Peter Morici: Britain should bolt & join NAFTA |
Featured Commentary

Peter Morici: Britain should bolt & join NAFTA

Pro Brexit placards and EU flags are pictured outside the Houses of Parliament in London Sept. 5.

Divorces are messy — Brexit is no exception.

All the squabbling in Parliament denies what most British voters have concluded. The European Union, spread over 28 countries and 24 official languages, may make sense as a free trade area similar to NAFTA but virtually none as a broader economic community and political union.

The euro is chronically overvalued for countries like Italy in the south and undervalued for countries like Germany in the north. That hamstrings fiscal and monetary policies, and along with Brussels’ rigid regulations, continental labor laws and German mercantilism cripple growth.

The U.K. and other EU states enjoy mutually eased border crossings, but the lack of consensus about immigration from the Middle East and Africa effectively means just about anyone Germany foolishly admits and grants papers can eventually find their way to the U.K.

To placate Ireland and discourage anti-EU sentiment elsewhere, the Germans and French are determined to punish the U.K. for leaving. They insist on a $48 billion exit tax and a free trade arrangement that could indefinitely impose an absolutely open border with Ireland and the rest of the EU — and require the U.K. to follow EU regulations without any say in writing those.

Those would wholly negate Brexit’s purposes and are patently unnecessary. Canada, Mexico, Japan and others have free trade agreements with the EU without all that nonsense. NAFTA permits easy movement of goods, service providers and daily commuters without requiring participants to accept immigrants others choose to admit.

Hard-line advocates in Ireland argue the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which ended the violent uprising in the North, requires a fully open border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, but it doesn’t.

Reasonable solutions are available to uphold the intent of the agreement. For example, permitting the quick movement across borders of parts and manufactures certified by business to be of U.K. or EU origin, electronic tagging and occasional spot checks. Also, reasonable inspection of agricultural products and a Trusted Traveler program for European citizens similar to the U.S. program.

Ireland is as economically dependent on the U.K. as on the rest of Europe, and Boris Johnson has that as his trump card. If Ireland doesn’t get reasonable, it would be devastated by a genuinely hard Brexit.

For now, the U.K. needs to keep its manufacturing integrated with the continent, but its future is really tied to North America — in particular the high-tech sectors of the United States and Canadian west coast.

If the rest of Europe insists on a messy divorce, it should simply bolt, declare unilateral free trade with the continent and offer to continue admitting EU manufactures and components without customs checks, supplemented by a system of electronic checking — if the EU agrees to do the same.

Britain could petition for free trade with NAFTA. Through EU agreements with Mexico and Canada, it already has duty-free trade, except with the United States. However, the EU could lean on those to quit the U.K. after Brexit.

If the EU does not accept Britain’s offer or leans on Mexico and Canada, the U.K. should withhold the $48 billion payment.

American national interests require a strong and competitive Britain. And both the Mexicans and Canadians know we can put much more heat on them than the divided and weak gang in Brussels.

It’s time for realpolitik — an independent Britain with strong North America friends.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.