Protectionism and Donald Trump

In terms of global free trade, many observers of political events have discussed the possibility of a trade war. Recent news articles have discussed the possibility of Trump leaving the World Trade Organisation. Then we also get articles about the possibility of Russia trying to block Britain's membership of the World Trade Organisation post-Brexit. However, from my observation, many people do not understand the historical context of protectionism within the west and why Trumps America is promoting this policy.

Trump's trade policy is not unorthodox in any way. This does not mean I approve of this trade policy at all. For most of the history of the United States, the country has used a protectionist economic policy. The First President of the United States George Washington as early of 1789 used tariffs to protect the homegrown industry and to generate revenue to invest in national infrastructure. In 1789 the Young Republic was an underdeveloped backwater, with a population similar to Ireland at the time. The nation was largely agrarian and there was a lack of unity between the states. Many individual states had their own independent trade policy.

In the late 18th century and the early 19th-century Britain began a process of industrialisation. After the Napoleonic war, the United Kingdom completely dominated global trade and commerce. To protect itself from cheap British products and to promote further economic expansion. (The United States had a rapidly growing population and economy through immigration at large.) The United States successfully protected local domestic firms from overseas competition.  The Republican Party and their predecessors that include National Republican Party, Whig Party, and the Free-Soil Party believed in Protectionism over free trade.

Tariff reform was an important issue in the 1888 Presidental election that resulted in the victory of the Republican candidate  Benjamin Harrison

The question of protectionism was a key part in the debate between the Democrats and the Republicans alongside the issue with slavery before the American Civil War between 1861 and 1865. The economy of the Southern States was based on exports of goods such as Cotton, Tobacco, and Sugarcane to Europe, this was done predominately by Slave Labour like it has been done long before the declaration of independence on the 4th July 1776. The Southern Slave owners and Democrats in the United States in the period before the Civil War believed that tariffs would lead to the imposition of tariffs on the United States by foreign nations that would render the economies of the deep south uncompetitive. The Economy in the North was based more on heavy industry in states such as Illinois and Pennsylvania where its economies were modelled in a similar way to the United Kingdom. Following the Civil War Republican dominance in politics ensured dominance on protectionist policies despite the pro-free trade policies of some following Democrat presidents such as Woodrow Wilson.

This Canadian poster from 1891 suggests that a policy of tariff retaliation against the United States is needed to protect Canadian Agriculture. 

The Great War greatly benefited the American economy.  The United States, in the need to fuel their war effort the allied nations imported goods from the United States on mass. The total value of U.S. exports grew from $2.4 billion in 1913 to $6.2 billion in 1917.  The continued attacks by the German submarines on American merchant ships exporting to Europe led to American involvement in the in the war in 1917. Woodrow Wilson was not a protectionist, he was both pro-free trade and was a Democrat. Woodrow Wilson was not an isolationist too, he believed in more international intervention and he came up with the idea of creating internationalist organisations to bind nations together such as the League of Nations. Woodrow Wilson created the League of Nations in 1920, however, due to pressure at home the American Congress was against American membership popular opinion in the United States moved towards isolationism and more protectionism.

The Wall Street Crash of 1929 was the greatest stock market crash in the history of the United States. It led to a 12 year long great depression that affected many western economies. In the United States, unemployment peaked at 25% in 1933. In a response to the Great Depression, the United States introduced even more protectionist Policies. One example of this is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930. This intended to protect American businesses and farmers suffering from the Great Depression. In many respects this was counterproductive. Many European countries despite being tied to the United State through war debt from the Great War (The United Kingdom even defaulted on the debt) in introduced protectionist policies both in the response to the United States and the Great Depression.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was controversial when it was introduced in 1930. Most economists believe that it made the Great Depression worse.

The move away from protectionism in the United States began after the Second World War. Free Trade was used to bind the Capitalist economies together against the Soviet bloc. After the Second World War, the old European Imperial powers lacked much of their pre-war ability to compete with the economic powerhouse that was the United States of America. This was apparent in the Suez Crisis where President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 where the decaying Imperial powers of France and Britain failed to hold their own against American demands of their withdrawal from Egypt. The United States threatened to sell the US Governments Pound Sterling bonds. This would have significantly weakened the British economy. America was not threatened by foreign competition. The 1946 Anglo-American Loan also tied the United State and Great Britain and its colonies together economically, it prevented drastic hikes in tariffs to prevent and trade conflicts in the future. The Loan was supported by Britain as it enabled the nation to build its Socialist welfare state under the Attlee Government between 1945 and 1950. The United States also was one of the nations in the general agreement of trade in October 1947, which lasted until the creation of the World Trade Organisation in 1995.

The United States was the centre of the Capitalist world. It championed Free Trade between western capitalist nations and encouraged it. American Marshall aid tied European economies together and led to the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, this economic union led to the creation of the European Union. It was not until the presidency of Ronald Reagan who changed economics in America into Neo-Liberalism instead of the new deal economics that was championed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. That the United States began to use protectionist economic policies to economies that threatened the United States, even if he championed free trade. Reagan imposed high tariffs on Japanese auto goods. While there was a growth of a strong protectionist wing in the Democrat Party.

A Czechoslovak propaganda poster against the Marshall Plan. The title is can be translated as The Marshall Plan in Practice.

In the Post-Cold War America briefly enjoy existence as a sole global economic superpower with one global economic system of American style capitalism across the world. Globalisation was brought American goods and influence on every corner of human civilisation.  However, the decline of the United States began instantly after this process. The early 21st century brought about the rise of economies in the far east, this was particularly the case with the rise of China. China until 2016 was the fastest growing economy on Earth, it is now currently the largest economy on Earth. While for decades American manufacturing has gone into rapid decline. The Industrial heartland of the United States is now referred to as the rust belt.

The election of Donald Trump in the United States was a shock to many. His election should not be a shock. Many people felt left behind in the United States and they wanted someone completely different to the political norm, take the example of Pennsylvania for example, it is considered a rust belt state that delivered Republican electoral college votes rather than Democrat ones in previous Presidential elections. The election was also brought about the dreadful campaign by the dreadful candidate Hillary Clinton. That was backed by big business and Wall Street who was the wife of the previous president Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton was also an extremely corrupt Secretary of State. 

Trump sees himself as an anti-globalist president. He has imposed tariffs on countless countries in the so-called name for fairer trade. He wants to "Make America Great Again", slow down the inevitable decline of the United States. The three countries/trading blocs he has focused on is tariffs on are Mexico, China and the European Union. Trump believes America has been unfairly hit by free trade, Trump also feels that the United States has been conned by previous Presidents that allowed the rise of the BRIC economies in the expense of the United States. Trump has forced a re-negotiation of NAFTA until a new trade deal. Trump has pulled the United States out of Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership and has considered re-joining if the deal can be re-negotiated. Trump is also keen, to have a Post Brexit trade deal with the United Kingdom.

This cartoon perfect depiction of the current situation between the United States and China after Trump imposed tariffs on China.

To conclude this essay, I will briefly discuss what is happening with Trump and his trade policy. Trump like Reagan aims to protect American industries from overseas competition. Trump like him or loathe him aims to restructure the global economic system in favour of the United States, Trump wants a revitalisation of the American Dream and Capitalism. He appears to want protectionism for certain professions that have been in decline in the United States particularly in Manufacturing. He appears to have a Libertarian light vision for the global economy. During his election he flirted with the idea of pulling out of many internationalist organisations, this has not happened. America is not turning Isolationistic. America under Trump appears to be more jingoistic and militaristic. In a way, Trump is trying to mimic Reagan. Reagan supported a Star Wars programme to protect the United States, Trump wants an American space force to enable American domination in space. Overall, I think Trump is only using protectionism as a tool in favour of the United States and his ideological worldview.

What we should do with Brexit at this current time.

I wrote before a few weeks ago what is most likely going to happen with Brexit. Now I am going to write a short piece on what we should do today. As of the time of writing this, we are in late October the extended deadline given by the EU for a deal is in Early November. We are clearly in a difficult position brought about 2 years of incompetence by the Conservative Government. People from all aspects of society are extremely dissatisfied by the performance of the Conservative Government. The Minority Government has struggled to keep its Party together with the Conservative Party on this issue with dissatisfied Pro Europeans and Eurosceptics. The Government has struggled to keep its DUP partners on the side of the Government who has kept the Government in power in a supply and demand deal on key votes in parliament.

There are several things that the left have been considering at this stage. The Peoples Vote is a subject that is gaining ground amongst some groups, this is very problematic.  Firstly, we would most likely vote the same we that we did on the 23rd June 2016, depending on the terms of the vote. Secondly, the Peoples Vote will be even more toxic and divisive than the first one. The first referendum divided people across the country and tore families apart. We should examine the nasty debate from the first referendum while, we did not debate the core issues around EU membership and a future vision for this country, instead both sides used a fear style campaign based on project fear either on immigration or economic apocalypse. I am not opposed to the concept of direct democracy and people having their say on the future relationship on EU membership, however, I am against the idea of having another referendum without honouring the first one and carrying it out. I do understand how problematic that is if we consider the complexity around EU membership, I think as a society we should do more to encourage a discussion on the future direction of this nation. However, I do support the idea of voting on the type of deal that you want, whether that is Theresa May's Chequers, Canada ++++ (whatever that is), or even a No deal. I think it's better to have a general election to deal with these issues, were we can have a real discussion on what we can do post-Brexit, a left-wing vision a right-wing vision, or perhaps on the idea of remaining in the EU. Currently, in this nation, we have so many domestic issues that in the viewpoints of most people in this country are simply more important than Brexit.

We need to take a position against many failing Neo-Liberal globalist institutions across the globe, that includes the European Union and other institutions such as the IMF. We currently have huge global challenges to deal with, which we will need to interact with countries across the world. Therefore, we need to encourage the growth of institutions that bring countries together on issues such as climate change. We are currently doing little to solve these issues. Tony Benn talked about the creation of a Commonwealth of Europe based on co-operation with other countries on these issues. This is an idea that we should pursue. We should also maintain and even better improve the current legislation of the European Union. One example of this is the Environmental Liability Directive.

Many people on the left believe in the idea of a Social Europe, the idea of using the EU to protect workers’ rights for instance. This is a rather noble idea. The European Union in this concept can be used as a barrier and a check and balance to the policies to any regressive Conservative Government in power. Since the late 1980's the majority of the Labour Party has taken this position. The European Union has led to more workers’ rights, take the working time directive for example which are not terrible ideas. We should be aiming to maintain these and improve on these laws post-Brexit. The British people have a responsibility to elect a Government that will protect these rights. We should go about also empowering Trade Unions and encouraging the idea of collective bargaining as a viable check and balance.

I think that complaining about the lack of democratic accountability within the European Union and the institutions associated with it without looking at the failures at home. This will not be turned into a discussion on how the European Union operates, I think it's more important at this point to look at affairs at home. We have a lack of transparency in Government, Parliament and in our institutions. We have a political system that is biased towards London and the South East. We have an unelected second chamber the House of Lords, we have the House of Commons that is not entirely representative on the views of the British people due to the First by the Post electoral system. We also have an unelected Monarch, in many ways our constitution is still quite medieval in its nature. Many people during the referendum saw the European Union as being a foreign institution above Parliament. It was not foreign institution since we did have a role moulding the current European Union at it is today, but it was another institution that acted with and above parliament. This often-clouded judgement on who to blame for a specified issue, sometimes the EU was a fault and sometimes It was the British Government for a policy that some members of the British public did not approve on. Take Immigration and then, EU competition rules that would limit what a left-wing Government could nationalise. In Post Brexit Britain we need to make it clear who we should hold to account we so can create a better future. I do recognise that many politicians did take the EU for granted this way, so people blamed the EU for a problem at home or a problem that the British Government can solve with the EU.

The reality is this nation is a broken nation, in a broken global economic order and the debate on Europe should be how to fix these problems. We have major internal social, economic and political problems. We have major economic problems such as low productivity, a decline in real wages. economic deprivation, a trade deficit with most of the globe. Our Political system is in dire need for reform just look at the Monarchy, the house of commons, local devolution, the voting system and the House of Lords for starters. For our own societal problems, we can look at, education, our media, our culture, or identity and just the general anger and confusion that the public has. Consecutive Governments has failed to solve these major problems. Many people feel disconnected to Westminster and to a greater extent London, people feel more English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish/ Northern Irish than they did in the past, there is a general confusion about British identity, many people have claimed Brexit was a result of an English Identity crisis, the reality is there is a British identity crisis. This idea has come about from individuals that feel disconnected from society. People feel left behind.  Much of the wealth in our economy was concertinaed in London and in the city of London, approximately 80% of the wealth of this nation is created in London from the financial sector. Much of this wealth does not touch most of the British population. We still live under the Neo-Liberal style economics introduced in the 1980's in this country by Margret Thatcher as she transferred this economy to a service sector economy rather than an industrial manufacturing-based economy.        

 Many of the former Manufacturing areas of the United Kingdom still are some of the most economically deprived areas of the United Kingdom. Many areas receive a lack of investment from both the Government and the private sector. In some former Industrial towns, wages have decreased on average since 2010. Many people felt that they had their futures were stolen and their local areas robbed of their wealth. Many older individuals in Northern Industrial towns and cities believe they were better off before the 1970's before Thatcherism and before we joined the European Community. I think the main problem we see currently is the vast economic imbalances we see in this country, the British economy is too based towards London and regional centres, Investment in our economy has remained stagnant for decades, working rights have been stagnant due to the destruction of the rights of the trade unions, the lack of skilled high paid work, the commercialisation of education. I could name many more issues such as our trade deficit we are in a situation that we are completely stagnating as a society compared to other nations in the west. Many of these issues go side by side with economic liberalisation in the west and a lack of any form of intervention to deal with the negative effects that go side by side with the rise of the East Asian economies. We need to look for a brand new and radical economic direction in this country that benefits most of the British population. We certainly need to move away from supply-side economics that has failed to deliver on its promises that the wealth from the rich will trickle down to the poorest in society. The question that we must ask ourselves is how to achieve this? Corbyn's Labour Party offers a Neo-Keynesian economic vision for the country, a reformed version of the post-war economic conscious that is suited a modern world that must deal with global issues.

We should also look at the ideas of reforming and/or creating an alternative organisation to the European Union at its current state. How do we change the European Union as it is presently constituted and if we can what do we change it to?  That is a very difficult question to answer even for Yanis Varoufakis or can we create another institution that workers in a more democratic and benevolent manner without the Neo-Liberal economics attached. This has always been the position of Tony Benn on Europe to create an alternative Commonwealth of Europe based on voluntary co-operation on key issues that affect the continent of Europe at large and this is the idea I think the left should be open to. Regardless, we are going to need to work with DiEM25 the only organisation that currently would reform the EU in a progressive way if it had the chance. The major problem we have with all of this is that there is a lack of a discussion of Europe in this country. We focus too much of immigration and the migrant crisis, we don't talk about that Italy has not had direct control over its treasury for years, we don't talk about the EU forcing austerity measures on countries such as Cyprus.

This essay was a brief discussion of what we should do with Brexit, please if you are reading this, share your thoughts and ask me any question on the subject. I will just conclude this issue by explaining what we should do now as a nation. We should join EFTA until we can have a unified position of what we should do in the long-term future. We should not join the EEA this will require us to join the Schengen Area. EFTA will keep us in the single market but outside a Customs Union, countries such as Iceland are in EFTA. This will solve the issue with the Northern Irish border and will maintain the status quo at large economically while bringing more power back home to Westminster e.g. on fishing and agriculture. Then we should have a real debate on what should we do with regards to Europe. We also should note that revoking article 50 to anyone who wants to stop Brexit may require another negotiation. Being outside the EU itself we would not be tied to the European Union and hence any re-negotiation in the future in these terms will put us in a stronger position. Joining the EFTA would require little negotiation and the transition into it would be rather smooth compared to the likelihood of what the Tories are likely going to do with Brexit. In EFTA for the next few years, we should aim in my opinion to have a meaningful free trade deal. Where we return decision making to Westminster and devolved administrations.  We should also create a brand new British alternative to the ECJ during this process with a similar role. Thanks for reading.

Global Neo-Liberalism a brief overview

In the 1980's and in the 1990's following the collapse of the Soviet Union most nations on Earth underwent a mass market liberalisation process. Most countries accepted the concept of Neo-Liberalism and Globalisation as the natural order. There was a narrative that you must lower taxes and empower private enterprise at the expense of the public sector. There was an idea that you should undermine your own industries by allowing your own manufacturing to move to China and the Asian Tiger economies. Many workers in these economies are being exploited in many countries like China they have little rights and many workers are forced to work in sweatshops with long hours with little pay for our own privilege in buying cheap goods. Many people not just in the United Kingdom felt left behind. In many western countries, these jobs were replaced with unstable service sector jobs since it was no longer competitive to have any form of major manufacturing industry. As people gain capital from the increasingly automated stock markets others grow rich from a rapid increase in borrowing for mortgages that many people could not afford. Much of the capital used for mortgages were created by the banks. see fractional reserve banking. Of course, the financial bubble went bust in 2008 it was the largest crash since the Wall Street crash of 1929, it was caused by a collapse of the housing bubble in the United States. It marked the end of global capitalism. The crash pulled a rug under the system. We had mass opposition to the system with the occupy movement where average people demanded more transparency and control over the capitalist system. Neo-Liberalism failed in 2008 but was resurrected by a series of intervention by the Neo-Liberal Western Governments. In 2008, for instance, Prime Minister Gordon Brown bailed out the banks for a total of £500 Billion. For the exception of Iceland, the perpetrators of the crash across the west got away with their crimes and incompetence, many kept their banker's bonuses. If the bailouts did not occur it is true that people would have been economically worse off, one could say with some of the policies implemented by Gordon Brown at this time saved the British economy from the fate of the Eurozone countries in the following years. The general response of those in power was not to punish for but the burden of the costs of the 2008 crash on the people who are responsible or those with the broader shoulders to pay for the crash. But the choice of the wealthy Neo-Liberal establishment, particularly across Europe to pay for the robbery at the hands of the bankers in 2008. Unlike in other countries in the United Kingdom, the British Coalition Government voluntary chose to undergo a disastrous policy that harmed working class people in all aspects of society. Overseas the issue was different, the European Union forced certain Eurozone countries to undergo austerity, Greece, Portugal, Cyprus and Italy to name a few. Greece even today has not recovered from the events of the 2008 crisis only in 2018 is when the economy has started to see some flickers of improvement. The International Monetary fund and the World Bank still back the Washington consensus that supports Privatisation, austerity, "so-called marker liberalisation processes" that these rich Bilderberg bankers seem to think it is good for the workers of the globe. As I write this on 9th October 2018 Argentine workers are striking against a possible IMF loan that will impose austerity on Argentina. We need to rethink the entire economic conscious that we built up after the war. We need to rethink globalisation and how we do things on this planet. This is simply not sustainable. At the time of writing this there is multiple times more debt than physical money in existence, this is another bubble waiting to explode. The aim of the internationalist left is to look towards reforming or even leaving these institutions. These people work for their won interests and not the interests of the workers. We are living in the time where Social/economic and even cultural inequality is increasing. Many of the global economic agreements do need some rethinking such as the Bretton Woods agreement. In many cases unrestrained capitalism is also polluting and wrecking the planet many scientists believe we are entering a 6th mass extinction. We have a lack of creativity and a lack of imagination to change our current situation and this will be the greatest barrier to change. You have to remember the ideas of Neo-Liberalism was developed alongside the ideas of Keynesian economics in the 1930's it actually spent decades on the fringe until the rise of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. It was the philosopher Alexander Rüstow that came up with the idea of Neo-Liberalism that had the idea of having an economic system in between controlled social and economic forces and classical liberalism.

What May happen in 2019 and with Brexit in the short term.

Brexit and politics of the United Kingdom within the next year

The following points and ideas are what I think what would most likely occur within the next year. I will firstly begin introducing what is Brexit and why we voted to leave the European Union, then I will discuss what is likely to occur at the writing on this essay in early October 2018.

Brexit is short for the British exit of the European Union.  It is the idea that Britain could leave the European Union and bring back many of the powers that have been acquired by the European Union since the United Kingdom had joined the EEC in 1973. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland voted to leave the European Union on the 23^rd June 2016. 2016 was a hectic year for the western establishment, the year the establishment failed to get their own way on both sides of the pond. It was a clear backlash against the Neo-Liberal economics which was set up in the 1980’s that replaced the new deal style economics in the western world. Many economists call this either supply-side economics and its critics trickle-down economics.  The name of this does not matter. What matters is that this economic position has failed the majority of people in the west. Many people were left behind for decades the same people left behind lashed out at the establishment that told them that everything will be worse when themselves were the real reason for the anger against the establishment. For this very reason it those in power want to remain in place, the elite must adapt and recognise the ills of the working class. In a divided country there must be a mechanism to unify the nation and to pick up the pieces created by the economic incompetence of the political class. We need to build a society that is not about dog eats dog but a society where everyone cares about each other.

 The current negotiations with the European Union could not be handled any worse than it currently is. In power we have a clueless and directionless party who put their own personal interests and their careers first. The Conservative Party lacks new ideas and different methods to solve and address the issues of the time. They lack imagination and the Conservative Party fails to look outside the box on these issues. The question of Europe has always been the Achilles heel of the Conservative Party, well certainly at least the Post Thatcher years. The 2005 Conservative Party leadership election was thought on the issue of Europe between David Cameron and David Davis. These divisions became so extreme that 2 Conservative MPs Mark Reckless (it’s in the name) and Douglas Carswell defected to UKIP. The fear of more defections to UKIP led to the promise of a referendum by the Conservative leader David Cameron after the 2015 general election. This referendum was called in 2017, it brought out the ancient divisions in the Conservative Party into the public sphere. It led to one of the most toxic debates in history. Furthermore, it brought out career interests in certain Conservative MP's, this was the case with Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. The Question is why is this relevant? It’s quite simple, the future of Brexit and the future of the Conservative Party. The idea that I am advocating is that the issue of Europe will finally bring down the so-called "unified unit" of the Conservative Party. I would argue that these divisions, contributed to the confusion to what it’s the ideological direction and the plan for the future for the Conservative Party. I think this sensation resonates with Conservative supporters, I constantly hear many Tory voters that say that the Conservative Party is no longer Conservative. Theresa May when she became the Conservative leader emulated Ed Miliband in her first speech as Prime Minister. Though this was a clear attack on Labour at the time. This is important to think about to determine what is going to happen with the future with Brexit.

At the time of writing this, the United Kingdom has entered a place of uncertainty. Theresa May’s Brexit plans have been rejected by the European Union. The Chequers proposal was supposed to be the way to leave the European Union and supposedly honouring the vote without impeding the economy. This proposal was hated by both sides of the divide on Brexit. Chequers was proposed on the 6^th July 2018 after 18 months of little progress in the Brexit negotiations. Except for the so-called divorce bill at £39 billion though this figure is likely to rise. In September 2018 Theresa May met with Michel Barnier in Salzburg in Austria the EU flat out disagreed with the Chequers proposals. Prompting Theresa May to discuss the potential of a No deal. With this period of uncertainty, the purpose of the following discussions is to talk about what is likely going to happen with Brexit.

The main part of the discussion is the leadership of the Conservative Party. Since the 2017 election people have discussed when is May is going to leave office. Who will challenge Theresa May and who is going to be her successor. Moreover, despite threats to oust Theresa May for the last year she remains in power.  There have been a handful of potential successors that have been an important part of the political discourse. We have Jacob Rees Mogg who has been discussed for the last year, however, he his firmly behind Boris Johnson. We have Boris Johnson who has manoeuvred himself to become the Conservative leader since the EU referendum, especially since he resigned from his position as Foreign Secretary. Boris Johnson is the most likely successor to Theresa May. There are also a few more possible candidates such as Sajid Javid, David Davis and Andrea Leadsom. Since becoming the Home Secretary after Amber Rudd resigned due to the Windrush scandal Sajid Javid has been posed to become the next Conservative leader. The issue with this is the majority of the Conservative membership are mainly Brexiters and internal polls suggest vast levels of support for Boris Johnson.

Another question we need to look it is the departure of Theresa May. Her track record suggests that she will remain Prime Minister. Most key votes in Parliament despite threats of rebellions go in the Governments favour.  Most possible leadership contenders such as Boris Johnson prove time and time again to be spineless when trying to oust May or undermine her leadership. Theresa May is one of the worst Prime Ministers we have had in modern history but at least she knows how to stay in power. The likely hood of Theresa May being ousted is low. I think most Conservative MP’s despite what happens with Brexit do not want to cause the Government to collapse and risk another general election where they are bound to lose. I think Theresa May will stay in power until early April where she will resign though her own free will after we are currently due to leave the European Union.

After examining the membership of the Conservative Party, it is certain that a Brexiter will become Prime Minister. Internal polls within the Conservative Party show support for Boris Johnson to become the leader of the Conservative Party. Boris Johnson is the most likely candidate to become Prime Minister. A leadership election in 2019 would not be as quick and divisive as the last one as of the candidates stepped down in favour of Theresa May. Instead of taking less than a month to conclude the next Conservative leadership election would be a longer process and the final vote will likely go to the membership and it will be a longer process. I think Sajid Javid, Dominic Rabb, Boris Johnson, David Davis, Michael Gove and Jeremy Hunt will show interest in leadership. Jacob Rees Mogg would be firmly behind Boris Johnson, Mogg would likely have a cabinet position promised to him. The final two candidates would either Boris Johnson and Sajid Javid, Boris Johnson and Dominic Rabb, Boris Johnson and David Davis. I think Boris Johnson will become Prime Minister in late spring/ early summer 2019.

The likely key cabinet positions under Prime Minister Boris Johnson is as follows.

Prime Minister- Boris Johnson

Chancellor of the Exchequer- David Davis

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs- Jacob Rees Mogg

Secretary of State for the Home Department- Andrea Leadsom

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care- Matt Hancock

Secretary of State of Work and Pension- Esther McVey

Secretary of State for Transport- Ian Duncan Smith

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs- Michael Gove
Secretary of State for International Trade- John Redwood

The most important predictions we must look at is the likely Brexit deal. Let’s make this clear there will not be a no deal Brexit, there is no majority in Parliament for it. EEA membership is out of the question as it requires for the UK to join the Schengen Area. EFTA is a more likely soft Brexit option as the UK is a founding member and it does not require the UK to join Schengen. However, I think the recent rhetoric from Theresa May suggests we will not get a deal like EFTA. My prediction with a more of a Canadian style deal with a new Customs Union or Chequers with a Customs Union to prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland. At the time of writing this Theresa May has suggested we could remain in a Customs Union post-Brexit. This would be negotiated at the last minute in an attempt to prevent a No deal Brexit or a second referendum. This would most likely be just before Christmas like the divorce bill agreement in 2017. I see both the UK and the European Union both compromising on key issues at the last minute. I think the EU would be under a lot of pressure from Germany and the car industry to gain a meaningful deal.

Another issue we need to put to bed is the idea of a new general election. There has been endless speculation of another general election after the result of the 2017 general election. The idea of an early general election has resurfaced after the Chequers proposal and after the Chequers proposal was rejected by the European Union. It never occurred. The Conservative and DUP MP’s may have their differences on subjects such as Brexit however, they do not want to risk another general election and the placement of Jeremy Corbyn in 10 Downing Street. We can prove that this will happen from the track record in votes in parliament where the Government has managed to defeat the opposition in key votes in parliament even when there was an expectation for a major Conservative Rebellion. The Labour Party is going to aim to trigger a general election at all costs, I think this will fail. As the Peoples Vote motion mandates, Labour will also attempt to trigger a Peoples Vote, unless we get a No Deal, which I stated above is incredibly unlikely. The Conservatives will be able to push their Brexit deal through Parliament through the skin of its teeth. The next general election will likely occur in autumn 2019 after the summer recess and the end of the DUP deal and after a Conservative leadership election.

In this section, I will discuss the internal politics of the main Parties except for Conservatives as I discussed the Conservative leadership above. The SNP will likely have a change in leadership in 2019 due to an increase of dissatisfaction towards Nicola Sturgeon. The SNP are increasingly split between the prospect of an Indyref2 and divisions between pro-Alex Salmond and Sturgeon factions in the Party. There is also a growing split in the SNP on Brexit on the SNP’s policy towards it and on the Question of what will be the relationship between the EU and an independent Scotland? The popularity of the SNP will go into decline in favour of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. As well as Theresa May, Vince Cable will stand down in April 2019 as the leader of the Liberal Democrats, he has already announced he would resign after Brexit is either resolved or stopped. He would likely be replaced by Jo Swinson or Layla Moran. In term of popularity, I think the popularity of the Liberal Democrats will go into decline after Brexit in favour of Labour and the Conservatives. Jeremy Corbyn will strengthen his leadership in the Labour Party. Labour popularity will only increase in the next year after more Tory failures become highlighted in the media. In the 2017 general election, Labour did well directing the debate away from Brexit. Without the toxicity of Brexit Labour will excel in the polls. Discussion in Labour will be directed in new ideas such as abolishing the Monarchy and the idea of leaving NATO will come up. Open reselection will be passed in the 2019 Labour conference just prior to the 2019 election. The moderates in Labour will accept Labours new position like the left did with Blair many of them will give up in undermining Corbyn. Many of the deselected and dissatisfied moderates will leave Labour but this will not affect it electorally instead they will attract the moderate Conservative vote. A new centrist Party will emerge, backed by figures like Alistair Campbell and David Miliband, they will bring forth the idea of coming back into the European Union. I think this will draw key supporters from Labour, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. I can see many of the social democrat types in the Liberal Democrats move to this new Party in the long term I can see an emergence of the old Liberal Party values within the Liberal Democrats. The new Party will be modelled on Emmanuel Macron’s La République En Marche. This new Party has a chance of winning a few cities however I can’t see it gaining more than 8% of the vote.

This section will briefly suggest what is likely to occur with our economy when we leave the European Union and what will be the policies that the Government would enact as a response.  There will be a temporary crash in the value of the Pound Sterling in early 2019. The Pound Sterling will increase in value as long as there is certainty, I will have a temporary surge in summer 2019 until the 2019 general election. The election of a Labour Government would lead to the Pound Sterling to crash again in value. Imports will become more expensive between the UK and the EU after the UK takes its seat on the World Trade Organisation we will aim to unilaterally lower tariffs on food imports to make up for the shortfall in imports from the European Union. I think the foreign investment will increase from the United States and China which both countries will take advantage with lower tariffs with Britain. However, this will not replace the investment losses due to Brexit in the short term. While we will be in a sort of a customs union, we would be allowed to make our own trade deals as long as we can prevent goods sourced from the outside of the EU from crossing the border. I think we will get a Trade Deal with the United States rather quickly and the terms of the deal would be a key debate in the 2019 general election.  I think the deal with the United States might include the proposed Space force and in agriculture, Boris Johnson is going to think big with his deal, after all, be seems ambitious with his numerous proposed bridges. Austerity measures will continue after Brexit in the public sector, however, I can see the Tories doing everything they can to keep the Post Brexit economy growing, there will be the largest increase in investment in since the 2008 crash. Much of this would be paid for a reduction of foreign aid.  As a result, we will have high inflation in 2019 perhaps the highest inflation we have seen since the 1970’s. I can also see the bank of England keeping interest as low as possible to encourage borrowing and to keep prices of housing and goods low. A decline in property prices post Brexit is also likely, due to the increase in house building and the decline in land banking from EU investors.  The Government is going to provide incentives and interest free loan schemes to a desperate attempt to get the Post Brexit economy going. This will be particularly impactful in London. Net Migration will go down, due to an increase of migration to outside the UK and a decrease in immigration to the UK. Immigration laws will not change in 2019 they will stay essentially the same than before to outside the EU. The service sector of the economy will go into decline for the first time since 2008 and there will be a slight increase in productivity amongst manufacturers that export outside the European Union.  I think this would be in new green and high-tech industries’ Conservative Government will encourage consumers to buy British Goods rather than imports from abroad and due to the increase in costs from imports we could see a small resurgence in British manufacturing. I can’t foresee major changes to Agriculture in this country we will leave the common agricultural policy and the Government will likely maintain much of the subsidies that the EU give to farmers. The fishing industry will do better outside the common fisheries policy, however, a situation similar to the Cod wars with Iceland with British and EU fishermen that continue to fish in British waters despite any agreement with the EU and the UK. Economic growth after Brexit will be extremely low, we will escape an economic recession by the skin of our teeth, perhaps at around 0.1% growth. However, I think things will quickly improve in following years. An increase in unemployment is inevitable in 2019 and will key part in a Political debate in 2019 due to the inevitable economic changes to this country as we leave the European Union.

That is the basic economic prediction in 2019, I would love to see what you think about this, we will see great economic difficulty however we will see the growth of new industries. There will be a massive disruption in customs as we will struggle to gain the administration to cope with exports and imports to the European Union, however, this disruption would he short term over the first half of 2019.

I can see a general election being called in September or October 2019, with the disruption of Brexit and a Conservative leadership contest I can’t see one being called in summer 2019. It would be a long a partisan campaign, however, it will result in a Labour Victory, Labour will have between 290 and 320 seats. It is possible that Labour will be forced into a supply and demand deal with the Liberal Democrats or the SNP in return for concessions most likely on voting reform and devolution. The election will be fought on key policies and there will be a backlash to Conservative failures with Brexit and young population that overwhelmingly supports Labour and a backlash against 8 years of austerity.