The Commonwealth is booming – it's time to embrace free trade with the Anglosphere

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Europhiles tend to belittle trade with distant lands. Australia, they scoff, is our 16th export destination, behind Germany, France, Italy and Spain. But they are begging the question. Of course EU countries are our major trading partners: since 1973, we have been in a customs union with them, specifically designed to redirect our trade toward the Continent. That reorientation, as an LSE study showed, had an impact on our internal economic geography. Glasgow, Liverpool and Bristol found themselves, as it were, on the wrong side of the country; wealth and population shifted to the South East.

I’m not sure it ever made sense to abandon a global trading system..


The Commonwealth is booming – it's time to embrace free trade with the Anglosphere




Daniel Hannan, Conservative MEP for South East England
The Telegraph
4th November 2018


Australia may be on the other side of the world, but it is hard to think of a country closer to Britain in every other sense. CREDIT: RUDI VAN STARREX/GETTY IMAGES

Flights to Australia have been around for almost as long as commercial air travel itself. But they used to be unbelievably tedious and expensive affairs. A trip from London to Brisbane in the 1930s involved 24 fuel stops and took 11 days. A return ticket cost the then-astronomical sum of £13,000.

On Monday, I made the journey to Australia in a single leg, flying directly from London to Perth on Qantas’s new route. That shrinkage of time - 11 days to 17 hours - is one answer to those who, even now, insist that Britain’s commercial and diplomatic energies should be focused on Europe.

Europhiles tend to belittle trade with distant lands. Australia, they scoff, is our 16th export destination, behind Germany, France, Italy and Spain. But they are begging the question. Of course EU countries are our major trading partners: since 1973, we have been in a customs union with them, specifically designed to redirect our trade toward the Continent. That reorientation, as an LSE study showed, had an impact on our internal economic geography. Glasgow, Liverpool and Bristol found themselves, as it were, on the wrong side of the country; wealth and population shifted to the South East.

I’m not sure it ever made sense to abandon a global trading system – a diverse grouping of agrarian, commodity, manufacturing and service-based economies linked by the common law and the English language – for a bloc of homogenous European economies. The purpose of trade, after all, is to swap on the back of differences.

But whether or not it made sense in 1973, it plainly makes little sense today. Over the past half century, freight and refrigeration costs have tumbled, flights have become cheaper and more comfortable and the internet has revolutionised communications. At the same time, the Commonwealth has surged economically: its combined economy surpassed that of the eurozone in 2012 and will overtake the EU as a whole next year.

These days, cultural proximity trumps geography. Australia may be on the other side of the world, but it is hard to think of a country closer to Britain in every other sense. A million Australians visit Britain every year, spending nearly a billion pounds here. Australia, for its part, is home to 1.2  million Poms – more than the other 27 EU states combined.

Unsurprisingly, there is overwhelming support for an Australia-UK free trade agreement. The only opponents, other than those fringe Leftists who hate commerce on principle, are a handful of irreconcilable Remainers who can’t bear the thought of Brexit succeeding. In both countries, there is keen interest in making such a deal part of a wider trade consortium that would bring together the chief English-speaking democracies.

I have spent much of the past year working with politicians and think-tankers from across the Anglosphere on what such a trade agreement should look like. In September, at simultaneous events in London and Washington, 11 British and American institutes published a draft treaty that would provide for the mutual recognition of goods, services and professional qualifications, as well as free movement of labour.

Mutual recognition is far preferable to the common regulation that underpins most existing trade deals. Instead of imposing standards on the participating countries, mutual recognition is, in effect, an agreement to trust one another. Mega-businesses loathe it, much preferring uniform international regulations, which they see as a way to raise barriers to entry and disadvantage smaller rivals. That’s one of the reasons that corporate giants tend to be pro-Brussels. Mutual recognition works for the consumer rather than the producer, for the entrepreneur rather than the bureaucrat, for the start-up rather than the multinational. It increases competition, cuts prices and widens choice.

The treaty that the British and American think tanks drew up – and it’s a full treaty, not just a sketch of what a treaty might contain – was drafted to be multilateral, open to other countries from the start.

Which other countries? Initially those that share a language and legal system and have compatible levels of income. I’d begin with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States. I would also include Hong Kong, where I’m typing these words after a week of discussing the idea in Perth, Melbourne and Sydney with enthusiastic businessmen and politicians – including two former prime ministers. Despite its problems with its neighbour, Hong Kong is the most dependable free trader in the world.

A case could also be made for Israel, which we tend not to think of as a former British territory, but which shares the others’ legal, commercial and regulatory approaches. Those eight countries would, together, constitute a third of the world’s GDP.

Could we form an Anglosphere trade nexus and still enjoy unhindered commerce with our European allies? Yes, in every circumstance except one. We could do it if we had a Canada-style trade accord; we could do it as members of the European Free Trade Association; we could do it, with some restrictions, under the Chequers proposal. But we couldn’t do it if we stayed in the customs union – something that, from sheer mischief, Labour now plans to vote for.

For two years, while we have been hectored and insulted by Eurocrats, our old friends in the Anglosphere have been waiting with touching patience. We let them down in 1973. Let’s not let them down again.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...-booming-time-embrace-free-trade-anglosphere/
 
Last edited:

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Wait till they are down to selling their children. I hear that is when the best deals can be made,
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
3
36
The Commonwealth does not exist anymore, and the reason that the economies of the ex-member states of the commonwealth are booming is because they have managed to free themselves from economic ties to the boat anchor that is the UK.
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Kind of hard to trade with nations that produce products similar to ours like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. India seems to be the only worthwhile bet, if you include it as Anglo, although why language or ethnicity should be a factor completely escapes me.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
NATO members seem to break deals and apply sanctions once they have the money in their hands, even they don't want to deal with each other.

With unemployment hitting 50% there isn't many deliveries being made anyway.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Kind of hard to trade with nations that produce products similar to ours like Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. India seems to be the only worthwhile bet, if you include it as Anglo, although why language or ethnicity should be a factor completely escapes me.

I can't imagine that Australia does not produce one thing that Canada doesn't produce. Just think Vegemite; though granted shipping costs of Marmite from the UK are cheaper, so bad example there. But still, the point is that I can't imagine that Australia does not produce one thing that Canada might want to buy from it and that no one else produces.

As for ethnicity, I agree. As for language, do you not read the ingredients on a package before buying it? Do you not read road signs? Do you not read contracts before you sign them? In what language do you fill your tax forms? You might want to think about how much you use language in your everyday interactions.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
A vacuum truck with a rock grinding tip would be cool, Now they hand upside down at the end of an old rope based on the few reality show available. If the 'outback' has treasures laying on the ground why would the far north be any different? Let the Indians file the claims as they know the land and let prospectors come from the south with some small machines to do the required upgrades needed to hold onto the lease.

Gold using just a metal detection and a good set of legs, that ends up with China or are the big gold mines Australian Companies?
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
I can't imagine that Australia does not produce one thing that Canada doesn't produce. Just think Vegemite; though granted shipping costs of Marmite from the UK are cheaper, so bad example there. But still, the point is that I can't imagine that Australia does not produce one thing that Canada might want to buy from it and that no one else produces.

As for ethnicity, I agree. As for language, do you not read the ingredients on a package before buying it? Do you not read road signs? Do you not read contracts before you sign them? In what language do you fill your tax forms? You might want to think about how much you use language in your everyday interactions.




Australia is mainly a mineral and agricultural product exporter. It does produce a number of things that Canada doesn't, given the differences in climate. The point is does Canada want them and does Canada have anything Australia wants?



And I could care less about language. My TV set came from China, my car came from Korea, and the guts of my computer came from various parts of S.E. Asia. I don't speak any of those languages.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Australia is mainly a mineral and agricultural product exporter. It does produce a number of things that Canada doesn't, given the differences in climate. The point is does Canada want them and does Canada have anything Australia wants?
And I could care less about language. My TV set came from China, my car came from Korea, and the guts of my computer came from various parts of S.E. Asia. I don't speak any of those languages.

As for whether Canada and Australia have anything to trade, let the market answer that, no governments. Even if we have nothing to trade, a free trade agreement would still show diplomatic friendship, and even symbolic acts can sometimes go a long way.

What language does your waiter speak? Personally, I'd support some kind of language passport programme. Anyone in the world who passes a high-level English test could obtain one and it would equal a study, work, and business visa. Same for a French-language passport.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Why would Australia not just trade with China which is a lot closer and the list of available products is a set of books compared to the 1 page Canada could come up with.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Why would Australia not just trade with China which is a lot closer and the list of available products is a set of books compared to the 1 page Canada could come up with.
Who says Australia should have to choose betwen Canada and China? That's what I mean when I say I favour an open CANZUK, one that would not impose country-of-origin rules or trade restrictions on its members.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
How about we are the importers and China and Australia are competing for our dollars. We do $100B with China and $100M with Australia and both bid on the came contract and China comes in as the low bidder. Who do we go with?
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
As for whether Canada and Australia have anything to trade, let the market answer that, no governments. Even if we have nothing to trade, a free trade agreement would still show diplomatic friendship, and even symbolic acts can sometimes go a long way.

What language does your waiter speak? Personally, I'd support some kind of language passport programme. Anyone in the world who passes a high-level English test could obtain one and it would equal a study, work, and business visa. Same for a French-language passport.


The market has answered. That is why trade between Australia and Canada ranks 18th.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_Canada
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Why would Australia not just trade with China which is a lot closer and the list of available products is a set of books compared to the 1 page Canada could come up with.




It does. China is number one. Japan is number 2.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Given the geographical distance and so the additional transportation costs, I'm somewhat surprised that Australia would even rank 18th. With free trade between Canada and Australia, we might increase that trade somewhat to close the gap between it and Spain.




You have to look at the numbers in addition to the ranking. Australia's trade with Canada is not even one percent of that with the USA.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
You have to look at the numbers in addition to the ranking. Australia's trade with Canada is not even one percent of that with the USA.

So what? If we say that it's not worth developing trade relations with a country unless it's our main trading partner, then we might as well trade only with the US and close our borders to the rest. If the goal is diversification, then we could lower trade barriers to even our most insignificant trading partners and even potential trading partners.

Looking at it that way, not only should Canada promote closer trading ties with Australia, but also with the 191 countries in the world including even North Korea to the degree that UN sanctions will allow it.