Split views on models for post Brexit UK trade

There are split views about the five models for post Brexit UK trade and the suitability of trading model.We have ruled out Norway model as the per capita fee is the same as UK is paying. It has full access to the single market and got to accept majority of EU laws. It has to sign up to all the rules of the club including common regulations and standards. Norway is a member of the European Economic Area [EEA] and has free movement of labour meaning people from across the EU are free to live and work in Norway. Although it is exempt from EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, justice and home affairs. It has no say over how the rules of the single market are created. 

Switzerland model is a member of the European Free Trade Association [EFA]. access to EU market is governed by series of bilateral agreements, covers some but not all areas of trade. makes a smaller financial contribution smaller than Norway, does not have a general duty to apply EU laws but does have to implement some EU regulations to enable trade, and free movement of people. We have ruled out Switzerland who has a free trade agreement with the EU, and a number of agreements which give it access to the single market for most of its industries. But it does not have full access to the single market for its banking sector and other parts of the services sector, which together make up almost 80% of the UK economy.

We have ruled out the Turkey model as it is a customs union with the EU meaning no tariffs or quotas on industrial goods exported to EU countries and has to apply EU's external tariff on goods imported from outside the EU. Turkey is not part of EEA or EFT but does have a customs union with the EU. The customs union does not apply to agricultural goods or services. Turkey has got no say on the tariffs it has to impose on goods it imports from non EU countries as it has to apply the EU's common external tariff to those goods and is not involved in setting it.

We have ruled out the Canada model who has a Ceta free trade deal with the EU. Ceta is Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. It has not come out in force yet, gets rid of most tariffs on goods, but excludes some food items and services and stipulates need to prove where goods are made such 'as made in Canada' which imposes extra costs to prevent imports entering the EU's back door. It gives Canada preferential access to the EU single market without all the obligations that Norway and Switzerland face, eliminating most trade tariffs. Eggs and chicken are not covered. The services sector is only partially covered by Ceta. Ceta deal would not give UK financial services the EU market access that they have now. It would be hard for London based banks to get passporting rights for their services in the EU. Firms would have to comply with EU product standards and technical requirements without having any say in setting them. 

We can think about the Singapore and Hong Kong approach. Hong Kong does not charge tariff on importation and exportation of goods. Import and Export licensing is kept to a minimum. There are no trade restrictions and Hong Kong' free trade policy means the chinese special administrative region maintains no barriers on trade. No tariffs of any kind could have a strongly negative effect on the UK agriculture and manufacturing sectors such as importing goods like food and steel would in many cases be cheaper, than producing them in the UK. It is a unilateral free trade approach.

We could have World Trade Organisation WTO but has sets rules for international trade that applies to all members, no free movement or financial contribution, no obligation to apply EU laws although traded goods would still have to meet EU standards, some tariffs would be in place on trade with EU, trade in services would be restricted. The UK and EU would be obliged to apply to each other the tariffs, and other trade restrictions they apply to the rest of the world. That is because the WTO rules allow countries to discriminate in favour of a trade partner only in a limited number of circumstances including a full bilateral trade. UK could adopt a unilateral free trade policy, dropping all tariffs, and relying on the WTO's framework.

If UK wants to retain preferential access to the markets of the 52 countries covered by these agreements, it would have to re negotiate trade deals with all of them. Britain is a large market so there is a clear incentive for other countries to negotiate a deal. It would be in nobody's interests to interrupt the current trading partnerships. We have to be realistic which models are best for UK. We know that we cannot have free movement of labour if it involves immigration or uncontrolled migration. UK needs control over the borders. This could force Britain to trade under the WTO rules which involves higher tariffs for a period of time while a deal is thrashed out. We do not know how long that will take.

The single market has disadvantages as worker mobility is not as great as hoped. Many businesses still see barriers. Monopolies may be formed which can cause market failure. More choice and opportunities for work throughout the EU due to migrants and immigrants. The four freedoms of the single market, goods, capital, services and people are a bit too complicated. The advantages are consumers have lower prices. Businesses have more consumers, and are able to exploit economies of scale. The single market is an association of countries trading with each other without restriction and tariffs created on 1st January 1993. The four freedoms are goods, capital, services and people. A single market is frontier free although several barriers remain such as differences in national tax systems, differences in parts of the services sector and different requirements for e-commerce. In addition separate national markets still exists for financial services sector, energy and transport. Laws concerning the recognition of professional qualifications also may not be harmonised. We cannot really enjoy political benefits only the economic benefits. Integration are mostly economical, and the costs mostly political. We are in overall much better off out, than in and adopt a new model that has not got restrictions, no free trade movement, no tariffs, no rules and no implementation of laws.

We need to look into the Singapore model more closely as it could be dodgy, and the WTO could be the alternative.

1st July 2016

World trading is seeing ever stronger competition for resources, we cannot disregard the rules of world trading, and have to avoid conflicts of interests in world trading. Countries does not want weak economies so it is much better when all countries do cooperate to do free trading, and without free movement.

There have been persistent efforts to maintain a monopoly on geopolitical dominance by some partners. This kind of monopoly weakens, suppresses and pitting their rivals against each other which causes inequalities in trading.

We seek united and inseparable security in economy for the whole world. It is necessary to push for a fair world order based on the principles of united and inseparable security and collective responsibility with close full cooperation.

The world wants and stands for equal partnership, that respects the interests of both sides. 

Brexit have revealed that the world must change to have proper legitimate equal world trading and with the right rules.

We do not need policies, and the countries does not need to create policies when it comes to world trading. The Brexit is a wake up call to get together to form partnerships and be amicable bringing profitability.

The European Union is only a very small part of the world and it cannot dictate to any country wishing to trade freely and without trade movement. All countries needs to have access within the world trading sphere. No one wants to tie ourselves to a single market, but seek global opportunities that would be open to us for building up trade between individual EU countries, Russia, Asia and the Americas.

It has got to be a pragmatic world trading centre open to all countries all over the world.

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty has been triggered by democracy, the government of UK can finalise the triggering, and confirming that we can have world trading to think of.

All countries will become independent actors even nations. Britain should start behaving now for an independent trade policy belonging to World Trade policy. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland should behave internationally as if it was independent, and it will eventually find it natural that it should be.

We should start discussing the scope for our own trade agreements. It is going to happen and it would be neglect if we did not get going soon.

This would be a new chapter in changing the world if all countries and nations participate in world trading in fair world order.
Based on the principles of united and  and inseparable security and collective responsibility with close full cooperation.