,
14 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Liam Fox's letter on the drawbacks of a customs union oversimplifies the real trade offs and continually conflates "a trade policy" with "tariff policy." It begins by evoking economic prosperity when it is really an argument about autonomy - and a very partial one at that 1/ 
The letter starts with the benefits of trade and a basic definition of a customs union. So far so good. The letter then makes a valid point that the UK would not have a veto on EU trade policy and Labour's "say on trade policy" will never amount to this. 2/
What the UK could get is stronger consultation - participation in trade policy committees as an observer, for example. The EU could also commit to requiring partners to negotiate with the UK in parallel. It is a political judgement as to whether you think this sufficient 3/
Where it starts going off the rails is the the "UK would be traded" hyperbole. Fox asks the question if a trading partner already had access to the UK for no cost, why would it be interested in negotiating a further bilateral agreement?" The whole premise is wrong 4/
First as @SamuelMarcLowe points out, partners wouldn't have automatic access to the UK's market. The UK would not be able to lower tariffs below the EU's but in practice it could maintain higher tariffs until a deal is negotiated with the new partner. 5/
Second the example Fox gives of Turkey is not directly comparable. The UK is a bigger, well regulated market that would certainly be attractive to other partners. (Turkey will also be surprised to learn they don't have a trade policy) 6/ trade.gov.tr
Third, it is fairly unimaginative to say that the only way the UK could negotiate access to other countries' services markets is by trading access for goods. For sure this autonomy would make it easier but there are other things the UK has other things to offer such as visas 7/
What Fox never does is evaluate the benefits of tariff autonomy. There is no indication of just how difficult it will be for the UK to make headway opening up services markets via bilateral deals in this way. In economic terms there is no assessment of potential gains vs costs 8/
Fox began his case arguing that prosperity ensures political security, but it is by no means clear the UK would be better off trying to strike FTAs than taking the benefits of a CU. Gov figures finds + 0.2% in 15 years with multiple deals signed 9/ assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
Most countries don't want to open up their services markets. That is why FTAs have made little success outside the single market. Is the UK's best strategy for opening services markets trying to negotiate big bilateral deals over multiple years? 10/ instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/will-uk-b…
Fox's real argument is about how the UK could use tariff autonomy as part of foreign and development policy. The loss of autonomy on tariffs does matter, and a Labour CU deal will probably mean some loss of autonomy on goods regulation too. 11/
But what isn't mentioned is the fact that around 50 developing countries already receive preferential treatment as part of the EU's everything but arms deals that the UK will replicate. So tariffs are not the issue. 12/ trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/20…
If the UK wanted to be more permissive on goods regulation that could be a problem, but even if it had autonomy here, if the UK opens its market to non-conforming LDC goods it would come with consequence to EU market access. 13/
A CU is not going to be Turkey and it doesn't mean the UK won't gain a trade policy. But it would have to think differently about the value of big FTAs. It does come with valid trade offs on loss of influence over EU trade policy but that is the default of any Brexit ends/
