Ok #tradetwitter can we all agree that we're not all going to roll out our pieces from 3 or 5 years ago suggesting that agriculture in trade deals might be a problem, as obviously that was just silly project fear and not at all completely inevitable if government didn't listen
Anyway, with respect to a UK-Australia deal it is not whether their agricultural produce will be allowed into the country tariff free (yes), but:
- unlimited or with quotas
- whether some sensitive products are excluded
- under what conditions e.g. animal welfare
- what we get
Contrary to what the 19th century wing of #tradetwitter believes, the debate on agriculture in an Australia trade deal is what every country should go through in advance of a deal. Indeed, if there is no similar argument in Australia why not? Are we not asking enough?
Ultimately three questions for the UK-Australia deal:
1. Do Australian farmers have to meet similar conditions to UK ones for reduced tariffs? 2. Has Australia agreed to a meaningful climate change chapter? 3. Has the UK gained anything substantial?
Any 'no' is a problem.
As before, my view is the UK should agree zero tariffs for imports in trade deals as long as they meet similar conditions to domestic production. That it seems to me is modern free trade. And it encourages meaningful action on climate change, antimicrobial resistance etc.
My guess is that the Australians do not want to sign up to conditions for a UK trade deal because all precedent suggests government desperation for a deal will lead us to climb down. We shall see, as and when we're allowed to do so.
Passing off as fact two highly contentious statements, that these FTAs would lead to "cheaper grub" (possible but unlikely) and that Australian farmers have "similarly exacting standards". Sums up the pretty vacuous debate.
Important point on animal welfare (also applies to antimicrobial resistance, climate change, much more). This is the modern debate on trade given economic benefits of trade agreements are now so low.
In this week's @BorderlexEditor Perspectives column I set out to make sense of a torrent of trade policy initiatives at the WTO, OECD, US and EU, and see a clash between international measures to liberalise trade and national ones to control it. borderlex.net/2021/05/19/per…
What seems most significant is that the EU and US no longer appear to believe in expanding global trade. That might be the first time since the founding of the GATT in 1947. It puts a big question mark over the future of the system of rules.
Next year will be the 75th anniversary of the modern global trade system, with the principles of facilitating trade and non-discrimination at its heart. Perhaps that would be a good time to discuss the principles suitable for a 21st century system. borderlex.net/2021/05/19/per…
This is the heart of the matter of UK trade deals (and modern trade) and agriculture, and the reason we're having such a fevered but abstract deal is that Ministers have never said what the said measures will be - and it really matters. theguardian.com/environment/20…
This might have been the heart of the matter 50 years ago, but tariffs actually paid are now low (and we also have to think of developing country preferences) that much lower prices are unlikely, and at what cost?
Another way to look at UK-Australia - they want greater agricultural access to our market. That has a value and therefore they will 'pay' in some way (but not if they don't need). So what do we want? What is the 'price' for access to the UK market? Others will take note...
Hadn't picked up Scottish tory unhappiness about the UK-Australia trade deal but as repeatedly said, choices over trade policy. And as with EU agreements, denying the choices doesn't make them go away.
Well this seems like good timing for my (with @AnnaGuildea) new @ECIPE publication. On why Free Trade Agreements only have limited value because in many countries we are as close to a perfect market as we're going to get. ecipe.org/publications/f…
Basic argument - the main economic gains from Free Trade Agreements come from encouraging more efficient production, and that has largely happened. Tariff reduction now leads to negligible growth. Where customs or other barriers are significant, reducing them can be significant.
Not that world trade is flawless. Regulatory barriers in goods and services trade are still high and this provides a huge bias towards large companies better able to overcome them. Domestic distribution is an issue, though manufacturing output and tariffs don't seem correlated.
The sharp-eyed will notice that this falls some way short of removing checks of produce going from Britain to Northern Ireland as demanded by unionists. As such, the EU may ask whether with this arrangement the UK government would take responsibility?
Reduced paperwork under the EU-New Zealand veterinary agreement? There are also pages of equivalent regulations, so we are talking a form of regulatory alignment.
One day into discussing UK free trade deals and the simplism on display is already showing why it is so difficult to have a sensible policy debate in this country. You'd never believe that trade agreements are controversial and complex policy choices everywhere. Let's unpack.
First of all terminology. Free trade agreements do not deliver free trade. Rather at minimum they reduce tariffs and increase services access compared to those under WTO rules, typically accompanied by more detailed rules for trade in a whole range of areas.
Given that tariffs paid by developed countries are on average very low, reducing them further has limited if positive economic impact. Improving services access or reducing non-tariff barriers may have a greater impact, but are pretty difficult to achieve.