Tuesday 3 March 2020

Brexit: which side of the Atlantic do we want to be on?

The mandate for a UK-US trade deal was published yesterday including a claim lifted straight out of the Tory manifesto that, ‘in all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards’.  I'm not sure if farmers will be reassured by that or not. Last week the government made clear we won't be bound by EU Level Playing Field demands to maintain the standards we've got now. The government as usual is facing both ways at once.  Read the 184 page mandate HERE.

The eye opener for me is the financial impact assessment on page 83.

The benefit to be gained by a comprehensive UK-US trade deal is, even on the best scenario, an increase in GDP of just 0.16%. This is microscopic, a rounding error in the national accounts. The figures are very similar to those in the leaked cross Whitehall briefing from January 2018 which showed a FTA with the USA would 'provide a benefit to UK GDP of 0.2% in the long term, within a range of 0.1-0.3%'. At least the Treasury is being consistent.

What's surprising is that this was a side issue in the 2018 briefing note for cabinet ministers. The central forecast was concerned with the impact on GDP of a UK-EU free trade deal. This results in a reduction to UK GDP of over 5%. But while the tiny boost to our economy is in the US mandate, there is no mention at all of the massive, shuddering hit we are forecast to take in the skimpy 36 page UK-EU mandate HERE. I wonder why?

I also found this article on Brexit Central from January 2019 by Patrick Minford of Economists for Free Trade. He claimed a UK-US free trade deal could "boost national output by £80 billion and cut UK prices by 8 per cent". The government figures fall a bit short of that - it's actually £3.4 billion. Talk about the false optimism of Brexit.

For the rest of the mandate I am afraid I'm not an expert but I know a man who is. Can I suggest you read this Twitter thread by David Henig:
Henig thinks the EU will smile at page 11 and the section on Competition where we are effectively asking for legally enforceable level playing field conditions - something we are desperately resisting in the EU talks. Johnson would die in a ditch rather than concede a LPF to the EU but expects the USA to accept it. Some hope.

Competition is OK when you think you're up against a sclerotic, regulation bound monolith (as they really do think) but not so good when facing a ruthless, regulation free competitor who only thinks about profit.

There is a nice article on TruePublica by Graham Vanbergen (I think) about the government finally reaching crunch time in the trade talks with a decision soon having to be made about which side of the Atlantic we want to be on. I must say I agree with every word. The writer says:

"I predicted that Brexit would emerge as a Trojan Horse for a new form of economic policy-making that could usher in the ‘Americanisation’ of Britain where corporations would come to rule democracy. What the American’s wanted was a low-tax island on the corner of Europe."

Let us hope common sense prevails. A YouGov poll yesterday showed 51% preferred to have a close relationship with the EU compared to just 17% for the USA. It's also massively better for the economy - but ideology stands in the way.

On Covid-19, Brexit Johnson told us on Sunday the government would do 'all it can' to control the virus but it appears that does not quite include remaining in the EU pandemic Early Warning and Response System (EWRS), which the NHS Confederation identified membership of as a priority. This was apparently because of Brexit and as Peter Foster pointed out, shows where ultra-ideology takes you after you lose sight of what you're doing. Brexit Johnson is not only risking the economy, he is now playing fast and loose with the nation's health and security. We are being ground to dust on the great wheel of ideology.

In 24 hours the situation went from the possibility that Covid-19 might 'spread a bit more' to it becoming 'highly likely' with the PM setting up a war room and preparing to take sweeping powers to ban public events and gatherings. He becomes more like a comedy Xi Jinping every day. I have zero faith in him.

The Priti Patel issue remains on the front pages. The reason Sir Phillip Rutnam decided to go to a tribunal became clear in the House of Commons yesterday. Michael Gove defended her to the hilt and sang her praises (where has he been?) and repeated the PM's confidence in her:

"The Prime Minister has expressed his full confidence in her, and having worked closely with the Home Secretary over a number of years, I have the highest regard for her. She is a superb Minister doing a great job."

This is the Home Secretary who told the nation she had never advocated bringing back hanging, when she can be seen on BBC Question Time in 2011 saying exactly that. And in an excruciating interview Patel said eleven times that she - the Home Secretary remember - was taking measures against counter-terrorism. She is that stupid.

Anyway, Rutnam was obviously not convinced that he will receive a fair hearing in the cabinet office inquiry when the final arbiter of who has or has not broken the ministerial code is none other than Brexit Johnson himself. This is tantamount to a judge expressing confidence that the defendant is innocent just before the prosecuting counsel makes his opening remarks.

Finally, in another worrying move it appears the government is starting to move away from a commitment to the ECHR. 
Perhaps Patel's wish to reintroduce the death penalty may not be far away from coming true.
Posted by at