THE Prime Minister claims “we chose to build a truly Global Britain” where we’ll be “one of the firmest advocates for free trade anywhere in the world”.
But what does that actually mean? Free trade means that our businesses will be able to sell their products abroad, without restrictive standards or tariffs. That sounds good. However, free trade works both ways and the countries with which we have trade deals will also be able to sell their products to us on the same terms.
There are two problems with this: First, countries exporting to the UK may have lower product standards than us – for example, food may contain unacceptably high levels of pesticides, hormones or antibiotics. Second, they may pay their workers much less than we pay ours, and have much lower workers’ rights (like paid holidays and maternity leave), animal welfare standards and environmental standards than ours.
This second point means our own more highly-regulated industries with better-paid workers will be uncompetitive. This is why our previously important steel and ship-building towns have lost their businesses and jobs.
So why do we want free trade? Economists would answer that it means more of us are “richer” in terms of what we can buy – things are cheaper. 
When Goodyear decides to shut a factory in Wolverhampton and to open one in Mexico (which is happening right now), it does this as it is clearly much cheaper to produce tyres in Mexico. 
Not only will Goodyear shareholders benefit from better profits, but tyres should become slightly cheaper worldwide, saving perhaps millions of people a few pence per tyre. But that’s no good to an unemployed Wolverhampton worker or the shops and businesses where he or she used to spend their wages.
So what is the answer to these free trade problems? 
We want the benefits (being richer), but we don’t want to lose jobs or downgrade worker and environmental standards. 
One answer is to set environmental and worker standards across the free-trade area with elected officials managing them; a transparent tribunal process to adjudicate on any disputes; and giving regions suffering from changing trade patterns funds for development.
Sound familiar? That’s just what the EU was set up to do. 
Unfortunately, more recent trade agreements have proposed unaccountable tribunals that will work behind closed doors. 
These will be able to impose huge fines on democratically-elected governments if they tighten regulations – for example, safety standards. 
This is not, I believe, what people who voted for “taking back control” had in mind.
Mrs May noted that the referendum vote was a good moment “to step back and ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be”. 
I agree. I’d like our country to have thriving local economies with high standards for workers and the environment, and where the vulnerable are well cared for – which is what Green Party policies would achieve. 
Did voters, leave or remain, really vote for a “truly Global Britain” or were they voting to protect British jobs and standards from more competition?
EMMA DAWNAY
Chairman/co-ordinator
Devizes Green Party
Wexcombe
Marlborough