貿易 – ページ 31 – ワールドソルーションズLLC

Vol.13　パワーポリティクスの重要性（第５章－３）
　経常海外収支の考え方には二つのアプローチがある。第一に、貯蓄と投資のレベルの所産である。貯蓄余剰が経常海外余剰を産み、貯蓄と投資の差額の輸出をもたらす。貯蓄のマイナスは海外からの資本流入で補われる。第二に、投資収入からモノ・サービスへの純支払額を引くという考え方である。
　米国の投資勘定は、長期間の経済政策の転移を示している。1946年には、米国の為替勘定はGDP比3.9％に相当する黒字を計上し、貿易収支は67億ドルの黒字、サービス貿易収支は10億ドルの黒字を計上した。その後の30年間、米国は、全世界に投資を続け、また、西欧と日本の地域経済の構造を変えた。その結果、固定為替制いわゆるブレトンウッズ体制が崩壊した1971年には、総累積で、米国の為替勘定はGDP比0.1％に相当する赤字を計上し、貿易収支は23億ドルの赤字、サービス貿易収支は少し黒字、投資勘定収支は73億ドルの黒字を計上した。更に1985年には、巨大財政赤字と緊縮通貨政策の下で急激な米ドル高となり、為替勘定でGDP比2.8％・1182億ドルの赤字、投資勘定収支は257億ドルの黒字を計上した。借り入れブーム最終期の21世紀初頭には、米国は、政府が拠出しているファニーメイやフレディマックのモーゲージ債への資本流入を大量に得ており、2008年には中国やロシアなどの外国人による購入は累積で1兆3000億ドルを計上した。

あくまで参考
The Current Acccount vs the Trade Deficit | @gregmankiwblog
Current Account Deficits: Is There a Problem? | Atish Ghosh & Uma Ramakrishnan @IMFNews
Financial Globalization and the U.S. Current Account Deficit (PDF) | Matthew Higgins & Thomas Klitgaard @NewYorkFed
The Role of Savings and Investment in Balancing the Current Account: Some Empirical Evidence from the United States (PDF) | Giovanni P. Olivei @BostonFed
Foreign Bondholders – and not the U.S. Mortgage Market – Drove the Fannie/Freddie Bailout | WILLIAM PATALON III @moneymorning
Russia’s Financial Crisis: Economic Setbacks and Policy Responses | @SIPA

U.S.A. アメリカ Vol.3（1st US Presidential Debate 9/26/2016 ー米国大統領選挙テレビ討論会）

All the below links are in English. Excerpts are on our own.

1960年（参考：1st Kennedy-Nixon debate (YouTube)）や1980年には選挙の帰趨を決したとも言われるのが、 Presidential Debate です。標記第１回（於：@HofstraU）の内容に関する記事の抜粋等を取り急ぎ以下貼っておきます。

Trump And Clinton Sounded As If They Were Talking About Two Different Countries | @bencasselman @fivethirtyeight
Trade
… U.S. manufacturing employment has been hit by automation as much as by globalization, and most economists think trade with China has had a much bigger impact on the economy than NAFTA. …
… But in recent years, research has found that the negative effects of trade — lost jobs, lower wages — last longer than previously believed. Economists once thought that Rust Belt communities, or at least their residents, would rebound quickly from the loss of factory jobs; that hasn’t happened. …
Taxes
… On Monday, however, Trump largely abandoned his populist rhetoric on taxes and instead embraced more traditional Republican talking points: Cutting taxes, including on the rich, he argued, will lead them to invest more in companies and create jobs, while lowering and restructuring corporate taxes will encourage businesses to bring back money stashed overseas. Many economists agree that, all else equal, lowering taxes will tend to boost economic growth. But few believe Trump’s plan would deliver as much of an economic boost as he claims. …
Crime and policing
… The candidates offered different policy approaches: Trump called for more aggressive policing, singling out New York’s abandoning of its “stop-and-frisk” policy under Mayor Bill de Blasio. Trump said the controversial policy worked; Clinton said it discriminated against minority residents. (Holt pointed out that the policy had been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge; Trump said the ruling would have been reversed if it had been appealed.) Clinton instead called for gun restrictions, including universal background checks (which research has suggested could help reduce gun killings) and broader criminal justice reform, including abandoning mandatory-minimum sentences, which she said “have put too many people away for too long, for doing too little.” …

Presidential fireworks: The verdict | David Ribar @MelbInstUOM, @LaurenRosewarne @unimelb, James Cahill @Government_UoM; @electionwatch_, Election Watch USA
POLICY
… It was also a surprisingly effective policy battle – though fought using completely different tactics by the two candidates.
Viewers who wanted policy details got heaps of information from Clinton, who offered a comprehensive list of initiatives to grow the American economy, improve outcomes for the country’s middle class, strengthen policing, heal race relations, address the problems of America’s inner cities, counter cyber vulnerabilities, and fight ISIS.
…
… Trump’s strategy, however, wasn’t to offer policy specifics but rather to discredit Clinton’s and thereby discredit her. In this regard, Trump’s responses were nothing to sniff about – though sniff and sniffle he did. In every segment of the debate Trump emphasised the country’s problems – job losses, rising murder rates, and increasing threats at home and abroad.
Trump followed this litany of woe with effective criticisms of the failure of politicians generally, and of President Barack Obama and Clinton specifically, to address these problems. He repeatedly asked Clinton why she didn’t fix these problems during her long years of service. Trump clearly played to his strengths as an outsider. …
PERCEPTION
For the first couple of moments, Trump’s tone was under control. Clinton’s was shaky, her sentences over-rehearsed. Initially he accomplished a natural, off-the-cuff persona. She was stiff and awkward. …
… He went so far as to pat himself on the back for not saying “something extremely rough to Hillary”, all the while being unable to resist the siren’s call of fat-shaming – apparently the cyber attack on the Democratic National Committee could have been “someone sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,” and, hilariously, the tried and true ‘you-love-it-so-much-why-don’t-you-marry-it’ schoolyard zinger of “the Iran deal that you’re so in love with”. …
POLITICS
… Forced to answer, I’d say Clinton, but this was no knockout. Her performance will likely help her make some progress with her intended audiences – moderate Republicans uncomfortable with Trump and wavering young Democrats. Trump largely stuck to his standard message and it would be unlikely if he won over many voters not already in his camp. …
… Strategically, I don’t think this debate will help Trump move beyond his apparent polling ceiling of roughly 43-44%. The part of the Republican voting coalition that is most resistant to Trump’s candidacy are college-educated, white, married women. Over-reliance on his well-known material and repeatedly interrupting Clinton are not likely to change the minds of many of these voters. …

Damned by Faint Trump | @KoriSchake @ForeignPolicy
– Last night’s debate was nothing to crow about on either side, but Hillary Clinton definitely got the better of her rival.
… But it wasn’t horrible — it had substantive moments — and that’s noteworthy this election cycle. Hillary Clinton lived up to her Saturday Night Live impersonation of shrewdness, came locked and loaded with oppo research on Donald Trump’s taxes, business practices, the name of a woman he demeaned, policy citations … and gave Trump all the rope he demanded to explain himself at length. She did some A+ trolling, chipping his vanity and counting on his inability to restrain himself. It was a successful strategy. Trump landed several solid blows but simply lacked the discipline to drive home the points (for example, on her emails). His insistence on his “temperament” as his best quality was refuted by his performance. …
… I thought she missed the chance to bash Trump about his Russian connections. Her policy recommendations are also pretty weak: declaring we won’t permit states to target our private or government information, and that we have tools we could use and will defend our citizens. She seems innocent of the hostility most tech firms have toward Washington, breezily counting on working with them. …
Trump repeated much nonsense… claiming Iran was “ready to fall” before the nuclear agreement propped the government up, falsely claimed he convinced NATO to start looking at terrorism, weirdly claimed that “all of the things she is talking about could have been taken care of in the past 10 years when she had immense power.”
He revisited his standard complaints about America’s unaffordable alliance relationships, giving Clinton her best moment of the night as she spoke to reassure America’s allies that our country will honor our mutual defense treaties and can be trusted to keep its word. It pretty well defanged his claim that “she’s got experience, but it’s bad experience. And this country can’t afford to have another four years of that kind of experience.” …

Trump, Clinton debate fact-checks (a running collection) | @YLindaQiu @PolitiFact
Here are 33 claims from Clinton and Trump, fact-checked. …(17 claims as below)
Clinton: Trump’s tax plan would deliver “the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country.”
Clinton: “He started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father.”
Trump: “My father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and I built it into a company that’s worth many, many billions of dollars, with some of the greatest assets in the world.”
Clinton: “In fact, Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said, back in 2006, ‘Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money.’ Well, it did collapse.”
Clinton: “Independent experts have looked at what I’ve proposed and looked at what Donald’s proposed, and basically they’ve said this, that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion.”
Trump: The Obama administration “has doubled” the national debt in eight years.
Trump: “You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacturing is down 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent.”
Trump: “Now, look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression.”
Trump: “You will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the Federal Election Commission” to see the financial disclosure form than by looking at tax returns.
Clinton: “You’ve taken business bankruptcy six times.”
Clinton: “You even at one time suggested that you would try to negotiate down the national debt of the United States.”
Trump: “In Chicago, they’ve had thousands of shootings, thousands since January 1st. Thousands of shootings.”
Clinton: “Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination because he would not rent apartments in one of his developments to African-Americans.”
Trump: “I settled that lawsuit with no admission of guilt.”
Clinton: “I was so shocked when Donald publicly invited Putin to hack into Americans. That is just unacceptable.”
Clinton: “He actually advocated for the actions we took in Libya and urged that Gadhafi be taken out, after actually doing some business with him one time.”
Clinton: “John Kerry and President Obama got a deal that put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot.”

Clinton Prevails in Downer of a Debate | @amyewalter @CookPolitical

Producing “The Choice” – Frontline’s Documentary on the 2016 Presidential Candidates (Soundcloud) | @DukeSanford

Many Young Voters Remain On The Fence After First Debate (w radio) | @asmamk @NPR

Poll: Clinton Leads Trump Ahead of First Debate | @mmurraypolitics(9/21)

Debating the debates | @cpazzanese @Harvard Gazette(9/22)
– Harvard analysts ponder the upcoming presidential clashes, how viewers may react, and how the candidates might snare their votes

Polls: Clinton Running the Table in Key Battlegrounds | @mmurraypolitics(8/12)

New September Electoral College Ratings | @amyewalter @CookPolitical(9/23)

The Race Tightens But the Math Heavily Favors Clinton | @CharlieCookDC @CookPolitical(9/20)

World Vol.2（Troubled waters – the South China Sea）

Julian Lorkin’s interview with Shanghai-born Vic Edwards, a visiting fellow in the school of banking and finance at UNSW Business School and a part-time professorial visiting fellow at China Youth University of Political Studies in Beijing.

Troubled waters: Vic Edwards on the dispute in the South China Sea (w Video; August 17, 2016) | @JLorkin @UNSWbusiness
豪ニューサウスウェールズ大学や中国青年政治学院に籍を置く、上海生まれ中国系有識者のインタビュービデオ（上記link）抜粋・下線・抄訳です。

BusinessThink (@JLorkin): The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling at The Hague in July has been rather coolly received, at least in China. It deals with thorny issues [of historic rights and the source of maritime entitlements] in the South China Sea, through which much of the world’s trade passes.
The question is, should Australia be worried and should China be concerned, particularly as the Chinese economy starts to cool? Let’s start with what China is calling the nine-dash line. What is the historical basis for their claims?
Vic Edwards: … So the US switched their allegiances to Japan and managed to persuade Japan to come on the side of the US, even though they were deadly enemies before that. And that was on the basis that they would save the life of the emperor, Hirohito, who was a godlike character in Japan. So by offering that as an olive branch, so to speak, Japan came onside with the US and with Great Britain in 1952.
（… 殺し合う敵だったのにアメリカが日本を同盟国に引き入れることができたのは、日本で神格化されていた天皇ヒロヒトをアメリカが救ったからだ。…）
Over quite a long period there hasn’t been a great deal of difficulty and I think the position that China took was when you had the Permanent Court of Arbitration say that it wanted to arbitrate on the matter, China saw clearly that the international law of the sea, which they had interpreted as accepting their position of having the South China Sea, was therefore up for arbitration and dispute. Consequently, they decided not to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the UN and the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
（中国は本件で長期間大きな困難がなく、中国は国際海洋法条約が南シナ海を有するという中国の立場を受け入れると明快に分かったので、仲裁裁判へと進んだ。…）
Now, that might have been their weak point because the court would have said that they were in fact subject to the jurisdiction of The Hague, whereas they had decided to withdraw from it because they felt that their position had been misrepresented. It’s not that they’re without support. They do have about half a dozen to a dozen countries that would give them some support on the matter.
（… 中国の立場が反映されていないと感じているので取り下げようと決めたのに、ハーグの常設仲裁裁判所が本件の中国は裁判管轄権下にあると言いそうだった点が中国の弱点だったかもしれない。中国を支持する国は5、6から12くらいある。）
And they are asking Australia to be very careful about drawing any conclusions or trying to make a judgment about what China should do. So we have already had one or two statements from Australia that China should comply with international law and they have responded by saying Australia ought to be careful because while we do have an international agreement for trade, that can very easily be dismantled.
（中国はオーストラリアに、中国がどうすべきかに係る結論やなにがしかの判断をする際に、非常に注意深くあることを求めている。既にオーストラリアは中国が国際法を遵守するべきである旨の1、2の声明を出しており、これを受けて中国はオーストラリアに、非常に容易に廃棄され得る豪中貿易合意があるので、オーストラリアは注意深くあらねばならないと応えている。）

BusinessThink: It sounds as if Australia could be in a position of trying to calm down the situation. Indeed, Australia could actually just pour a little bit of oil on those very troubled waters?
Edwards: … So I think that that’s a very positive thing between Australia and China, but by the same token Australia also has a very strong allegiance to the US. So consequently, I think one of the problems that Australia has is that it may be doing the beckoning of the US.

I think one of the problems that Australia has is that it may be doing the beckoning of the US.

The US, you might notice, has not actually come out strongly and criticised China on this matter, not directly. There are a few minor officials that have done so but you haven’t found Barack Obama coming out. And I think one of the reasons is that America itself does not comply with the international law of the sea and in fact it has not submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the UN here so it would be quite hypocritical if they were to criticise China in that position.
（お気付きかもしれないが、アメリカは実際本件について強く出たり中国を批判したりしていない。… アメリカ自体が国際海洋法条約を批准していないことがその理由の一つであると思う。アメリカは海洋について国連の裁判管轄権下にない。だから、アメリカが中国を批判すると、かなり偽善的となろう。）

BusinessThink: It’s a dangerous game to be playing, particularly as so much of the world’s trade goes through those areas. And we’ve seen, since the judgment, that a lot of people are quite concerned about what the possible outcomes could be. What would be the implications if, say, world trade was disrupted?
Edwards: … They’re saying that they’re not going to stop trade, they’re not going to stop fishing, they’re not going to stop peaceful planes from flying over the South China Sea. That will be continued just as it has been since 1948.

BusinessThink: Also in the area we’ve got Japan which has previously been – let’s call them neutral for the sake of a better word – for many, many years since World War II. But now, of course, we’ve got the rise of a much more dominant Japan. Could that throw a spanner in the works?
Edwards: Well, that would be something that could be an undesirable eventuality. Japan has been peaceful because part of the 1952 agreement with the US and the UK was that Japan would not under any circumstances have any armaments, would not have an army, navy or air force. Now, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has recently suggested that Japan needs to go back to a more defensive footing. Part of his excuse is China’s perceived aggression – and he may have some argument there.
（… 日本が平和的であったのは、1952年の米英との合意により、日本は非武装で陸軍海軍空軍いずれも持たないこととされたからだ。安倍晋三首相は、最近、日本はもっと国防に力を入れる軸足に立ち戻らねばならないと示唆している。その言い訳の一つは、認識されている中国の武力侵略である。…）
However, he has just recently got a majority in the Upper House – I think he’s even got his two-thirds majority – so he can in fact form an army, navy and air force. And he has said that he would like to form at least the army and perhaps the navy before 2018, which is the end of his term. So we won’t know what will happen then, but I would hope that nothing would happen in terms of having armaments, having any sort of warfare, having any sort of skirmishes. I don’t think that would be helpful to anyone and I really think it would be a lose/lose situation all round.
（しかし、彼はつい最近参議院で過半数を得てしまった。三分の二の賛成も得ると思う。そうすると、陸軍海軍空軍を創ってしまう。そして、彼曰く、自分の任期が終わる2018年より前に、少なくとも陸軍は創りたい、多分海軍もということである。武装や交戦、小競り合いはあって欲しくない。誰にとっても得でないルーズ=ルーズ状態だからだ。）

BusinessThink: All this controversy is happening just as the Chinese economy is slowing. What’s happening there?
Edwards: Well, I think we’ve had the global financial crisis; that’s one of the main factors that’s occurring. And also China is trying to transition from being an export-oriented economy to a consumption economy. Those two factors were always felt to slow down China and China had planned on transitioning from about 11.5% growth rate to about 7.5 % growth rate. But currently it’s running at around about 6.7%, so it’s a little bit under what it has planned for.
I think we should see it in perspective. That 6.7% is about twice as much as any other economy in the world and of course China is the big growth factor in the world.
（世界金融危機と、中国の貿易(外需)依存型経済から消費(内需)依存型経済への移行が、中国の経済成長を鈍化させている。目標成長率を11.5％から7.5％に下げているが、今の成長率はそれに少し足りない6.7％となっている。）

Without China, the whole world would probably slump into another recession.

So what China feels should be done is that countries such as the US and the EU should try to pick up their demand for things. And as recently as two weeks ago, the G20 countries agreed that they would try to improve demand. But they didn’t have any specific targets to meet so I’m not sure whether they will do very much.
（… G20は具体的な達成目標を示さなかったので、成果があったかどうか分からない。）
The US also is at present concerned about its trade with China, about the outsourcing of jobs to China, and particularly with Donald Trump [saying] he would like to not have any outsourcing and he would like to have local employment, etc, in the US. So the outlook is not great. China is still saying that it will meet its 6.5% to 7% target and it is endeavouring to do so, but I think that they will have a little bit of difficulty, but they will still be well above the world’s norm of around about 3.5%.
（… ドナルド・トランプは中国に雇用をアウトソーシングさせず、アメリカ国内のローカルな雇用を生むようにしたがっている。そうすると、中国経済の見通しは良くない。中国は引き続き6.5％から7％という目標を達成すべく努力するが、少々難しく、それでも世界平均を充分上回る3.5％程度の成長に落ち着くと見ている。）
So Australia can still see that it will do well. In fact, in such things as coal, minerals, iron ore and agricultural produce, demand from China has picked up. But of course the prices are lower, so we don’t get quite the same bang that we used to.

ツイッター paper.li Vol.7

All the below links are in English.

弊社ツイッターアカウントの一つ @WSjp_insight のRTによる paper.li 掲載記事６件を貼っておきます。

Seattle’s Icicle Seafoods to be sold to Canadian aquaculture giant | @seattletimes

WSjp Australia Vol.4: @RBAInfo Bulletin June Quarter 2016 – Household Wealth, Manufacturing

Australia has moved 1.5 metres in 20 years and GPS can’t keep up | @keithbreene @wef

Melbourne researchers say they’ve developed a method of growing & implanting cornea cells | @abcnewsMelb

Why London won’t lose its crown as Europe’s financial capital | @CapX

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the United States | @SelectUSA

ツイッター paper.li Vol.6

All the below links are in English.

弊社ツイッターアカウントの一つ @WSjp_insight のRTによる paper.li 掲載記事５件を貼っておきます。

@RBAInfo Bulletin June Quarter 2016 | @WSjp_insight

A new trade commission has warned the UK to treat China with “kid gloves”, and focus on attempts to secure deals with countries with “similar values” | @MkSands @CityAM

Spain’s Northern Coast by Private Rail | @ffdunlop @NatGeo

LifeSciences grant: 2016 Laureates #iGEM | @FranceScience

Franz Ferdinand, Whose Assassination Sparked a World War | @DSlotnik @nytimesworld

U.K. イギリス Vol.9（Brexit Vol.8: Japan’s Message to UK & EU 日本要望書）

(The below two links are in English, and the last one in Japanese.)

さて、当サイトでも今後、随時、Brexit につき情報をアップして参ります。
本日は、@ChathamHouse 関係の記事 Japan Lays Out a Guide to Brexit (6 September 2016) | Sir David Warren @CHAsiaProg（’日本がイギリスＥＵ離脱の手引きを示す’）本文と抄訳をご紹介します。

– Britain would do well to embrace Tokyo’s constructive criticism as it prepares for life outside the EU.（ＥＵ域外での生き方を準備している日本の建設的な批判を、イギリスは包み込んで受け容れてうまくやっていける）

The Japanese government paper on the implications of Brexit released on 2 September has been described in the UK media as an ‘unprecedented’ and ‘dire’ warning, a ‘stark’ threat, and dismissed as ‘doom-mongering’. In reality, it is a carefully-argued and very detailed analysis of the areas of Brexit-related concern to the thousands of Japanese companies in the UK, and those aspects of the current business environment that they want to preserve in the forthcoming negotiations. Setting out the Japanese stall in this way risks annoying British negotiators with the responsibility of finding their way through the minefield of agreeing the terms of Britain’s divorce from Europe. But the Japanese analysis, used constructively, is an important guide to what really matters in ensuring that a post-Brexit UK is not only ‘open for business’, but a country that the world’s major investors want to do business with.
（9月2日に公表されたイギリスＥＵ離脱に係る日本政府の要望書(下記参考英文)は、’前代未聞’で’切迫した’警告であり’正真正銘’の脅しであるとイギリスのメディアでは伝えられており、’恐怖を利用した’と切り捨てられている。しかし、日本の要望書は、イギリスＥＵ離脱に係るイギリス国内の千単位の日本企業にとっての懸念について、また、今後の離脱交渉において日本企業にとって維持されたい現在の企業活動環境について、注意深く議論されまた非常に詳細に分析したものである。… 建設的に使えば、離脱後のイギリスが’企業活動にとって動き易い’のみならず世界の主な投資者が企業活動をしたい国であることを確保するのに真に問題となる事柄についての重要な手引きである。）

The paper is couched in terms of cooperation and partnership. Japanese inward investment into the UK has been one of the major industrial success stories of the last 40 years, with the 1984 decision of Nissan to build its car plant at Sunderland the turning point. The Japanese government and Japanese companies want to preserve this post-Brexit. But that means keeping radical changes to the current environment that might emerge from the Brexit talks to a minimum. Specifically, the Japanese want, among other things, to maintain current tariff rates and customs procedures, access to skills (including from within the EU), the current provision of financial services (50 per cent of the value of British manufactured goods is accounted for by services), the current arrangements for information protection and data exchange, unified intellectual property protection, harmonized standards and regulations, and access to the EU R&D budget and joint programmes. These requests are aimed at EU negotiators as well as at the UK. A 10-page annex goes into even more detail, sector by sector.
（… とりわけ日本が望むのは、関税率、税関手続き、ＥＵ域内も含めた人材へのアクセス、金融サービス条項、情報保護及び… →下記参考(日本語PDF3頁等)をご覧ください）

The context of these requests is not just concern about Brexit. The paper makes clear that leading the free-trade system remains a responsibility shared by Japan, the UK and the EU. The Japanese government are nervously watching the US presidential election, with Donald Trump openly adopting a protectionist line and Hillary Clinton now opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal; they will also have been concerned at suggestions from European politicians that the US−EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) may fail. Hence their statement – echoed by President Obama at the G20 in Hangzhou in his remarks on TTIP – that the priority must be to finalize the EU−Japan Economic Partnership Agreement this year. A post-Brexit UK−EU relationship that erects protectionist walls would, in Japan’s view, be a disaster for everyone. The arguments in the paper are about preserving the health of the global economy.
（要望書はイギリスＥＵ離脱への懸念を示しているだけではない。引き続き自由貿易をリードしていくことが日英欧において共有される責任であることが明確にされている。日本政府はアメリカ大統領選挙を神経質に見守っている。…）

And Japan calls for early clarity and transparency on the difficult issues. The paper argues that uncertainty causes volatility, and warns against the negotiating process producing ‘unpleasant surprises’. This advice may be unwelcome to UK politicians and negotiators who have to work out how to trade off being part of the single market with the need to restrict freedom of movement. This is a political dilemma that needs to be unravelled slowly; Britain’s economic partners’ need for early clarity runs directly counter to the politics which Prime Minister Theresa May and her cabinet have to manage over the coming months.
（そして日本は、難しい案件につき早期の明確化及び透明性を求めている。不確実性が市場の急激な変動を引き起こすと述べ、また、交渉過程が’嬉しくないサプライズ’をもたらすことを警告している。このアドバイスは、単一市場の一部であることと移動の自由を制限することの折り合いをいかに付けるかに尽力せねばならない政治家や交渉者からは、歓迎されないものかもしれない。これは、ゆっくりほどけて行かざるを得ない政治的ジレンマなのであるから。…）

The paper observes that ‘Japan respects the will of the British people as demonstrated in the referendum’ and express confidence that ‘the UK and the EU will overcome . . . difficulties and lay the foundations for the creation of a new Europe’. Nonetheless, the menu of requests is challenging and almost certainly impossible to fulfil in its entirety, if, as the prime minister has said, ‘Brexit means Brexit’. But it is a guide to what foreign businesses, attracted to the UK by successive governments with the promise of being inside the single market in an EU member state committed to further trade liberalization, want from the new arrangements.
（要望書では、’日本はイギリス国民の投票の意思を尊重する’と述べられ、また … にもかかわらず … しかし、これは、外国企業がイギリスの今後の交渉過程において整えてもらいたいことに係る手引きなのである。…）

In that sense, it should also lift the level of current discussion on trade and investment relations away from the zero-sum political arguments during the referendum campaign – ‘being part of Europe’ versus ‘free trade agreements with the rest of the world’. Japan is saying, very clearly, that it is not an either/or choice. If the UK is to remain one of the world’s largest and most powerful economies – which, however much it is talked down in Britain, it still is – it is going to have to have a relationship with the EU that attracts foreign investors. After all, as the paper also makes clear, they have a choice where to invest. It does not have to be the UK.
（この意味では、この要望書は、国民投票キャンペーンで展開されたゼロサムの政治的議論ー’欧州の一部’か’欧州以外の世界各国との自由貿易’かーから、貿易や投資の関係に係る議論のレベルを高めるものである。日本は、非常にはっきりと、どちらかを選ぶ選択ではない、と言っている。もしイギリスが世界で最大最強の経済の一つであり続けるならば、外国投資家を惹き付けるイギリスとＥＵとの関係を持っているであろう。結局、要望書がこれまた明確にしているように、どこに投資するかの選択の自由があるということである。イギリスへ投資しなければならない、ということではない。）

参考
Japan’s Message to the United Kingdom and the European Union (PDF)
英国及びＥＵへの日本からのメッセージ（PDF、日本語）