UK Free Speech Under Threat

Government should introduce a United Kingdom Free Speech Act modelled on the First Amendment of the USA

• Existing laws, as applied, have created categories of “speech crimes” for offensive but otherwise benign political speech.

• There is mounting evidence that existing law is capable of being applied, and is actually applied, in an overbroad fashion which was not contemplated by its drafters.  e.g. the treatment of Darren Grimes in June of this year

• The poor drafting of existing law means that as social attitudes shift, broader categories of speech are criminalized as “offensive,” “distressing” or “hateful.” 

• British citizens face emerging threats to freedom of expression posed by the Law Commission and “Online Harms” proposals, as well as the Hate Crime (Public Order) (Scotland) Bill. 

• Scottish Hate Crime Bill threatens sharing of potentially offensive Internet memes and freedom of speech in the home

A new paper released by free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute argues that freedom of expression is under significant and severe threat in the United Kingdom, both at the Westminster level and with a Bill currently progressing through the Scottish Parliament.

The think tank argues that there should be no right to not be offended, no right to prevent others from expressing ideas that one finds uncomfortable or dislikes, in positive law. With online life becoming everyday life for most people overreaching legislation risks snuffing out free speech, with the report author arguing that “the only way free inquiry will survive is if the police have no role in the regulation of political speech.” 

Freedom of expression is fundamental to life in a free and democratic society. It reflects our underlying moral right to think and express ourselves, even when it offends, disrespects or annoys others. It is, the Adam Smith Institute argues, what allows us to be individuals and the ability to express contrarian ideas allows us to explore controversial and important topics and strive for better understanding of the challenges we face. Censorship impedes this process.

Currently the UK has significant challenges to freedom of expression via the Public Order Act 1986, Communications Act 2003, Section 127 and Malicious Communications Act 1988, Section 1. The think tank argues that proposals by the Law Commission, the Hate Crime (Public Order) (Scotland) Bill, and ‘Online Harms’ in discussion at Westminster represent emerging threats to the principle. 

Both these existing laws and the new ones under discussion go against the British principles regarding free speech built up in political and legal case law that guard freedom of expression “not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population.” (Handyside v. United Kingdom, App. No. 5493/72.) 

Dramatic action is required if the UK’s rapidly-evolving statutory speech regime is

to avoid being used as a sledgehammer to crush dissent, the report’s author argues, saying that Parliament should create an “inviolable liberty that protects political expression of any type that falls short of direct incitement from state interference.” 

The report lists a number of cases raised in recent years that have raised eyebrows over the scope of free speech in the UK including: 

• Bethan Tichborne, who was convicted of a public order offence for yelling at then-Prime Minister David Cameron, at a public event, that he had “blood on his hands” for cutting disability living allowance.

• In 2014, Eurosceptic EU Parliament candidate Paul Weston, who was arrested on suspicion of violating the Public Order Act for quoting Winston Churchill verbatim. 

• Darren Grimes, a conservative commentator, who in this year was investigated and threatened with an interview under caution by the Met for having conducted an interview with historian David Starkey in which Starkey — not Grimes — made highly offensive comments about slavery. After public outcry the investigation was dropped.

All of these individuals were subjected to mandatory interactions with law enforcement pursuant to the provisions of the Public Order Act 1986, which the think tank argues  excessively criminalizes offensive speech. 

The Report is especially cogent for Scotland where the Hate Crime Bill is currently going through the Scottish Parliament. The think tank recommends that Scottish Parliamentarians remove references in the Bill to “insulting” material and the word “abusive” in response to the experience of English magistrates in using and overbroad and imprecise use of the terms. The report’s author also recommends defining precisely the terms “threatening” in the proposed law to avoid cases arising where highly offensive but non-threatening speech meets a highly sensitive listener.

Meanwhile at Westminster the debate over Online Harms continues to raise substantial free speech concerns with the “Duty of Care” requirement for online companies that allow their users to interact with one another unsupervised. This would, the report author argues, “impose a duty on interactive computer service providers to prevent users’ feelings from being hurt.”

Much of the substance of both bills is already covered under existing legislation (including legislation covering terrorism and child sexual abuse) but the Government’s inclusion of ‘legal but harmful’ under the proposals risks creating an expansive, and poorly-defined, set of speech, with no legal definition, that an independent government regulator could deem “harmful” and force online service providers to remove from the Internet. 

To resolve the growing threats to freedom of expression, the Adam Smith Institute argues that Parliament should immediately:

1. Remove all references to “abusive” or “insulting” words and behaviour from Parts I and III of the Public Order Act 1986;

2. Replace the Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 with (a) a provision that limits the scope of the existing rule to “threatening” only and (b) a new rule that addresses meaningful stalking and cyberstalking threats which cause or intend to cause substantial emotional distress, modelled after 18 U.S. Code § 2261A;

3. Repeal the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and replace it with a stalking statute; and

4. Introduce a United Kingdom Free Speech Act.

Report author and Legal Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute Preston J. Byrne  said:

“Basic political liberties including freedom of speech have been progressively eroded in the United Kingdom since 1997. Currently the Scottish Parliament and the Law Commission propose speech regulations which would be a more natural fit for Orwell’s Airstrip One than Churchill’s England. The sun is setting on the Enlightenment, and if Parliament does nothing to preserve free speech now we may lose it for generations.”

Andrew Rosindell M.P. said:

“Throughout history, societies have disagreed about the path forward. Ultimately there are two ways of resolving disagreements: violence, or free and open debate.

“For centuries our great nation has navigated choppy waters because of our commitment to the latter. With the flourishing of a free press, free speech, and a free economy, this nation has gone from strength to strength.

“The battle to preserve free speech is one every generation must fight. I fear that at the moment we are not doing enough to win this battle, as extremists from both ends attempt to stifle open inquiry. I fully endorse the work of organisations such as the Adam Smith Institute to re-examine our laws and norms in this matter of vital importance."

Darren Grimes, said:

“I back this vital Adam Smith Institute report and argue that the police investigation into an interview broadcast on my channel, with threat of arrest, should terrify anyone that cares about freedom of expression. This was an unprecedented use of public order legislation to target a member of broadcast media.

“As the report argues, through its current crop of laws, the United Kingdom is placing power in the hands of the easily offended, who can silence their opponents by threatening to report them to the police for daring to express unpopular opinions, challenge consensus or for daring to have uncomfortable conversations. This places an obvious chilling effect upon free, open and robust dialogue. 

“In the Miller v Humberside and College of Policing in the High Court earlier this year, a Judge likened police action over a tweet to the Stasi, the Cheka and the Gestapo. We can reverse this dangerous trend and restore trust and confidence in British policing by amending the law and reducing the police’s ability to criminalise people for expressing a view.

“Let’s get the law back to policing our streets, not our tweets.” 

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Fives Eyes at the front of the queue for trade

Following the news of the Canada-UK rollover and announcement of a bespoke FTA to be negotiated in 2021, Deputy Director Matt Kilcoyne said:

"The days of being told continuity and bespoke deals in record time would be beyond the capability of the UK are long gone. This deal is a sensible stop-gap but the bigger news is the confirmation of a bespoke free trade agreement to be negotiated next year. Canada joins the rest of our Five Eyes allies now firmly at the front of the queue. As we leave the EU we find firm friends welcoming Britain on the global stage."

For further comment or to arrange an interview, please contact Matt via matt@adamsmith.org or 07904099599

Not getting to grips with the virus is costing country dearly

In response to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's expansion of corporate welfare into the Spring Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, said:

"The failure to control the virus is costing the country dearly. Consumer activity is falling as case numbers rise and lockdowns are instigated. We risk firm after firm failing and a cascading credit crunch as unpaid debts mount up.

"The Chancellor’s furlough extension is to avoid unnecessary economic scarring; however, it also risks propping up companies that are not profitable in the longer run. At some point, we must allow the economy to adjust, firms to fail and new ventures, and new jobs.

"The Chancellor should immediately release, and if it does not yet exist commission, the underlying economic modelling to justify these decisions. The shroud of secrecy must come to an end."

For further comment or to arrange an interview, please contact Matt Kilcoyne via Matt@adamsmith.org or 07904099599.

Build build build and beat the Germans (again)

• Seizing the chance to reform England’s planning laws could boost GDP by over 20%, meaning the UK economy overtaking Germany in value added per head

• The total value of the UK’s housing stock exceeds the cost of replacing it today by £3.7 trillion pounds

• Much of the current resistance to the proposed new housing targets comes from lack of clarity over what targets will be in each area and fear of new developments forced on residents

• Introduce micro democracy to provide popular, and beautiful housing with gentle densification

A new paper released today by London YIMBY, the grassroots campaign to end the housing crisis, and free market think tank the Adam Smith Institute, argues that the planning system has “failed young people” by not providing plentiful and high quality housing. This has limited job opportunities and undermined our most productive firms. 

While the report praises the Government’s White Paper on planning reform, noting the aim to streamline decision making and move democracy up front in the planning process, author John Myers warns that all previous reform attempts have failed, and clever ideas will be needed. It suggests radical, popular ways for local people to take back control from planners and give themselves more power to develop their own properties.

Unlike all the other laws governing property and markets, the planning system is not designed to achieve win-win outcomes for existing and potential new home owners. The planning system protects homeowners from unwanted nearby developments. But, with homeowners approximately two-thirds of voters, this has meant a blocking majority in many parts of the country to the developments many young people need to access the housing market. 

The shortage of permission to use land for housing in the places people want to live and where the most productive jobs are has hobbled Britain’s economy and inflated the price of housing. The lack of housing is now so severe that the total value of the UK’s housing stock exceeds the cost of replacing it today by £3.7 trillion. 

Countries such as Switzerland have a more responsive housing supply because local government and local people have much stronger incentives to allow more housing. The answer, the report argues, is ‘micro democracy’ provided by street and block votes (mooted in the Government’s White Paper). This would provide enormous benefits for existing homeowners, who could take back control from the planners and opt for gentle densification of their street that boosts the value of their property while guaranteeing high quality design. This would help turn NIMBY arguments upside down with developments becoming a win-win for existing and incoming homeowners.

Street votes are an idea backed by a broad cross-section of organisations, including the Centre for Cities, Create Streets, the Royal Town Planning Institute and the effective giving organisation Founders Pledge. The potential of street votes is also shown by the previous examples of residents agreeing to densification, Myers argues. In Primrose Hill, London, twelve terrace owners agreed to add an additional story simultaneously in 2018. Near Clapham Junction, in 2017, homeowners agreed to demolish their existing block of eight flats and replace them with a bigger, high quality building holding twice as many homes. One-third of new homes in Tel Aviv last year came from similar redevelopment.

The Planning for the Future White Paper represents, the think tank argues, a “once in a lifetime opportunity to do what governments have failed at for seventy years”.

In a year when the economy has shrunk by record levels as governments have locked down communities in response to the ongoing pandemic, it is the ability of planning reform to boost GDP and government revenues without raising taxes that is perhaps most striking. The report argues that fixing England’s planning system could increase GDP by at least 20% over a decade, allowing the British economy to overtake Germany’s in value added per head.

This is, the think tank argues, a prize that should be in the sights of every policy maker looking at planning reform. To get there the Government could rapidly pilot community-led intensification through design codes set at the level of individual blocks and streets, to help achieve the targets in a popular and durable way. 

Report author John Myers recommends three ways to increase the supply of housing in high price areas while maintaining public support:

1. Implement street and block votes: Street or block residents should be able to set design rules to ensure high quality and, if they choose, graceful densification. If a street opts for greater density, all the homeowners can benefit from a capital gain in the value of their property. That would ensure building is win-win for residents, enabling the Government to reach ambitious targets. 

2. Enable land value tax on future large sites: Allowing councils to gradually introduce a land value tax on future large sites would give councils and local people more confidence that targets will not be missed for reasons beyond their control. 

3. Publish target allocations: Publish indicative allocations of the proposed new local housing requirements, showing how they will be adjusted for constraints such as green belt and historic properties.

Report author co-founder of London YIMBY, John Myers said:

“For decades we have failed young people and anyone unable to achieve their dreams because of expensive housing. Planning reform in this Parliament is a once in a lifetime opportunity to do what governments have failed at for seventy years: end the housing shortage and the endless cycle of failed planning reforms. We need to build on the ambition in the White Paper and make new housing win-win. That will ensure high-quality new homes become abundant.”

Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute Matthew Lesh, said:

“The planning system is a national scandal. It has provided neither plentiful nor high quality housing. It has just driven up the cost of living and, by reducing mobility, blocked access to jobs. This is a huge deal for the broader economy. Fixing the planning system could help the British economy leave Germany's in the dust in just a decade, and repair the economic damage from the pandemic.”

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

An updated statement on the Chancellor's updated statement

The Adam Smith Institute recognises the need for new financial measures to support areas put under harsher local restrictions.

Following Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s updated statement today, Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, said:

“The failure of the Government’s test, trace, and isolate regime has led to renewed restrictions. If the Government is going to restrict the activities of private businesses during a pandemic to stop the spread of a virus, it is right to provide financial support.

“This is, of course, hugely costly and will add mountains to the debt. Nevertheless, it is a one-off expense, at a time of low interest rates, that should have a  longer-term benefit of fewer firms closing, securing the basic relationships in the economy and protecting jobs.

“At some point we will need to allow firms to fail, people to start new ventures, capital to reallocate, and new skills to be built and jobs created. The Government cannot and should not save every job at any time. But Tier 2/3 restrictions are not the time for creative destruction.”

Notes to editors: 

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599. 

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Brits need more than hot air from Boris

As Prime Minister Boris Johnson announces in his speech to the Conservative Party Conference his worry for the scale of interventions in the economy, the need to reboot the private sector, and fix the underlying weaknesses in the British economy, Matt Kilcoyne argues that we need concrete actions rather than more speeches on the matter:

"The economic interventions this year have been unprecedented, but broad support was needed as they introduced restrictions on trading to reduce the loss of lives from a novel virus. The Prime Minister is right to voice discomfort with public sector enlargement. The British people deserve more than just hot air though, the government must commit to a reduction in spending and a reboot of the private sector. To do that we must reduce the cost of employing people, reform the planning system, and reduce the tax and red tape burden on businesses. The private sector, which has borne the brunt of this crisis after months of state restrictions, must be allowed to create the jobs and our future prosperity."

To arrange an interview or further comment please contact Matt Kilcoyne via email (matt@adamsmith.org) or phone (07904099599)

Response to winter economy plan: sensible but not costless

The Adam Smith Institute has released the following statement in response to the Winter Economy Plan.

Matthew Lesh, Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute, said:

“The Winter Economy Plan is a sensible response to the need for greater restrictions on private sector activity over the coming months. It makes sense to replace the furlough scheme — that paid people to not work — with a wage subsidy scheme that helps struggling but viable businesses to keep employees on the job part time. Extending loan schemes and VAT cuts is also a measured response to lessen the shock as the Government furlough scheme is rolled back. 

“This is not costless. The Government must resist becoming addicted to spending. Temporary spending is sensible to keep struggling businesses afloat, but in the longer run we are going to have to get the national accounts in order by reducing ongoing spending. 

“If we are going to adapt to these difficult times and recover successfully, the Government must reduce the tax burden and cut red tape that undermines entrepreneurial dynamism.”

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

The state of the (student) unions

• Student unions cost taxpayers and students £165 million per annum, £225 per student over a three year degree course. 

• Student unions employ some 600 full time sabbatical officers 

• Just 1-in-10 students participate in student union elections

• While universities generally receive 80% satisfaction rates, barely over half of students, a mere 56%, think that their student union does a good job of representing their academic interests. 

• Student Unions give £4 million of financing to the National Union of Students (NUS), but just 3% of students vote in the elections that choose delegates who decide NUS policy and select its officers, with turnout often as low as 0.5%. 

The report, from the free market Adam Smith Institute, argues that student unions are perceived as ineffective by students, lack democratic legitimacy, and undermine freedom of association and expression. Extraordinarily, it finds that student unions that receive higher block grants from universities tend to be poorer performing in the National Student Survey. 

Student unions have played a critical role in the worsening free speech crisis on campus in recent years: banning speakers they don’t like, blocking the sale of particular publications, failing to prevent or encouraging violence at meetings, seeking to approve speeches in advance, blocking the formation of free speech societies, imposing rules on how meetings should be conducted, barring certain groups on whim from freshers’ fairs, and deterring speakers by imposing complex bureaucratic procedures on them.

The report proposes that student unions should be split into different components dealing with recreational,sports and academic functions, with only those receiving university funding – itself made up in large part by taxpayers’ money. The political part should become optional, funded by students who opt to join. Such  bodies should only receive official recognition if more than half of students become members. 

The report also argues that if the National Union of Students (NUS) wishes to gather funds from students it should do so from individual students and not draw on monies compulsorily gathered by student unions from the taxpayer and students. 

Free speech, a central tenet of universities in the Western world, has come under intense threat in recent years. Universities should bolster the rights of students and speakers to speak their mind. No student representative body of any type should have any involvement in regulating the rights to free speech on campus. The authors argue that the responsibility for implementing legal requirements should rest solely with universities, not extremist student unions, and that the provisions in law regarding free speech should be strengthened to prevent universities or other bodies using procedural mechanisms to restrict speech others may find distasteful. 

The Office for Students (OfS) should become the main regulator of student bodies, representative and otherwise, in respect of both free speech and other matters. The OfS should also oversee the transition to the new arrangements proposed.

Student unions are in the business of promoting engagement through freebies, the report alleges, trying to induce higher turnouts by providing free pizza, discounts at student shops, and even free ice creams — using student money to try and give the unions more legitimacy. Turnout though, remains low, with the average turnout at a British student union election just 11%. 

Elections at universities for their representatives to the NUS are of even less interest. At Aberdeen University just 79 people (or 0.5% of the student body) voted for their university’s representatives. At UCL just 0.9% did. The average across UK universities is just 3.2%.

Student unions are highly political organisations with little claim to a democratic mandate. The report looks at a number of egregious examples including campaigns to abolish the Prevent counter-terrorism programm, and to push for decolonisation, demilitarisation, boycott of Israel and divestment from fossil fuel, arms and tobacco.

In 2018, the Manchester University Students’ Union decided that students shouldn’t be allowed to read verses from Rudyard Kiplng’s poem ‘If’, frequently voted the nation’s favourite poem, which the university had painted on a wall. Fatima Abid, the general secretary of Manchester’s student union, said that after seeing the Kipling poem on the wall, student leaders immediately decided that it must be taken down. They proceeded to vandalise it. The Oxford University student union sought to censor textbooks and lectures.

Bans have been pushed on types of food (including the sale of beef at the LSE, Edinburgh, and the UEA), fancy dress (at Kent, Oxford, and Edinburgh), speakers like Julie Bindel and Peter Hitchens, registration of new student societies (including the Nietzsche Society at UCL, or the Protection of Unborn Children at Glasgow), and even bans on clapping (Oxford and Manchester) or the waving of arms at Edinburgh.

The free market think tank suggests that student unions should be refocussed on the key functions that benefit students with just four activities deserving of compulsory funding, proposing 15 solutions to address ineffectiveness, extremist activities, and lack of democratic legitimacy in the student union system, including:

• splitting a student union into social activities, a sports association, and an academic council, elected through a system of class and faculty representatives rather than centrally;

• limiting funding from university grants to social, recreational and entertainment activities; student societies; sports; and academic representation.

• making student societies independent from unions and directly supported by universities and members;

• returning excess funds to students;

• allowing establishment of broader student representative councils, but with voluntary membership and without compulsory student funding;

• preventing pass-through funding of student or taxpayer money to national bodies, like the NUS; 

• not allowing student bodies to limit freedom of expression; and strengthening provisions in law to prevent universities from limiting freedom of expression, including by using procedural mechanisms to frustrate freedom of expression or passing along security costs to student societies.

Report author Max Young:

“For too long, a tiny minority of extremists have imposed their will on the student body. The reforms we propose, by depoliticising student unions, will make universities much more pleasant and productive places to study. Free of censorship and aggressive hectoring, students will be able to get on with enjoying the university experience and sharing ideas freely.

Foreword author Robert Halfon MP, Chair, House of Commons Education Committee:

“Across our universities and colleges, far too often, freedom of expression and intellectual curiosity on campus are being deeply eroded because of minority political activism.

“The range of policy proposals set out in this report deserves careful consideration. The suggestion that the old Scottish approach of split functions could provide a useful model is certainly an intriguing one. By making the political part of student unions voluntary, ordinary students would no longer be required to finance political activities of which they did not approve. At the same time, resources could be focussed on those functions that students do appreciate, such as decent social and recreational facilities, better student sports, and more effective academic representation.

“These are interesting ideas and certainly worthy of further debate.”

Sajid Javid MP:

“British universities are meant to be places of open debate and intellectual freedom. Their proud tradition of liberalism is foundational for bringing students into contact with new and challenging ideas.

“That tradition is under threat. In Student Unions across the UK, an intolerant minority is seeking to silence those they disagree with under the banner of no-platforming and safe spaces. Their campaign of censorship is an assault on one of our most precious and fundamental rights – freedom of speech.

“Championing students by protecting legal free speech should be one of the higher education sector’s top priorities. I’m pleased the Adam Smith Institute has chosen to focus on this important issue.”

Andrew Lewer MP:

"Having served as a university governor for nine years, I am particularly interested to read this thought provoking report on reform of Student Unions. Although some SUs are relatively benign, many others are not and this Report both explains how this can come about under the current rules and puts forward some stimulating proposals for improvement. Identity politics, 'woke' and 'cancel culture' represent serious threats to our freedoms as a nation and taking them on must be taken equally seriously."

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.

Internal Market empowers British consumers

With the Internal Market Bill being placed before Parliament today (Wednesday 9th September 2020), Matt Kilcoyne Deputy Director of the Adam Smith Institute says:

"It is right that if the United Kingdom is to continue to allow its consumers to access goods and services from all parts without impediment. 

"The UK is a single nation state, and it deserves an internal market that promotes free trade. It is not the remit of the devolved administrations to kowtow to Welsh and Scottish nationalists by putting up barriers to trade between the British peoples."

"Mutual recognition means all devolved administrations are treated with equal respect as Westminster but that it is ultimately consumers that will have the final say over the standards they accept."

For further comment or to arrange an interview please contact Matt on 07904099599 or email matt@adamsmith.org

Australian Senator calls for free movement with UK & CANZUK

• UK and Australia should allow free movement for those with an offer of study or work says Senator James Paterson.

• Australia-UK free trade agreement should contain mutual recognition of standards and occupational qualifications.

• Base UK agreement on Australia’s existing CER and TTTA with New Zealand

• Should commit to a broader CANZUK deal between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK.

• 80% more Brits live in CANZUK states than across the whole of the neighbouring EU. 1.2 million Brits live in Australia alone. 

• High support across all four states with recent polling showing majority support in New Zealand (82%) Canada (76%) and Australia (73%), with 68% support in the UK.

Senator James Paterson argues, in a new report released by the Adam Smith Institute today, that the UK and Australia should commit to removing barriers to working and living in each other’s countries as part of the ongoing Free Trade Agreement negotiations.

Australia will welcome the return of a global Britain, the senator says, noting that Australia and the UK share unparalleled historical, cultural, legal and familial ties dating back to 1788. These ties have been “strengthened through friendly rivalries on the sporting field and shared adversity on the battlefield.”

The Australian senator, writing for the think tank named after the British ‘apostle of free trade’ Adam Smith, says that the Australia-UK free trade agreement should contain mutual recognition of standards and occupations. Mutual recognition would allow goods to be sold in our respective countries regardless of differences in standards and regulations based on a presumption of trust and similar goals of safety and quality for consumers in each country. Recognition of qualifications would allow individuals to practice an equivalent occupation such as nursing or teaching without undertaking costly new exams or spending years acquiring duplicate qualifications.

Australia already has an agreement like this in place with its nearest neighbour. The free market think tank says that the forthcoming UK-Australia relationship should be modelled on the existing Australia-New Zealand agreements: the Closer Economic Relations (CER) agreement that provides a deep economic relationship through mutual recognition and the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement (TTTA) that provides the ability to work, live and study across the antipodean countries. The free market think tanks says that that the UK-Australia free trade agreement should allow Australian and UK citizens to easily obtain visas when they have job offers to match this existing liberal arrangement.

Australia is certainly a popular destination for Brits. In fact, the country has been the top destination for British citizens to migrate to for 40 of the past 43 years. At the time of the 2016 Census, there were over 1.2 million Australian residents born in the UK – almost 5 per cent of the Australian population. More Britons live down under than in the entirety of the EU. 

In return, there were 142,000 Australian-born residents in the UK in 2018, although the popularity of the UK as a destination for Australians has been in decline since extra visa fees, caps on employer sponsored visas, salary thresholds, more restrictions on unskilled migrant workers, and the NHS surcharge were introduced.As a result the number Australians allowed to stay in the UK indefinitely has declined markedly, falling by 71 per cent between 2013 and 2016.

The UK is currently Australia’s seventh largest two-way trading partner, with trade in goods and services of AU $30.3 billion. And as Australia’s second largest source of foreign investment, the UK contributes 18 per cent of Australia’s total foreign investment. A third of all Australian wine ends up in the UK market, making up one in five bottles sold in Britain.

Senator Paterson and the Adam Smith Institute say that by replicating the CER and Trans Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement for the future trading relationship with the UK could provide the basis for a broader CANZUK agreement in future involving the commonwealth countries of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. The four modern diverse liberal democracies are united by a shared head of state, history, common values, and institutional ties of unparalleled strength.

Australia, New Zealand and Canada are all preparing to sign free trade agreements with the UK once the EU-transition period ends and the free market think tank says that the four developed-world liberal diverse modern democracies’ shared commitment to liberal values and the rules-based international order make them perfect candidates for a high-trust mutual recognition agreement. 

CANZUK has been growing in popularity in recent years across the four territories with it official policy of the opposition Canadian Conservatives, supported by New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters and the Opposition National Party, previously backed by UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson (who spoke in praise of the idea at the launch of a paper at the Henry Jackson Society advocating the policy), and senior politicians like Senator Paterson in Australia. 

Polls have consistently shown the idea is very favourably received in each of the states, with a recent poll for CANZUK International (based in Canada) showing support is highest in New Zealand, with 82 per cent in favour of the proposal, Canada and

Australia follow with 76 per cent and 73 per cent support, and 68 per cent support the proposal in the UK. Over 300,000 people from the four states have signed a joint petition to encourage governments to commit to the idea. 

Senator James Paterson, and author of the report, said:

“The Australia-UK free trade agreement should eliminate barriers to trade like tariffs and quotas, and include generous provisions for visa-free travel. 

“But it should also provide the long term basis for stronger economic cooperation between like-minded nations in uncertain times. 

“Countries like Australia and the UK which share values and unmatched historical, legal and cultural ties can help secure each other’s freedom and prosperity by working closer together. 

“In the long term, a free trade, free movement block consisting of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK is an attractive idea in a dangerous world.”

Matt Kilcoyne, Deputy Director of the Adam Smith Institute, said:

"Four years after voting to the leave the EU, control of trade policy has returned to Britain. It’s only right that we use that power to bring down barriers with our closest friends. No matter the geographic distance, the links between the Australian and British peoples could not be closer. We have an historic chance to make it cheaper and easier to study, conduct business, and live our lives between our states. 

“Britain would do well to seize the chance to work with the modern diverse liberal democracies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, to set a new global gold standard of trade deal based on high trust, mutual recognition and respect. 

Despite being separated by oceans we’re kith and kin, and we need an arrangement that recognises how close we really are."

Notes to editors:  

For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Matt Kilcoyne: matt@adamsmith.org | 07904 099599.

The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, neoliberal think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.