Trade Agreements: A Very Pressing Concern

Somewhat to my surprise we have not written about the TTIP on C@W.  It's a front we need to open up:  should be a rattling good C@W topic; plus, trade agreements are becoming a hot issue.

The proximate reason for my mentioning this is the latest twist in the slow-burning EU referendum fuse.  Cameron declares there's nothing for us down the 'Norway' route, and some of the 'outers' agree.  The USA warns that we needn't think we'll get an easy trade deal with them, we'll languish out there on a par with Brazil, India & our new best friend China.  Of course, others think the Norway option - complete with trade agreements - is pretty good, at least as a staging-post. 

Everyone (I hope) knows how important trade agreements are: the anguished cry of most people of my generation (who voted 'yes' in 1975) is - I voted for a free trade area!

So supposing that the increasingly shrill (and a wee bit premature?) Project Fear is spent by 2017 and we vote to leave.  How will we find our terms of trade then?  There seems to be a view that come the day, since everyone really wants to trade and is nowadays a member of the WTO, we'll strike bilaterals easily enough, with blocs and individual nations.  Maybe Brazil, India and China aren't such bad company to be in.

Is this right?  Since the TTIP seems to be America's view of what constitutes a trade agreement: a piece of paper so outrageous that not even MPs or MEPs are allowed to see it without swearing to secrecy on their old Granny's grave (reminiscent of the South Sea Bubble venture: "a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is") - what sort of bilateral does a medium-sized country strike with the USA nowadays?  Doesn't sound a happy place to be.

Then we consider what would need to be done vis-a-vis the rest.  I heard an Indian cabinet minister speak recently, and he said: you may find me being described as uncooperative in WTO circles.  That's because my price for anything the rest of the world wants is 200 million work permits for unemployable Indian subsistence farmers.  China?  We've already seen George offer to sell the farm to be their best friends.  Brazil and the rest of Latin America?  You can say goodbye to the Falklands - and dealmaker George 'strategic' Osborne is just the man to do it.

Hmm, a knotty subject.  Perhaps that's why we've steered clear ...

ND

Putin Can Play Silly-B*****s, Too

The writers and visitors of this blog have long inveighed against the juvenile neocon policy of conducting hostile operations against Russia on the cheap by stirring up the various nests of hornets on the Bear's borders.  You can certainly get a rise out of Putin by baiting him thus, but it's not clever.

Doubly so when you realise how easy it is for little Volodya to reply in kind.   And yes, he's going to arm Argentina*; and just in case we hadn't noticed, a stooge makes the connection for us.  So now we must rush around and spend money in the South Atlantic again.  Such an easy game to play.

That post-election military review had better be a thorough one, if we need to consider every potential trouble-spot near and far where a few hundred thou of Russian gold could be put to mischievous use.  We could each come up with our own list of weak-points, I'm sure, and contemplating it won't make for sweet dreams.

ND
_______________ 
* The SU-24 (NATO codename Fencer) mentioned in these reports is somewhat venerable, and likewise vulnerable; but it's a nasty turn of events all the same.  A wittier Russian riposte would be to supply Argentina with TU-22s  -  NATO codename Backfire ...

History Corner: British Island Outposts (1)

Today's Grauniad contains a curious little editorial that makes the case for Mrs Thatcher not needing the Falklands victory for her own political triumph a year later. 

"The myth is that the Falklands won the Tories the general election. In fact, ... "

Well, everyone must speak as they find, and history is an ongoing debate: the more views, the merrier, and the piece makes some sound points.  But I can't help feeling there's a perspective they have missed, that tends to tilt the balance towards the other point of view.

The invasion took place in the first week of campaigning for local elections, in one of which I was a candidate.  The initial impact on us was striking - real vitriol on the doorstep towards the treacherous Tories who had left the islands undefended; and we feared for our prospects.

Four weeks later, with hostilities in full swing, Thatcher's fighting resolve in clear evidence, and the patriotic jingo-juices roused, we swept the board: 65 council seats out of 70 in my borough. The Labour Party, which sometimes holds this council in its turn, and in 1982 definitely had its hopes up, was reduced to a dazed rump.  No-one was in any doubt why this had come about and, no, it was not due to Drew's peerless political rhetoric on the stump.

So: my personal recollection is that as a direct consequence of the conflict, the electorate came to the clear understanding we had a genuine and resolute big-hitter in Downing Street.  In circumstances where (as the Guardian reminds us) the Tories' poll position in 1983 was 2 points adrift of its 1979 level, how could that not have been a positive, and perhaps even a decisive factor ?

ND

Falklands distraction

Whilst waiting for the non-even that is likely to be the g20 communique, this little spat between Cameron and Argentina's President Kirchner is quite amusing.

Kirchner's increasingly pathetic ramblings about the 'Sovereignty issue' are starting to have a negative feedback effect on the Country. Cameron helpfully pointing out that Argentina's policy of nationalisation is not really a world leading achievement.

Shame Kirchner could not point out our nationalised banks in return, but then I guess her advisers are not so well informed or numerous as her British counterpart.

A little bit of manufactured nationalism, seems to suit all sides perhaps? I expect this story to drone on.