Thread by @nvonwestenholz

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes Sunday Times having another crack at the “protectionism” v “free trade” topic, like its 1845 all over again (spoiler – it isn’t). Let me rehearse some of the points I’ve made in recent weeks /1

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes Firstly, we all bandy the term “free trade” around, but its rarely defined. In its purest form it would mean no barriers or restrictions at all to trade. In fact we tend to accept some restrictions are justified… e.g. for safety, etc /2

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes So the question really should be what trade barriers are acceptable and what are not – both in terms of broad principles (should we discriminate on the basis of production methods, e.g. environmental impact) and specifics (banning particular goods produced in particular ways) /3

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes Describing any discussion about acceptable standards of imports as “protectionist” leads to the inevitable conclusion that we’re all protectionist. Even Robert, who writes reassuringly about food standards controls on “chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef” /4

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes In truth, these discussions require thought and nuance that are ill-served by simply shouting “protectionism” and “free trade” /5

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes Instead, we should be having a proper discussion about what sort of models of production and consumption we want to incentivise through trade policy – e.g. tackling climate change, waste, or the poor treatment of animals /6

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes And this is right, because the core goal of traditional free trade theory – to incentivise the production and supply of the cheapest goods, however they're produced and whatever the attendant damage, has surely had its day 7/

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes It is surprising how many of today’s advocates of “free trade” seem never to look around them and assess how far free trade has already brought us. This is not 1845 or even 1905. This is not the era of the corn laws of imperial preference /8

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes Food in the UK is incredibly affordable. You can buy, quickly and often cheaply, food from all over the world. So, when advocates of so called free trade argue for cheaper food, what food specifically are they saying is currently too expensive in the UK? /9

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes As free trade delivers on its promises, the gains become more and more marginal. This means you need to think harder about the trade-offs when liberalising further – because there are winners and losers from “free trade” /10

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes Ultimately, however, it appears these arguments are not really about free trade at all. They’re about geopolitics, foreign policy and (I’m afraid) Brexit - which to be fair Robert admits in his piece /11

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes If you really cared about more and freer trade, how could you also argue for a hard or “no-deal” Brexit (which it looks like we’re getting). It will put up massive barriers overnight that won’t be offset by a trade deal with the US or anyone else /12

bbc.co.uk/news/business-…

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes But this is what many of the authors of these articles are doing. In fact, what they want is a closer relationship with the US and others, and a looser relationship with the EU (which is a perfectly reasonable position) – because it’s difficult to get one without the other /13

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes It is proving (as many predicted some time ago) that the UK cannot have it all – it is having to choose between the EU and the US. Those who want the latter are then rather spuriously dressing this up as a choice between protectionism and free trade /14

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes And its false to paint the US as a bastion of free trade against the backward and protectionist EU. They are both quite liberal trading economies, but of course reserve protectionist tendencies (just witness Trump’s trade wars) /15

ft.com/content/e761a1…

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes Advocating a comprehensive US trade deal and turning away from the EU in the process is not a commitment to free trade. It’s a political choice. I’m not arguing here that it’s the wrong choice. But let’s not dress it up in the language of “free trade” v “protectionism” /16

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes Final thought – the UK is already a pretty liberal trading country. The NFU isn’t advocating additional barriers to trade – just caution in how we liberalise further. This would mean food would continue to be affordable and available /17

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes The greatest threat to this? No deal at the end of the year, and a hard Brexit that puts up massive barriers to trade with our largest market. No US deal, or indeed cumulative deals with other countries, will offset that /end