Tariffs and other trade barriers

image of the alaskan highway

Last night I watched a video about Canada raising a large toll on lorries travelling from the Lower 48 to Alaska, and it documents and forecast the impact on the fragile Alaskan economy. It reminded me of the trade barriers that the UK has put in place due to Brexit. This is potentially disastrous for Alaska, and is clearly so for the UK where today the FT reports that according to the ONS, the UK economy shrank for the second quarter in a row.

The trade to GDP rate in the UK is 63%, which seems enormous to me, but it seems to be merely above average and yet it illustrates the UK’s dependency on the rest of the world to feed itself and keep itself warm and sheltered. The US rate is 25% which is low by international comparison and may be one of the reasons that Trump can afford to be as foolish as he is with his tariff policies, noting that it’s the US consumers who ultimately pay his tariffs. Source: World Bank.

The EU flag, before castor and pollux,

But for the UK, this is another piece of evidence that the UK needs to rejoin the EU’s single market, but even if this common sense actually strikes this Labour government, I doubt that the Eire/Holland/France traffic will return to the UK. …

Human Rights

Image Sign in front of the CJEU's Palais de la Cour de Justice

At a meeting yesterday, I asked about/EU/UK cooperation within the justice pillar.  I asked if in order to develop further cooperation, the UK would need to sign up to the EU’s charter of fundamental rights. The senior MEP present stated that they thought that self-exclusion was a barrier to fuller cooperation; the Labour minister present confused the Charter of Fundamental Rights with the European Convention on Human Rights and stated that non-compliance, particularly on issues of the right to family life were reasonable. This is a proof point of the consensus in Westminster that haggling with the EU ‘to win’ all the time, is acceptable behaviour of good citizenship.

The reason we had so many opt-outs from the Justice Pillar is that the New Labour governmentdidn’t want their immigration and trade union laws tested by the CJEU and as reprise act, I read that ‘blue labour’ are questioning whether we should remain signatories to the ECHR.

In 2024, there were three cases at the ECtHR, and the UK lost one; the plaintiff was the Daily Mail who were complaining about lawyers’ fees in cases where they settled, they claimed it was in breach of their rights of free speech. The last time I looked this up, the problem was within the administration of justice and prisons if I remember correctly. The Tories harsh environment in prisons was considered in conflict to human rights law.

But the reason we should remain members is that human rights are a benefit to all citizens and residents.

Image Credit : Luxofluxo, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons …

Second thoughts on the Euro-summit

Kier Starmer and Ursula von der Leyen in a conference room

It is my view that Starmer wants a Swiss style deal with the European Union. The reason I consider the summit to be a draw, albeit a score draw, is that neither of the end goals of rejoining nor staying out with a Swiss style agreement are closed off. But also, neither is the end result of the EU saying we’re too busy to spend this time “dot & comma-ing” with you.

There is no inexorability in rejoining from that agreement as I believe is implied by John Palmer’s Chartist piece. Perhaps, John  believes that Trump will drive even Starmer away from NATO but I believe they will try very hard not to make the choice. In fact, I believe the proposal for a defence/security agreement is deliberately made to allow trade-offs against the single market acquis and to try to exclude security which includes border control co-operation from the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the EU Court of Justice’s jurisdiction.  

I also believe much of Labour’s defence positioning is designed for internal party combat and learnt from simplistic board games.

However, ihis article, entitled “EU officially retires its ‘no cherry-picking’ Brexit line” may show that the new Commission (and maybe even the Council), are happier with a deal with opt-outs; even then, I am not sure I’d want to start from the withdrawal agreement.

I believe that those of us who believe that it’s a better world with a democratic EU still need to seek to influence the Labour Party and Government.

Image Credit: from flickr, Keir Starmer’s feed, CC 2024 BY-NC-ND …

Labour’s new deal for Europe

ec-london

This is a comment on A new deal with the EU is exactly what Britain needs. Here’s how Labour will achieve it | Nick Thomas-Symonds | The Guardian  – www.theguardian.com, I have made it with the help of diigo, where the headline comment on my bookmark, part generated and part selected from the article says, ‘via Comment is free | guardian.co.uk, subtitled, nonsensically, “This isn’t about politics – it’s about pragmatism. Working with our allies will make British people safer, more secure and more prosperous.”‘.

The article says nothing new and repeats the isolationist nonsense fantasies of Labour’s triangulators that Brexit can be fixed. It includes the phrase “honour the referendum” despite the fact that it was nearly nine years ago, and we’ve had three general elections since then.

Quotes and comments

We are equally confident in what the UK can offer in return. It is a politically stable country, and the government has a huge mandate, with more than four years left to deliver our policies. This stability has already inspired the confidence of businesses across the world, unlocking tens of billions of pounds of long-term investment.

  • The statistics aren’t in yet to substantiate investment numbers,

Labour is rising to meet the challenges in this new era of global instability.

This is not about ideology or returning to the divisions of the past, but about ruthless pragmatism and what works in the national interest.

When it comes to security, Nato is the cornerstone of our defence.

  • Really? A fantasy of the Labour Right, NATO’s gone, for at least four years, but Trump’s isolationism has not come out of the blue.

All of this will be framed by the very clear red lines we set out at the election. We won’t return to the arguments of the past: there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement.

  • Well, it won’t work then. There isn’t a deal in which the UK wins at the expense of the EU. If only because, the queue of member states asking for their own opt-outs would be 25 long.

We will only agree an EU deal that meets the needs of the British people and respects the 2016 referendum result.

You can’t do both if you believe honouring the referendum means staying out of the EU but the referendum mandate was dishonestly won and is now nearly nine years old; I estimate that about 4½ million voters have died since then. …

The pan-European Mediterranean convention and EU/UK relations

The pan-European Mediterranean convention and EU/UK relations

This blog article comments on the reactions to Marco Sefcovic's suggestion that the UK as part of the negotiations to improve relations between the UK and the EU should consider joining the pan European Mediterranean convention (PEM); . Sefcovic is the commissioner responsible for trade. The rest of the article looks at HMG's lukewarm response and looks to explain what the PEM is. For more, press the button ...

Munich 2025, peace in our time

Munich 2025, peace in our time

The last week has signified the death knell of NATO. The ninety minute phone call between Trump and Putin signifies the road to a 21st century Hitler Stalin pact. The Trump administration's proposals that the USA and Russia make peace in Ukraine without Ukraine being present at the table and mandating European NATO to provide peacekeeping forces are a return great power politics unrestrained by the rule of law. For more press the button ....

Twenty seven becomes …

Twenty seven becomes …

One step forward, two steps back, or maybe not, for the EU. Iceland votes to consider joining, Turkey asks to revise its agreements to increase links, and demonstrators continue to protest in Georgia about the stolen election and the postponement of EU accession talks, and last month Moldova voted to change its constitution to permit accession talks to begin. Yet in the UK, the pall of stupidity and fear still envelopes the Labour Government. …

The Draghi report on European competitiveness.

The Draghi report on European competitiveness.

I have been trying to get on top of whether the Draghi Report on European economic competitiveness is really a game changer. Without study it seems to be a call for more EU (as opposed to member state debt. I am of the view that within the UK, there needs to be transfer union i.e. that borrowing and wealth from London needs to be shared with other parts of the country.

I found this article from the FT, which is headlined, “Europe can learn fiscal lessons from the UK on how to achieve its goals”, and subtitled, “ A co-ordinated reform agenda is crucial if the EU is serious about becoming a climate leader and geopolitical player”, written by Draghi. On diigo, I highlighted the following lines,

The UK government has chosen to significantly raise public investment over the next five years and has adopted precise rules to ensure that borrowing is used only to fund this investment. … Moreover, in order to ensure the quality of spending, transactions will be validated by independent authorities.

To which I reply, “Of course Draghi would argue for independence. The near cultish following with which his recent comments have been greeted is based on the desire by politicians and capitalists to ensure the macroeconomic policy and regulation is outsourced to non-democratic agencies. Central bankers underestimate the ability of democracies to present a wisdom of crowds, even on investment decisions. An example of this is the EU’s horizon investment valuation process, which ranks proposals and select winners from a competition. The technocrats and democrats, particularly representative politicians also underestimate the value that citizens assemblies may bring to these decisions.

Draghi continues,

“A more efficient use of Europe’s high private savings rates requires integrating its capital markets. To redirect private investment from mature industries to more advanced sectors will hinge on completing the single market. … innovative firms in fast-growing sectors such as digital services will not be able to scale up and attract capital. And, as a result, investment will remain locked in old technologies.”

Is this true? Perez, whose theories I summarise on my blog,  argues that the declining profit of now legacy industries will ensure that investment goes to new innovative industries. Also, like most Draghi is betting on digital services as the driver; Perez’s theories suggest that IT is now reaching its stagnation stage and will be replaced although we maybe in a stage where the political power of legacy capitalism is too powerful to be overcome. This is why corporate lobbying power is so destructive to human progress. …