The Spectator's Notes

Trade comes before trade agreements (but the ‘in’ campaign don’t think so)

5 March 2016

9:00 AM

5 March 2016

9:00 AM

The government, or at least David Cameron’s bit of it, seems to think that trade is something that takes place because of a trade agreement. The order is the other way round. People trade, and have done for several thousand years, because it is to their mutual advantage. After a bit, governments come along and try to direct and often impede it, but in the modern world of instant communications, ready transfers of money and container shipping, this has become blessedly difficult. A friend, Edward Atkin, who has made a large fortune out of Avent baby bottles and like products, tells me: ‘I have never known or asked whether any of our customers in over 80 markets was trading in a country with or without a trade agreement with the EU. We exported 80 per cent of our output. Most of the world’s leading exporting countries (Japan, South Korea and the US) have no such trade agreements with the EU. This does not matter because the WTO forbids high duties and limiting conditions.’ Often, indeed, barriers to trade come for reasons other than tariffs. The US is a true single market internally. The EU is not, although it is a tariff-free zone. Small differences (for example, in the design of electric plugs) are deliberately inserted by member states: ‘Our baby products,’ Atkin goes on, ‘had to be designed for local requirements, like the French needing a 300cc bottle, while every other market wanted just a 250cc one.’ I believe that regulations in some member states are specifically — though not, of course, declaredly — designed to keep out JCB, Dyson etc. The government’s bloodcurdling propaganda document warns that if we vote to leave, negotiations will take ten years. I don’t believe it, but if it were true, it would not be much different from what happens if we stay in. The EU is a constant negotiation, with many official careers entirely consumed in this process. While fonctionnaires sit around doing this, the caravan of trade moves on.

Polling day for the referendum is 23 June. I have heard people lament that Mr Cameron has carefully chosen a date with no historical references (Waterloo Day, for example, being two days earlier). It is not so. I am grateful to a learned correspondent who informs me that 23 June is the day which traditionally marks the founding of the Althing, the Icelandic parliament, in 930. When he addressed it, Winston Churchill famously irritated its members by the first half of his sentence and gratified them with the second half: ‘I come from the mother of parliaments [pause] to the grandmother of parliaments.’ It is strange that the freedom so bravely claimed by a small number of Nordic persons well over a thousand years ago should be a controversial thing for the citizens of a 21st-century nation to want to restore.

But what do the ‘leave’ people want? Should Britain be like Iceland, Norway, Switzerland or Canada? Quite a lot of those on the ‘leave’ side, particularly among Ukip supporters, say that they must have a common position about what type of relationship Britain, when leaving the EU, should negotiate with its former partners. This sounds logical, but it is a trap into which the ‘remain’ side wishes its opponents to fall. Notice, for example, how Matthew Hancock, the Cabinet Office minister charged with expressing George Osborne’s thoughts when it is not convenient for Mr Osborne himself to do so, keeps pressing the point very hard. If ‘leave’ announced a plan, two things would immediately happen. The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, would use every possible source of official ‘information’ to tear it apart, and the ‘leave’ campaigners would start quarrelling with one another. The ‘leave’ campaign is not entitled to have a plan because this is not a general election and it is not (unlike the SNP in the Scottish referendum) a government, and cannot become one. All it can do is illustrate the range of sensible possibilities and try to kill the more absurd scares. If the British vote to leave, it is the present government who will have to work out how best this is done. Since it is government policy to let us vote, I wish Mr Cameron would get clever Sir Jeremy to turn his mind to this preparatory task and stop telling ministers that they cannot see government papers.


The RSPCA is being made, because of its persistent perversion of its charitable status, to drop its deliberately controversial prosecutions (often used as a means of fund-raising), and concentrate on the purpose expressed in its name — ‘the prevention of cruelty to animals’. This is good news, but is it right that the RSPCA should retain any role at all in bringing prosecutions (apart, of course, from supplying evidence)? Justice is unlikely to be impartial if it goes into partnership with bodies with such a strong axe to grind. Something similar applies to the police’s closeness to the NSPCC, which encourages an uncritical attitude to accusations of child abuse.

As so often, The Simpsons were years in advance of actual political facts. In the programme about ten years ago, Lisa Simpson, for reasons I have now forgotten, becomes President of the United States. She sits in the Oval Office and is briefed by aides on the mess she has inherited from one President Trump. Trump made the great mistake, she is informed, of ‘investing in our nation’s children’. The country is bust and ‘Our free breakfast program merely created a generation of super-criminals.’ Among commentators on either side of the Atlantic, one of the few to see the coming of Trump was the former owner of this paper, Conrad Black, who knows the man. Now Conrad has a vision. Lamenting the move away from the Roosevelt-Churchill and Reagan-Thatcher relationships ‘which brought the West victory in World War II and the Cold War’, he writes: ‘There are stranger, and far worse, prospects than that Donald Trump and Boris Johnson could rebuild that relationship, with all the resulting benefits of olden time.’


 

EU-pressureJoin The Spectator for an evening debate chaired by Andrew Neil:
Should Britain leave the EU?
26 April 2016 | London Palladium, Argyll Street, W1F 7TF
Book now

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Subscribe – Try a month free


Show comments
  • Frank

    The Cabinet lacks anybody with any genuine business experience. This tends to be very apparent when any of the “remainers” witters about the economic dangers of Brexit.
    The thought of Trump and Johnson running the axis of good is quite scary,

  • Radford_NG

    Sir,23rd of June is the 100th anniversary of the birth of Len Hutton. (Would John Major have missed this?)

  • Curnonsky

    Trump + Boris = Hairpocalypse.

  • Radford_NG

    If we vote GO> it is the present government that will work out how it is to be done.(?)Certainly not!
    In the summer of 1940 the PM’s European policy lost support.Many Conservatives,not trusting that trouble-maker Churchill,wanted Halifax to be PM.
    King George demanded a Unity Government.Churchill was made PM with Labour support.

    This is a precedent.So it should be when Britain votes GO>.The best candidate is David Davis;but `Boris` would be acceptable.Britain should immediately leave the EU.Our MEPs should be called home;and appointed Members of the Lords.This would allow UKIP members to be appointed to Cabinet;along with patriotic Labour politicians.

  • Radford_NG

    Other events on 23rd of June:
    1757;Clive’s victory at Plassey;
    1888;Frederick Douglas nominated for US President;
    Focke-Wulf 190 mistakenly lands in Wales;
    1951;Burgess and MaClean flee;
    1972;45 countries leave the Sterling Area (part of the consequence of what became 44 wasted years).

  • Jacobi

    I have already stated the obvious that anyone, particularity a UK businessman as opposed
    to a high street seller of cups of coffee, who votes for Brexit, is daft to use a polite word.

    Stay in and sort them out as Wellington did. And as for you Mr Moore read your Belloc.

    And the bilateral non-EU agreement with the French which keeps the Muslim religious migrants in France, of course the French will scrap it. I certainly would, and I’m not French!

    There are two obvious advantages for the French to do this.

    1.It gets rid of the Calais Muslim camp, something they will love to do.

    2..It’s one in the eye to the Brits who are running away.

    The absurd disadvantages to us Brits are

    1. The Muslim camps will move to Kent . I wonder what the Men of Kent not to mention the
    Kentish Men will have to say?

    2. Or we can close the tunnel. But then we will have to close the ferries also and then we
    really will have shut ourselves off from the real world.

    • Little Black Censored

      “I have already stated the obvious…”
      Yes, so obvious that one wonders why there is any discussion at all.

Close