5 questions for Brexit Britain

first_imgLet’s begin with British understatement: Brexit has been a source of some disagreement in recent months. But while it can sometimes seem like there are as many opinions about leaving the European Union as there are people in the United Kingdom, there’s one thing everybody agrees on: Brexit means change — and the country will have to make the best of it.It may feel like a political lifetime since Prime Minister Theresa May described “this moment of change” as an opportunity “to build a stronger economy and a fairer society by embracing genuine economic and social reform” in her Lancaster House speech in January. But the fundamental nature of Brexit remains the same: an opportunity to review the priorities of the British economy and — maybe — to rewrite them.The basics of the Brexit plan the prime minister set out that day also remain in place: leave the European single market and customs union and strike a free trade deal with the EU. In the coming weeks, we’ll explore the various economic avenues the U.K. might wish to pursue after Brexit. In this brainstorm white paper, we lay out the key questions facing policymakers and industry leaders as they adjust to Britain’s long-term, post-EU future.The problem: Brexit is a political certainty (more or less) but it’s fraught with economic risk. The government has to strike a withdrawal agreement and a trade deal with the EU that minimizes the economic damage of leaving the single market and customs union, while maximizing opportunities to restructure the economy and deepen trade partnerships.The question: What are the post-Brexit economic freedoms the U.K. should aim to exploit?The problem: After Brexit, the U.K. will be a free agent on the global trading stage. But free trade agreements are of limited use to an economy so heavily weighted toward services.The question: When striking trade agreements, how should the country balance its efforts between breaking new ground in global services trade and carving out new markets for its goods?The problem: The City of London and the U.K.’s world-leading financial services industry benefits hugely from having the EU as its “domestic” market. But leaving the single market throws the future of this relationship into doubt, potentially cutting London off from European clients.The question: What can the government and financial and related services firms do to minimize the damage and maximize the rewards of Brexit for this sector?The problem: Britain doesn’t make much anymore. The U.K.’s manufacturing base has long been in decline as a percentage of GDP, from 18 percent in 1990 to 10 percent today. Overseas competitors outgun the U.K. on price and on scale. Leaving the EU could exacerbate the problem by putting barriers between the U.K. and 450 million potential consumers of its goods.The question: Can the U.K. turn Brexit into a manufacturing opportunity? Can it and should it seek a mini-reindustrialization?The problem: The British government is proud of the country’s vibrant tech sector and has identified it as an industry with potential to grow whatever happens after Brexit. But changes to immigration law and the investment environment pose risks.The question: What policies should the U.K. put in place to protect and encourage this industry? The Global Policy Lab is a first-of-its-kind, collaborative editorial project, drawing on the smartest minds — POLITICO’s audience — to drive an informed conversation seeking solutions to challenging policy problems. Sign up for our weekly newsletter.Download a pdf version of this white paper.last_img read more

Read More »

North Pacific Fishery Management Council Starts Work On Cook Inlet Plan

first_imgAlaska Department of Fish & Game Commercial Fisheries Management Biologist Pat Shields says there could be some uncertainty for fishermen while the council develops its plan… The United Cook Inlet Drift Association and the Cook Inlet Fishermen’s Fund filed a lawsuit in 2013, challenging the NPFMC’s decision to exempt the Cook Inlet from federal management. A ruling in their favor was announced by the the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2016. FacebookTwitterEmailPrintFriendly分享The North Pacific Fishery Management Council last week began work on a Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) for the Cook Inlet. The FMP became necessary after the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court ruled last September that the federal council couldn’t defer to the State of Alaska for Cook Inlet management. Shields: “And that process is going to take a year, two years, three years, it’s going to take some length of time. What it means for fishery management as of right now, no one’s really sure.” The state of Alaska is appealing the decision, but the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t yet announced if it will take up the case.last_img read more

Read More »