Credit: Original article can be found here
Research by Barclays Corporate Banking has found that with further trade deals on the horizon, British firms could add value to their businesses by boosting exports to nations where British products are desirable. In a global survey of 10,000 people, respondents were asked how much extra they would be willing to pay if products such as food and drink, clothing and cars featured a Union Jack stamp. On average, Indian respondents said they would pay 11.8 percent more for British products.
Other nations willing to pay a premium for products bearing a “Made in Britain” stamp include South Africa, the US and the United Arab Emirates – each willing to offer 9.6 percent, 10.4 percent and 10.9 percent in gross premiums respectively.
The world’s most populous countries, China and India, also singled out UK-made products as being of higher quality.
Among products, consumers showed particular interest in are general food products, alcoholic beverages, soft, fashion items, automotive products and homeware.
Welsh lamb and Scottish shortbread top the cravings of international consumers, who said they would be willing to pay higher premiums at a price of 11.7 percent.
The Barclays report has suggested a number of potential trading partners for UK businesses to capitalise on, all of which are already making the largest contributions to UK exports.
These include the US at £1.2bn, China at £313m and France at £543m.
Global head of trade at Barclays Corporate James Binns said UK-made products are still held in high regard around the world.
He said: “Consumers perceive British goods as being value for money. Not only because of quality, but longevity, innovation and craftsmanship.”
Mr Binns also said further free-trade deals would help secure more exports for UK businesses.
He added: “Trade deals are vital and as we are seeing already, companies will pay a reduced duty when their products arrive in other countries. Free trade simplifies cross border access making the markets more accessible.”
Last month, Britain formally applied to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), with negotiations set to start later this year.
Since leaving the EU, Britain has made clear its desire to join the trade bloc, which removes most tariffs between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said in a statement: “One year after our departure for the EU we are forging new partnerships that will bring enormous economic benefits for the people of Britain.”
International Trade Secretary Liz Truss believes membership of the partnership would boost trade that was worth £111billion last year and has been growing 8 percent per year since the UK voted to leave the EU in 2016.
Ms Truss argued membership will “complement” existing free trade agreements between the UK and countries including Japan, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Vietnam, which were “rolled over” from previous EU deals.
Speaking to the BBC, Ms Truss declined to say what effect CPTPP membership would have on the UK economy but she insisted the Pacific region was important as a centre of “future growth”.
Brexiteers hailed the move as proving the future success of Global Britain is outside Europe.
Northwest Leicestershire MP Andrew Bridgen said: “We don’t need the EU any more.
“This just confirms the massive opportunities Brexit is already bringing to this country.”
Dutch referendum voters rejected closer EU links to Ukraine [INSIGHT]
EU accused of being in breach of international law over fish quotas [REVEALED]
Merkel on brink as German lawyer predicts election chaos [ANALYSIS]
Australian Liberal Party Senator Eric Abetz told Express.co.uk there is no reason why Britain could not join the CPTPP in the immediate future.
He said: “I couldn’t see a reason why Britain shouldn’t, couldn’t or wouldn’t be part of it.
“Let’s hope they get excited by that prospect.
“It would be a real enhancement for the UK and for all the other members of the partnership.”
When asked whether Britain’s entry might make it easier for a future US administration to come back to the partnership, Mr Abetz said: “That is a possibility.
“They seem to have issues with major trade agreements, they want to maintain their flexibility and independence.
“But the more we can engage the UK in world affairs, as a separate entity, the better it will be for everyone.”