For an net importing country, import payments drain money from the economy. The money is then retrieved by selling Treasury securities on the international market, and the proceeds recycled into the economy by budget deficit spending.

I would argue that all seems to work and should be left well alone.

However, if any Government were serious about “balancing its books” and eliminating both the internal and external deficit it should phase out the sale of Treasury securities.

It would probably mean a much lower pound. But if that’s what the UK electorate want and are happy with the prospect of petrol at £2 per litre then fine. Let’s go ahead.

I agree that “the UK’s failure to benefit from devaluation is in part due to its over-reliance on exporting business and financial services to Europe. ”

However, I’m not so sure about your next sentence:

“If the ambition of export-led growth is to be achieved, it clearly requires a diversification of the UK export base, not least a resurgence in manufacturing exports.”

This begs the question that we need “export-led growth”.

A resurgence in manufacturing exports would help the balance of payments but it would not generate enough jobs to have much impact on unemployment. This is because the only areas where British manufacturing is likely to be competitive are those involving hi-tech processes. These are not labour intensive.
If we want to tackle mass unemployment, especially mass youth unemployment, the we need to develop more mundane, intermediate and low-tech industries. This suggests that import substitution is a more realistic goal.

the UK’s failure to benefit from devaluation is in part due to its over-reliance on exporting business and financial services to Europe. If the ambition of export-led growth is to be achieved, it clearly requires a diversification of the UK export base, not least a resurgence in manufacturing exports.