T
he cabinet row about the putative UK-Australia free trade deal goes far behind its relatively modest macro-economic impact and right to the heart of the whole notion of what “Global Britain” is supposed to be about. On the one hand, representing the hard-pressed British consumer, we find Liz Truss, Secretary of State for international trade, who negotiated the draft deal. She wants tariff-free access to the UK for Australian goods, notably wheat, lamb and other foodstuffs, just as the EU enjoys, but cabinet colleagues are concerned about what such a deal would mean for British farmers – a double whammy, given some are already losing ground in EU markets.
For Ms Truss, it is more than matter of pride and the cost of groceries. It is the first post-Brexit deal that is much more than a roll-over of a pre-existent EU deal, and with a historic partner with close ties to Britain. As Daniel, now Lord, Hannan, a prominent Eurosceptic commented,“if we can’t do a proper trade deal even with our kinsmen Down Under, we might as well throw in the towel”. He accuses “National Farmers’ Union officials, the Defra blob and a handful of Tory backwoodsmen” of trying to preserve the current subsidised regime of protection, inherited from the EU, with taxes on commodities from Australia and other revived trading partners. In his words: “If these deals with Australia and New Zealand don’t get done because of domestic opposition, that pretty much says the UK is not doing anything with global Britain. Because if we can’t do these, well, in truth, everything gets more difficult from here.”
