinese government?

    8. Ed M
      February 2, 2021

      I agree – but UK doing way better than France.

      Macron and Boris had big opportunity to prove themselves as leaders over something as crucial as vaccinations – and Johnson has done a relatively good job on this.

      (Israel at 50% of people vaccinated – smart people – or, rather, no brainer).

  4. DOM
    February 2, 2021

    Free trade amongst free nations? You must be ‘aving a giraffe’. Your government’s just destroyed swathes of British commerce to placate the health and teaching unions.

    The faux Tories should learn a lesson from Thatcher. Politics involves conflict and avoiding conflict is merely capitulating to the enemy that is the fascist left. No wonder we never see public sector strikes no more when your government simply gives in to union demands behind closed doors by throwing our money at them

  5. Ian Wragg
    February 2, 2021

    Perhaps you could explain why Boris has signed up to the EU security pact ie EDF and the military procurement process.
    There will be no renewal of shipbuilding etc because we will be bound by EU procurement rules.
    This is because we have signed up for the Horizon Project which incorporates the EDF.
    Scandalous.

  6. Pat
    February 2, 2021

    Let’s not be too hasty in patting ourselves on the back regarding uk vaccine production. We have no domestic capability to produce mrna vaccines.

    These are essential to combat covid mutation as they can be modified in as little as two days.

    1. NickC
      February 2, 2021

      Pat, You are wrong. The Oxford-AZ vaccine is of the mRNA type, and was developed and trialed by Oxford university (in the UK). It is being produced in Oxfordshire and Staffordshire right now. Haven’t you been following the news about the EU demanding that UK production of this vaccine be shipped to the EU in preference to it being used on UK citizens?

      1. hefner
        February 2, 2021

        Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are mRNA-type vaccines. The Oxford/AstraZeneca is not, a cursory look at wikipedia would have told you so and spending more time on that page would have explained you why.

        1. NickC
          February 3, 2021

          Hefner, I was wrong to include the Oxford-AZ vaccine in the RNA type, when it is DNA based. The substantive point – that the UK is providing its own advanced covid19 vaccine, contrary to Pat’s claim – remains valid.

          1. hefner
            February 7, 2021

            Isn’t that a bit of bad faith? ‘Pat, you are wrong. The Oxford/AZ vaccine is of the mNRA type…’.
            What you now say is your substantive point only appears after that. And Pat’s point about the UK ‘having no domestic capability to produce mRNA vaccines’ remains right.

      2. Caterpillar
        February 2, 2021

        NickC,

        I thought the AZ vaccine used an adenovirus as vector for a bit of DNA to code the spike protein. I think this is like Sputnik V, accept the latter uses a different adenovirus for two jabs, so as to limit immune response to the vector. (This doesn’t mean I like the wide roll out of either the mRNA type or the adenovirus vector type.)

        1. dixie
          February 3, 2021

          As I understand it the “Oxford” DNA is introduced to the cell nucleus which then produces the mRNA, so the Pfizer/Moderna bypasses that internal production stage and delivers the mRNA to the cell more or less directly. Both are “genetic vaccines” with similar results though the DNA version is more robust and can survive much longer at normal fridge temperature for up to 6 months.
          To produce an mRNA vaccine you must first produce the DNA that can produce it so I question the statement that we have no domestic capability for mRNA vaccines.
          The BMJ has published an interesting article (BMJ 2021;372:n86) “How the Oxford-AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine was made”.
          The NYT has published a simple explainer I’ve found helpful “How the Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Works” 8-Jan-21.

        2. NickC
          February 3, 2021

          Caterpillar, You are correct that the Oxford-AZ vaccine is DNA based not RNA based, and I was in error. However the UK did originate and manufacture its own advanced covid19 vaccine. I do not believe the DNA technology is any less demanding than the RNA technology, so Pat is wrong to say we have no domestic capability. That was my main point.

  7. Sea_Warrior
    February 2, 2021

    Great article – and timely too. The government must avoid rushing into trade deals that look superficially good but cause long-term damage.

  8. Pat
    February 2, 2021

    A robust uk vaccine industry could fulfil our international aid commitments under our own flag, rather than destroying trade with the third world under the current EU schemes.

    Perhaps Mr Sunak can organise the appropriate conditions to encourage this.

  9. Shirley M
    February 2, 2021

    I wonder why UK businesses are finding exporting to the EU difficult? I hear nothing about these difficulties occurring when exporting to non-EU countries. Is it because the EU are making it difficult, or is it that some UK businesses are unfamiliar with non-EU exports? We need to find out if the EU countries are putting unnecessary obstacles in the way, as the deal is worthless if both parties do not cooperate.

    1. Andy
      February 2, 2021

      They are finding it so difficult because selling to Munich, Milan and Madrid used to be like selling to Manchester. And it’s now like selling to Mumbai. And many of our small and medium sized businesses traded with Europe because it was easy and did not trade with the rest of the world because it was hard. You have made trade with our biggest market much harder. There was only ever going to be a negative economic outcome. To be fair you were all told about this for five years but there was always an argument involving fish and/or foreigner. How did the fish thing work out again?

      1. Roy Grainger
        February 2, 2021

        I worked in a services industry and selling to Mumbai was really easy, I worked there many times, but selling to Belgium was a bit harder. Still, let’s not let facts intrude on your fantasy of how business works – all gleaned from the Guardian ?

      2. NickC
        February 2, 2021

        Andy, Our biggest market, in GDP terms, is domestic (ourselves). As you well know . You’ve been told often enough. Our second biggest market is the rest of the world – the market you think is so difficult. Our third – and last – by market share, is the T&CA controlled EU market. And the harder the EU makes it to trade the less trade will be done – because it’s not the UK which is nitpicking. And as for our fish catch – not very well because the EU still steals half of it. Which is what Remains like you want.

        1. Billy Elliot
          February 2, 2021

          Yes Nick. Our domestic market is our biggest market. But what is traded there? Imported goods to large degree. They are not 100 % Made in Britain products. I don’t know what is the percentage of EU goods however difficulties at border do hit directly to our biggest – domestic – market as well.

          1. NickC
            February 3, 2021

            Billy, That is why I was careful to say “in GDP terms”. Imports are not part of our GDP. Didn’t you know?

    2. a-tracy
      February 2, 2021

      From what I have gathered Shirley, businesses that were already set up exporting outside of the EU have transport and distribution contracts and people employed that can already complete all the paperwork required. Some people thought a ‘trade deal’ with Europe didn’t mean the same level of paperwork as exporting to the RoW – no different. They didn’t expect having all this paperwork to send or receive goods from Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom. If they didn’t have the paperwork already written for their products on the origin and full export docs then the freight forwarders can’t cope with the extra new customers without accounts already set up, they are gearing up but aren’t ready yet.

    3. Grey Friar
      February 2, 2021

      Exporting to the EU was beautiful, stick it on a truck and straight through the Channel Tunnel, to market the same day. Now you have endless Brexit red tape, forever more. You have made exporting to the EU really hard, with literally not one single compensating benefit – trading with the rest of the world is as hard as it ever was. You learning the truth about Brexit yet? you wondering who sold you this fiasco?

      1. dixie
        February 3, 2021

        Maybe you could just bung a crate of spring water on a truck but anything complicated like telecoms systems involved endless and fruitless bureaucracy, language issues and the biggest NTB – protectionist attitudes particularly in Germany and France. Very quickly we learned it was a waste of time trying and instead focused on less protectionist markets – Americas, EMEA, APAC.
        The problem we have is an establishment that do not understand STEM and so seek to devalue any person or enterprise involved in it. They see no value in local manufacturing and production so allow it to be gifted away to our competitors, just so long as the city makes it’s commission all is well. They and the consumer seek only the cheapest option for them but ignore the staggering costs to our people, country and economy with such short sighted egotism.

        The EU encouraged and facilitated this process of eviscerating our productive sectors, it has added no value but played their game of rewarding it’s followers and placemen at the expense of everyone else.

      2. graham1946
        February 3, 2021

        Yes the idea was good, but why did we need to pay 13 billion a year for it, have our fish stolen and sold back to us and have most of our laws made for us? Most of our overseas trade is outside the EU and none of those countries imposes a high fee to trade or steal our assets. If it was truly free trade and not political we would never have left.

      3. NickC
        February 3, 2021

        Grey, As a member of the EU, we had to comply with EU red tape already. And be able to prove it with documentation. Your simplistic and ignorant theory that there was no EU red tape is the sheerest nonsense.

  10. Peter
    February 2, 2021

    Meanwhile, more complacent nonsense from William Hague on the absence of Dominic Cummings :-
    ‘Just as encouraging for the future was the measured reaction of ministers to the indefensible behaviour of the European Commission last Friday. Rather than anything threatening or jingoistic, Boris Johnson and his cabinet colleagues employed quiet reason and diplomacy to resolve the situation’

    This is code for we are not going to use the increasing anger of the country and drive forward to eradicate the weaknesses in our agreements with the EU.

    Without a Cummings or a Farage in the background shouting the odds, nothing will ever change.

    If Hague is trying to convince the public that a toadying press is a tribute to Johnson’s decision making and political acumen he needs to do much better.

    The farce around the position of Northern Ireland, the fishing industry and obstructive behaviour by the EU needs to be promptly challenged and changed.

    1. Roy Grainger
      February 2, 2021

      One outcome of the “measured” approach is now we can never ever under any circumstances invoke that protocol 16 ourselves. Not sure that’s a good outcome.

    2. MiC
      February 2, 2021

      All of these problems were created by your silly little vote in 2016.

      Have the backbone to own them at least.

      1. Billy Elliot
        February 2, 2021

        +1

      2. NickC
        February 3, 2021

        Martin, The 2016 Referendum was neither “silly” nor “little”. It solved a problem that had dogged UK politics for half a century and involved the largest number of voters turning out ever. Typically you confirm Remain’s disdain for democracy.

    3. London Nick
      February 2, 2021

      Hague is NOT a patriot. I hold no particular flame for Cummings, but if Hague doesn’t like him then that just raises Cummings in my estimation!

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        February 2, 2021

        Quite right.

    4. NickC
      February 2, 2021

      Quite right, Peter. I am shocked by the complacency, and complaisance, of the current Tory government in dealing with our enemy the EU empire. Someone else described Boris as “Jelly Roll Over Johnson”.

      1. bill brown
        February 4, 2021

        NickC

        so the enemy is our 27 closes neighbours? Interesting observation

  11. oldtimer
    February 2, 2021

    IIRC some takeovers by Spanish businesses were made possible by favourable tax regimes in Spain. Heathrow airport is an example. Sometimes politicians talk about level playing fields but usually they fail to walk the talk. It is time they took a hard nosed interest in such takeovers by foreign interests. Most other countries do. Is it because so many of them are clueless about business, what makes it tick and what undermines it? Judging by the regulatory and tax code burden businesses labour under, the conclusion must be that they are indeed clueless.

  12. Iain Gill
    February 2, 2021

    Free trade has lots of problems when some countries are happy to produce power using the most polluting methods possible, and other countries mandate expensive anti pollution measures, where some countries run their machine with little safety kit, and other countries mandate the most expensive safety kit, where some countries dont pay licence fees, and other countries pay licences in full, where some countries use child and slave labour, and other countries do not. this is the story of the destruction of manufacturing in the UK, as we import stuff from abroad who undercut us by not playing to the same rules as we expect internally.

  13. Narrow Shoulders
    February 2, 2021

    Globalisation has led to reduced manufacturing standards and cheap labour as price and margin has become the driver for manufacturing decisions.

    We need to become sustainable as a nation producing our own food and goods that last. Good for the environment and good for us. It will cost a bit more but we should ned to purchase less often.

  14. Mike Wilson
    February 2, 2021

    Mr. Redwood – in your thinking on trade you never appear to take into account the downside of (particularly free) trade. No mention of us being unable to compete with goods or services from countries with far lower costs (labour, energy, property etc.) than us.

    This baffles me. We have seen our much of our manufacturing industry decimated over the last four decades – because free trade makes overseas goods cheaper than home produced. Why on earth do you support this?

  15. Newmania
    February 2, 2021

    You believe in Free trade but the politics are difficult and you would like a level playing field ?
    Uhuh ..why not cook up some multi National organisation with a political dimension to make us all richer by removing these obstacles…Wow ..think they`ll ever do it ??!!!
    Every protectionist makes the noise and let me explain what this means for you
    Nutella out – Brito choc paste ( tastes like fish ) in
    BMW out Leyland back complete with rust
    Socks , made by some old lady in the Hebrides ÂŁ50 each
    Rip off ersatz Britain , its back and its the same expensive shoddy failure it was last time

    1. NickC
      February 2, 2021

      You believe in a protectionist EU empire but the politics are difficult and you would like a level playing field?
      Uhuh . . why not cook up some multi national organisation without a political dimension to make us all richer by removing these obstacles
Wow ..think they`ll ever do it??!!! A bit like most trade deals on the planet.
      Every EU protectionist makes the noise, and let me explain what this means for you Remains:
      Fish out – Fortress EU fish paste (tastes like fish, sometimes) in;
      BMW out – Toyota and Nissan back, complete with better reliability and made in the UK;
      Vaccines – made by some old lady in Brussels ÂŁ50 each (if she gets round to thinking about it);
      Rip off ersatz EU – thank God it’s not back, because it would be the same expensive shoddy failure it was last time.

      Oh . . oh . . . hahahahaha . . . . .

      1. bill brown
        February 4, 2021

        no facts but lots offake news about a muddle of issues taht are not structured, this is really getting very boring Nick

  16. Bryan Harris
    February 2, 2021

    A strange title, for surely more trade means more globalisation?

    But what exactly is this thing called globalisation?
    Some see it as simply; “growth to a global or worldwide scale”. But more and more it appears to be a way of standardising everything from attitudes to life-choices, across the world – In other words it becomes a way to reduce the differences, harmoginize cultures and make us all of the same mindset.

    You could call it world-wide Solidarity.

    Certainly trade has made this lessening of cultural identity possible, as well as the natural benefits of trade, but we should remember that even where we call it free trade, it will still have a cost.

  17. None of the above
    February 2, 2021

    Free trade and minimal barriers is the gold standard and should be the ambition of every democracy. These ambitions are not manifested just by words in a document, they must be demonstrated by actions. In this context the so called Agreement that we have with EU is just so many words.

    OT: BBC Outsource programme, what a breath of fresh air last night. Ross Atkin should be put in charge of Training Journalists and Researchers.

  18. ian@Barkham
    February 2, 2021

    Yes Free Trade is good, but all to often it becomes a modern version of war. An economic war, as instead of real free trade governments direct their industries to exploit other countries so as to dominate, not to develop in partnership and for mutual benefit.

    Think about it every grant, tax break etc granted to free enterprise is another companies extra tax burden. Governments as a rule don’t allow free trade unless they get to tinker and exploit. The EU’s Common Agriculture Policy started off well meaning enough but soon evolved into a weapon to undermined other countries desperately trying to feed their people.

    Other Countries such as the EU and China have circumvented the WTO etc and weaponised trade. Instead of quotas and tariffs we get ‘standards’ (that are anything but) and the costly red tape. They block free trade and replace it with dogma and politics. What is the point of the WTO and even ISO when governments interfere and manipulate. What is the point of a free enterprise, free market when it is never permitted to exist as governments keep wanting to manipulate and distort to secure a dominate ‘do as I say’ position against the world.

    In the round the Worlds Political Class/Elite are the only enemies here they fear their People.

  19. glen cullen
    February 2, 2021

    Forget Free Trade I want to be free from EU regulations and directives – nothing has changed, its all been a con, UK businesses can’t adopt any new innovations or processes due to EU level playing field

  20. No Longer Anonymous
    February 2, 2021

    There is no attempt to balance the costs to the UK of welfare and social disruption for unemployed manufacturing workers with the ‘cheapness’ of imports – which have turned out to be nothing like as cheap as we thought (add the cost of the entire CV-19 crisis and those yet to come.)

    Sino orientated globalism has been a disaster for the environment and a disaster for our society and was so even before the virus. We have yet to see the ramifications of more deadly ‘wet market’ diseases or the emergence of a Communist led #1 global superpower. This sends shivers down my spine.

    It is the UK bearing the brunt of criticism for not sharing free vaccines to the world (we will be sharing them according to Liz Truss) but where is the criticism of China for not sharing for free PPE, track and trace, vaccines… information !

    1. dixie
      February 3, 2021

      +1

  21. ChrisS
    February 2, 2021

    I don’t regret Brexit at all – especially given recent events. It was certainly the right move for us.

    However, both recent UK governments were suckered into agreeing to the imposition of ridiculous restrictions on movement between NI and the UK mainland because the EU made such a fuss about the Good Friday Agreement. In this they were cajoled along by that idiot Varadkar, in a blatant attempt to drive a wedge between two parts of the UK. In this, at least, I regret to say that he succeeded.
    The end result has been the requirement for the British Army to make a customs declaration and give notice to more troops and equipment from one part of the UK and another !

    From the behaviour of VDL last Friday we now know what a ridiculous con that was. It is good to see that the NI Executive has now suspended checks on goods entering NI at Larne and Belfast on “safety and security grounds”. Whether this was really necessary or not, Arlene Foster has been very clever and can probably spin this out for several years. The EU will have to put up with it or agree to the kind of electronic solution they rejected throughout the negotiations. If they can be proved to work seamlessly, the checks can be transferred to operate across the Irish border and restore the integrity of the UK. That should be our aim.

  22. Roy Grainger
    February 2, 2021

    I think there is a difference between strategic goods where we need to keep as much of the supply chain in the UK as possible, and other goods where it doesn’t matter much where they are manufactured. In the former category would be vaccines and some food, in the latter maybe some electronic consumer goods like phones. There is a big grey area between these two categories. For example is having a steel industry strategic ? Probably. Currently it seems we import all our coke for steel making from Canada. There is a proposal to open a new coal mine in UK to make our own coke but this is drawing howls of outrage from eco-warriors even though it would be carbon neutral in world terms simply substitution one source of supply for another. Let’s see if this mine is approved – I imagine Carrie will block it. If we continue to import coke, and Canada stops exporting it (due to their own environmental lobby) then what ?

  23. Lynn Atkinson
    February 2, 2021

    Yep. Trump was right.

    1. glen cullen
      February 2, 2021

      Agree

  24. ian@Barkham
    February 2, 2021

    An illustration of a vindictive aggressive manipulative government on our doorstep is of course the EU.

    The UK taxpayer at the start of the pandemic invested billions of pounds and man hours to create a defence to this virus spreading around the World. Oxford Jenner Institute teamed up with AstraZeneca to bring a vaccine to the World at just ‘cost’ to the developed world and given away elsewhere. The cost of this development and any liabilities are the responsibility of the UK taxpayer.

    The wonderful EU in its wisdom decided that the UK taxpayer funding and ‘at cost’ was not cheap enough for its citizens. Even though their home grown product were 10 times the price. So haggling over price was more important than the lives of their citizens.

    Even today after last Fridays debacle, the EU is demanding that UK destined production must be diverted to citizens in the EU. So the UK taxpayer that funded its development and created one of the ways out of this mess is experted to Die so as an unelected unaccountable EU Commission can get itself of the hook for its repeated blunders. And the EU still doesn’t get to contribute its fair share to the Worlds prosperity. After that what do you think their take on ‘Free Trade’ really is?

    Sir John, Free Trade is good, but most governments are despicable and manipulative so it (Free Trade) can never be permitted to happen. The Human Race is in a race were those that assume and grab power get to change and distort what free competition means, put the ripples in the level playing field – in practice it is warfare.

    1. ian@Barkham
      February 2, 2021

      From the MsM
      The UK taxpayer(population 69 million) committed ÂŁ1.67billion on Covid vaccines before it was known whether they would be effective. The US taxpayer(330 million population) spent ÂŁ7.9billion.

      The EU taxpayer(448 million population) ÂŁ1.57 million. (figures from science analytics firm Airfinity)

      The EU spent per head a fifth of what the UK has spent and around a fifth on what the US taxpayer has spent – yet the EU Commission demands more from the world than they ever contribute to it.

      They(the EU Commission) are the sponge that sucks the life from humanity. You have to feel for their citizens that never have a say and are just their as fodder.

      A free and competitive market with these people, you have got to be joking

  25. Andy
    February 2, 2021

    There may have been a time many tens of years ago when the biggest barrier to trade was tariffs. But that has not been the case for ages. Non-tariff barriers – different rules and regulations – are the biggest drag on trade and Brexit has super charged these.

    Take the fashion industry which we learn from the FT today faces a multi-billion pound Brexit hit. It is not just the pointless paperwork required to move goods but the restrictions Brexit imposes on professionals like models, designers, photographers. Britons in these professions can no longer work freely in Europe – so why would anyone needing these professionals go through the expense and hassle of producing all that paperwork to hire a Briton when they can use a European instead?

    We know of the disaster Brexit imposes on the music industry with touring – the biggest source of revenue now for many artists – hit by huge amounts of Brexit bureaucracy. It’s the little guy who suffers – the roadies, drivers and crew. Decent women and men whose livelihoods have been ruined.

    And then there’s shellfish. None of you voted leave to take back control of regulation of live shellfish exports. You never considered cockles. Nor did I. But it turns out that shellfish caught in most U.K. waters can no longer be sold live to the EU because we no longer follow the shared rules which previously allowed it.

    Everyday we hear stories of lives and livelihoods devastated by your Brexit. And every single day you lot – who are mostly retired – deny it. Shame on all of you.

    1. NickC
      February 3, 2021

      Andy, Everyday for over 45 years we heard stories of lives and livelihoods devastated by your EU empire. And every single day you lot – Remains and europhiles – denied it. Shame on all of you.

  26. Grey Friar
    February 2, 2021

    It’s lovely to know you are “a free trader who believes in offering to remove tariffs and barriers in return for similar offers from trading partners”, less lovely to know your life’s work is taking the UK out of a bloc which for the first time in human history succeeded in removing tariffs and barriers between more than two dozen different countries.

    1. None of the Above
      February 2, 2021

      At the expense of our Commonwealth Friends and most African States.

    2. NickC
      February 2, 2021

      But at enormous cost to our freedom and sovereignty; and in our cash and fish. Overall, we decided your EU empire wasn’t worth it.

  27. formula57
    February 2, 2021

    The UK needs our own Ludwig Erhard now. There is no evidence, alas, that Kwasi Kwarteng knows this.

  28. Caterpillar
    February 2, 2021

    I agree with Sir John’s final paragraph considering the wildcard-First policies. Under President Trump the USA was following a First policy which was to recognise areas where independence from trade was possible and allowed benefit (in terms of improved quality of life) to flow to regular Americans – this has been suggested as one of the reason for gains made in minority and female entrepreneur votes at the last election – it was an Americans First policy, winning for individuals. This seems different to the CCP-First policy, which appears to be an expansionist first call on world resources, an elite/nation winner takes all policy.

    In general, the argument that all nations are better off under free trade merits some consideration.

    The comparative advantage argument presumes that countries are on their production possibilities frontier and through trade can consume beyond these frontiers. The argument fails in two ways. Firstly the assumption is largely invalid as much of economies are post-scarcity (indeed much trade is not based on comparative advantage) and secondly it does not allow for the ‘fair’ distribution of any additional consumption across a nation.

    The increased choice through monopolistic trade gives increased choice between very similar products, the associated negative externalities (e.g. advertising to discriminate offers) may well outweigh any utility gains obtained from the choice.

    The scale economies argument for trade in some industries is reasonable in itself, however this means power has to flow to large monopolies that become more powerful than elected governments (under the assumption of democracy). And again, the cost arguments are only relevant if economies are truly constrained by scarcity.

    This is not to say I dislike trade, but it should no longer be considered automatically beneficial. I certainly prefer trade to war presuming one doesn’t live in a totalitarian country, in which case war can offer an indirect escape. There are clearly some resources that some countries have and others do not, trade seems a preferable route. The trade approach can of course go wrong if one has nothing to offer e.g. as a rough example, historic sales of opium to China. (I may have gone full circle.)

  29. Hope
    February 2, 2021

    JR, suggest you read article by Tim Bradshaw in Con Woman today about our EU “friends”. It is clear the WA,NiP and Servitude Agreement were made in bad faith as we see with the bureaucratic burden in trying to export goods to EU. As he says WTO could not be worse and without all the ties. Frost stood up for years on trade for spineless Gove and Johnson selling out our nation in the final weeks. You get a mention.

    1. London Nick
      February 2, 2021

      Yes, this is an excellent article. This is exacty what I have been saying here: Boris (and Gove, in relation to Northern Ireland) have capitulated to the EU, have betrayed the UK and have promoted the break-up of the country by encouraging seperatism in Northern Ireland and Scotland. These two men are morons and traitors. What other words can possibly describe their actions? That is a genuine question!

      A WTO Brexit (as Sir JR argued for) would have been far better. In fact, I have read that some companies are now no longer even trying to complete the nightmarish forms on origin and are preferring to simply pay the tariffs! This is the mad world of Boris’s glorious Treaty with our “EU friends and partners”. Excuse me while I throw up …

      1. Peter Parsons
        February 3, 2021

        A WTO Brexit would have made things even worse than they are now. It would have added tariffs and quotas on top of the problems being experienced by the current deal.

        Simon Coveney is correct in his analysis. The current problems are entirely down to the choice of Brexit the UK opted for.

    2. Grey Friar
      February 2, 2021

      WTO would be a lot worse. Boris’s deal does at least get rid of tariffs, WTO doesn’t do that. But I do understand you Brexiters have to believe that somewhere out there is Shangri La, the perfect trade deal. Because if you stopped believing that, you might have to face up to the ugly reality of red tape border check Brexit

      1. London Nick
        February 2, 2021

        You clearly haven’t a clue – which is why you are a Remoaner, I suppose. WTO tariffs on manufactured goods are actually pretty low, and would be completely cancelled out by the fall in the pound since the referendum. So our exporters would be just as competitive as they were before! And without Boris’s attrocious ‘deal’we would be free to exclude ALL EU fishermen from our waters, screwing them completely. We could also take all kinds of other actions designed to deliberately harm the EU, thus forcing them to offer concessions to us on trade and services. But gutless Boris chose the path of appeasement instead. Shame on him.

    3. Len Peel
      February 2, 2021

      I read Bradshaw. He thinks WTO means we pay tariffs but then avoid the red tape. Oh dear! No, under WTO we get both. And truckers still can’t bring in their sandwiches. Brexit, it’s a new diasaster every day

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        February 2, 2021

        Oh! And to The six counties and Kent too?

      2. Peter Parsons
        February 3, 2021

        WTO would mean quotas as well.

      3. NickC
        February 3, 2021

        Len, The red tape is EU red tape, not WTO red tape. And we had to comply with EU red tape whilst we were a member of the EU any way.

    4. Billy Elliott
      February 2, 2021

      I did read that article. Utter drivel. Mr Bradshaw claims that we would not be worse off with WTO? He just does not say anything about quotas. WTO for starters would make Nissan’s decision obsolete. They were very clear that the stay because of the trade deal (other automotive manufacturers have said the deal is not enough).

      Then he talks about “the elephant traps dug by the EU and fallen into by Johnson and Gove”. My God! I you agree a contract you should at least read it. Hopefully also understand it. But you can’t blame the other part if you don’t understand what you agree to. Like does this guy think EU is some sort philantropic organisation?
      Clearly Winston Peters from New Zeeland was right when he pointed out that “UK not ‘match fit’ for post-Brexit trade talks”.
      Bradshaw even claims “EU’s ‘specific strategic goal in making life worse for the UK’.” Well I don’t konow abi=out that but it is fair to say their objective is to impove the quality of life in EU. In order to do that collateral damage might happen and UK is part of that,

      But nevertheless his article clearly shows that UK overestimated it’s leverage – by far – and it never really understood that out is out. But I guess to some people the future of UK is not so important. It is all about England.

      1. NickC
        February 3, 2021

        Billy, The WTO does not impose “quotas”. Or even tariff levels. Both are imposed by countries, and the EU bloc, themselves.

        1. bill brown
          February 4, 2021

          NickC

          All countries around the worl impose quotas latest the US on steel and cars

  30. forthurst
    February 2, 2021

    No mention of India whose trade practices are similar to those of China with the added dimension of economic imperialism. As the GDP (PPP) per capita of India is a small fraction of a first world country, it would appear that they have far more to gain by being exposed to first world productive efficiency than vice-versa. However, India like China has not fallen for the global warming hoax as they are aware that it was designed by crooked ‘Western’ bankers (tautological?) to hamstring Western native competence in their favour.

  31. Alan Jutson
    February 2, 2021

    Looks like the customs checks for the sea border between the UK and Northern Ireland have been ceased after personal threats on the officials.

    Do you think the EU will object, or simply insist that they are reinstated. ?

  32. William Long
    February 2, 2021

    I think one of the most telling and dramatic contrasts to emerge from this saga is that between the success of the development of Vaccines by private industry, and the sorry tale of the NHS’s effort with Test and Trace. Where is that ‘World beating’ app now?

    1. dixie
      February 3, 2021

      I take your point but the vaccine was designed/developed by Prof Sarah Gilbert and colleagues at the Jenner Institute at Oxford U, the productisation is by private industry.

  33. Raymond
    February 2, 2021

    The economic theory (Adam Smith et al) does not apply in the real world, at least not in its pure form. I think a level of financial control and import duty is appropriate to maintain national integrity.

  34. John Hatfield
    February 2, 2021

    Last para. right to the heart of it.

  35. Original Richard
    February 2, 2021

    The UK has suffered from economic nationalism enormously as a result of its membership of the EU as evidenced by the UK’s £100bn/YEAR trading deficit with the EU. The UK opened up its market but in return found its exporters restricted by greater patriotism, delaying tactics and by subtle and often illegal subsidies.

    The UK government should set up a specific department to promote import substitution and also to put UK suppliers in contact with UK buyers of products, particularly food such as pork and fish, which are currently traded back and forth with the EU and where the EU is adding barriers to reduce our exports.

    Given our big trading deficit with the EU such a policy would develop UK businesses, improve our balance of payments and reduce the traffic across the Channel.

    Long-term for our safety we need to row back on our reliance on cheap imports from hostile countries by becoming as self-sufficient as possible in energy, food and strategic products and by developing repairable products by utilising for instance 3D printing to produce small replacement parts.

    1. dixie
      February 3, 2021

      I believe we need to move to a more circular economy, increasing the degree of re-use, repair and re-manufacturing and making it more localised. We also need to recycle more effectively rather than sending scrap and rubbish elsewhere and keep paying for it yet again in imported products.
      Advanced manufacturing with associated capabilities and skills are clearly a central factor but are likely to introduce major changes to employment which I don’t see any signs of our government planning for let alone being able to competently manage.
      Look at what has happened over the last year, eg the complete absence of moves to offer E&T opportunites at all levels to what is in effect a captive market.

  36. acorn
    February 2, 2021

    The four freedoms the EU adopted are somewhat out of date. The two free movements called Goods and Services, are now indistinguishable. You can buy an engine for you airplane; but, you will pay four times the purchase price having it serviced throughout its serviceable life.

    Likewise, the two free movements called Capital and Labour have become one and the same; that is what is now called Globalisation. Capital moves to the lowest cost Labour area to maximise profits.

    Sovereign currency issuing governments, must work to their own macroeconomic models and control their own currency area from distortions created by tax dodging global corporations. Movement of capital from one currency area to another has to be controlled by currency issuing government Treasury’s

  37. jon livesey
    February 2, 2021

    Trade is really a national resources story. You do best when you use national resources to produce the goods you make most efficiently at home, but import the goods you produce least efficiently. The day you start to subsidize domestic production to “improve” your trade picture is the day you begin to give up your natural advantages.

    And forget the stuff you see on supermarket shelves. The real story is in bulk goods that the public is hardly aware of.

  38. Mark Parker
    February 3, 2021

    Free trade can be a bad idea. If you trade freely with poorer countries they will take your jobs and wealth will drain out of the UK to them. It only worked for the UK immediately post the industrial revolution because we could import raw materials and sell back manufactored goods – we buy your cotton and sell you shirts is fine, but it only works if you’re the only industrialised nation in the deal. In modern times it doesn’t work. We would just get poorer.

Comments are closed.