Playing the game without a say in the rules: how Britain would trade outside the EU

Pro-Brexit campaigners are keen to cut tariffs. But tariffs only play a small role in international trade, says Steve Woolcock. Much more costly are the non-tariff barriers, such as border controls, customs and food standards and regulations, and these are shaped by preferential agreements such as the EU’s single market or TTIP. Were Britain to leave the EU, it would still have to obey the regulations of its trading partners – which are very unlikely to abandon them as a result of Brexit – and would no longer have a say in drawing them up

What a CETA (or CETA+) free trade agreement would mean

The UK seems to be aiming for a CETA or CETA+-type free trade agreement with the EU. Steve Woolcock (LSE) takes a detailed look at the European Commission's negotiating position and explains some of its implications for trade. Significantly, the inclusion of 'most favoured nation' clauses effectively limits the UK's scope to negotiate deals with other countries, and means the EU is unlikely to give the UK better access to the Single Market in future

Reforming the WTO, part 1: why world trade rules are looking shaky

'Going WTO' in a no-deal Brexit means that Britain would rely on the rules-based World Trade Organisation system. But the WTO is in poor shape, partly due to tensions between the US and China. In the first of a series of posts, Steve Woolcock (LSE) looks at why the organisation has become weakened.Even before the coronavirus pandemic, the world trading system was not in great shape. Trade protection was averted in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis thanks to a shared commitment to resist protectionist responses on the part of the major trading powers. But over time, protectionist measures have grown. After years of trying, the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations effectively came to an end in around 2014 with no real progress. Then the incoming Trump administration initiated an aggressive, unilateral trade policy in an attempt to force its trading partners to make concessions

What Trump’s American First policy means for the international trading system

In recent months, President Trump has imposed tariffs on Chinese imports – a move which has caused concern in many other countries and among international organizations. Stephen Woolcock writes that Trump’s tactics can be interpreted in four different ways; getting a better deal for US exports; revising the rules on trade; precipitating a crisis to push new agreements; and countering China as a growing economic power. Whatever the reasons behind’s Trump’s new approach, we may be entering a period where US leadership on trade policy is a thing of the past

A big challenge for ‘Global Britain’ is digital trade

Britain has entered the World Trade Organisation system as an independent player. One of the next big things on the WTO’s agenda is to decide on the rules that will govern digital trade. In the first of a series of posts, Steve Woolcock (LSE) discusses the state of the plurilateral negotiations taking place between 86 WTO Members including the US, the EU, and China on the future of the international trading system

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Challenges and Opportunities for Consumer Protection. Paper No. 11 in the CEPS-CTR project ‘TTIP in the Balance’ and CEPS Special Report No. 115/July 2015

This paper examines options for regulatory cooperation in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and assesses the challenges and opportunities posed by regulatory cooperation for consumer protection. It looks at existing approaches to regulatory cooperation by referencing a range of case studies. Based on established practice and on the European Commission’s recently published proposal on regulatory cooperation, we discuss a possible approach that could be adopted in the TTIP. Against the significant potential gains from improved regulatory cooperation, one must set the significant challenges of reconciling the different regulatory philosophies of the US and the EU as well as some differences in their respective approaches to cooperation. In broad terms, this analysis finds that regulatory powers on both sides of the Atlantic will not be significantly affected by the TTIP, but suggests that European and American legislators will need to ensure that their priorities shape the TTIP regulatory cooperation agenda and not the other way around

The role of the European Union in the international trade and investment order

The priority of the EU in the international trade and investment order is to provide leadership in supporting the open, rules-based order at a time when it faces its most severe test since the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) more than 70 years ago. An effective EU policy on international trade and investment is important for the EU in terms of ensuring access to future growth markets and promoting sustainable development. But at the time of major threats from both the United States and China, it is important for the EU to support an open, rules-based trading system. The EU cannot however, achieve this aim alone, and will need to cooperate with like-minded countries that share this broad aim. The EU’s capability to pursue a coherent policy in pursuit of these general aims requires the establishment of an effective trade policy regime that includes the Council of Ministers, European Commission, and European Parliament. It also requires the (re)establishment of a broad political consensus on the scope and aims of EU trade and investment policy, something that can only be achieved with the full engagement of member state governments and stakeholders in an informed debate