There is ample scope for debate about the
likely impact of Brexit on the UK economy and the wider EU economy; the only
thing which is entirely certain is that a country which deliberately places
itself outside the regulatory mechanisms of a single market and opts out of agreements
on standards and enforcement will inevitably find that there are more barriers
to trade than there were previously. How large those barriers need to be is as
yet unresolved, as is the extent to which barriers to trade in one direction
are compensated for by the removal of barriers elsewhere. Most economists and
experts in the field take the view that increasing barriers with our closest
neighbours will do significantly more harm than the benefit gained by removing
barriers elsewhere. On the other hand many Brexiteers believe (although are
rarely prepared to publicly justify taking such a stance) that there is an
inherent (non-economic) benefit in being able to set rules without needing to
consult or agree with anyone else. The basic economic point, however, is beyond
question (except to those who believe in unicorns and other fantastic
creatures): opting out of the world’s largest and most successful single market
will create barriers to trade with that market, and whilst it might seek to
minimise those barriers by demanding exceptional treatment, pushing ahead with
the creation of those barriers despite the coronavirus pandemic is the official
policy of the UK government.
Which brings me to the UK’s Trade
Minister, and the extraordinary
letter which she has penned jointly with the trade ministers of Singapore,
Australia and New Zealand. In this letter, she (a prominent Brexiteer, although
probably most ‘fondly’ remembered for her condemnation of cheese
imports, a position which seems rather at odds with the letter’s
condemnation of protectionism) and her co-authors argue strongly against
creating new trade barriers in the environment which has resulted from the
pandemic, stating that “…putting in place more trade barriers would be the
worst possible response to global economic uncertainty”. Well, yes, indeed –
it would be a very silly response. But then demonstrating to the rest of the
world how not to do things when faced with a pandemic is about the one thing at
which her government is showing itself able to excel.
No comments:
Post a Comment