An interesting essay question from a former No. 10 adviser: Was creating DIT a misstep? Some short points on this (thread)
Creating a new institution creates a power-base. Institutions tend to a) defend their existence and b) try to obtain the competences they need to do a meaningful job
Creating DIT hence created an institution interested in being able to create free trade agreements - for better or for worse regarded as a golden prize in international trade.
However, it was not tasked to negotiate with the largest trading partner of the UK: The EU itself. Another department worked on that deal. Which creates a rather counterproductive institutional situation:
The closer the relationship with the EU, the less future glory for the DIT. DIT was created with the problem that rather than looking at all of UK trade, it focuses on the non-EU bit.
With DIT, suddenly Brexit became about feedom to pursue FTAs. This obscures an essential debate, particularly in the context of Brexit and “taking back control”. Take food standards, e.g.
“Taking back control” seems to imply that now there should be an informed debate: what food standards do we want. Is that the debate we are having? No. Strangely the debate we are having is: lock into the EU? Or bind ourselves to the US?
Worse: we are not having that debate openly. Instead we are having a debate about the glorious opportunities - or not - of an FTA with the US, CPTPP etc.
