WORLDREVIEWS

A global archive of independent reviews of everything happening from the beginning of the millennium


Read our Copyright Notice click here

For publication dates click here





FUTURE TRADE DEALS


Reviewed by ANDRE BEAUMONT


Continuing our mini-series on foreign policy issues, with whom should Britain have its next trade deals?


As stated elsewhere we are not in favour of Britain conducting new trade deals with countries significantly more populous than us. This is because we risk being flooded with goods, services, produce or labour in specific areas whilst we have no goods, services or products that are yet sufficiently internationally competitive to flood anyone's market in return.

We would have to fall back on football hooligans but some of us are getting fed up of jingoism.

The first candidates we would suggest are Norway and South Korea.

Norway has long had ties with Scotland and the north-east of England.

It shares an oil and gas pipeline infrastructure with us and is an increasing source of natural gas to a gas distribution network that is amongst the most comprehensive in the world, rendering our space heating thermally efficient, especially in the face of an inadequate and antiquated electricity grid that would be unable to support electricity-assisted space heating at scale.

We are also one of the major telecommunications hubs in the world from which Norway benefits. Likewise our air traffic control.

Given one of the reasons Britain's fishing resources are not in the main exploited by British fishermen is that our fishing licenses have been sold to overseas controlled companies so instead Norway's waters have provided the source of much of the fresh fish we do eat, and we are a lucrative market for it.

If Britain landed more fresh herring, lemon sole, Dover sole and monkfish from our own fisheries - a little less intensively exploited one hopes so the fisheries were sustainable - we would eat it, but we are not offered the option or the choice of fresh fish.

If fishery negotiations with the EU hit an impasse, we could license Norway's fishermen to use them instead - and land these fish.

Importantly, Norway and Britain have agricultural systems that could suffer in the shade of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy going forward. This might not necessarily be the case for the U.K. but it is a reason why Norway stays out of the EU. If you have a cold climate you cannot compete in volume of agriculture produce per acre.

Britain imports some high tech naval equipment from Norway and there is scope for joint defence procurement.

Apart from the Republic of Ireland there is next to nowhere that Britons can go to in Europe without having to count whether they are staying more than 90 days in any 180. Similar inconvenience awaits Europeans visiting Britain.

This is not about re-establishing free movement, which we do not advocate.

Even Americans can stay in Britain for six months without a visa (but not vice versa).

So a deal that extends out tourism rights to 6 months with Norway, which is not in the EU, would spur European countries to grant their citizens, including ours, as many rights as Americans have.

Norway is not a populous nation and the number of Britons who will ever go there is limited so the risks that may attach to free movement do not apply. A six month or more arrangement would certainly enhance valuable cultural and commercial exchange and tourism.

The next nation we advocate is South Korea.

It has had an impressive industrial record over the past 40 years.

It understands investing in Britain, as it did so in Wales for a previous generation of products. Britain remains a big and open market.

Soth Korea has a world-leading microelectronics and electronics industry.

It is bringing more investment to Texas for a single microchip plant than the EU brings to Britain in a year.

We are not advocating it considers bringing a similar sized mass market one to Britain - they require too much flat land, water, investment and regional subsidies - but a smaller one that could manufacture specialist chips useable in the defence, automotive and other sectors would be another matter. Jaguar Land Rover had to scale back production of vehicles in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic due of a shortage of automotive chips.

Britain has more than a market to offer.

Eventually it might want a partner to manufacture smaller defence drones with at scale.

It is good at developing sophisticated financial products for world scale businesses.

Britain's retail banking is a near-total shambles offering next to no products the consumer wants. Only aversion to going entirely online (aka fintech) and ties to long-term products like mortgages prevents it being ditched entirely by a fed up public.

If South Korea has experience in offering retail banking based on service, bring it to Britain to revitalise the sector. There are service opportunities here.

Initially, of course, a trade deal reduces or eliminates specific tariffs. The opportunities for cultural exchange also expand.