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


Blackleaf
+1
#1
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/politics...e-anglosphere/
Last edited by Blackleaf; Nov 4th, 2018 at 12:40 PM..
 
White_Unifier
#2
Given the UK's present predicament, trade with anyone will be better than nothing.
 
MHz
#3
Wait till they are down to selling their children. I hear that is when the best deals can be made,
 
Hoid
#4
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
No Party Affiliation
+1
#5
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
#6
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
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

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
#8
Mutton?? I have run out of that so often it isn't funny.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#9  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

I can't imagine that Australia does not produce one thing that Canada doesn't produce.

Opals.
 
MHz
#10
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
No Party Affiliation
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

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
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

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
#13
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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

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
#15
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
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

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_o...ners_of_Canada
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

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
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

The market has answered. That is why trade between Australia and Canada ranks 18th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ners_of_Canada

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.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

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
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

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.
 
MHz
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

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.

The countries you are courting all have the products Canada is (could) offer. We export raw materials and import finished products.
We can open them up but how do you force people to come to you. Why would they when we let Venezuelans starve to death because the US and the IMF are pissed at them. Why would anybody want to deal with Canada, a two faced nation.
 
Blackleaf
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

The Commonwealth does not exist anymore,

Yes, it does.

Quote:

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.

No, it's because most of them were once part of the British Empire.
 
Blackleaf
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

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 Canada's 18th-largest trading partner.
 
White_Unifier
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz View Post

The countries you are courting all have the products Canada is (could) offer. We export raw materials and import finished products.
We can open them up but how do you force people to come to you. Why would they when we let Venezuelans starve to death because the US and the IMF are pissed at them. Why would anybody want to deal with Canada, a two faced nation.

But if the other country could produce those products more efficiently than Canada could, it would then make economic sense for Canada to let them do what they do best and Canada do what it does best.

Let's learn from Mussolini's battle for wheat. Before he came to power, Italy produced all kinds of agricultural products for export and then imported wheat simply because that worked more efficiently.

Mussolini decided that Italy had to become more self-sufficient and so enacted policies to increase wheat production. Though he succeeded, Italy actually became poorer for it because it couldn't produce the wheat as efficiently as other countries did and since it had to shift resources towards wheat, its production and exportation of products that it could produce more efficiently declined. If Coldstream were PM, he'd probably make the same mistake as Mussolini did if I know him as well as I think I do.
 
White_Unifier
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Australia is Canada's 18th-largest trading partner.

Already covered.
 
White_Unifier
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Blackleaf View Post

Yes, it does.
No, it's because most of them were once part of the British Empire.

No, it's because they embraced free trade among other things. Hong Kong and Singapore have among the most open borders in the world and on a per capita basis, they make even the UK seem like a third-world backwater.
 
MHz
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

But if the other country could produce those products more efficiently than Canada could, it would then make economic sense for Canada to let them do what they do best and Canada do what it does best.

Memo update, the people we are trying to hit up to buy our products already have suppliers. We only hit up countries that are not under some sort of US trade sanctions.

If we are going to make money we will import what the US has sanctions on and sell it to the US a a Canadian product.

Reality check, the global stock market has one corporation that owns more than all the rest combined.


Oil from Venezuela is cheaper than from the KSA, we import from the KSA as they buy weapons from us that we buy from NATO partners. You do get the part where we cannot sell food to a nation with starving people in it because we are apart of NATO right. NATO is at war with China so why would China make a NATO member richer??

The bottom 300 miles of Canada belongs to the US, always has and always will. The border was put there or no settlers could have been convinced to move her and kill all the original owners.
30M people since 1500AD while the US is 300+M who is the boss? Our only prospect is to the south, Central America and south but we aren't allowed to as that is designated as US controlled and if they wanted to the place could be thriving it would be. They are kept that way as an example of what revolt will bring and the less poor people there are the more coins for the Merchants pockets.


Capitalism is the only cloud with no silver lining.
 
Hoid
#28
comparing hong kong or singapore to canada is ridiculous.
 
MHz
#29
Bahrain is a better place to use as the model. Not sure if the troops are ready to use tanks on taxpayers yet.
 
White_Unifier
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

comparing hong kong or singapore to canada is ridiculous.

What advantage does Hong Kong which has practically no natural resources whatsoever have over Canada other than maybe more sun for solar panels (but little space in which to park them) and... good policy.