Thread by @hhesterm

This is wrong. It is utterly common for an FTA to add “unrelated conditions” about domestic regulation. Even the WTO Agreements contain an agreement on intellectual property. CPTPP has stuff on IP, environment, labour, regulatory coherence. Etc. Etc.

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1330797612820271105

One of the curious issues in this regard is the term “unrelated”. When the WTO’s IP Agreement “TRIPS” was negotiated, this was a big issue. “TR” stands for “trade-related”.

Developing countries tried to take a stand - they said “we first want to know what trade-related IP rights are - and which ones aren’t”. But they lost that debate. TRIPS is a general IP agreement. “Trade-related” came to mean something more nebulous.

From then on trade-related seemed to mean “has some impact on trade”. Which created a problem: it is difficult to find something that cannot affect trade. Let’s look at an example: human rights. SURELY human rights don’t affect trade, do they? Well....

The civil-rights act in the US is actually based on a federal competence for inter-state commerce. And come to think of it: slavery in supply chains, child work, hotels engaging in racism and preventing worker’s from traveling and doing their work. You see...

And it makes sense. It is easy to explain in a few sentences how environment, labour, competition law etc. Etc all have trade effects.

I continue to believe that it is important for the UK to think about how to cover regulation in FTAs (and believe that @trussliz is doing so) - rather than pretend that FTAs don’t cover it. The UK needs to get environment and labour matters right. For our own sake.

Here are my thoughts in one short article. thetimes.co.uk/article/minist…