If there’s anything that succinctly sums up the western political climate over the last few years it’s ‘Fake News’ winning the American Dialect Society’s ‘Word of the Year’ in 2017. Being ‘economical with the truth’ has been conjoined with politics since Plato donned a toga, yet political falsehood has seen an exponential rise in the last decade and trust in politicians is at an all-time low.
Any opinion, regardless of their credibility, can be printed and taken as fact, and it’s becoming incredibly difficult to distinguish hearsay from legitimacy (I’m looking at you Michael ‘The Master of His Own Fate’ Caine). Especially in an open society like Britain, where anyone can pick up a pen or purchase a WordPress (yes, the irony is not lost) and spread their word around the internet like a subliminal wildfire. I mean, when a prominent world leader can be misquoted by the world’s oldest national broadcasting organisation and the largest broadcaster in the world and that misquote can stay as the headline, incorrectly, for over a month (even being misquoted in Parliament) then we should probably have a look at how the media is regulated in this country in a bit more detail. But anyway, I digress…
There is one piece of ‘fake news’ that I regularly see circulated and hold above almost any other as being complete bunkum. It really does take the metaphorical biscuit, and it’s of course ex-Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s contribution to the Brexit debate in The Spectator.
I’ve taken it upon myself to shed light on this article because, not only does it have more inaccuracies than a feminist Civil War re-enactment, it’s written by a man whose idea of integrity is giving a character reference for a convicted paedophile. I have been told however, that if you wish to dismantle someone’s thoughts and ideals you should never attack them personally but instead prove their points invalid through truth – so here it is. I’ve dissected Abbott’s piece and highlighted the incorrect points he’s made, with facts, in the hopes that someone will read this and see this piece for what it is – complete and utter propaganda.
WTO
Abbott starts off his waterfall of aspersion by mentioning Australia’s ‘reliance’ on WTO rules and this is somewhat true, however they also have free-trade agreements with China, South Korea, the USA, New Zealand and many others (which he neglects to mention). The only country which has solely negotiated on WTO rules is Mauritania and I’m not afraid to admit that I had to google where it was. Whilst Mauritania doesn’t have any bilateral or multilateral free trade deals like the mighty Oz, it does rely on preferential treatment from certain developed nations or unions and you’ll never guess who’s amongst them (Clue: they’ve got a blue and starry flag).
We would certainly carry over a selection of continuity agreements with smaller nations, such as the recently agreed deal with Switzerland but the significantly larger deals we will need, such as the proposed ones with Japan and America, have already shown they will take considerable time to negotiate and will lead to noticeable negative effects, such as a drop in food quality standards. Australia, for example, which Abbott highlights as crucial future trading partner, very much like the US, has sub par food standards compared to the EU’s and frequent malpractice. Things like government defence of the coal industry, internet service provider monopolies, and their complacency with regards to widespread consumer price gouging all act as a signpost to the future of the United Kingdom under key trade with Australia. The irony is the UK has red-lined itself out of ever getting a better deal than May’s Chequers.
The idea that the UK would be in a better negotiating position under WTO rules is perhaps Abbott’s biggest distortion of the truth in his piece and he mentions ‘modest transition costs’ (the DExEU are reporting compliance costs to business of new customs declarations alone will be £13billion a year). Also, Under WTO rules and outside the scope of the European Union, the UK would have to offer the same terms to every member of the WTO – this is due to the Most Favoured Nation Clause (MFN). With tariffs on products like Beef expected to hit 40%, that’s pretty much a death sentence for the UK agri-food industry. This obviously removes the UK’s leverage on its quotas and tariffs. But hang on, if other countries have pre-determined unbeatable tariffs even before they start negotiating, then what is there exactly left to negotiate?
Not to mention the deficit in trade for the UK whilst we negotiate, which British residents will be directly effected by, such as change in house prices (Rightmove is predicting zero growth in UK prices this year due to stretched affordability and Brexit uncertainty).
Concessions
The EU is the most influential trade bloc in the world because it dominates trade policy – the regulations the EU induces tend to be followed even by non EU members and become de facto global standards. International manufacturers make their product EU compliant in the acceptance that they’ll export to the World’s largest consumer market somewhere down the line. Abbott rather nonchalantly expects the EU to accept the UKs standards as comparable to their own – the minute the EU accepts full mutual recognition of UK standards is the minute it loses one of its biggest advantages. The US and China would instantly lobby for their consumer safety standards to be recognised as equivalent. So basically, what Tony Abbott is calling for is for the EU to drop its ability to shape trade policy on a global scale and therefore a large portion of its influence. Why on earth does he think it should do that for a substantially weakened Britain?
The Hard Border
Abbott states ‘there’s no need for a border’ – Yes Tony there is. UK and the EU’s obligations even under WTO rules state this. Having no border in Ireland means either discriminating against every other WTO member, potentially re-igniting the troubles and breaking the law having an open border. The DUP also wants the hardest possible Brexit but it doesn’t want a hard border and, as unionists, there’s obviously no way they’ll agree to become part of the Republic again – an issue entirely brought about by May calling a General Election.
Abbott talks about offering Freedom of Movement to Europe with controls (remember 73 per cent of those who are worried about immigration voted Leave) but this is something we could have enforced within the EU if we wanted and something we couldn’t offer without a trade deal with the EU.
The Divorce Bill
Referring to this as a Divorce Bill for simply leaving is complete fabrication. The UK had signed up to “concrete” commitments under the terms of the Multi-Annual Financial Framework, which sets a ceiling for EU spending up to 2020 and also contributes to previously approved debts. May also refused to rule out having to pay this even if we leave with No Deal, due to us having to do trade with the EU at some point and not sour the waters further (if possible). The UK, no matter how hard it tries, can neither escape its geography nor its debts. As the great philosophers Kirsty and Phil once said; Location, Location, Location.
Abbott Himself
Abbott’s own track record with Free Trade Agreements is patchy at best – he famously capitulated on agreements with both China and Japan when he was PM for Australia. The previous Australian government had been negotiating these for years but bowed out due the concessions that were required to finalise them. Abbott got elected and signed on the dotted line for what turned out to be flawed FTAs from Australia’s viewpoint. He spent his entire leadership caving to the EU (Australia’s second largest trade partner) in faint hopes of securing an FTA quickly, and capitulated to absolutely everything China wanted in the China/Australia Free Trade Agreement. He’s not the most reliable when referring to trade agreements, and his own policies during his infamous short time in office makes that clear. He got voted out of his premiership by his own party after one term and had lower approval ratings than Trump has ever had.
The article ends with the great sub-line – “Britain’s future has always been global, rather than just with Europe”. Of course that’s not remotely accurate – see the EU’s recent global trade deal with Japan.
Abbott can lie with impunity, relying on his established name and substantial following to spread his intended message and before the truth can pick up their sabre and riposte, that falsehood has travelled half way round the world and become gospel in someone’s mind – influencing their views for better or worse. The truth has become an alien and seldom seen concept and we are considerably worse off as a species for it.
Matt Adkin 
