Resources

What a democratic UK trade policy after Brexit would look like

Much more wealth is leaving the world’s most impoverished continent than is entering it, according to new research into total financial flows into and out of Africa.

No US president has aroused the same level of global public outrage before even occupying the White House as Donald Trump.

A free trade deal between the US and the UK is likely to include all the elements that made the earlier trade negotiations between the EU and the US on TTIP so controversial, but in a more extreme form – TTIP on steroids.

Could there be trade deals any worse than the toxic ones like TTIP and CETA, recently negotiated between the EU and other countries? Unfortunately, we think there could be, and what’s more, it is likely to be the UK government, post-Brexit who will be negotiating them. Already, there is talk of a US-UK trade deal. And this month, trade secretary Liam Fox has been meeting Commonwealth nations to talk about other trade deals – a meeting dubbed ‘Empire 2.0’ by Whitehall officials.

Small farmers feed the majority of the world’s population, yet they are experiencing escalating levels of violence and oppression. Their existence, livelihoods, and communities are threatened by the expansion of global agribusiness, which is grabbing their lands and destroying the environment they rely on for food production.

In the wake of Brexit our agricultural policy is suddenly up for grabs. Since 1973, the UK farming sector has been shaped by the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its subsidies. 

Drug resistant bacteria are spreading across the world, threatening to turn previously treatable diseases into deadly killers. A big part of the problem is that the production and much of the use of antibiotics is in the hands of large corporations that seek profit over the wellbeing of people.but they will also be the first and hardest hit as cheaper forms of antibiotics become ineffective

Our new briefing reviews recent CDC investments and shows how serious questions remain about its impact on poverty reduction. It shows that there is still little evidence to support its current development impact claims which are largely based on assumptions – rather than proof. It argues that dramatically increasing its size and influence is a premature and potentially dangerous move.