Besides @DavidHenigUK ‘s great thread, let me add some of my thoughts, because I actually agree with one of @ShankerASingham ‘s points in the article (short thread)
I fully agree that there is not enough debate about what we want from our trade policy. Some examples:
Do we want to protect GIs? A lot to think about here, including that taking away protection already granted is problematic.
What about tariffs on agricultural products? We can get imports for cheap, but what about the interests of our agricultural industry?
What standards does the UK population want? EU precautionary principle or US rejection of it?
What is the best approach to sustainable fisheries? TAC or limiting days at sea? That is NOT an easy choice
Strangely, though, the remedy offered in the article is one for disasters: negotiating immediately with the US is not a trade policy and delegates answers to some of the questions to US interests without having thought what our interests are.
The hollowness of some of the claims for the possibility of Churchillian greatness is clear when you look at the WTO opportunity mentioned: we can (gasp) join the plurilateral e-commerce working group. What’s that?
You can read the document here. And yes. The EU is a part of it, too. docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/S…
