If you’re a remainer, if you’re for an open Britain, if you’re a liberal, there’s little to cheer in Jeremy Corbyn’s latest policy announcement; helping firms make the most of the “opportunities” of Brexit by ending a “reliance on overseas workers” and returning government contracts to the UK from overseas, seemingly without any concern as to the costs.

If there are any opportunities in the UK leaving the European Union, which appears increasingly doubtful, they are certainly not to be found in either the scapegoating of migrants or economic protectionism. The language of Jeremy Corbyn in his speech was more befitting of Donald Trump’s “America first” agenda than that of the leader of the UK’s largest so-called ‘progressive’ party.

As Liberals, we not only understand the benefits of the free movement of people, but also of free trade. Free trade provides a greater choice of goods for UK consumers at more competitive prices, and provides UK exporters with the opportunity to do more business abroad. As noted in Liberal Democrat Newswire recently, Liberals have also had a long tradition of backing free trade “as an engine of peace, building links between nations and promoting a cooperative rather than a military interventionist approach to international problems.”

Corbyn’s notion that Brexit is of benefit to business is false, as the advantages gained by exporters by the fall in the Pound have been offset by the higher cost importers now face. It’s also worth noting that the division between importers and exporters is somewhat misleading. Many UK businesses will import raw materials and then export finished products, and even if on balance the pound’s fall can benefit them, the burden of cumbersome post-Brexit customs rules will likely more than offset this.

More to the point, Corbyn’s policy of seeing foreign business cut-out of UK markets wouldn’t exactly be taken sitting down by other nations. Any barriers we throw up are likely to be reciprocated by other countries in retaliation.

Corbyn raised the recent ‘offshoring’ of passport production to France, suggesting that the workers of De La Rue would now miss out. No doubt De La Rue would have appreciated the British government refusing to consider foreign bids. Then again, perhaps only in the short run given De La Rue also have currency and identity production contracts with two-thirds of the world’s countries. The success of Corbyn’s scaled up ‘buy local’ policy presumes no business would be lost to countries ending contracts with British businesses – a tall order.

Closing Britain off to the rest of the world is to everybody’s detriment; if Jeremy Corbyn were serious about rebalancing the UK economy away from financial services and the City of London, then he would instead look to make other areas of the UK economy more competitive in the global market. This should be done by focusing on what we as a country currently do best, in particular investing in our world-class research and development industries, as well as creating the economic conditions in which our creative and digital industries can thrive, including investing in ensuring that everyone has the required skills to work in such areas.

It is fanciful to believe that we as a country can turn back the clock and hope to compete once again at mass low-end manufacturing; not when costs are always likely to be lower in emerging economies with better access to natural resources and low-paid workers. However this is not something to be ashamed of; rather than following the Corbyn approach of taking a rose-tinted view of Britain’s past, we should aim to embrace the future, seeking to play a full role in the globalised economy, taking advantage of its many benefits, whilst at the same time providing workers with the skills and the safety net to allow them to flourish within it.

* Andy Briggs is Co-Chair of Liberal Reform, a pressure group for personal, political, social and economic liberalism.