Even as we prepare to leave the EU’s single market, in truth a bureaucratic cat’s cradle of regulation and market-rigging, we are acting as a dynamic force for freer trade. Free trade, or God’s Diplomacy as Richard Cobden styled it, is a universal force for good but it still requires individual nations to show leadership in advancing its claims.
In the 19th century, after Parliament, at Cobden’s urging, repealed the Corn Laws, there were dire warnings that by dismantling this tariff wall and going it alone Britain would become impoverished. But by making our own markets more open it was not just the case that imports became cheaper, and food in particular, it was also the case that Britain became more competitive. Free trade benefits both buyer and seller, both exporter and importer, indeed it generates far greater prosperity for both through the workings of comparative advantage than either could ever hope to secure unaided.
Britain, outside the EU and trading with the world, will not only become more prosperous in itself it will also encourage the adoption of freer trade globally and, in so doing, uphold not just the vision of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Richard Cobden but also the insights of men such as Hayek and von Mises and the policies which helped Europe recover so quickly after the Second World War under men such as Ludwig Erhard.
Side by side with our commitment to freer trade there is a pledge to maintain international aid. I recognise that some will bristle at the way in which an arbitrary target of 0.7 per cent of GDP governs how much we spend on international development, not least when there are significant other pressures on government spending. But Britain has always been committed to supporting the poorest, and the oppressed, across the globe to aspire to a better future.
Properly spent, development money can not only alleviate horrendous suffering and preserve the lives of precious individual souls, it can also put countries on a virtuous trajectory away from misgovernment and exploitation and towards the establishment of robust liberal institutions. Aid spending can help entrench the rule of law and support a free press, nurture anti-corruption initiatives and strengthen the hand of reformers. And, once again, if aid money is directed by an individual national ministry, with its political leaders directly accountable to parliament, the money is far more likely to be spent wisely than if responsibility is diffuse and accountability opaque in some multinational body. Which is why the Prime Minister sees Britain delivering its own aid spending and maintaining its own aid target as critical to securing the right outcomes.
In the 19th century, after Parliament, at Cobden’s urging, repealed the Corn Laws, there were dire warnings that by dismantling this tariff wall and going it alone Britain would become impoverished. But by making our own markets more open it was not just the case that imports became cheaper, and food in particular, it was also the case that Britain became more competitive. Free trade benefits both buyer and seller, both exporter and importer, indeed it generates far greater prosperity for both through the workings of comparative advantage than either could ever hope to secure unaided.
Britain, outside the EU and trading with the world, will not only become more prosperous in itself it will also encourage the adoption of freer trade globally and, in so doing, uphold not just the vision of Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Richard Cobden but also the insights of men such as Hayek and von Mises and the policies which helped Europe recover so quickly after the Second World War under men such as Ludwig Erhard.
Side by side with our commitment to freer trade there is a pledge to maintain international aid. I recognise that some will bristle at the way in which an arbitrary target of 0.7 per cent of GDP governs how much we spend on international development, not least when there are significant other pressures on government spending. But Britain has always been committed to supporting the poorest, and the oppressed, across the globe to aspire to a better future.
Properly spent, development money can not only alleviate horrendous suffering and preserve the lives of precious individual souls, it can also put countries on a virtuous trajectory away from misgovernment and exploitation and towards the establishment of robust liberal institutions. Aid spending can help entrench the rule of law and support a free press, nurture anti-corruption initiatives and strengthen the hand of reformers. And, once again, if aid money is directed by an individual national ministry, with its political leaders directly accountable to parliament, the money is far more likely to be spent wisely than if responsibility is diffuse and accountability opaque in some multinational body. Which is why the Prime Minister sees Britain delivering its own aid spending and maintaining its own aid target as critical to securing the right outcomes.
More Features
- We Need Churchill's Vison of Liberty More Than Ever
- The Play's The Thing, So Leave The Words Alone
- An Aesthetic and Moral Disaster
- How we Syrians destroyed our home — with your help
- Euphoric Labour won’t win power led by a pied piper
- Don’t be ‘difficult’ — try ‘formidable’, Mrs May
- Enough is enough of terror — but also of our self-doubt
- Iraq’s Christians pray for help that never comes
- The Atlantic alliance may be broken beyond repair
- Catholic tastes: both English and European
- Brexit as myth: Exodus, Reckoning, or Sacrifice?
- A Decent Woman Betrayed By Her Gruesome Twosome
- Can Macron Save France — Or Is He Its Undertaker?
- Is This The Most Important British General Election Since 1979?
- The New Europe Must Be About More Than Money
- Our Best Brexit Policy Is All-Out Free Trade
- The Bursting Of Our 'Kabubble' Fantasies
- Gambling On A Greater More Gracious Britain
- Xi Versus Trump: The Emperor And The Tycoon
- Can Trump Square The Circle On Fiscal Reform?
Popular Standpoint topics


















3:06 PM
11:05 AM
3:05 PM