Tag Archives: Theresa May

Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, Society

Leavers say a Brexit no-deal would not be a disaster

BREXIT

LEADING Brexiteers have declared that there is nothing to fear if Britain leaves the EU without a deal.

After a tumultuous last few days in which Theresa May’s Chequers plan has been under fire from Remainers and Leavers alike, a poll shows growing public support for walking away from the negotiations.

It found twice as many voters now back leaving the EU without a deal.

Senior Eurosceptic MPs said it was proof that the PM should accelerate contingency planning for a no-deal scenario.

Remainers have long argued that the consequences of a no deal would be catastrophic for the economy. But leading Brexiteers have admitted that, although it could be bumpy in the short term, Britain could thrive in the long run. Former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith said: “If we don’t have a trade deal with the EU then we simply trade on World Trade Organisation terms, which is how most countries trade with each other.

“It wouldn’t be bedlam. All this talk about crashing out with no deal – we’re not crashing, we’re moving to WTO rules, which is how all EU-US trade is governed at the moment.”

Former Cabinet minister Priti Patel said: “We should be free to forge new trade deals around the world and leave the protectionism of the EU. This is a positive thing we should be celebrating.”

The ComRes poll found 39 per cent think the Prime Minister “should accept a no-deal and the UK simply leave the EU”. Just 20 per cent want her to push on with the White Paper, which critics say is a “half in, half out” Brexit.

More than half of Tory voters (51 per cent) back no deal, compared to one in four (26 percent) of Labour supporters.

A quarter of voters want the PM to ask for an extension to the March deadline for a deal.

John Longworth, of Leave Means Leave, and a former head of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: “There would be a little border disruption if we leave without a deal, but nothing like as bad as Remainers say it would be – and the upsides would be considerable.

“We could free our economy from EU regulations and do huge free-trade deals with the US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.”

What would happen if we just walked away?

. The Divorce Bill

Leaving without a deal would mean an immediate Brexit on March 29 after tearing up a 21-month transition agreement. This included giving £39billion to the EU, which ministers would no longer have to pay, a House of Lords report claims.

. Customs & Trade

The Chequers agreement effectively proposed keeping Britain in the single market for goods and agriculture to preserve “frictionless” trade and to protect the economy.

Customs checks on cross-Channel freight would cause havoc at ports, hitting food supplies and other goods.

Britain could waive customs checks on EU produce to free up backlogs, but it is equitable to ask whether Brussels would do the same for us?

. Tariffs

All EU-UK trade in goods is free of tariffs in the single market.

Trade would revert to World Trade Organisation Rules. The EU would charge import tariffs averaging 2-3 per cent on goods, but up to 60 per cent for some agricultural produce, damaging UK exporters.

We have a trade deficit with the EU of some £71billion – they sell us more than we sell them – so the EU overall would lose out.

German cars and French agriculture would be worst hit, as would UK regions with large export industries. Tariffs could also mean price inflation. But UK trade with the EU is 13 per cent of GDP and falling compared to non-EU trade, which generates a surplus and is likely to grow. The outlook would be boosted by Britain’s ability to strike trade deals.

. Immigration

The UK would immediately have control over its borders and freedom to set migration policy on all EU migrants.

UK nationals would likely lose their right to live and work in the EU. There would be legal uncertainty for the 1.3million Britons living in the EU and the 3.7million EU nationals here.

. City of London

Many firms have already made contingency plans for a no deal, but there would probably be a significant degree of disruption and an economic hit.

Ministers would likely take an axe to tax and regulations to preserve the UK’s economic advantage.

. Aeroplanes

Fears of planes not being able to fly appear far-fetched – unless the EU is determined to destroy both business and tourism. Rules to keep planes in the air are likely to be agreed. The EU has many deals with non-EU countries as part of its Open Skies regime.

. European Courts

Britain would be free from the edicts of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and all EU laws. Parliament would be sovereign.

. Farming & Fishing

The UK would quit the Common Agricultural Policy, which gives farmers and landowners £3billion in subsidies. Ministers would come under pressure to continue a form of subsidy.

. Northern Ireland

Northern Ireland would be outside the EU, with no arrangements on how to manage 300 crossing points on the 310-mile border.

The EU would want Ireland to impose customs and other checks to protect the bloc’s borders – something it has said it will not do. No deal could blow a hole in the Good Friday Agreement, with pressure on all sides to find a compromise.

Standard
Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, United States

Britain dismayed at US trade war

US TRADE TARIFFS

THE Prime Minister Theresa May has attacked Donald Trump’s “unjustified” trade tariffs amid fears that Britain’s automotive industry could be hit next.

Mrs May said she was “deeply disappointed” with the US President’s decision to impose higher import taxes on steel and aluminium from Britain and the EU.

The EU has signalled that it is prepared to hit back, making a complaint to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and finalising a list of American products it will target with tariffs of its own.

There are fears, however, that this could spark a spiralling trade war, with Mr Trump responding to any retaliation by imposing additional import levies on cars from the UK and EU.

That possibility will concern the more than 169,000 employees in the UK motor vehicle industry, on top of existing fears for Britain’s 31,000 steel workers.

International Trade Secretary Dr Liam Fox suggested that the UK may not fully support the EU’s retaliatory measures, instead saying Britain only backs the complaint to the WTO.

He said it would “take some time” for EU member states to agree their collective response, and urged the bloc to pursue compromise with the White House in the interim – even though British diplomats have previously offered their support to measures drawn up in Brussels.

Dr Fox said it would be “very, very unfortunate if we get into this tit-for-tat position, especially with one of our closest allies.”

He added: “Nobody wins in a trade war, there are only casualties. We very much regret that these tariffs were put in place.

“We think it’s of dubious legality and we will be with the EU 100 per cent in taking this to a dispute at the WTO.”

The deepening row comes just before a G7 meeting of world leaders in Quebec this week, where European leaders will air their grievances to the US President. French president Emmanuel Macron has already told Mr Trump his new tariffs on EU goods was a “mistake” and “illegal”.

Mrs May’s language was more measured, but she said: “I am deeply disappointed at the unjustified decision by the United States to apply tariffs to EU steel and aluminium imports.

“The US, EU and UK are close allies and have always promoted values of open and fair trade across the world. Our steel and aluminium industries are highly important to the UK, but they also contribute to US industry, including defence projects which bolster US national security.

“The EU and UK should be permanently exempted from tariffs and we will continue to work together to protect and safeguard our workers and industries.”

Although it is said that the Prime Minister has additional concerns over US trade tariffs, it is believed she has not expressed these in public as she hopes to tie up a comprehensive post-Brexit trade deal with the White House and does not want to inflame the situation.

The EU, which handles trade matters on behalf of the UK, has been finalising its response to the US, with measures affecting thousands of US imports to the EU worth £2.5billion, including Levi’s jeans and Jack Daniel’s bourbon, hit with tariffs of up to 25 per cent.

Cecilia Malmstrom, the EU’s trade chief, admitted the bloc was “anxious” that Mr Trump would follow through on earlier threats to impose tariffs on European cars.

She said: “This would create enormous damage, not only to the European economy but also to the US.” The US levies of 25 per cent on steel and 10 per cent on aluminium imports follow promises made by Mr Trump under his America First programme.

Earlier this year, he said: “If the EU wants to increase their already massive tariffs and barriers on US companies doing business there, we will apply a tax on their cars, which freely pour into the US.”

EU cars sold in the US face a levy of 2.5 per cent, compared to a 10 per cent tax on US vehicles brought into Europe.

How the US raised the stakes:

. Donald Trump announced in March that the EU and countries including Mexico, Canada and Brazil would be hit by increased steel and aluminium tariffs to protect US firms against imports from China, which has flooded the market with cut-price steel.

. The EU, which negotiates trade on behalf of Britain, was granted a temporary exemption while Theresa May and other leaders lobbied for a permanent reprieve.

. The UK is concerned about the effect of the measures on its resurgent £1.6billion steel industry, which employs some 31,000.

. Britain exported 350,000 tonnes of steel worth £376million to the US last year – 7 per cent of its output.

. If the EU hits back, as it has threatened to do, Britain fears that Mr Trump will retaliate by raising tariffs on cars, in a blow to the UK car industry, which employs around 169,000.

Standard
Britain, Finance, Syria, United Nations, United States

Military intervention in Syria following the Douma attack was proportionate

SYRIA

IT has now been fifteen years since the Iraq War. That conflict has cast a long shadow over British foreign policy. The blowback against former prime minister Tony Blair and those who supported his decision to commit British forces to that conflict was unprecedented. It has created in the current generation of political leaders an extreme caution when it comes to matters of military intervention.

No one doubts that the deployment of an armed response must always be the last resort. But when the caution of politicians means a rejection to step in when it is both appropriate and necessary, we are on very shaky moral ground.

The decision by the British Government along with our international allies France and the United States of direct strikes against Syrian chemical production sites is a clear point in case. The use by the Syrian government of chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 40 people in the town of Douma could not go unchallenged. The West has responded with proportionate force that leaves both Syria and its proxy Russia in no doubt as to what will happen if the ‘red lines’ of chemical weapons are breached or proliferated.

Unfortunately, though, a difficult tone was set by President Trump as he took to Twitter in a typically hot-headed intervention last Wednesday when he promised deployment of ‘smart bombs’ prior to the strikes on Syrian targets. War should not be trivialised using social media, more so even by the president of the United States.

French president Emmanuel Macron, who has previously said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would also represent a “red line”, declared that he had proof the regime of Bashar al-Assad was behind the attack on Douma. Mr Macron remained cautious in the run up to the attacks but should be applauded for the courage he took in committing French warplanes to the cause.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has persistently asked for a full intelligence briefing on the situation in Syria. He also wanted any decision on military intervention to be put to a parliamentary vote.

Naturally, many who favour Britain’s involvement in strikes against the Assad regime will be deeply sceptical about Mr Corbyn’s intentions. He was, after all, once chairman of the Stop the War Coalition, which condemns military action by western governments.

This lack of trust is at the heart of politicians’ inability to move on from the Iraq War when discussing possible deployment of British troops. A common characteristic of those who felt strongly either way about the 2003 intervention is the belief that those with whom they disagree are acting in bad faith.

It is clearly time for our national debate to get past Iraq and for politicians to honestly assess the merits of action based on humanitarian need rather than political risk.

. See also Britain must now act against Syria’s regime

Standard