Friday, 18 May 2018

The more things change


That I can spend seven weeks completely isolated from Brexit noise, return and slot seamlessly in to the chronology of events speaks volumes to the uncomfortable dithering over our EU withdrawal. It has nothing to do with me or my knowledge. It is precisely because nothing of any particular significance has taken place that I needn't have worried about losing track of things. We are no closer to reaching solutions to the core problems and this government instead prefers to dance around flirting with made-up answers to complex questions. See maximum facilitation.

Upon returning to Twitter's wonk bubble I notice immediately the familiar stench of intellectual atrophy emanating from Westminster. Ignorance of concepts still pervades what is left of trade debate and there are no signs that anything will improve any time soon. Some politicians still believe that an FTA can achieve frictionless borders with the EU if coupled with advanced elements of mutual recognition. Others are convinced that a no deal Brexit will not give rise to any new technical barriers to trade on the grounds that we already have full regulatory equivalence.

The more I have analysed Brexit the better I have come to realise that I have been right over the past year to place my faith in the inevitability of a soft Brexit. The irony from the outset has been that the harder our leaders have dug for a hard Brexit, the more clearly they have exposed the underlying necessity of a soft one. To Leavers I say this isn't half bad and we can make the most of a  much better situation, and to Remainers I say that the worst is probably over. The kicking of the can further down the path is not at all coincidental. It is the effect of red lines meeting a brick wall of trade realities.

In all of this I still believe in the primary purpose of Brexit, itself a political (not economic) pursuit. People ask me why I haven't converted to a Remain position and my answer has stayed more or less the same. I believe the UK is better off with the Single Market and worse off with ever closer union, which I believe extends the chain of accountability and pushes the levers of governance further away from citizens. Remaining would also still equate to very limited wiggle room for the kind of treaty change we need in Europe.

I also believe that a gradual regulatory separation between eurozone and non-eurozone EU members was to become a necessary component to future European integration. In this I saw an Efta Brexit as a mechanism by which we could jump-start a slightly different power dynamic on the continent, enabling us to position ourselves at the forefront of a European alternative to close-knit political union. Whether this happens in practice is anybody's guess, but there is a lot to be said for the argument that the EU's inner eurozone core is in need of special attention.

The case, now, for an EEA Brexit is unchanged and really rather simple. In retaining the EEA framework, we avoid the economic consequences attached to leaving the Single Market. This will prove invaluable because British supply chains have spent upwards of four decades acclimating to the EU's intricately developed systems. Sudden disruption is to supply chains what Christmas is to turkeys. Furthermore, by slipping into a ready-made package we are better able to eliminate much of the can-kicking and conceptual haziness from the process.

In all honesty the boat may already have left the harbour on applying to rejoin Efta, but this needn't cause too much in the way of panic. If the UK finds itself floating in a bespoke EEA position in the forthcoming years, application to rejoin may seem like the natural next step in order to maximise consultation and participation at key bodies within the EEA. The framework is based upon extensive collaboration and mutual trust, and its inherent flexibility makes it worthy of more serious consideration as a future UK pit stop.

Whatever red lines still breathe life in Whitehall are sure to die as negotiations progress. There are too many to work with and some are in direct contravention with others. And in all of this time wasting lies the uncomfortable fact that there is actually little point in leaving the Single Market. Standard setting is increasingly organised at a global level and the world is slowly converging on multilaterally agreed regulations. Any reductions in gross immigration will likely be modest and we will be left feeling as if we have opted for the short straw come the end of it.

Sunday, 25 March 2018

Too many eggs in the wrong basket


We know by now that leaving the EU means leaving its Customs Union. The Customs Union is an integral tenet of the Union’s treaties, and as such, simply falls away after the transition period comes to an end. For the UK, leaving it brings both opportunity and difficulty. Outside the (or a bespoke) Customs Union, we are able to regain much of the independence of our trade policy, but the necessity of customs posts dotted along the Irish border will be the price we pay.

Leave campaigners have consistently, and with some merit, pointed to a withdrawal from the Customs Union as being a sort of launching pad towards a new, UK push to champion global free trade. This, many argue, rests on the ability to reduce or ultimately abolish tariffs. The issue, though, is that by focusing purely on the gains to be made from tariff reduction we are setting ourselves up for underwhelming results. We are ignoring important points about protectionism and the nature of the Customs Union.

In the international trading system, any substantive efforts to promote free trade must focus on overcoming what are called non-tariff barriers. Typically NTBs come in the form of divergent regulations – different rules specifying the conditions for market access, and countries continue to struggle to find ways of agreeing on harmonised rules to facilitate trade. Without reaching common standards, trade will be either much more difficult or implausible altogether.

Most protectionism is now regulatory protectionism. Countries use rules and regulations to protect the integrity of their domestic markets, requiring of trading partners adoption of these rules. This development has emerged in response to plummeting tariffs, sparked largely by globalisation. More and more academic studies are pointing towards the effects of NTBs as representing far bigger costs to global trade than those added by tariffs.

Since the Customs Union only deals with tariff issues, as a protective device its use is inherently limited. The Customs Union does not give us common regulation and nor is it a device for rulemaking. Its only residual feature is the Common External Tariff (CET). But even here the extent to which the Customs Union is protectionist is somewhat exaggerated. The EU has implemented an intertwined mix of different initiatives designed to alleviate the tariff burden it imposes upon other countries.

The first of these initiatives is the Everything But Arms agreement (EBA), which provides 49 UN-classified Least Developed Countries (LDCs) with tariff-free access to the EU’s Internal Market. As the title suggests, this applies to any goods which aren’t arms or armaments. The second such initiative is a Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP), or a GSP+ scheme, which provides low to middle income and vulnerable low to middle income countries with tariff free access across two thirds of product categories.

Arrangements like these offer what is effectively a waiver on the Customs Union. They say that for countries which are poorer and trying to develop, application of standard EU tariffs is unnecessarily punitive and stifles the promotion of economic growth and free trade. On Brexit, the UK will not be able to offer these countries preferential tariff regime, and the lesson here is that the scope of the Customs Union is far more restricted than is widely claimed.

Of course, the Customs Union is protectionist and demands that the needs of many European producers are prioritised over the needs of consumers. I broadly agree that tariff reduction is a positive thing, but at the same time I don’t subscribe to the notion that the way to go is total unilateral disarmament. In dropping our tariff walls to zero post-Brexit we would leave ourselves with much less in the way of negotiating leverage.

The UK will find benefit in leaving the Customs Union, but it is important not to wildly inflate our expectations of what is to come. Tariff differentials create border friction, along with the Rules of Origin hurdle which will be reintroduced when exporting to the EU as a result of leaving the Customs Union. Without the or a comprehensive customs union, the Irish border will not be completely frictionless, though technological devices can help to alleviate some of the pressure.

I don't want the UK in any sort of post-Brexit customs union with anybody. But I acknowledge that this cannot be squared with frictionless trade on the Irish border. Really it is a question of weighing up the benefits of such an arrangement with the drawbacks. The Customs Union does create barriers to trade but it is important that we identify where these are. I think a little calm on the question of post-Brexit trade policy is in order if we are to discuss the merits of leaving the Customs Union constructively.

Saturday, 3 March 2018

A looming deadline


Last summer I made quite a fuss about two important provisions within the confines of the EEA Agreement. They are Articles 126 and 127, which deal with withdrawal and the scope of the Treaty's application. Some of my more long-term readers will remember work I have written on the legal withdrawal from the EEA, such as here. My position, in summary, was that in order to formally initiate its departure from the Single Market, the UK Government would have to invoke Article 127. And that not doing so would see us enter a period of legal haziness.

Article 127 of the Agreement states: "Each Contracting Party may withdraw from this Agreement provided it gives at least twelve months' notice in writing to the other Contracting Parties. Immediately after the notification of the intended withdrawal, the other Contracting Parties shall convene a diplomatic conference in order to envisage the necessary modifications to bring to the Agreement." This twelve month period extends to March 29th 2018, a date which sits but a few weeks away. The deadline for invoking this Article is closing in.

Quite what happens if the government does not pull this lever I do not know. Frustratingly, legal opinion is heavily divided on the issue and far be it from me to masquerade as some kind of QC or expert on international law. I try as hard as possible to base my views on the available evidence and will reference those with the expertise as I go. I have found use in following the arguments of the Single Market Justice campaign (led by Peter Wilding and Adrian Yalland), this paper produced by the Institute for Government and this EEA Briefing Paper, which notes:

"The United Kingdom is a separate “Contracting Party” to the EEA Agreement in its own right: so it is bound, in its own right, by the EEA Agreement. It owes obligations under the EEA Agreement to States that are not members of the EU (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), and since it is a basic principle of international law that States are not affected by Treaties to which they are not party, it is impossible to see how the rights of those States (and the rights of their citizens) could be affected by action under the EU Treaties. 
Some commentators have pointed to the fact that Article 126(1) refers to the territory covered by the EEA Agreement as being the “territories” to which the EU Treaties apply (in addition to Norway, 3 Iceland and Liechtenstein). Indeed, this was the Government’s initial position prior to the commencement of the EEA Judicial Review. 
However, the Government then abandoned this position and finally accepted that Article 126 did not “give rise to termination of the EEA Agreement ipso jure”. In fact, if the intent of Article 126 were to limit the Agreement only to states which are at any time member states of the EU (and Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein), the use of the word “territories” would then be incongruous. 
It is made clear by Article 126(2) that “territories” refers to territories which are not included within the Contracting Parties’ national borders, but for which the Contracting Parties have diplomatic responsibility. Article 126(2) then disapplies the Agreement from some of those territories."

Readers should remember that the European Economic Area is a separate legal entity from the European Union. The EU makes up a large part of that area, with three Efta states (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) making up the other part. A portion of the EU's acquis is transposed into the EEA Acquis, where fisheries and agriculture are notably excluded and the residuals in the framework relate only to trade. The EEA becomes effectively an extension of much of the EU's internal market, so we are left really with two Single Markets, almost totally identical, sitting side by side.

The 2015 Referendum Act did not cover membership of the EEA. And, as per standard UK constitutional requirements, new parliamentary legislation is the only mechanism through which a change in international law can have any domestic effect. Unlike most countries on the continent, we are a dualist state and, since Brexit is rooted largely in a clamouring for parliamentary sovereignty, it seems fitting to honour the process with a little consistency and take the appropriate legal and parliamentary route towards whichever destination this government is steering us.

I notice also that my friend Jonathan Lis has written a useful article on the issue just recently. I was happy to see this because I had completely forgotten about its importance in debate. So much concentration has been placed upon Article 50 (of a separate and legally distinct Treaty) and phase two and transition periods that the EEA elephant in the room has been left marginalised so to speak. This oughtn't continue. We aren't appreciating the enormity of the legal uncertainty which could lie ahead. I am talking the UK operating as a third country (to the EU) and EEA signatory simultaneously. Politically these positions stand in direct contradiction to each other.

Even if legally it is decided A127 invocation isn't necessary, we should still opt to do so for the sake of clarity. Most Efta officials believe that formal notification of withdrawal is congruent with the scope of the agreement. So too do a large number of barristers. The weight of this opinion renders mine valueless but I will make my points regardless. My agenda here is clearly political. Nonetheless a good way to build on the Prime Minister's pragmatic speech this week would be to take our loose ends seriously and tie them up wherever possible.

Thursday, 1 March 2018

A further complication


I am coming to the end of my body of work on the EU's Customs Union, and on customs unions in general. Most of the content here can now simply be re-plugged, rather than added to, and I thank readers who spend their time sharing it. I mentioned in my post on Tuesday that there were a couple of little residual issues left to write about for the sake of informing those invested in these issues. One of them is the relationship between services and customs unions, tackled here, and the other is the variety of exemptions from the Customs Union afforded to poorer, developing countries.

In truth I should have grappled with this stuff before the referendum but it wouldn't have made much difference. The level of knowledge of the features of customs unions in the Commons is so dire and I have no real way of influencing public policy. All I can hope to do is inform the informers, which I rather think must continue with broad clarification on the relationship between trade in services and customs unions. This issue has been left uncharted thanks to stoic agreement that tariffs do not apply to services, but there are important exceptions to this rule that are worthy of discussion.

Thankfully, grasping a broad outline of services trade is not especially difficult. The WTO's General Agreement on Trade and Services (Article 1.2) outlines four international modes of service. Mode 1 is cross-border, where a customer in country B receives a service from country A by means of post or telecommunications. Think architectural drawings or medical advice. Mode 2 is where consumption takes place abroad, for instance in the case of a patient travelling to another country in order to benefit from some kind of medical service.

Mode 3 services are transmitted by commercial presence abroad, where a company based in country A sets up a subsidiary in country B and offers services from that sister outlet (such as EasyJet in Vienna). Mode 4 services involve the movement and enterprise of persons. An individual, such as a caseworker or consultant, moves to a different country and provides services in the new country. An argument can therefore easily run that since services do not relate in any way to customs duties, they are not affected by a (or the) customs union.

Except this is not technically accurate. And to understand why we need to delve into changes to manufacturing techniques and examine the role of service inputs in goods, or 'services in a box'. This we have come to term Mode 5 services, which have fallen completely under the radar of trade discourse and the WTO's website. This is perhaps useful as the simplicities of the Customs Union have themselves been difficult enough to grasp for the relevant politicians. Further complication of discourse is arguably ill-advised for those who do not consider themselves Brexit or trade obsessives.

Mode 5 services are goods to which a service (or more) has contributed or accompanies. An example of a Mode 5 service might be a software package embedded within a bundle of IT hardware or design engineering accompanying an automotive part. They are services which are inseparable from and embedded within goods, which then rely on GATT for general trading guidelines, meaning that they count as goods and that they may be subject to duties. This means that if the value-added service element appears within a product which qualifies for a duty, we know we have a Mode 5 service.

For manufacturers the external sourcing of service content, whether domestic or international, represents an increasingly quantitatively significant part of production. We refer to this trend as the 'servicification' of manufacturing and Mode 5 services exports now form around 35% of the EU27's merchandise exports, according to 2009 TiVA statistics. This is a mathematically important chunk.  Typically, merchandise exports will mean retail goods, as they are unnatural products which are produced in response to consumer preference and market demand.

So services relate to the or a customs union in so far as a service element is added to a good which must filter through some kind of duty. Inside the EU, UK exporters exporting to Europe are not presented with any additional hurdles. The very fact of the CET being wrapped around EU members and (theoretically) eliminating the possibility of circumvention means that preferential treatment is assumed. A good will either originate from within the EU or it will have been fed through the CET. Tackling tariff differentials becomes a problem for customs officials at the EU's external frontier.

In leaving the EU's Customs Union and not establishing a bespoke alternative, Mode 5 services are likely to face documentary hurdles since they will simply be treated as goods. This could mean they qualify merely for MFN tariffs or FTA-negotiated tariffs depending upon the nature of the future relationship. Customs officials will simply treat them as they would other physical goods. Their job is to assess whether the relevant VAT and tariff has been paid and translate any transactions to HMRC upon scanning paperwork. The fact of an internal service element existing will mean nothing.

What makes this interesting is that often Mode 5 services add substantially to the value of a product. We might be looking at research and development or we might be looking at some form of marketing consultancy. All indicators point towards Mode 5 services gaining traction as an influential aspect to modern trade and this may be an area where tariffs have a more discernible impact. And beyond tariff rates, a post-customs union UK will need to accompany Mode 5 service goods with certificates of origin in order to prove qualification for preferential treatment.

Another important point here is that plain to see are failings at the WTO. Exporters are in urgent need of a global redefining of trading rules to accommodate significant changes to the ways in which services are actually administered. Effectively trading actors have jumped ahead of the rules and find themselves in need of guidance. The omission of Mode 5 services in both GATS and GATT reflects how far multilateral trade negotiations have actually fallen behind developments in manufacturing and globalisation. Global talks are long and arduous, technological change is often very rapid.

The end result is that we have yet another sizeable gap in Britain's understanding of trade. Just as it embarks upon the greatest shift in trade policy in living memory.

Tuesday, 27 February 2018

Intelligent naivety


Slowly, the obsessives in Brexit's intellectual domain are arriving at a general consensus of understanding as to the features of the EU's Customs Union. It has been a frustrating journey, partly because certain people who claim to be expert on these issues did an inadequate job of informing the necessary players prior to the referendum result and so politically active circles have lagged behind ever since, hurrying attempts to grasp an important pillar of this debate. In this we thickos have been at pains to make up ground and inform others.

This blog has covered the basics. We know what a customs union is, we know that it restricts the independence of our trade policy but does not prevent the signing of all trade deals, we know that the Customs Union eliminates a Rules of Origin hurdle when exporting to the EU and we know that we leave it when we leave the EU (post-transition, presumably). Thankfully there is less to grapple with than the ignorance of our politicians appears to imply. There are, though, a couple of much smaller, residual issues left to tackle but I will save them for a later date.

The latest development in the national customs union debate is yesterday's announcement from Jeremy Corbyn. His party claims that it supports full membership of both the Single Market and Customs Union during the transition period and, beyond that, "a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union to ensure that there are no tariffs with Europe and to help avoid any need for a hard border in Northern Ireland. But we are also clear that the option of a new UK customs union with the EU would need to ensure the UK has a say in future trade deals."

There are quite a few claims here worth commenting on. To begin with, the guarantor of tariff-free trade across the EU and Single Market is Article 10 of the EEA Agreement. For the Efta/EEA states the omissions of agriculture and fisheries from the provisions of Article 10 are not inevitable. They are merely the result of domestic political policies, like vast disparities in agricultural subsidies leading to a notable imbalance in competitiveness. It is highly dubious for a politician to contend that the Customs Union ensures tariff-free market access.

On the point about the Irish border, Corbyn chose his words quite carefully. To "help" avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland rather emphasises the fact that a customs union alone does not bring about a frictionless Irish border. A customs union deals with an origin check, in which certificates and invoices are scanned by officials at customs posts, and enables one country to determine whether the relevant tariffs have been paid on goods. Customs unions do not deal with sanitary and phytosanitary checks, which require physical intervention, and other general checks on the standard of goods.

These controls are removed by the Single Market, the mechanism which enables us to enjoy a behind-the-border enforcement regime and the absence of Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) and Community Entry Points (CEPs), which accommodate controls against third countries on animal and plant products respectively. Typically these control points are merged into one facility, such as in the case of Dunkirk, whose expansion in 2009 was privately funded to the tune of almost £4m. Leaving the Single Market will mean agricultural exports and imports are diverted through these checkpoints.

In addition we have a VAT hurdle to tackle, which becomes a border issue precisely because the regime is likely to transition from 'acquisition' VAT to 'import' VAT (exercised by Norway), where goods are held at the border until proof of VAT payment has been confirmed by customs authorities. Usually there is scope for mitigating VAT procedures at the border. Pre-arrival declaration systems, where importers pay VAT away from the border periodically subject to rigorous auditing of accounts, can be introduced by HMRC after adequate bureaucratic preparation has taken place.

There is some dispute over whether or not the EU will allow the UK to continue its participation in its VAT area, in the way that it does the Isle of Man. I personally think this is possible, especially if VAT proves to be the last area of contention for the border. The EU is known for its ability to fudge relationships and I don't see any particular reason why Brussels would be stoically inflexible here. VAT is not a huge issue and can in large part be dealt with electronically. If we can remain in the EU's VAT area, this would eliminate the border issue but would also require continued ECJ submission. It's a trade-off.

From a logistical and analytical perspective, the last sentence in Corbyn's customs union policy announcement is the trickiest. What we know for sure is that there will be no UK veto over future EU trade negotiations. There is no political will for this in Brussels and no precedent for it in the EU's other customs union relationships. It is out of the question. Whether we can influence the shape of future trade negotiations is unclear. We would, of course, only need a vested interest in contributing to discussions over changes to tariffs, as this would be where our trade policy would be restricted.

I believe that meaningful influence is highly unlikely. Third countries may in some cases request that the UK partake in discussion, but I cannot be sure about where or why. At best I might suggest that a consultative mechanism could be established to enable the UK to leave 'comments' on proposals and negotiation developments in a similar fashion to EEA legislative processes. They would have limited impact, naturally, but such is the very nature of customs union participation that the independence of trade policy is infringed upon. I am therefore clutching at straws to find ways of supporting Corbyn's aim.

Turkey, for instance, forever trails EU trade negotiations. Turkey's bargaining position is weak: they must automatically apply tariff concessions after the EU has negotiated FTAs, and will subsequently arrange reciprocity with relevant trading partners. Brussels takes the lead on the application of tariff concessions and Ankara follows slowly behind. Notice, importantly, that Turkey is not guaranteed to receive reciprocity from third countries after obliging to apply these tariff concessions. Labour's new policy could well see the UK arrive at an identical position.

In this sense I think the change in party policy is logistically naive. Politically it is clever in its ability to tempt Tory remainer loyalists to vote against the Government and join opposition seeking to soften and water down Brexit. It might well be worth describing Labour's shift as intelligent naivety. Whether Corbyn and allies believe that Britain could influence EU trade deals whilst parked inside a parallel customs union is really not important. The Tories are the governing party and the pressure is now on Mrs May to pass crucial legislation, avoiding the prickles of thorny amendments.

Thursday, 22 February 2018

Quickie fantasies


One of the most pervasive fantasies of Brexit discourse is the idea that a Free Trade Agreement between the EU and UK would be a matter of unique simplicity. The justification for this claim tends to be that since both sides start from the point of regulatory equivalence and harmonised tariff regimes, reaching agreement would be straightforward and quick. This is a falsehood but nonetheless remains a very easy trap to fall into. Today, Andrew Bridgen, Tory MP for North West Leicestershire became its latest victim, as he told Business Insider:


"A free trade deal can be sorted very, very quickly. It isn't complicated is it? It's the most straightforward trade deal you could ever do. The free trade deal we could do with the European Union will be the most straightforward ever in history. We've got full regulatory equivalence. It's just a matter of what you want tariffs on. It could be done in an afternoon."

We all know that the best and most effective lies are those which contain a grain of truth. Though the term 'lie' may not be entirely appropriate here, the principle is more or less the same. Bridgen's assertion is a prediction, but it is one which will not and cannot come true. It is true that both sides start from the point of equivalent regulatory systems. This does not only mean adhering to the same set of rules. It also includes joint participation in regulatory agencies, the second of the important characteristics of regulatory alignment. But the trap lies just behind this truth. 

To lay the groundwork here for a moment, it is important to remember two things. Firstly, the UK can only enter into FTA negotiations once it has acquired the status of a third country. The withdrawal process does not include scope for concluding an FTA and nor does it come with the necessary time frame. We begin negotiating an FTA after we have left in 2019, which means during the transition period. Secondly, the looming FTA between the UK and EU is the most unique in the history of international trade. It symbolises an unparalleled resetting of tightly knitted economic ties. 

The way to begin disproving Bridgen's claim is to sit back and think about the purpose of a UK-EU27 FTA. The answer is actually pretty simple. It would be to establish a difference from the terms of EU membership, just as it is with other trading partners. A third country UK would operate a symmetrical regulatory and tariff regime, enjoying the terms outlined by the transitional arrangements without the internal democratic representation. The present volume of trade between the EU and UK will make this painful, but equal treatment rules are fixed in place and upheld for a reason. 

That the EU is protectionist is deliberate. It has created something worth having and preserving integrity is vital. If you want in, you bring obligations with you. No exceptions. If we refer to the EU as a 'protectionist racket', which it is, we need to remain consistent in our criticism and not chop and change this critique when it suits us. If we attempt this we will only be fooling ourselves and cheapening an already insufferable quality of debate. We must face up to the fact that in heading into negotiations with the EU we are swimming upstream in our fight for comparable market access.

Unlike ordinary FTAs, which seek to harmonise regulatory architecture, reduce tariffs and promote increased volume of bilateral trade and economic growth, this FTA would be somewhat different. Beyond tariff re-reduction, it would effectively seek to ensure that market access reached a plateau or compromise. It would start with equivalent trading terms but would evolve effectively a fight between efforts from the EU to forge a separation, and efforts from the UK to exploit the EU's right of reservation on its services MFN clause built into CETA. 

Examination of CETA's scope on services reveals how unimpressive it really is. This is the kind of sticking point where politicians will begin to appreciate more strongly the benefits of Single Market membership. Canada can pursue even greater services access, but in return it must shed much of its rulemaking apparatus and adopt EU requirements. The UK won't have the regulation adoption problem, it will have the opposite problem: we can meet their demands but the fight begins when Brussels realises it cannot overshare and be too generous. In trade, precedents matter. 

The EU knows that its relationship with the UK is not the be-all and end-all of its trade policy. For them we represent a 15% chunk of total trade, for us the figure is approaching 50%. Brussels must therefore reassure remaining members that it is in their interests to stay part of the club. It can and will move on. This is where the bargaining power favours the EU, a vastly bigger market with a significant experience leverage on a panicked and disorganised Westminster. It is also why I decided the best way of leaving the EU was to depart with a guarantee on EEA membership. 

I would also make mention here of the fact that regulatory equivalence does not and will not prevent border controls. As I have explained in more detail elsewhere, the main structural difference between an FTA and the Single Market is the nature of the surveillance and enforcement regime. In other words, where the checks come in. An FTA between the EU and a third country sees controls, whether they are customs checks or SPS checks (requiring physical intervention), reintroduced at the border. This is because the EU has no jurisdiction in the internal workings of a third country. 

It cannot organise a behind the border approach to controls in the way that it can with its members. The level of checks will prove bothersome in FTA negotiations and our negotiators will want as soft a border as possible. By virtue of the location of the enforcement regime, FTAs can't produce frictionless borders. This will have costs to supply chains and, in particular, UK based companies operating Just in Time production regimes. Parts required quickly will stumble their way through procedures not previously necessary. Arguments will break out here too as the UK seeks ways of easing the burden on its borders.  

Bridgen's absurd naivety went largely ignored by commentators today and this is a worrying sign. We are just months from the conclusion of the Article 50 period and still we have elected officials barely able to understand the basics. I can only despair when I look at the intellectual vacuums which grace both our major parties. Labour's new policy announcement on the Customs Union is a whole other post in and of itself. And the sad part about all of this is that those of us who are well-informed and care are not able to take a lead on debate. We are firefighters, running around in circles correcting the ignorant headline-grabbers as we go.

Wednesday, 21 February 2018

Diverging from reality


Some readers will by now have come across this Julia Hartley-Brewer interview with Steven Edginton in which she outlines what her approach to post-Brexit trade with the EU would have been. The specific, 90-second segment I want to address can be watched separately here. In the clip, Ms Hartley-Brewer explains that the government's negotiating 'strategy' ought to have been to tell the EU that "we want tariff free access and you can have tariff-free access to us." She explains that if the EU wanted to respond with punitive tariffs that would be "entirely their choice."

This is not accurate or legally workable. And fortunately it is not difficult to identify the problems with it. The root of the ignorance on display here is a failure to understand the consequences of becoming a 'third country' to the EU, as well as the application of international trade law. A third country, of course, refers to a non-EU member and is a necessary and inevitable consequence of leaving the EU and EEA. We acquire this status upon leaving and it is crucial this is understood. Acquisition of third country status has important ramifications for trade.

At the heart of the international trading system is a commitment to equal treatment. At the WTO this is called 'Most Favoured Nation' (MFN). MFN has emerged as an important pillar in global trade and acts as a barrier to undue discrimination and a promoter of liberalised trade, harmonised standards and fairness. It requires that WTO members apply the lowering of a trade barrier, such as a tariff reduction, to all other members. This applies to both goods and services. MFN is so crucial that it takes point in Article 1 of GATT, Article 2 of GATS and Article 4 of TRIPS, the WTO agreement on Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

When the UK becomes a third country to the EU it inherits existing EU MFN schedules. Schedules cover goods and services. There is no such thing as a tariff schedule, though I may use the term from time to time for the sake of ease. Within goods schedules are tariff rotas, broken down into product categories. Typically lower MFN tariffs are found attached to industrial goods, averaging at between 3 and 4%, and higher ones in the agricultural sector. Tariffs on meats, cereals, vegetable oils and milk can be especially punitive, often reaching upwards of 30%.

Let's use beef as an example. In the case of beef, the EU-wide ad valorem, MFN tariff is 12.8% plus a charge of 3 euros per kilo. Currently 92% of the UK's beef exports go to the EU, with large proportions sent to France, Ireland and the Netherlands. For obvious reasons these exports are not met with tariffs of any kind. Upon becoming a third country and after the EU adheres to its equal treatment commitments, 92% of the UK's beef exports are automatically hit with the standardised ad valorem MFN tariff of 12.8%. It is not a question of the EU making a choice.

I am deliberately working with an agricultural example because it is in this sector that we see more clearly the impact that tariffs can still have. I tend to argue that tariffs are not the issue, but this is not uniformly the case. They are not problematic for most sectors, and indeed we do see continual efforts to bring about further reductions. These include international agreements like EBA and GSP (or GSP+) schemes, explained here. What I am trying to build is a picture of what slotting into third country tariff regimes will, not could, mean. Hartley-Brewer's element of 'choice' is totally irrelevant.

Interestingly, EU members are able to discriminate in favour of the UK as a fellow member, and this would appear to breach WTO rules on equal treatment. But it does not, as there are important exceptions. WTO members are permitted to move 'beyond WTO' (offer preferential market access) if and when they enter into a Customs Union or other Free Trade Area, such as an FTA, with another member. These exemptions are granted under Article XXIV of GATT, and being a customs union, EU member states are able to offer each other preferential market access in the form of zero tariffs without breaking rules.

These exemptions are important because they effectively encourage moves towards promoting freer and freer trade. But there is a catch. The UK will not leave the EU with a Free Trade Agreement, as this is not plausible, and so must rely solely on the MFN terms given to other third countries (not in a customs union or FTA with the EU). An FTA with the EU would take years to negotiate in spite of regulatory equivalence for the very fact that the whole purpose of the FTA would be to establish separation from the terms of EU membership.

As to Ms Hartley-Brewer's assertion that we can offer the EU tariff-free access, this is in principle true. We can unilaterally disarm, but it needs to be remembered that this would become the yardstick for our new MFN schedules. This means that we would need to apply the same treatment to all other trading partners for the sake of not falling foul of equal treatment rules. To one and to all. This will prove to be one of the most important lessons for the UK to learn as a newly established customs entity.

Total unilateral tariff-free trade is not recommended by industry, politicians or trade experts. In lowering our walls we would find ourselves with less to negotiate with. Incentive would be lacking for other countries to enter into improved bilaterals with us and we would be spending all of our time chasing other countries for reciprocity with much less to offer them in return. We would look weak. And this is without mentioning the costs to well-protected domestic producers, which could backfire for the government if certain sectors overwhelmingly vote Tory. These considerations will be pondered.

Enforcement of the core principle of equal treatment can be arduous. Dispute settlement is long-winded and involves many review stages. Lodged disputes can take years to settle. What we do have, though, is a system of checks and balances, in which any divergence from MFN undertaken by countries which results in undue discrimination is met with diplomatic chaos or trade wars. For the EU, making an exception for the UK would be impractical. The Customs Union and Single Market operate together and protect European markets for a reason. They are not to be undermined or played with.

One of the reasons that I ended up proposing a Norway-type model is that such an arrangement would allow us to circumvent standard third country protocols. In effect we would be able to leave without becoming a third country. In this we would have protected our place in the Single Market, more or less escaped political integration and avoided the hassles of technical and other non-tariff barriers to EU trade which wait for us on the horizon. Forgive the wretched expression but it would have been as close to 'cake and eat it' as we could possibly have gotten.

Tuesday, 20 February 2018

An important admission


Without meaning to dig up the issue of regulatory divergence yet again, I thought it was extremely important that David Davis made mention of the globalised nature of regulation and standard setting in his Vienna speech this morning. There he reminded business leaders that "the future of standards and regulations – the building blocks of free trade — is increasingly global", and that "by leading from the front and setting standards, you can drive innovation and enable new technology to thrive." This is an important new direction for the Brexit debate to head in.

I am happy to hear David Davis mention this because it has thus far been one of the detail elephants in the room. Important too was his assertion that standards form the building blocks of 'free trade'. What we call free trade is most effectively encouraged by harmonising regulation, and where residual tariffs are a problem, by the necessary reduction. A new standard can bind together two former diverging standards into a new, harmonised one, which in turn facilitates trade by freeing supply chains from a technical barrier to trade.

One thing I need readers to understand is that as far as trade is concerned, regulation itself is not the problem. The problem is differences in regulation, and in finding ways to reconcile divergent regulatory architecture. That all starts at the agencies referred to in Davis' speech. Importantly, not all non-tariff barriers to trade (usually regulatory) are what is called 'actionable'. A 2013 study by the Centre for Economic Policy Research concluded that about half of all present non-tariff barriers to trade are actionable, meaning they can be eliminated for the sake of liberalising the conditions for trade.

I describe Davis' comments as a new direction for the national debate because these points have largely escaped Brexit's public domain. We have spent so much of the past few years complaining about "EU rules" and "EU red tape" that we have failed to see a bigger picture. Even trade experts have often been guilty of casting their gaze too narrowly and focusing solely on the influence of the WTO. As far as I have seen they have not really acknowledged the activity undertaken horizontally of the WTO, in regulatory agencies seldom mentioned but ultimately vital to trade discussion.

Of these, UNECE, the ISO, CODEX, OECD and WCO (World Customs Organisation) are the most influential. Often what is seen on the ground as public policy derives from action taken at these forums. The shape of the headlights on your car, for instance, is determined not in Brussels but in Geneva, by UNECE 'working parties'. Incidentally part of the reason for the non-existent trade in cars between the EU and USA is that the Americans refused to adopt UNECE standards which would have forced US-based car companies into widespread redesigns.

During the referendum campaign almost no attention was paid to the origin of technical standards embedded within EU law. This is basically because it is not interesting. But, as with most boring political detail, it is important. The only regulation I remember being raised was the infamous 'bent banana directive', which was offered as a sort of meme to point out the ludicrousness of some EU rulemaking. Of course, the trouble here was that the EU is not responsible for the aforementioned regulation. That burden lies with Codex Alimentarius, a major agricultural regulator.

Mundane though the standard is (which bans fruit of abnormal curvature or damaged by pesticides and contaminants), it is interesting in that it captures quite neatly some of the intricacies of the globalised regulatory agenda. What we begin to see is that hidden agencies, granted their regulating authority by the WTO, are responsible for creating many of the rules governing trade systems. These are the arenas we will need to learn to re-assimilate ourselves into after Brexit. They are where much of our manoeuvring will need to be concentrated when trying to influence new global standards.

Towards the latter end of 2017 I wrote this blog post (read, incidentally, by two current cabinet ministers), which detailed the two major reasons why there will be no Brexit-induced regulatory sovereignty. The first reason was the crux of what I have discussed here, and the second was the inconvenient fact that we find ourselves alleyed between two regulatory superpowers in the EU and United States, who just so happen to be our two largest trading partners. We cannot converge with both, because the regimes are fundamentally very different. We have a choice to make.

My use of the term 'regulatory superpower' merely reflects the EU's important role in influencing international standard setting. To add another layer to the bent banana fiasco, the CODEX standard of 1997 is itself based on an originating EU standard constructed in 1995. So, in a nutshell, what we have before us is a vast matrix of organisations engaged in a complex interlocking of rulemaking. Often, global forums will take the nucleus of a domestic standard, often from the power responsible for the science and research which went into forming it, and transpose it into a global one. A two-way street, so to speak.

Both Remainers and Leavers have something to learn from all this. The globalisation of standard setting undermines two key arguments on both sides of the referendum debate. It rubbishes the claim that the add-on Single Market states (Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) have no say in EEA rulemaking, and it demolishes the argument that Brexit will bestow upon us newfound regulatory sovereignty. I have been at pains to point these things out, with almost no success given how little attention is paid to the issue of regulation by anybody in Westminster or the legacy media.

If we build on Davis' important admission we may be able to enjoy a more balanced and grown-up debate about trade in the UK. I know the whole topic is dry and does not wet the appetite in quite the same way that zero tariff fanaticism does. But the detail is important. The work achieved at global level, whether it be setting a labelling standard or a standard on car tyres, facilitates enormous amounts of trade. International cooperation is the name of the game and Brexit Britain will need to recognise where its resources and diplomatic energies are best spent. Today was a welcome step in a positive direction.