Shanker ‘snake oil’ Singham has been writing in The Telegraph about the imminent news that Britain will soon be part of the Pacific regional trade bloc known as the CPTPP: Pacific trade deal will mean Britain can never rejoin the EU (no£). His article appears to be the result of an unfortunate acid trip. I seem to remember Brexiteers, before they were known by that name, agitated like mad to have a clause inserted into the EU Lisbon treaty allowing member states to leave the EU, which is how article 50 got written in.
However, Singham now seems to suggest Britain is about to commit to a 5,000-page treaty into which the country had zero input, but is impossible in the future to extricate itself from.
John Longworth can hardly contain his glee, apparently going into paroxysms of happiness:
Pacific trade deal is a Brexit victory – whatever the doubters say- IT WILL BE practically impossible to rejoin the EU after this. A major long-term boost for trade. Congratulations Liz Truss & Kemi Badenoch !! https://t.co/Nxv6vn3PPV
— John Longworth (@john4brexit) March 29, 2023
The Daily Express makes the same claim.
This is how I read Singham's suggestion that Sunak’s signature “would mark the point at which Brexit could not be reversed.” This is incredible arrogance on his part. To assume that even if the British people wanted to reverse Brexit (as is increasingly obvious - see below), the Tories have now removed that option. It’s hardly democratic, is it?
However, I wouldn’t worry too much. We can all draw some comfort from the fact that Singham has been wrong on so many things that it is an absolute certainty he is wrong on the CPTPP. Note that even Longworth sticks the word "practically" before impossible.
A quick trawl through the Canadian government’s CPTPP website on the deal reveals this:
“Any CPTPP member may withdraw from the Agreement after providing written notice to the depositary as well as other CPTPP members through the designated contact points.”
Britain can get out of the CPTPP at any time, and far easier than getting out of the EU. Plus there are clauses preventing parties to the agreement from lowering their own domestic standards so we won’t have changed very much from EU regulations in the next few years, never mind what’s in the Retained EU law Bill that’s going through parliament now.
The chapter on labour laws for example, “prohibits TPP parties from weakening the protections afforded to workers under their labour laws, or from failing to enforce them”. And on environmental matters, a party to the CPTPP “shall not waive or otherwise derogate from, or offer to waive or otherwise derogate from, its environmental laws in a manner that weakens or reduces the protection afforded in those laws in order to encourage trade or investment between the Parties”. See? It reinforces the level playing field/non-regression clauses from the TCA.
Singham claims, “the agreement represents the most advanced and deeply liberalising agreement based on mutual recognition, equivalence and adequacy.”
On the question of mutual recognition, Canada says this:
“ [CPTPP parties] agree to encourage designated regulatory bodies to work with their counterparts in order to recognize the education, experience, requirements, licenses or certifications in the jurisdictions of the other party via harmonization or mutual recognition agreements/arrangements.”
This goes nowhere near the all-encompassing mutual recognition of standards that apply in the EU and it seems to imply each country can choose to harmonise regulations (or not) or to recognise another country’s standard as equivalent to their own (or not) in specific products. I wonder how that will work in practice?
It sounds like something any country could and can do at any time.
This part of Singham's article makes no sense at all: "Since the pact requires that the UK has control over its own regulatory system, dynamic alignment of UK regulations with the EU would also not be feasible, except in those areas where EU regulation passes CPTPP muster."
Having control over our own regulatory system cannot mean we can't align with the EU if that's what we choose to do.
The UK’s trade department doesn’t seem to think the CPTPP will actually make very much difference to trade or GDP as I posted a few days ago. We may increase GDP by £1.8 billion in 15 years, hardly worth the effort in terms of trade.
The FT also claims the Windsor Framework was a result of CPTPP members becoming alarmed at Britain’s threat to tear up an international treaty. This will be a big consolation to the DUP and unionists in NI, I'm sure.
Also, there are fears that we might be a little too optimistic about Britain’s competitiveness against some of these Asian economies. Liberalised trade is OK if you have a lot of saleable natural resources or have a dynamic manufacturing sector bursting with aggressive exporters like Germany. I’m not sure we have either. We import most of our apples for goodness sake.
Anyway, as far as I can see it would be a doddle to pull out (as we will have to do sooner or later) and rejoin the EU, something which makes far more sense than throwing in your lot with a trade bloc on the other side of the world.
There is an interesting poll in The Guardian this morning showing the British people are now far more likely to have confidence in the EU than in the UK parliament or the government. In fact, Britons are almost twice as likely (39% to 22%) to trust the EU than their own government.
Also, only 24% of people said they were “happy” that the UK voted for Brexit while 49% said they were disappointed. David Davis suggests it's because we aren't getting the 'barmy Eurocrat' bile being pumped out by the right-wing media any more and I think he's on to something there.
It seems to me the UK is joining simply to show that we can, nothing more.
When we announced we intended to start talks, this is what the objectives were:
• Securing increased trade and investment opportunities
• Helping the United Kingdom diversify trading links and supply chains
• Assisting the U.K.'s future place in the world and advancing the U.K.'s longer-term interests.
The first two seem to make no sense in any practical terms. We have bilateral FTAs already, mainly courtesy of the EU, with nine of the eleven members, only Brunei and Malaysia are new. Also, the last point doesn't make that much sense either. We - the original European awkward squad - seem to have given up trying to influence our own continent and will now be throwing our weight around the Pacific to see how difficult we can make things for that region. Look out for the first diplomatic rows.
And by the way, the more I read about this attempt to block any chance of rejoining the EU, the more convinced I am of the case for PR. Countries that try to govern by grand coalitions tend not to get involved in these massive national dislocations on purely ideological grounds. Policy evolves gradually, bringing more of the population behind whatever the government is trying to do.
Finally, if you want to know how we are systematically trampling on our own industrial base have a look at this seven-page note about vehicle certification. It all appears to be an attempt to avoid accepting new EU Euro 6e emissions standards. Instead, we will accept EU vehicles that comply with the UNECE standard - which is the same!
"Despite this harmonisation at UNECE level, there will be divergence due to the fact that an EU Euro 6e approval cannot be accepted as a demonstration of compliance with the current Euro 6d requirements, which apply under the GB approval scheme. To address this, Officials are preparing legislation to amend the GB scheme to make UNECE approvals equivalent to Euro 6e an accepted alternative. This would remove the need for manufacturers with a Euro 6e approval to have to re-test their vehicles to the Euro 6d requirements. Officials expect manufacturers to obtain UNECE approvals and use them to obtain a GB scheme approval, as this route to approval removes the need for costly re-testing, which manufacturers have raised as a potential issue during engagement." (My emphasis)
Just ridiculous.
