Skip to main content

Boris Johnson's Porky Pies

Boris Johnson has been telling Porky Pies about Melton Mowbray pork pies. He gave the pies as an example of our poor trade arrangements with the USA. US regulations stopped them being exported to the US, whilst they could be sold in Iceland. It all sounds like tough-talking. It seems reasonable, but for the fact that the pies are only exported to Ireland. It is the standard trick of the populist politician. Make something up and then sound tough on it.

The Melton Mowbray pie is protected by the European Union. A no-deal Brexit would remove that protection, and the pies could readily be copied, or other kinds of pies could be sold as Melton Mowbray.

This is a significant worry for the producers of Melton Mowbray pies who fought a legal battle to ensure its status was protected.

Mr Johnson is in a hurry to make a trade deal with the USA. Both he and President Trump suggest a deal could be put in place within a year. This is odd, given it would usually take up to ten years.

The UK could sign a blank piece of paper and call it a trade deal, but it would leave UK businesses exposed, and the UK consumer unprotected.

Currently, the UK operates through forty trade deals negotiated by the EU. These need to be "rolled" on for the UK to trade with the same terms after Brexit. That is not an easy task. So far, the UK has managed thirteen "continuity" deals covering 38 countries.

Striking a deal with the USA, UK's top trading partner would be vital. Trump won't be a push-over. He has his own agenda, which is to put "America first." He won't be looking to do "favours" for the British government, no matter what his rhetoric is.

Trump wants markets opened up to US goods, and he wants to protect US businesses. He won't look favourably on the current balance of trade with the UK. The UK exports £112 bn of goods to the US, but imports £70 bn. The UK's biggest trading partner in terms of imports is Germany, much of which is vital for the UK supply chain.

So, is it wishful thinking that a trade deal could be negotiated with the USA within a year? Not necessarily, but the terms of that deal would unlikely be favourable to the UK.


We know what the US objectives are. They have been published. It is a lengthy document with some red flags. For example, it seeks to


"Establish rules that reduce or eliminate barriers to US investment in all sectors in the UK."

This would include the health and social care sectors and is a threat to the NHS, with more outsourcing and privatisation.

Another threat to the NHS would be in the following intent to

"Seek standards to ensure that government regulatory reimbursement regimes are transparent, provide procedural fairness, are nondiscriminatory, and provide full market access for US products." 

Significant dangers lie ahead in a rushed deal with the USA.


Enjoy reading The Thin End?  Try Ray Noble's novel.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As