Article
Much of the commentary in the British press on the Canada-US trade war has exposed a Brexit double standard.
In the years between the 2016 vote to leave the European Union and Britain’s eventual departure from the organisation in 2020, a debate raged in Britain as to precise nature of Britain’s new relationship with the EU. Effectively, the debate boiled down to a debate over the trade-offs between the political benefits of sovereignty and the economic benefits of free trade.
Many of those who voted Leave were prepared to accept a degree of increased trade friction with the EU in exchange for greater freedom over policies affecting the British public. The ‘take back control’ message of the referendum was essentially an argument for sovereignty, which Neil Kinnock defined in a 1975 essay supporting leaving the Common Market as ‘far from being something exercised by Edwardian gunboats , [it] is the real power of the people to control their destiny’.
But, for many on the Remain side of the argument, sovereignty was an illusory concept. What mattered were the economic benefits of exchange with the EU. Sovereignty was expendable. Increased economic outputs from lower trade barriers mattered above all that guff. The former Bank of England economist Danny Blanchflower memorably declared, ‘You can’t eat sovereignty’.
So, when it came to the Brexit negotiations, many commentators who had voted Remain took the view that the United Kingdom should do whatever necessary to retain frictionless trade with the EU. If that meant sacrificing sovereignty, it was an easy price to pay because national sovereignty, in this day and age, wasn’t real, anyway.
This attitude manifested itself in the terms of the 2018 Withdrawal Agreement, which would have placed the United Kingdom in a customs union with the EU, whereby Britain would be required to accept the EU’s external tariff policies, with little say on them. The British government would be prohibited from showing any preference to its domestic industries or pursuing economic policies which adversely affected EU economies. The UK would be a rule-taker, not a rule-maker, but that didn’t matter, we were told, because the economic benefits of trade with the EU were so important.
Ultimately, the Brexit deal that was agreed in 2019 only applied such conditions to Northern Ireland. Sensible commentators told us that it was absolutely essential that the United Kingdom internally divide itself in this way; otherwise, there could be violence. Throughout the UK-EU negotiations the spectre of political violence was raised as threat against the UK government should it seek to assert the territorial integrity of its own national boundaries.
So, how curious it is now to read the commentary from Remain-inclined commentators in the wake of the trade standoff between the US and Canada. The Trump administration has told Canada that in order to secure special, low-tariff access to US markets, it must accept the external tariffs which the US applies to other countries. Canada must also limit its ‘Buy Canadian’ practices. Trump has deployed all kinds of threats, attracting much criticism for his sabre-rattling.
The Canadian prime minister Mark Carney has stood firm. He has said these impositions go too far. To agree to an external tariff set by the United States would be to compromise an integral part of Canadian sovereignty. He refuses to accept American terms of the trade deal and will opt for erecting mutual tariff barriers on goods that had hitherto been items of free or low-tariff trade.
Carney has admitted, ‘we recognise that it will raise costs and reduce choice for Canadians’. But, he has taken the view that protecting key aspects of Canada’s policy autonomy is more important than lower consumer goods and less red tape with the US, its largest trading partner. Polls show the Canadian public support him.
These arguments may strike some British observers as rather interesting given he appeared to take a different view when he was Governor of the Bank of England. Likewise, commentators who once suggested that ‘sovereignty’ was some kind of right-wing delusional fantasy are now praising Carney for standing up for Canadian sovereignty against the United States.
Many such examples can be found in the Guardian. Jonathan Freedland once denounced British Leavers’ as suffering from a ‘sovereignty delusion’ but has praised Carney’s ‘defiant patriotism’ against Trump. Rafael Behr diagnosed a ‘syndrome: a Brexit model that makes a sacred principle of sovereignty’ from which the gains were ‘nil, while the costs are mounting’. He has since denounced the Trump administration’s ‘protection racket. The price is paid in sovereignty’. Yesterday, the Guardian leader heaped praise on Canada for ‘fighting for its sovereignty while the US appears to be fighting for cheaper goods’.
This contrast suggests that some commentators have not been arguing from a point of principle but instead from a kind of motivated reasoning, depending on the ideological valence of the actors involved. The script across so much of the commentariat seems to be this: if the EU does something, it’s good and fine. Those who resist it are nasty or deluded. If the Trump administration does something, it is wicked and idiotic. Those who resist it are heroic and virtuous. The public debate deserves better arguments than this.
This article was first published on Unherd on 28 August 2026
