A Brexit that will work for nobody

“Brexit means Brexit,” Theresa May famously said on a number of occasions last year, “And I intend it to work for everybody.”  With the half-way point between the referendum vote and Brexit day looming next month, current pronouncements from the Government suggest that on the contrary, we could end up with a Brexit that works for no one.

Our fishermen have good reason to be worried. Unless the Fisheries Regulation 1380/2013 is exempted from the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill – and there is no sign that this is the Government’s plan – we will end up leaving the Common Fisheries Policy only to revert to what is in effect a shadow CFP, including all the access arrangements which would continue to give away our nation’s resource to the EU. Last week, when asked about fisheries, the Prime Minister said,

“When we leave the European Union, we will be leaving the common fisheries policy. As part of the agreement that we need to enter into for the implementation period, obviously that and other issues will be part of that agreement.”.

While this “implementation period” may exist only in Mrs May’s imagination, she should instead have given an unequivocal statement that upon Brexit, we will not only immediately take full control of our Exclusive Economic Zone, but will not be running it on a quota basis.

At least as far as fisheries is concerned, there is hope that ultimately it will be Michael Gove who determines post-Brexit policy. He has shown himself sympathetic to the plight of our fishermen and his mention of John Ashworth in person during a fringe meeting at the Tory Party Conference is a recognition that the fishing community is running a well-organised campaign that not going to take no for an answer.

Another area of concern is the reluctance of this government to disentangle ourselves from the EU’s military machine. Our friends in Veterans for Britain  were understandably critical of the Government’s recent  “future partnership” paper on defence, which would limit our independence. They also do not want to see is tied in to PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) a key factor in the EU’s military ambitions to create a defence union. It appears from an earlier briefing put out by VfB that many MPs are still in the dark about the very limited military autonomy with which government ministers plan to allow us. This is unacceptable. As an independent country, our political objectives will inevitably diverge from those of the EU. We will no longer be interested in its empire building in the Balkans or among the former soviet republics. Our defence policy must be disentangled from that of the EU before we leave. If Mrs May is planning a reshuffle, as is widely being rumoured, the appointment of a genuine Brexiteer to  replace the most unsatisfactory Micharl Fallon as Defence Secretary would be a very good move.

We also need to make a clean break with the EU on criminal justice matters.  Torquil Dick-Erikson has raised the issue of the European Arrest Warrant on this website before. We agree with him that it is totally unacceptable for the Government to keep us as a signatory to the EAW and to be a member of Europol. More than that, Torquil has pointed out that the Government has also declared its willingness to allow “special intervention units” from the EU to set foot on British soil, and under a smokescreen of “ensuring security.”

In these three areas – fishing, defence and criminal justice, Brexit must be as “hard” as possible and the Government’s shortcomings will be highlighted over and over again on this website until there is a change of heart. This is not the Brexit we voted for.  As last year’s Vote.Leave slogan said so graphically, it was all about “taking back control”. If our fishing grounds are shared with the EU, our defence is bound up with that of the EU and EU judges still have the power to haul us off to any one of 27 member countries on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, we are not in control at all.

What is more, these issues must not be swept under the carpet while all the media focus being on trade talks – or rather, the lack of trade talks. Thankfully, as far as trade is concerned, a number of senior figures from industry, supported by a small but growing number of MPs are expressing their concern that the “No deal is better than a bad deal” mantra is unrealistic and dangerous. Leaving the EU without a deal would be a calamity for our economy, even though one recent opinion poll suggested that as many as 74% of voters would prefer this to a supposed “bad deal”. Do they realise that planes would be unable to fly? That the M20 in Kent would be turned into a lorry park overnight?

Of course, it is possible that the Government is engaging in brinkmanship to try to twist the EU’s arm and get it to start trade talks before the three contentious issues of the Irish border, the “divorce bill” and the rights of EU citizens have been agreed, but it is a high-risk strategy and one that looks unlikely to succeed. It is based on a long-standing failure to perceive that the EU is first and foremost a political project, not a trading bloc.

This mistaken perception of the EU’s nature suggests that the transitional arrangement mentioned recently by Mrs May (where we would be able to trade seamlessly with the EU after Brexit in return for being subject to most of the EU’s rules and policed by the European Court of Justice) is mercifully a non-starter.  It is an unsatisfactory pick-and-mix deal which violates the EU’s political integrity while being an extremely bad arrangement for the UK. It remains a mystery why the EEA/EFTA option is still being ruled out of court by all senior government figures when something far worse is being publicly advocated instead.

While no sane person would disagree with the statement by David Davis that Brexit is “the most complex peacetime operation in our history”, it is now nearly 14 months since the referendum vote and we do not yet have any indication that the Government has come up with a strategy which will deliver a satisfactory break with the EU.  Thanks to David Cameron’s ban on allowing the Civil Service to work on any Brexit plan before the  referendum, the Government and Whitehall have found themselves on a sharp learning curve, but some campaigners, such as John Ashworth have been active for 20 years or more and have considerable knowledge their specialist subjects. Why are their recommendations not being adopted? Why, after all this time, is the government still seemingly confused about the difference between the Customs Union and customs clearance agreements? Why has the defence integration continued since the Brexit vote without any consultation with the military, who actually understand the issues?

It does not help when anyone who dares to stick their heads above the parapet and suggest that we are heading for a disaster is labelled a “traitor” – as was the case with Philip Hammond last week. Of course, Mr Hammond supported remain during the referendum and some ardent Brexiteers refuse to believe that anyone who did not campaign for Brexit can possibly be genuinely committed to making it happen, in spite of our own soundings which suggested that most MPs, whatever side they took in the referendum campaign, have accepted the result and will not seek to be obstructive over Brexit. More worryingly, a veteran leave supporter like Christopher Booker, whose pro-Brexit credentials are impeccable, has been tarred with the same brush for expressing concern about the direction of Brexit talks. What is the point in saying things are looking good when there is every evidence that they are not?

There are two very big worries which force concerned Brexiteers like Mr Booker – and indeed, your author – to stick to their guns. The first is that a calamitous Brexit would be grist to the mill of the hard-core remainiacs who have never accepted the result of last year’s referendum. A spike in unemployment and inflation coupled with possible food shortages would lead to calls for us to start negotiations to re-join the EU, even though we would lose our opt-outs on the €uro and Schengen along with the Fontainebleau rebate won for us by Mrs Thatcher. This would be a disaster.

Secondly, it would lead to unprecedented political upheaval. Less than a year ago, some Conservatives were convinced not just that Jeremy Corbyn was unelectable but that the Labour Party was in its death throes. Last June’s election was a rude awakening for the Tories, proving their optimism to be very wide of the mark. The mood at the Party conference was apparently very sombre indeed.

There is good reason for this, as today’s young people in particular are far more likely to support Labour than the Tories, suggesting that far from Corbyn being unelectable, he is likely to become Prime Minister in 2022, bringing with him a team of MPs who are in the main, even more reluctant Brexiteers than the Tories. The best way  – indeed, probably the only way – of avoiding this is for the Tories to deliver a successful Brexit. Analysis of voter intentions suggest that the most popular reason why voters opted for the Conservatives last June was a conviction that they would deliver on Brexit. To betray the voters’ trust  would not just hand over the keys of No. 10 Downing Street to Jeremy Corbyn in 2022; it would produce the biggest crisis in the Conservative Party since the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846.

As  Anthony Scholefield, a CIB Committee member, pointed out in his 2011 critique of Cameronism, “Too ‘nice’ to be Tories – how the modernisers have damaged the Conservative party“,  attempts by the Tory leadership since 2005 to reach out to urban touchy-feely politically correct types have served rather to alienate many traditional supporters. As I argued a few years ago, there are plenty of people who genuinely want to vote for what Mrs May famously called a “nasty” party. I was wrong in predicting that Cameron wouldn’t win the 2015 election, but he only won it because he was forced to give in to the mounting pressure within his party to hold a referendum on our membership of the EU. It was the EU issue which also saved Mrs May’s bacon two years later. Given that a good few Tory voters (and indeed activists) still remain most uncomfortable about this move to the supposed centre ground since Cameron became leader, I believe that nothing else can save the Conservatives from calamity in 2022 except a smooth, well-managed and complete Brexit that will enable our businesses to keep trading while at the same time revitalising our fishing industry and freeing us from the clutches of the EU’s military and the EAW.

To put it another way, the Tories have a long list of EU-related sins for which they need to repent collectively, going back to the deceit of Edward Heath in the 1970s. This is their one and only opportunity to make atonement. They created the mess; it is poetic justice that they are being saddled with the task of getting us out of it. If they succeed, the country can move on after over 40 years in our unhappy relationship with Brussels and the party need never again “bang on about Europe”.  If they fail, our country may well end up marking the centenary of the resignation in 1922 of David Lloyd George, the last ever Liberal Prime Minister,  with the resignation of the last ever Conservative Premier. It really is as serious as that

 

Groundhog Day

If you think you have read a post like this before, you’re probably right. Another week of Brexit negotiations are about to begin which will almost certainly end with very little progress being made. A smiling David Davis will emerge in a few days’ time and give a very upbeat assessment of the talks at a press conference while Michel Barnier, in guarded but polite language, will say that actually very little has happened which will enable the UK and the EU to get down to discussing any sort of future trade relationship.

It’s rather like the film Groundhog Day where an American weatherman finds himself trapped in a time loop, repeating the same day over and over again, except there’s an important difference: in the film, time basically stands still whereas the Brexit clock is ticking away.

To be more precise, Brexit day, 29th March 2019, will take place 1,010 days after our vote to leave on 23rd June last year. In exactly one month’s time, November 9th 2017, four days after Bonfire Night, we will reach the halfway point and so far, there is no sign of any deal which will enable trade to flow seamlessly between the UK and the EU once we leave the EU.

Even the plans for a two-year transition will be going nowhere. Essentially, while Mrs May may be telling the EU that the ball is in their court, the EU is being asked to make an exception to its normal rules for the sake of a former member state which doesn’t want to be part of the club any more. It is under no obligation to say yes – indeed, it has given every indication that it is not going to. Mrs May’s speech in Florence did nothing to shift the predominant belief in Brussels and elsewhere that there was plenty of goodwill in it but little of substance which could unblock the negotiations in the three key areas where agreement must be reached before trade talks can begin – the Irish border question, the divorce bill and the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK.

It may be a case that Mrs May is being advised to take a tough line in the hope that the EU will blink first. If so, she (and her advisors) are likely to be disappointed. Even so, the fallout from Mrs May’s conference speech and the  failed attempts to remove her have left her with no option but to ensure we leave the EU in March 2019. Grant Shapps, the former Tory Chairman who surfaced as the leader of the failed coup, did not raise Brexit as an issue, but Nadine Dorries, a consistent pro-Brexit Tory MP, claimed that the plan was to take Boris Johnson down with Theresa May and install a new pro-remain leader who would stop Brexit.

We will never know the truth of what went on in the aftermath of Mrs May’s speech, but the strong support she has been given from pro-Brexit MPs conveys the implicit message that there can be no turning back,

So are we heading towards a no-deal situation when our delegation will walk away from the talks, blaming EU intransigence? Business leaders will not like this and will be lobbying hard to prevent such an outcome.

This leaves Mrs May caught between a rock and a hard place.  Maybe she (or her advisors) still haven’t grasped the political nature of the EU project. This is hardly her fault. From Edward Heath onwards, the wool has been pulled over the eyes of the UK so effectively that even serving MPs think that the EU is all about trade, which it isn’t. If we are to believe those who know her well, she is typical of many Tories who  have never been that bothered about the EU but was forced by Cameron and Osborne, along with a significant number of her colleagues, to come off the fence. One of our correspondents claims that at the dinner parties he hosted, Cameron and his henchmen described supporting leave as “xenophobic”.

Indeed, if the finger of blame should be pointed at anyone, it is the dynamic duo who headed up the administration before June 23rd last year. Cameron and Osborne held a referendum they didn’t expect to lose, trying to frighten the voters and intimidate their parliamentary colleagues  so that the result would never be in doubt. So confident were they of victory that the Civil Service was banned from drawing up any exit plan.  According to Craig Oliver, Cameron’s spin doctor, Cameron arrived at Downing Street after the result was announced on 24h June saying almost jokingly “Well, that didn’t go according to plan!”

Indeed it didn’t and nor has the first 15 months of Mrs May’s premiership. We can but hope that the next 15 months see some significant progress but as far as the current round of negotiations is concerned, few people will be holding their breath.  She has been bequeathed a very difficult task by her predecessor and it may well take some further crisis before we start to see any real developments which will prevent the “cliff edge” that draws closer by the day and rightly concerns so many.

Photo by vastateparksstaff

Brexit and the mechanisms of EU trade

The UK’s International trade depends upon efficient electronic systems that avoid entry inspections and delays at border crossings. These systems depend upon various mutually-agreed standards on both sides of the border. Unfortunately, the recently-published Government Position Papers on Brexit chose to ignore such details – indeed, they amounted to little more than political aspirations. As Brexit day approaches, it would not be surprising for businesses in both the UK and EU member states to put pressure on their governments to address the steps needed to prevent a massive “Operation Stack” on both sides of the Channel once we leave the EU.

Businesses likely to be affected by Brexit will need to know about how the movement of goods, services, ships and aircraft will be controlled.  They cannot move freely after March 2019 unless they are the subject of new inter-government agreements. These agreements can be achieved by way of MRAs [Mutual Recognition Agreements], Memoranda of Understanding or Exchanges of Notes for example.

There is a great deal of interplay between Laws and Regulations, Standards, Inspections and Conformity Assessment, Government Market Surveillance by checks and Customs and Tariff requirements. It must  be pointed out that the so-called ”WTO model” post-Brexit advocated by some economists would deal only with tariffs and would not address in full the requirements of these other critical areas.

So what else would be needed? Firstly, Mutual Recognition of bilateral product regulations. Whether or not two trading countries’ standards rules are identical, either way they are deemed to be mutually acceptable by that MRA.

Then there are internationally agreed certificates recognising that a produce conforms to a given set of standards. These are vital before the goods can reach the marketplace. The most important body dealing with international  standards, the International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) is a non-government organisation although its membership does include 163 national standards bodies. It seeks to apply one international standard for a given product everywhere across the world.

In Europe there are three European standards organisations, ETS, CEN and CENELEC, and they have 34 members – all 28 current EU member states plus Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Serbia and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Every agreed standard is adopted by all 34 member countries’ standards bodies. In the UK, the British Standards Institution (BSI) is our national standards body. The UK Government therefore seeks to avoid making any other bilateral national agreements on standards for legal compliance purposes. In other words, only one standard per topic is permitted in these 34 countries.

There is a silence from the DExEU upon any progress in these areas. These standards organisations were not mentioned once in the Position Papers, even though they are going to play a hugely important role in facilitating trade with other European nations.  David Davis has perhaps unwisely accepted the Barnier sequencing agenda, which means that the concerns of Industry and Commerce over these issues cannot be addressed until the EU is satisfied with progress in other areas – and it is currently distinctly dissatisfied.

As Anthony Scholefield has pointed out in his research paper for the Futurus think tank, the Government’s “Plan A” – a bespoke trade agreement with the EU – is doomed to fail unless transitional arrangements are agreed.

There is also the question of non-EU trade. Approximately 80% of UK GDP is domestic. Of the remainder 13% is Entrepôt non-EU and 7% is with the EU. Will this Government prioritise the 13% or the 7%?

One of the much-trumpeted benefits of Brexit is the freedom to strike our own trade deals. Will the Government go for a “Plan B” and seek to negotiate some trade agreements with non-EU countries which will be conditional on Brexit taking place in March 2019?

At the moment, we have no idea. “Operation Stack” on the M20, with all the attendant  consequences are looking increasingly inevitable from April 2019. The only consolation is that the UK will at least have escaped from the EU political project of ever-closer union and will not be asked to prop up the failed Euro. As Lord Mervyn King says, ”In 30 years this will look like any old blip!” We can but hope he is right, but without a change of mindset among those entrusted with the Brexit negotiations, the blip could be rather bigger and longer than he anticipated.

 

 

Photo by Pharma Mike

A Customs Union with the EU is a daft idea

The latest pronouncements from Michel Barnier, the EU’s Chief Negotiator, provide little comfort to those of us seeking reassurance that the Government knows how to fulfil its declared aim of leaving the EU in 18 months’ time while avoiding a “cliff edge” for business.

Essentially, the rather tired “having cake and eating it” analogy sums up what Barnier sees as the root of the problem. He talked of a “nostalgia” for the Single Market and made it clear that you cannot be outside the Single Market while continuing to enjoy its benefits.  “This is simply impossible”, he said.

There is a wide range of views among Brexit supporters regarding whether or not we should stay within the Single Market. If there is a non-single market option which could provide us with something as near as possible to the frictionless trade which Business is demanding, the Government is keeping very quiet about it. This in turn is resulting in a concern that our Brexit team – and perhaps the Government as a whole – still does not grasp what it means to be a “third country” for trade purposes.

When it comes to the EU’s Customs Union, however, there is no reason to support our continued membership. It is an open and shut issue. We certainly need a Customs arrangement with the EU or else a massive queue of lorries is going to build up on the M20 immediately after Midnight on March 29th 2019, but that is not the same as a Customs Union.

A Customs Union is an area within which goods can circulate without restriction but which imposes a common external tariff on goods from outside.  The first Customs Union was the German Zollverein, established in 1834 and which gradually included most German states. Significantly, the economic union was followed by political union.

The Treaty of Rome, which established what has become the European Union, proposed the establishment of a Customs Union. By the time the UK joined, it was up and running and we had to impose the common external tariffs on all goods from outside, including those from our Commonwealth friends such as Australia and New Zealand. In other words, we surrendered the freedom to negotiate our own trade deals.

Shortly after the Treaty of Rome, the UK which at the time was not keen on joining the European project instead became one of the founder members of EFTA, the European Free Trade Association, which was not a Customs Union. It thus allowed members to negotiate their own trade agreements if they so desired, although EFTA also has negotiated free trade deals on behalf of all its constituent countries. Significantly, EFTA has never sought to create any sort of political union among its members. It was and is purely about trade.

Why then should a non-EU member want to be associated with the EU’s Customs Union? If you are a micro-state like San Marino or Monaco, you are unlikely to have the resources to negotiate your own trade deals and thus piggybacking on your larger neighbours is the best way of keeping trade flowing smoothy across your borders. This is not the case with Turkey, the only large non-EU country which has a customs union with it.

During last year’s Referendum debate, the so-called “Turkish option” received very little coverage. Being in a similar customs union with the EU was occasionally mentioned as one possible post-Brexit scenario but then almost immediately dismissed as being unsatisfactory. The Turks themselves don’t like it, which is one very good reason for rejecting it.

For starters, being a member of the Customs Union requires accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Turkey also may not negotiate trade agreements with non-EU countries but does not benefit from the EU’s Free Trade agreements. Countries who have signed a free trade agreement with the EU can export their goods into Turkey tariff free while imposing tariffs on Turkish goods.

One reason for Turkey accepting this unsatisfactory arrangement was its aspiration to join the EU. We are going in the opposite direction, so there is even less reason for us to adopt it, even as a transitional arrangement.

If further proof were needed of this argument, this article on the Kapikule Border crossing between Turkey and EU member state Bulgaria,  shows that a Customs Union with the EU does not result in quick and easy movement of goods across borders.  A Turkish lorry driver is quoted as saying that a mere 14-hour wait at the customs post constitutes a “good day”!

The article goes on to describe how “each driver clutches a sheaf of several dozen documents — an export declaration, a carnet from Turkish customs officers, invoices for the products they are hauling, insurance certificates and, when lucky, a transport permit for each EU nation they will drive through.”

No one in their right minds should be suggesting that any future UK-EU trading relationship be conducted along these lines.  Like it or loathe it, re-joining EFTA as an interim arrangement and thus accessing the Single Market along the same lines as Norway and Iceland would spare us this chaos. Maybe the Government has some better alternative up its sleeve, although if this is the case, it is playing its cards very close to its chest, but we can’t stay in the EU’s Customs Union if we’re not an EU member; we can only make a Customs Union agreement on Turkish lines and evidence strongly suggests it’s not worth the bother.

 

Photo by Peanut99

Going round in circles?

It’s now the third round of Brexit negotiations. Last week, we were given what amounted to an aspiration list – five “position papers” following on from two the previous week which went into very little detail as to how the UK negotiating team intended to go about achieving its desired objectives. The papers also made a number of assumptions about the EU’s negotiating position which do seem at first glance rather unrealistic. In short, it doesn’t seem very clear what the UK government actually wants. By contrast, the EU has made its position clear from the very start.

The EU’s Chief Negotiator, Michel Barnier, is understandably frustrated and warned about the clock ticking. He recently told the UK to “start negotiating seriously.” We are now less than 19 months to Brexit day; 14 have already elapsed with very little achieved except a foolish agreement to submit to the EU’s negotiating schedule whereby sufficient progress must be made on the divorce settlement, the rights of EU nationals and the Irish border before issues such as trade can be discussed. A helpful summary of the full areas of disagreement can be found in this article.

As far as the UK government is concerned, there has been a recognition that a long-term trade deal cannot be negotiated before March 2019 so some sort of interim arrangement will be needed. Even this is going to be a challenge as the rather nebulous statements from the government insist that the Single Market is not on the agenda, necessitating a bespoke deal (or a change of mind). Labour, however, seems to be moving round to supporting membership of the Single Market.  It now agrees with the Government that a transitional deal is necessary but disagrees with it not only on the Single Market but on the customs union too. As Dr Richard North points out, Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has advocated the Single Market without offering any hint of how we would access it – in other words, no mention of the European Economic Area or EFTA.

Professor George Yarrow from Oxford University, has argued that the default position for a newly-independent UK is that we would remain within the Single Market and would not need to rejoin EFTA to retain access. Not everyone is convinced by his arguments and if he is wrong, a bespoke deal allowing the UK to remain within the Single Market or the Customs Union would require a new treaty – a very challenging prospect within this increasingly tight timetable.

Of course, there are still some voices arguing against any sort of transitional agreement and claiming that a “hard” Brexit will bring economic benefit, such as Professor Patrick Minford of Cardiff Business School.  We have also highlighted the Bruges Group’s paper What will it look like? which claims that it is possible to agree a long-term trade deal within the Article 50 timeframe.  This paper has highlighted the key areas on which an agreement will be required, but if the Government is considering this route, the Position Papers offered us not the slightest hint that this is their preferred strategy.

So it looks like this week’s talks will be little more than going round in circles. We will, no doubt, be given a very upbeat assessment of the talks by David Davis, but little real progress will be made as the Government does not seem to be offering any sort of road map to arrive in the promised land of Brexit while Labour has little idea either. Meanwhile, as M. Barnier keeps reminding us, the clock is ticking away and the cliff edge is getting closer……

Photo by Digital-Designs

Why the Brexit trade team has hired a New Zealander as lead negotiator

A week in which five somewhat underwhelming position papers were published by the Department for Exiting the European Union was rounded off by a piece of somewhat better news.

Next week, Crawford Falconer, a New Zealander, will take up his position as chief trade negotiation adviser at the Department for International Trade.

Mr Falconer brings with him some valuable expertise which our EU membership has more or less rendered extinct in the UK – 25 years of trade experience. He has represented New Zealand at the World Trade Organization (WTO) and held various posts in foreign and trade affairs in his home country.

As far back as 1973, we surrendered our right to negotiate our own trade deals and thus no longer had need of people with the necessary skills. Given that the freedom to strike our own trade deals was one of the most frequently-mentioned arguments in favour of Brexit, it is therefore encouraging that Liam Fox’s department has made this appointment.

For one thing, it shows that the UK Government is serious about developing an independent trade policy. More importantly, however, it shows  that a recognition has dawned at least in one Government department that trade deals are complex, requiring specialist skills. This is in contrast to some announcements – indeed, to some of the Position papers – which give the impression that obtaining a smooth Brexit will be a piece of cake.

It won’t be. For over 44 years, our country has been progressively denuded of many attributes if a fully-functioning sovereign nation. Many of us were profoundly unhappy about this and hence the energy and vigour of the Brexit campaign in last year’s referendum. We wanted our country back  – to take control once more and to end our subservience to foreign institutions.

The ramifications of that vote are beginning to reverberate through both Westminster and Whitehall. The buck will stop here – not in Brussels or Strasbourg! The EU can no longer be the scapegoat when something goes wrong.

Reclaiming our sovereignty requires not only a new mindset but a sharp learning curve for a new generation of civil servants. They are going to have to do things which have been sub-contracted out to Brussels for two generations. Not one UK Civil Servant still in employment has had any experience of negotiating a free trade deal on behalf of our country. Inevitably, therefore, expertise will have to be brought in from elsewhere to tide us over and the obvious places to look are those countries like New Zealand which share our Common Law legal system, our language and our outward-looking approach to trade. We can be grateful not only that there is an Anglophone world out there, but that our Commonwealth friends are prepared to renew and strengthen their ties with us after having been cast adrift so shamefully in 1973.

The more announcements we therefore hear of appointments like Mr Falconer, the more confident we can be that or government is really getting to grips with what it will mean to be a sovereign nation once more.

Photo by yellow book