In what will clearly
be good news for
some businesses in Britain and the people who work in them, around £9 billion
worth of trade deals with China were signed off yesterday during the Prime
Minister’s visit. During the same visit,
the International Trade Secretary suggested that deals
such as this show that we shouldn’t be ‘obsessing’ with Europe, and should be
looking wider afield. Up to a point, I
agree with him.
Here’s the
point, though: they don’t have to be alternatives. All the deals signed off yesterday were
signed by the UK whilst still a member of the EU and within EU rules. It’s true that the specific deals signed off
yesterday aren’t the same as a generic deal covering terms; but the whole point
of a generic deal is surely to enable specific individual deals. If there is already significant scope for
improving trade with China within EU rules, in what way would that wider deal ‘replace’
what is lost in terms of trade with Europe?
Only someone 'obsessed' with leaving the EU would see these as alternative, rather than complementary, approaches.
Posts
Government inefficiency minister
-
THe Mirror reports that Jacob Rees-Mogg - the former Government Efficiency
Minister - blew £1,152 of taxpayers’ cash having paintings removed from his
Par...
2 hours ago
7 comments:
Why are you still talking about this? Things are much more focussed now.
We're either leaving the EU as per referendum (see UK Government leaflet distributed to all households for scope and implications) or we are only partially leaving the EU because of the economic risks associated with fully leaving.
This is the issue MP's are struggling with, not our dearly beloved PM signing inconsequential and relatively minuscule trade deals with China.
I'm not sure quite what point you're trying to make here. If, for the sake of argument, we accept your statement that all debate is now down to "We're either leaving the EU as per referendum [...] or we are only partially leaving the EU", then under the second scenario, there is, as the post said, no reason to see trade with China and trade with the EU as alternatives; they can be complementary. Only under the first - the one favoured by anti-EU obsessives like Fox - would they be seen as somehow alternatives.
But I agree with you that, however they're billed, the trade deals are, in the scale of things "inconsequential and relatively minuscule". All the more reason not to ditch the one option for the other.
JD @ 17:14
But here again you again trying to introduce economics into the BREXIT equation.
BREXIT means BREXIT no matter what the consequence for our trade intra EU. This was clear from the start. As for the China business, Germany is apparently already exporting 8x as much as the UK, yet Germany is quite happy to stay within the EU.
Seems there is quite a lot more we can do in China, in or out. But our EU trade is now entirely dependent upon how our politicians play things out.
Things have suddenly got so much more interesting..
I'm not quite sure why you are saying that I am introducing economics into the Brexit equation. Economics is, and has been from the outset, part of the equation; that is inevitable. If you're arguing that economics played little part in many people's decisions as to how to vote in 2016, I'd be inclined to agree. Whether, or to what extent, that was because they were told that the economic impact would be positive anyway is another question. If you believe that the economic impact of something is going to be either negligible or even positive, then it's easy to vote on other factors. If you believe that there will be a major negative impact, it becomes a different question.
I'd accept that many of those who voted for Brexit would have done so even if they had believed with absolute certainty that there would be a negative impact; but I don't believe that all of them would have done so. And it wouldn't have taken a very high proportion of the overall Brexit vote to have made a difference to the ultimate outcome. So, for those of us who want to mitigate the impact of Brexit (and not just in economic terms) dealing with those economic factors remains important in changing people's minds. In my view, the only thing that will make our politicians change the current trajectory (which leads to a complete break with the EU) is a change in public opinion. And a change in opinion depends not on convincing the diehard Brexit-at-all-costs brigade (an opinion which mere facts are unlikely to influence) but on convincing those who were led to believe that they could both have their cake and eat it. And that does mean dealing with some of the fantasies.
Those who really want Brexit regardless are unlikely to welcome that.
JD @ 08:21
The government produced EU booklet/leaflet sent to every household prior to the June 2016 referendum clearly spelt out the negative effects of a LEAVE vote on jobs and the economy. I suggest you have a re-read, the document did cost taxpayers something over £9 million!
You may be right that some voted for BREXIT without being fully aware of the negative effects. But that is their fault, not a fault of the government of the day nor of those involved in the general hustle and bustle of electoral hustings. I suspect the same is true at every general election, not everyone will fully understand the policies of the individual/party they are voting for.
So, try by all means to mitigate the impact of BREXIT but do respect that government, no matter of what colour, is tied to bringing about BREXIT in accordance with the terms laid out in the aforementioned document. Or it is until a further vote is held to modify or overturn the plebiscite of June '16.
This is what the politicians are slowly coming to terms with. It's not easy for anyone to accept!
"You may be right that some voted for BREXIT without being fully aware of the negative effects. But that is their fault, not a fault of the government of the day nor of those involved in the general hustle and bustle of electoral hustings. I suspect the same is true at every general election, not everyone will fully understand the policies of the individual/party they are voting for." I almost agree with that, and if it did not include the words "not a fault of [...] those involved in the general hustle and bustle of electoral hustings", I'd agree even more. I don't think you can absolve those involved in the referendum campaign from any responsibility to be honest in what they say as easily as that.
"... do respect that government [...] is tied to bringing about BREXIT ..." In strictly legal terms, no government can ever be bound by the result of a 'consultative' referendum, but I accept that, in political terms, it is impossible for any government to simply ignore the result. People do have the right, though, in a democracy to change their minds. And those of us like myself who would prefer that the result had gone the other way, have every right to seek to persuade people to change their minds, and debunking fantasies is part of that. And if there were evidence that sufficient people had changed their minds (leaving aside the question of exactly how that might be evidenced, which I accept is likely to be contentious), then any government has the right - or even the duty - to pay some heed to that. It also follows, of course, that in the absence of such evidence, the current path has to be followed through.
"... in accordance with the terms laid out in the aforementioned document." Now that's a much more contentious statement. The document did not spell out the terms on which the UK would leave, and I actually accept that the leavers have a point in arguing that the document was not exactly a balanced or nuanced statement of the likely consequences, given its failure to explain exactly what assumptions it was making. I think it fair, on the whole, to describe much of the Remain campaign as a sort of 'Project Fear', making wild claims about the consequences without spelling out the assumptions on which they were based. And there was an almost total lack of any positive statements about the advantages of membership of the sort of Europe in which we wish to live. But a blueprint for Brexit it definitely was not.
JD, Brexit Means Brexit....
The referendum means we are leaving. Yes, I think we all get that bit.
But during the referendum, there were no policy details, no road-map, no clear definition of what would happen after the dust settled.
This is why we are having this important debate now.
Even Boris Johnson, the arch-Brexiteer, was not clear as to what would happen. Before the vote he said, and I quote :
"I would vote to stay in the single market," he told Sky News in 2013.
"I'm in favour of the single market. I want us to be able to trade freely with our European friends and partners."
We need a proper mature debate - not meaningless sound-bites - such as Brexit means Brexit.
Post a Comment