Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1
When the UK has exerted the most power politically, it has been as part of a coalition or alliance. In these alliances, compromises are made but the end justifies the means and overall, greater power is gained. Membership of the UN, NATO etc all reduce the UK's sovereignty but the end is seen to justify the means.
If a country like the UK is going to have any power economically then against a backdrop of China and the USA, it needs to be part of a larger trading bloc. No country apart from North Korea trades on WTO trade terms and so is not an option. Accepting a level playing field is not an onerous condition to me as we do not have high state intervention in industry and we have a high minimum wage. Canada is thousands of miles away so of course is not such a competitive threat as the UK is. Distance does matter in trade, as has oft been noted on this thread.
This is a small price to pay for the long-term drop in the wealth of the country no deal or a bad deal brings - wealth that could be put to good use - our nursing homes are crying out for more money, local councils' services in many parts of the country have been severely cut back since the Global Financial Crisis, a big question mark hangs over UK high streets and we are entering a big economic downturn that should not be worsened.
The EU replaced the Commonwealth as the UK's main trading partner and like the Commonwealth, the larger market helped create wealth. The difference with the EU was that it was a more competitive market. The UK could no longer force compliant nations to take ships full of Austin Allegros with square steering wheels made by people on strike every month. It had to raise its game and productivity and finally compete with its peers. It has stepped up to this challenge and many British services, products and companies are now once again world class.
There is no pipeline of deals that will replace the EU and the deals it has brought us. If such deals existed, the EU would have signed them already. And the basic rule of trade is that most trade is done with your neighbouring countries.
It's unrealistic to blame a larger organisation for having more negotiating clout than a smaller one. I think if you read the threads from 2016, there are warnings a plenty on this. I believe we even suggested that the Government would be rushing to blame the EU for not giving them what they promised the British electorate, although this was unlikely as the German car companies would force the EU to concede to our demands! Instead, you need to put this to those who knowingly or unknowingly mislead the country when they said "easiest trade deal ever."
|
Your big mistake, Andrew, is assuming that the EU is the only solution to be part of a bigger market, and you completely fail to understand that the EU is making unreasonable demands of us to get a no-tariff trade deal. To accept these demands would undermine our sovereignty and undermine the benefits of Brexit.
There are other trading blocs we could join. The most obvious to me is the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Prtnership (CPTPP), which already comprises 11 countries including Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Malaysia, Mexico and Peru. If Britain joined, this would comprise 16% of global commerce. That's bigger than the EU, and it is fast growing as a productive group of nations, whereas the EU is expected to decline.
The CPTPP is expected to generate about 25% of trade by 2050, whereas the poorly performing EU will manage only 10%. If we want a tariff-free deal, we could do a lot worse than joining the CPTPP. Why are posters on this forum not talking about opportunities such as these instead of bemoaning our departure of the failing EU? GB is not a one-trick pony and Liz Truss is already forging ahead with negotiations to join the much more promising CPTPP while continuing to seek trade deals with the US and others.