David Henig, UK director of the European Centre For International Political Economy has written a rather important article on the UK Trade Forum website about striking the balance between regulatory sovereignty and free trade in which he argues you cannot have both at the same time - exposing once again the government's predilection for having its cake and eating it too. He describes it as a dilemma, which I suppose it is once you accept that having the two are impossible to reconcile and I'm not sure we are quite there yet.
He says:
"The narrative is increasingly that the UK will be champions of free trade while regaining full regulatory sovereignty. This is what we hear from those leading talks with the EU, where it is the UK’s state aid regime which may have to be controlled to get a deal. We similarly hear it with regard to US talks, where the question of the UK changing food regulations is centre stage."
In it he has a dig at Shanker Singham I think when he is critical of "advisors for whom access to those in power sometimes seems to only come in return for offering questionable theories of the world of trade, such as the notion that regulatory equivalence is somehow the magic potion guaranteeing sovereignty and free trade."
Henig accuses the government of talking the language of free trade but failing to recognise the reality of the world as it is and he believes this problem is only going to get worse. The Brexiteers dream of free trade is in contrast to what we actually see happening.
The EU and the Americans have been arguing about regulatory approaches since the WTO was formed and now they are joined by China as a third block with its own agenda. Without some levels of international agreement on regulation he can only see that trade will become harder with the rise of Artificial Intelligence and climate change concerns.
So he says we will have to make a choice - sooner or later - probably per country and per product group and I think when we reach that point later this year the only rational choice is sticking with the EU. Although we are close to the Americans in many ways we have, over the last forty years or more, become far more European (albeit not yet quite enough) in our social attitudes. We prefer food that is more natural or organic. We believe in making the world a better, cleaner place and not just the pursuit of wealth and pleasure at all costs.
Plus, the Americans are miles behind in many areas - perhaps not in e-commerce or military hardware but in many other ways. Human rights, consumer protection, health and safety, environmental issues and so on. I don't believe whatever Johnson and Cummings think, the British people are ready to become Europe's trojan horse for American standards and so, when push comes to shove, perhaps after the next general election and a new government comes in, we will revert back to a close relationship with the EU.
And once that happens the question will arise - if we are generally following many EU standards why don't we rejoin and influence the making of those standards to suit Britain?
