When Britain joined what is now the EU in 1973, at least two of her allies in the Commonwealth - Australia and New Zealand - suffered economically as a result. Both countries have never really forgiven Britain for turning their backs on them.
So it's no wonder that many Australians were delighted with the Brexit vote...
Why Australia will do anything to secure a trade deal with Britain
Daniel Hatch
7 September 2016
The Telegraph
British Prime Minister Theresa May meets Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull during their bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 economic summit in Hangzhou Credit: Aly Song
Just to be clear, Britain, Australia has never really forgiven you for abandoning us in favour of the Common Market in 1973.
Yes, technically, we’d already shifted away from your cultural imperialism. We’d replaced the pound and your whacky imperial measurements, and so on. But it’s not like we’d rejected cricket, abandoned the monarchy or wantonly thrown tonnes of tea into a river. I mean, we’re not complete savages.
For almost two centuries until 1973 Australia had been Britain’s loyal little brother. Looking up to you, trying to impress you, seeking your approval, trading with you, taking whatever poor souls the bailiffs and sheriffs had swept from the streets of London, Liverpool and Leamington Spa and giving them a new home (in the sun, by the sea, no less — tactical error on your part).
1973 was a kick in the guts.
So imagine Australia’s delight at the Brexit referendum result of June this year. Make no mistake, it is no surprise to find Australia’s Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, at the front of the queue to shake hands with Theresa May at the G20 Summit in Beijing earlier this week. Nor that he was the first to promise Britain a post-Brexit trade agreement. Accepting Australia’s hand of friendship would be a fantastic make-good for that decision to abandon us nearly 44 years ago. Finally, not only would Australia have Big Brother’s approval, but there’d be a sense Big Brother actually needs us once again. We could be useful beyond being somewhere sunny to send Prince Charles.
So, that’s the romanticized version. But what’s actually going on here? Let’s look at the optics from an Australian point-of-view. Or, more specifically, let’s look at them from Mr Turnbull’s point-of-view. Why was he at the front of the queue?
In part it was because the UK is Australia’s eighth biggest export market — worth A$8.8 billion to the Australian economy in 2015. So that’s important. (Although that’s only 2.8 per cent of total exports and Australia imported A$14.4 billion worth of goods from the UK in the same year.)
This is really about a prime minister on death row. (To be fair, that’s the only kind of prime minister Australia seem to do these days). When Turnbull knifed his predecessor, Tony Abbott, just 12 months ago it was because of Abbott’s appallingly poor judgment (including a knighthood for Prince Phillip), gaffs and unpopularity. Turnbull has since managed not only become just as unpopular as his predecessor but to spectacularly whittle Abbott’s 35-seat parliamentary majority down to just one seat at the July 2 election.
Turnbull — the Rhodes Scholar, Spycatcher Case-winning lawyer, merchant banker, early email entrepreneur and the man who led the (losing) argument for Australia to become a republic in 1999 — is on the ropes. He needs some early and clear wins in this new and extremely complicated Parliament if he is to have any hope of keeping his job. The sharks are circling.
A trade deal with post-Brexit Britain is an easy win for the PM. Australia loves a trade deal — especially a free trade deal. During his reign John Howard regularly told us free trade deals were the cornerstone to our national prosperity and, given he is the last prime minister most of us will admit to, we still tend to listen to his advice.
But we’re also quite scared of our biggest trading partner, China, with which we have a free trade agreement (Australia is having our own Hinkley-style conversations, too); we’re a bit nervous about whatever this year’s United States election might gift the world (we have a free trade agreement with the US, too), and the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal is probably dead in the water (which won’t be a good look for the Australian PM).
In short, we could really do with a sane, reliable trading partner.
The only risk for Turnbull here is that Brexit might not come swiftly enough — that his leadership might falter before the ink on a deal is dry. Forget the impatient hordes protesting outside Westminster on the weekend demanding Britain extricate itself from the European Union more swiftly, if Malcolm Turnbull could convincingly forge Theresa May’s signature on Article 50, he would.
Little wonder then that Turnbull was just about sprinting across the tarmac at Beijing Airport to talk terms with an equally grateful Mrs May.
Who better to clinch a trade deal with than family? Who better to go into business with than a country with which we have so much shared history, shared culture, and so deep an affection that we occasionally let them win the Ashes?
And what better way for Britain to apologise for so callously cutting off fraternal ties back in 1973 in favour of that troublesome tart, Europe? What better way to make up for abandoning your little brother in favour of fish quotas, straight bananas and eggs by the kilo?
For Britain and Australia, a post-Brexit trade deal is a win-win. Both countries want the trade, Britain needs the boost to show it can make a success of Brexit, and Mr Turnbull could do with a win that makes him look even remotely competent.
There’s also one more advantage that can be stated with some confidence: If Britain signs a post-Brexit trade deal with Oz, when it comes to 1973 — much like last year’s Ashes — we’ll say no more about it.
Daniel Hatch is an Australian freelance journalist in London and managing editor at Lush Digital Media
Why Australia will do anything to secure a trade deal with Britain
So it's no wonder that many Australians were delighted with the Brexit vote...
Why Australia will do anything to secure a trade deal with Britain
Daniel Hatch
7 September 2016
The Telegraph
British Prime Minister Theresa May meets Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull during their bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 economic summit in Hangzhou Credit: Aly Song
Just to be clear, Britain, Australia has never really forgiven you for abandoning us in favour of the Common Market in 1973.
Yes, technically, we’d already shifted away from your cultural imperialism. We’d replaced the pound and your whacky imperial measurements, and so on. But it’s not like we’d rejected cricket, abandoned the monarchy or wantonly thrown tonnes of tea into a river. I mean, we’re not complete savages.
For almost two centuries until 1973 Australia had been Britain’s loyal little brother. Looking up to you, trying to impress you, seeking your approval, trading with you, taking whatever poor souls the bailiffs and sheriffs had swept from the streets of London, Liverpool and Leamington Spa and giving them a new home (in the sun, by the sea, no less — tactical error on your part).
1973 was a kick in the guts.
So imagine Australia’s delight at the Brexit referendum result of June this year. Make no mistake, it is no surprise to find Australia’s Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, at the front of the queue to shake hands with Theresa May at the G20 Summit in Beijing earlier this week. Nor that he was the first to promise Britain a post-Brexit trade agreement. Accepting Australia’s hand of friendship would be a fantastic make-good for that decision to abandon us nearly 44 years ago. Finally, not only would Australia have Big Brother’s approval, but there’d be a sense Big Brother actually needs us once again. We could be useful beyond being somewhere sunny to send Prince Charles.
So, that’s the romanticized version. But what’s actually going on here? Let’s look at the optics from an Australian point-of-view. Or, more specifically, let’s look at them from Mr Turnbull’s point-of-view. Why was he at the front of the queue?
In part it was because the UK is Australia’s eighth biggest export market — worth A$8.8 billion to the Australian economy in 2015. So that’s important. (Although that’s only 2.8 per cent of total exports and Australia imported A$14.4 billion worth of goods from the UK in the same year.)
This is really about a prime minister on death row. (To be fair, that’s the only kind of prime minister Australia seem to do these days). When Turnbull knifed his predecessor, Tony Abbott, just 12 months ago it was because of Abbott’s appallingly poor judgment (including a knighthood for Prince Phillip), gaffs and unpopularity. Turnbull has since managed not only become just as unpopular as his predecessor but to spectacularly whittle Abbott’s 35-seat parliamentary majority down to just one seat at the July 2 election.
Turnbull — the Rhodes Scholar, Spycatcher Case-winning lawyer, merchant banker, early email entrepreneur and the man who led the (losing) argument for Australia to become a republic in 1999 — is on the ropes. He needs some early and clear wins in this new and extremely complicated Parliament if he is to have any hope of keeping his job. The sharks are circling.
A trade deal with post-Brexit Britain is an easy win for the PM. Australia loves a trade deal — especially a free trade deal. During his reign John Howard regularly told us free trade deals were the cornerstone to our national prosperity and, given he is the last prime minister most of us will admit to, we still tend to listen to his advice.
But we’re also quite scared of our biggest trading partner, China, with which we have a free trade agreement (Australia is having our own Hinkley-style conversations, too); we’re a bit nervous about whatever this year’s United States election might gift the world (we have a free trade agreement with the US, too), and the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal is probably dead in the water (which won’t be a good look for the Australian PM).
In short, we could really do with a sane, reliable trading partner.
The only risk for Turnbull here is that Brexit might not come swiftly enough — that his leadership might falter before the ink on a deal is dry. Forget the impatient hordes protesting outside Westminster on the weekend demanding Britain extricate itself from the European Union more swiftly, if Malcolm Turnbull could convincingly forge Theresa May’s signature on Article 50, he would.
Little wonder then that Turnbull was just about sprinting across the tarmac at Beijing Airport to talk terms with an equally grateful Mrs May.
Who better to clinch a trade deal with than family? Who better to go into business with than a country with which we have so much shared history, shared culture, and so deep an affection that we occasionally let them win the Ashes?
And what better way for Britain to apologise for so callously cutting off fraternal ties back in 1973 in favour of that troublesome tart, Europe? What better way to make up for abandoning your little brother in favour of fish quotas, straight bananas and eggs by the kilo?
For Britain and Australia, a post-Brexit trade deal is a win-win. Both countries want the trade, Britain needs the boost to show it can make a success of Brexit, and Mr Turnbull could do with a win that makes him look even remotely competent.
There’s also one more advantage that can be stated with some confidence: If Britain signs a post-Brexit trade deal with Oz, when it comes to 1973 — much like last year’s Ashes — we’ll say no more about it.
Daniel Hatch is an Australian freelance journalist in London and managing editor at Lush Digital Media
Why Australia will do anything to secure a trade deal with Britain
Last edited: