Home Economics The European Union Is Missing The Entire Point Of Trade Itself

The European Union Is Missing The Entire Point Of Trade Itself



If you’d like a good reason to leave the European Union here is just that. The people who negotiate trade treaties on behalf of said European Union have the point and purpose of trade entirely the wrong way around. They think that trade agreements should be to protect domestic producers when the whole aim of the game is to introduce competition for those domestic producers.

Thank goodness these people will no longer be negotiating for us, eh?

EU negotiators were deeply irritated by the letter: they countered that every deal is unique and any agreement with the UK must reflect its proximity and potential to become an economic competitor undercutting European rivals.

Think back to the start of organised economics, Adam Smith. Who observed that with the use of glasses (he means greenhouses) and the appropriate selection of south facing walls etc it is possible to grow grapes in Scotland. From which can be made wine, for what else would you use grapes for? It’s not as if they can be turned into raisins or anything now, is it?

However, it does seem simpler to just buy the stuff in from Bourdeaux. We end up with more drunkenness per unit of labour that has to be applied if the Scots grow haggis and those are traded, after they’ve been hunted down, for the wine.

That is, the purpose of trade is to undercut the Scottish wine producers. To get from Johnny Foreigner those things which he does better than the kilted brigade can do for themselves.

Or, on that grander scale which the eminences in the EU work on, the point and purpose of trade is to undercut the European producers by allowing in those things which non-Europeans do better.

Now, of course, putting this all the right way around tells us who the losers are going to be from European Union restrictions on British exports. It’s not going to be us – we can just eat our own haggises. We’re also not going to put any restrictions upon the import of Bourdeaux either so we’ll get that too. The people who lose will be the European Union consumers who fail to benefit from the competition that we Brits provide to those European producers. They lose out of this, not us.

We could just stop there but we do need to take that one step further. For the past 47 years our trade policies have been determined by those Europeans who have this all the wrong way around. So, we have been made poorer by our lack of access to all those things that the rest of the world – the things that the EU puts up trade barriers against – does better than European producers.

So, thank the Lord we’re leaving, eh? We might end up with a trade policy based upon reality. The point and purpose of the game is to get our hands on those things that Johnny Foreigner does better, cheaper, shinier, than we do. So why in buggery would we place restrictions upon imports because they compete with domestic producers? Why kill off the very reason we’re engaging in trade in the first place?

- Advertisement -


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

It’s The Consumer That Wins In Markets, Not The Supplier

The European Union has just had one of those lessons in freemarket capitalism that so many dislike. That it's the consumer that benefits from...

Finally The Woken SS Are Waking Up To Fast Fashion

It's taken them all long enough but finally the philosphically fashionable have finally woken up to what fast fashion means. Well, they've managed to...

The Difference Between Immigration And Asylum

There's a certain blurring here of the point of the system: People seeking asylum in the UK and Europe on the grounds of sexual orientation...

The Runnymede Trust And The Rugby Football Union

The Runnymede Trust is agitating for the Rugby Football Union to make more intensive studies of how many BAEM folk there are playing the...

If Only Polly Toynbee Actually Understood Anything

Polly Toynbee tells us that there should be a wealth tax. To, umm, well, do something or other: But what if, with one bound, we...

Recent comments