MPs highlight Britain’s post-Brexit trade deals – but there’s a sting in the tail

Let’s talk Brexit, or rather, the benefits we were told would flow from it by its now discredited architects.

The Conservative government maintained that it would make up for surrendering membership of the European single market by securing a bevy of exciting new trade deals with other countries.

In practice, such successes have proved hard to find. The prospect of an agreement with the US, once put forward as the greatest post-Brexit prize, has all but vanished, while Suella Braverman complicated a pending deal with India by lashing out at its proposed increase in work and study visas for Indian nationals (people the skills-starved UK economy could surely use, but never mind).

Other deals will likely come with similar requirements.

Meanwhile, a committee of MPs today report some important problems with one of the limited number of deals the government has got as far as signing: the agreement with New Zealand.

The international trade committee fears that this deal could threaten the UK’s food security. Many of New Zealand’s beef, mutton and dairy products are cheaper than those produced in the UK because New Zealand enjoys lower production costs, even after factoring in carting its produce halfway round the world.

The elimination of tariffs on the country’s goods, and the opening up of UK agri-food markets to its cheaper imports, would deliver cheaper food for the consumer. This would obviously be welcome at a time when food price inflation is running at close to 15 per cent and people are skipping meals as a means of making ends meet.

Another benefit the committee members highlight is the low carbon intensity of New Zealand’s production methods. Don’t let’s underestimate the value of that.

Trouble is, there’s no such thing as a free lunch, and there’s still a price to be paid for a cheaper one. The committee warns that the UK’s agriculture, forestry, fishing and semi-processed food sectors could all contract due to increased competition. Similar concerns have also been raised about the deal the UK signed with Australia at the end of last year.

Them’s the breaks, free marketeers would likely say. The consumer wins. If UK producers want to retain their markets, they will just have to compete harder. Ain’t capitalism grand?

But what if they can’t? What about the impact on the UK’s food security if domestic food production declines as a result of these deals?

New Zealand and Australia are friends of the UK. One could argue that strengthening trade links with them improves that relationship. But in his testimony, Phil Stocker, chief executive of the National Sheep Association, raised the issue of what might happen in the event of disruption as a result of geopolitical unrest, climate unrest, or some other nasty. How would the UK respond?

Stocker was clearly speaking with the interests of his members in mind. But his point was nonetheless well made. We only need to look at the current crisis in energy markets to see what happens when there is unexpected international disruption for whatever reason. The ongoing debate about energy security, which was taking place in a quiet backwater, has suddenly come very much to the fore.

What is particularly concerning is that the issue of food security don’t appear to have been considered. The report criticises the UK’s lack of a single, unifying trade strategy, which might be able to better “balance these different priorities in the best interests of consumers and businesses”.

The committee also expressed “shock” that the UK is signing trade deals “without thoroughly understanding how they interact with the Northern Ireland protocol”. That one just keeps on causing problems, doesn’t it.

Instead, the government appears to be waltzing around the world trying to pick up stickers. “Look, see what we have here! Another super-duper deal. See, we don’t need the EU after all.”

This simply won’t do. Some order needs to be brought to the chaos, and as a matter of urgency.

Remember who was in charge of international trade when the New Zealand deal was negotiated? That would be Liz Truss, currently packing her belongings ready for her ignominious ejection from 10 Downing Street.