"But we take in already just about 1%, it's actually slightly less than 1%, of Malaysian palm oil exports. She told Sky News: "You have to make trade-offs.
Palm oil production in Malaysia is responsible for deforestation and a reduction in the numbers of orangutans.īut the trade secretary played down the impacts that cutting the tariffs would have. Instead, the authorities will wait until the youngsters turn 18 before removing them from the UK.Īs part of UK joining the CPTPP, the UK has agreed to slash its tariffs on Malaysian palm oil from 2% to 0%. This could be done if the child came through or originated from a "safe country" - like Albania.īut the government said such powers would be used rarely. "Using force on children in family groups may unfortunately be necessary if a family is resisting removal - our policy on this will be under review and we will conduct a targeted consultation, including with the children's commissioner, before making any changes."Īs well as this, the government notes it will have the power to remove children under 18 from the UK if they so choose. The factsheet said: "Using force on children would be an absolute last resort and would only be used if completely necessary. In its explanation, the government states that - as under current law - "reasonable force" will be allowed for immigration officers to "exercise their powers". One of those was about how child asylum seekers would be treated under the Illegal Migration Bill, which is currently before parliament. The government put out a number of documents yesterday - including various summaries of how different proposed laws would work. So given China wants to join CPTPP, it will now eventually fall to the UK and allies like Australia to decide whether to allow what would be a controversial accession to the block.Īs the chancellor put it today, "that shows that our influence in this part of the world is becoming more significant". Part of the reason for this is building a presence in regions where Beijing wields great influence. This deal can be seen as part of a broader UK pivot to the Indo-Pacific region that was kicked off by the Integrated Review of foreign policy and built on by the AUKUS defence pact with Australia and the USA. Those "great things" are a boom in middle-class consumers in the region and potentially new and bigger countries joining the block in the future. The trade secretary characterised it as "getting in early" with a start-up business that will go onto great things. So if this isn't a case of "the deal is done, let the good times roll", what is the upside?įor the government, CPTPP is more of a strategic and symbolic win.
That's why ministers say the UK will still be able to maintain agricultural standards and block things like hormone-injected beef from Canada. While standards still matter, the emphasis on countries mirroring each other's rules that dominated EU talks isn't there with CPTPP. The government's own impact assessment puts the economic boost of this trade deal at just 0.08%.Ĭontrast that with the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecast of a 4% reduction in economic growth caused by Brexit, and it's clear CPTPP doesn't slot into the gap once filled by EU membership.īut nor should it, because this deal is a completely different beast to what we had in Europe. The honest answer - as unsatisfying as it may be - is both and neither. Depending on who you listen to, the UK's accession into CPTPP is either a triumph for post-Brexit global Britain or a miserly replacement to what we had with the EU.
0 kommentar(er)
