This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/02/liam-fox-and-the-winners-and-losers-from-free-trade
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 1 | Version 2 |
|---|---|
| Liam Fox and the winners and losers from free trade | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Liam Fox (Don’t blame globalisation for poverty, 30 September) talks of the UK’s post-Brexit trade potentially helping developing markets trade their way out of poverty. But this doesn’t quite cut it. In the short term, the drop in sterling is already leading to job losses in flower farms in Africa, as they struggle to absorb an effective 10% price cut. In the medium term, uncertainty around the UK’s future trade position means that tea and sugar farmers in Malawi or Mauritius don’t know if future UK sales will expand or drop off a cliff. In the long term, there could be major disruption to the lives of millions of the very poorest if, for example, new deals open up new import routes from emerging economies that squeeze out the least developed countries in Africa. | Liam Fox (Don’t blame globalisation for poverty, 30 September) talks of the UK’s post-Brexit trade potentially helping developing markets trade their way out of poverty. But this doesn’t quite cut it. In the short term, the drop in sterling is already leading to job losses in flower farms in Africa, as they struggle to absorb an effective 10% price cut. In the medium term, uncertainty around the UK’s future trade position means that tea and sugar farmers in Malawi or Mauritius don’t know if future UK sales will expand or drop off a cliff. In the long term, there could be major disruption to the lives of millions of the very poorest if, for example, new deals open up new import routes from emerging economies that squeeze out the least developed countries in Africa. |
| The government must promise that any changes to trade rules will at least do no harm, but preferably benefit the poorest countries in the world. The least developed countries already enjoy duty free access to the UK as part of EU trade rules, so a unilateral commitment to stick with this would be a start. Second, the UK should look closely at how future deals will affect the poorest farmers, and commit to avoid harmful effects and create new opportunities. | The government must promise that any changes to trade rules will at least do no harm, but preferably benefit the poorest countries in the world. The least developed countries already enjoy duty free access to the UK as part of EU trade rules, so a unilateral commitment to stick with this would be a start. Second, the UK should look closely at how future deals will affect the poorest farmers, and commit to avoid harmful effects and create new opportunities. |
| In his Manchester speech the trade secretary also talks positively about Fairtrade’s work delivering fair prices to 1.5 million farmers in developing countries. Fairtrade can only do its job if there is market access in the first place, and these same farmers urgently need clarity on the UK’s intentions.Barbara CrowtherDirector of policy and public affairs, Fairtrade Foundation | In his Manchester speech the trade secretary also talks positively about Fairtrade’s work delivering fair prices to 1.5 million farmers in developing countries. Fairtrade can only do its job if there is market access in the first place, and these same farmers urgently need clarity on the UK’s intentions.Barbara CrowtherDirector of policy and public affairs, Fairtrade Foundation |
| • Liam Fox presents a myopic view of world trade. Globalisation is not a panacea; there have always been winners and losers as the international economy develops. In the days of Adam Smith, Britain’s industrial revolution destroyed India’s indigenous cotton industry. China was exploited in the opium trade. Calcutta boomed as Englishmen built a European city. Indian agricultural labourers were reduced to poverty. | • Liam Fox presents a myopic view of world trade. Globalisation is not a panacea; there have always been winners and losers as the international economy develops. In the days of Adam Smith, Britain’s industrial revolution destroyed India’s indigenous cotton industry. China was exploited in the opium trade. Calcutta boomed as Englishmen built a European city. Indian agricultural labourers were reduced to poverty. |
| Today, China and India are in an era of expansion, Britain runs a systemic trade deficit and London has become the new Calcutta: the new global rich buy up property as many of the native population are driven into penury. Nothing Liam Fox writes is wrong, it is just selective from a wider whole.Martin LondonHenllan, Denbighshire | Today, China and India are in an era of expansion, Britain runs a systemic trade deficit and London has become the new Calcutta: the new global rich buy up property as many of the native population are driven into penury. Nothing Liam Fox writes is wrong, it is just selective from a wider whole.Martin LondonHenllan, Denbighshire |
| • Liam Fox correctly argues that international free trade creates increased incomes. However, he ignores the distributional effects of trade. Britain grows but with increased inequality, devastating old industries. China grows and becomes more unequal thereby currently increasing the popularity of Maoist groups. Trade has to involve the compensation of losers with welfare support, retraining and other market interventions if social harmony is to be preserved. Such investments are inadequate in Britain and China.Professor emeritus Alan MaynardUniversity of York | • Liam Fox correctly argues that international free trade creates increased incomes. However, he ignores the distributional effects of trade. Britain grows but with increased inequality, devastating old industries. China grows and becomes more unequal thereby currently increasing the popularity of Maoist groups. Trade has to involve the compensation of losers with welfare support, retraining and other market interventions if social harmony is to be preserved. Such investments are inadequate in Britain and China.Professor emeritus Alan MaynardUniversity of York |
| • Liam Fox writes of the “brave and historic decision of the British people to leave the European Union”. But the British people en masse didn’t decide any such thing, bravely or not. Even if, in the June referendum, a few more had voted to remain than to leave, the result could only have been more a preference than a decision, since no one could remotely forecast the impact of Brexit (and Fox’s own government department still can’t tell us). | • Liam Fox writes of the “brave and historic decision of the British people to leave the European Union”. But the British people en masse didn’t decide any such thing, bravely or not. Even if, in the June referendum, a few more had voted to remain than to leave, the result could only have been more a preference than a decision, since no one could remotely forecast the impact of Brexit (and Fox’s own government department still can’t tell us). |
| There was, however, a very clear message: that the country is almost exactly split down the middle in its preferences, ill-informed as they may or may not have been. Maybe once the impacts of Brexit and the possibilities of reform within the EU have been defined and digested, we should have an informed debate and decision – but not yet. | There was, however, a very clear message: that the country is almost exactly split down the middle in its preferences, ill-informed as they may or may not have been. Maybe once the impacts of Brexit and the possibilities of reform within the EU have been defined and digested, we should have an informed debate and decision – but not yet. |
| The government has done nothing to assuage the raw emotions raised on both sides. The country remains divided (and still ill-informed), and the underlying problems that may have influenced the votes have not been investigated, addressed or solved. Liam Fox, instead of wilfully misinterpreting the vote, or trying to rewrite history, should buckle down to bringing the bruised and divided British people together again.Peter DavisBath | The government has done nothing to assuage the raw emotions raised on both sides. The country remains divided (and still ill-informed), and the underlying problems that may have influenced the votes have not been investigated, addressed or solved. Liam Fox, instead of wilfully misinterpreting the vote, or trying to rewrite history, should buckle down to bringing the bruised and divided British people together again.Peter DavisBath |
| • The fact that a judge has decided (Early legal win for anti-Brexit campaigners over article 50, 29 September) that the government should disclose the basis of its claim to prerogative power in relation to the timing and terms of Brexit is to be welcomed. But this is fundamentally a matter of politics, not law, and should be settled in parliament. It is the job of parliament to challenge prerogative power, not to be rolled over by it or to leave it to the courts. Whatever the views on Brexit, parliament should be united in asserting its sovereignty when the prerogative is used to deny it the role it should have.Professor Tony Wright(Former MP and chair of the Commons reform committee 2009-10), Birmingham | • The fact that a judge has decided (Early legal win for anti-Brexit campaigners over article 50, 29 September) that the government should disclose the basis of its claim to prerogative power in relation to the timing and terms of Brexit is to be welcomed. But this is fundamentally a matter of politics, not law, and should be settled in parliament. It is the job of parliament to challenge prerogative power, not to be rolled over by it or to leave it to the courts. Whatever the views on Brexit, parliament should be united in asserting its sovereignty when the prerogative is used to deny it the role it should have.Professor Tony Wright(Former MP and chair of the Commons reform committee 2009-10), Birmingham |
| • The international trade secretary writes under the headline “Don’t blame globalisation for poverty” (30 September). Neo-liberal spin perhaps? Or Fox News by other means?Robert LawrenceOxford | • The international trade secretary writes under the headline “Don’t blame globalisation for poverty” (30 September). Neo-liberal spin perhaps? Or Fox News by other means?Robert LawrenceOxford |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |