Very disappointed that as evidenced by his latest article @GregHands has gone into full-on disregard the facts mode on Brexit and trade, influenced I suspect by those at the IEA who have different approaches on trade to most specialists 1/ brexitcentral.com/efta-option-fa…
This paragraph is actually insulting towards EFTA countries, as well as being factually incorrect. Bilateral FTAs have been steadily deepening over time, and EFTA's most recent agreements cover plenty besides 'relatively minor tariff adjustments' 
Here is the content list from a recent EFTA trade agreement. A bit more than tariffs, such as the services which are supposed to become a priority for the UK? But there is a clue in the article to what is not there - regulations... 3/
No Technical Barriers to Trade or Sanitary / Phytosanitary chapter in this EFTA trade agreement, or as in recent EU agreements, regulatory cooperation. But then that begs the question, why would we, the UK, want such chapters in our trade agreements? 4/
Let us take the final paragraph of the article - the UK is in danger of being permanent rule taker. Now put that into the context of food rules - chlorinated chicken or not? Or, whether we take US or EU rules on food? 5/
Now what do we find in EU and US Free Trade Agreements? Adherence to their rules and regulations in various ways. We are going to be a rule taker to a degree if we sign FTAs with either. Yes we will have more choices in leaving the EU. But only to a degree. 6/
I often return to this @SamuelMarcLowe article last year on the choices we face, because it lays the issue out very clearly. It has never been refuted. And yet it is continually ignored in articles such as this. 7/ uktradeforum.net/2017/09/20/wha…
In this context UK Free Trade Agreements that just removed tariffs, improved services market access, and laid some basic rules, might actually be welcome. But no, because there's the IEA fantasy of the UK leading a global rule making coalition. Which won't happen. 8/
I shall leave the debate on EEA or not to the advocates on both sides. There are reasonable arguments on both sides. One thing the case for EEA is not is 'ill-informed'. This is downright rude. The advocates have put in a lot of work. 9/
A final point. If we are a services economy (and though 80% of GDP, they are only 50% of exports) can we have a proper discussion on whether we are going to have to be a rule taker to gain market access? 10/
In summary the article actually raises some interesting points, though rather inadvertently. But the not terribly hidden hand of the ridiculous Legatum / IEA notion of UK as global regulatory leader is clearly the dominant one here. 11/ ends
