Skip to main content

UK-Australia careless trade agreement.

 When the UK agreed its first big post-Brexit trade deal with Australia in the summer of last year, then trade secretary Liz Truss proclaimed it a «win-win» that would slash tariffs, lower prices and improve choice. But a year-and-a-half after that jubilant announcement, the trade pact has been criticized by politicians and officials who believe errors were made in securing a deal by the culmination of the G7 summit in June 2021. With Prime Minister Rishi Sunak now pledging to take a more patient approach to deals, including with India and membership of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, business groups and trade experts have called for the UK to be more strategic and do more to win support at home for international trade. According to many senior Whitehall officials, the Australia trade agreement was rushed through because of the hard political deadline set by Truss, combined with a lack of negotiating expertise and experience.

The result was a pact tilted in Australia’s favour and particularly advantageous for its farming industry because of the desire to get the first big post-Brexit deal over the line. The result was a deal the National Farmers’ Union criticized as «one-sided», a sentiment George Eustice, the former environment minister, admitted in a letter to then prime minister Boris Johnson, which said the agreement «gave away far too much for far too little in return». «We cannot risk another outcome such as Australia where the value of the UK agri-food market access offer was nearly double what we got in return,» Eustice wrote last June, warning Johnson not to repeat the same mistake in negotiations with India. Of particular concern for farmers was the government’s decision to ignore NFU calls to ensure that beef and lamb quotas were based on «carcass weight equivalent», which calculates skin, bone and blood quotas, reducing them in size.


In a bid to rein in the government, the NFU launched a petition calling for more protection for farmers and UK food standards. Another argued that the geopolitical impact of the agreement was crucial. «Australia is a very significant economy; they’re Five Eyes members and respect the rule of law. » The DIT said the pact would «unlock» £10bn of bilateral trade.

«We have always said that we will not compromise the UK’s high environmental, animal welfare or food safety standards, and the deal includes a range of safeguards to support British farmers,» it said. DIT officials and ministers also say privately they are eager to learn the lessons of the deal with Australia and avoid the same errors with future agreements, including a pact with India and membership of the CPTPP, the Pacific trade grouping, which Sunak has made a priority. But Sam Lowe, trade policy partner at consultancy Flint Global, warned that the rush to conclude the Australia deal had dented confidence in trade policy and set unhelpful precedents for future talks. Canada’s desire to leverage concessions has also played into the UK’s attempt to join the CPTPP, which officials concede has slipped into next year.


As well as CPTPP members such as Canada seeking to wring concessions from the UK, they also had one eye on China’s accession process, Lowe added and was wary of granting the UK membership without full compliance with the group’s rules in case it was taken as a precedent by Beijing. «I am aware that India is a tough negotiator, but I firmly believe the UK should be too he wrote.

www.sba.tax

Labels:

Comments

  1. Natalie2 December 2022 at 12:05

    It's never a smart idea to make deals on the run. We need to analyze things and make sure the UK is getting a fair, reasonable deal as well as the other party in the deal. Truss wanted to show the world she can do things quicker but we will now start to see this wasn't a good decision. Everything good takes time.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Cloud Bookkeeping

HS2 cost cuts new routes and add delays.

 Trans­port depart­ment offi­cials have begun work on «Project Sil­ver­light» sug­gest­ing the high­speed rail scheme might face four addi­tional years of delay. The planned High Speed 2 rail line faces fur­ther delays of up to four years and more cuts to the project under plans being drawn up by min­is­ters to rein in its bal­loon­ing costs. The extra delays to the coun­try’s biggest infra­struc­ture project would mean that it would not be com­pleted until as late as 2045 — 12 years after ori­gin­ally planned. «This is a func­tion of infla­tion; we are hav­ing to find huge sav­ings because the cost of everything the depart­ment is already doing will have become so much more expens­ive by then,» said one gov­ern­ment offi­cial. In Octo­ber, the FT repor­ted that the Treas­ury had asked HS2’s man­age­ment team to identify poten­tial cuts or «scope reduc­tions» to the high-speed line. Trans­port depart­ment offi­cials have sub­sequently begun work on Project Sil­ver­light aimed at fi...
4 comments
Read more

Small business will be excluded from fraud law.

  Min­is­ters are plan­ning to exclude small busi­nesses from anti-fraud legis­la­tion by nar­row­ing the scope of a crim­inal offence tar­get­ing com­pan­ies that fail to pre­vent eco­nomic crimes. MPs and anti-cor­rup­tion cam­paign­ers had hoped the gov­ern­ment would seek to amend the eco­nomic crime and cor­por­ate trans­par­ency bill to ensure the new offence covered all com­pan­ies. The plans to limit the scope of the amend­ments will also dis­ap­point those who had hoped the legis­la­tion would remove key hurdles to the pro­sec­u­tion of white-col­lar crime. A new «fail­ure to pre­vent» offence for fraud would bring it in line with exist­ing sim­ilar cor­por­ate offences for bribery and tax eva­sion. At present, pro­sec­utors need only prove that organ­isa­tions lacked «reas­on­able» or «adequate» con­trols to pur­sue the offence in bribery and tax eva­sion cases. «It would be much more sens­ible for the gov­ern­ment to provide strong guid­ance for SMEs on what these pro­ce...
3 comments
Read more

Doubt on CS's collateral.

  Credit Suisse provided an emergency $140mn loan to Greensill Capital based partly on invoices to companies that deny ever doing the business stated on the documents. The Swiss bank provided the loan in October 2020, less than five months before the collapse of Greensill, a supply chain finance firm that counted former British prime minister David Cameron as a senior adviser. Invoices issued by metals magnate Sanjeev Gupta’s Liberty Commodities and sold to Greensill formed part of the collateral for the loan, according to documents seen by the Financial Times and people familiar with the transaction. Yet several of the parties named on the invoices have told the FT they did no business with Liberty. GFG has consistently denied any wrongdoing. Credit Suisse’s loan had a clause dictating that the collateral value had to be equal to or greater than the $140mn borrowed. The terms of the debt agreement only allowed invoices on Green-sill’s balance sheet to count towards this tally if t...
2 comments
Read more