Why it’s a mistake to talk about a ‘Swiss-style’ post-Brexit UK-EU deal

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED NOVEMBER 21, 2022 | UPDATED DECEMBER 5, 2022

Maybe it was because someone thought it would be a good idea to stick a label on where UK-EU relations might be heading now that the atmosphere between the two is widely reported to have improved. Or perhaps it was just because people were bored while waiting for the football World Cup to start.

Whatever the reason, “Swiss-style ties with Brussels” suddenly became big news over the weekend after the Sunday Times reported (November 20, 2022, paywalled, but some more detail here) that the British government is considering exactly that.

Reactions ranged from “Doubt it. EU hates its relationship with Switzerland & Switzerland hates its relationship with EU” (Mujtaba Rahman, here), to “when someone says ‘Swiss-style’ relationship, rather than hearing ‘a slightly better relationship [than] now’ everyone is like ‘LET ME GET MY NOTES’” (Sam Lowe, here).

The problem here is that “Swiss-style” is being used as shorthand. It’s a label, but one that’s misleading and not really explained. Both of the reactions above are valid, at least to some extent, but they are talking about different things.

UK-Australia trade deal: when a cap on farm goods is not a cap

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JUNE 18, 2021 | UPDATED JUNE 2, 2023

“British farmers will be protected by a cap on tariff-free imports for 15 years, using tariff rate quotas and other safeguards,” declared the UK International Trade Department on June 15, 2021.

But will they, though? The text of the agreement-in-principle between Britain and Australia was published a few days later, also in several formats on the Australian government website.

It was not a final deal. That was eventually signed six months later, on December 16, 2021. It took effect on May 31, 2023.

Much of the June agreement-in-principle was in the future tense — agreement between the two “will include” this that and the other. Negotiations continued.

A note at the end of the text, which the Australian government called a “disclaimer”, said:

“DISCLAIMER: This document reflects what the UK and Australian FTA [free trade agreement] negotiating teams have jointly decided as of 16 June 2021 should be included in the FTA once it is finalised. It does not prejudge the outcome of the FTA negotiations or any further proposals for FTA commitments either the UK or Australia may make after this date. It is also not intended to create any treaty obligations.”

But the agreement-in-principle did show some of what is intended for agricultural products.

The reason it was announced on June 15 is because British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and his Australian counterpart Scott Morrison wanted a fanfare for their post-G7 meeting, even if the negotiations were incomplete.

Two years later when the agreement came into force, Politico published this account of what happened at the Johnson-Morrison dinner before the announcement in 2021.

Down a rabbit hole in search of the Wensleydale deal with Norway

Rabbit hole noun

A complexly bizarre or difficult state or situation conceived of as a hole into which one falls or descends
— I wanted to show this woman descending into the rabbit hole: this loss of self, becoming a servant to her job and to the work — Jessica Chastain

Especially : One in which the pursuit of something (such as an answer or solution) leads to other questions, problems, or pursuits
— While trying to find the picture again on Google, I fell down the Cosmo rabbit hole, scrolling through a gallery of swimwear, then through “How to Be Sexier-Instantly” and then through all 23 slides of “Sexy Ideas for Long Hair.” — Edith Zimmerman

— Merriam Webster Dictionary online

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JUNE 8, 2021 | UPDATED JUNE 9, 2021

This is a cautionary tale about just how difficult it is to crack the secret codes of trade agreements. We can ask a simple question: how will the agreement change trade in a particular product. To reach the answer we often have to venture out into a wonderland of obscure paths and hidden traps.

Does it matter? Yes, if we want to find out for ourselves what is in the agreement. Bob Wolfe and I have argued at length about the need for more transparency in trade. This is true of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which is part of the rabbit warren. It is also true of free trade agreements.

Transparency doesn’t just mean making information available. It means making it accessible and understandable. Tracking down tariff commitments can be a nightmare, as this story shows.

The UK’s rolled-over deals after the Brexit transition

UPDATE: On January 25, 2024, talks between Canada and the UK broke down — paused by the UK — over issues such as Canadian tariff quotas for UK cheese, rules of origin for UK cars post-Brexit (affecting duty-free rights) and sanitary conditions for Canadian beef in the UK (not about hormones as in some reports but “about carcass washes used in Canadian processing facilities” according to Janyce McGregor of CBC.

The result was that the Canada-UK deal was an incomplete “roll-over” of the Canada-EU trade agreement. See “UK walks away from trade talks with Canada” (CBC)

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JANUARY 1, 2021 | UPDATED JANUARY 26, 2024

On January 1, 2021, Britain left the EU Single Market and customs union. That meant the EU’s free trade agreements with non-EU countries no longer applied to the UK.

The British government has negotiated, at speed, “roll-over” agreements with those non-EU countries in order to reproduce the effects of those agreements as much as possible so that continuity is maximised for UK business.

This article does not look at the contents or depth of the deals. It simply counts how many of the EU’s free trade agreements have been “rolled over” into continuity agreements with the UK, and how many have not been done.

‘No deal’ on UK-EU trade is worse than ‘Australia-style’

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED NOVEMBER 30, 2020 | UPDATED DECEMBER 1, 2020

As the risk of failure in the UK- EU talks on their future relationship increases towards the end of the Brexit transition, the British government is trying to disguise “no deal” as if it were some kind of deal.

What Brexiters used to call a “WTO deal”, is now “An Australia-type relationship” in coordinated messaging from Prime Minister Boris Johnson, his Cabinet, and his supporters in Parliament. Among the latest is Environment and Farming Secretary George Eustice. He of all people should know better.

Text of the UK-Japan trade deal: user-friendly download links

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED OCTOBER 24, 2020 | UPDATED JANUARY 25, 2021

The UK-Japan free trade agreement was signed in Tokyo on October 23, 2020. This page provides user-friendly links to download different chapters and annexes of the entire agreement.

Why do this? On the UK government’s website, the files are sub-divided somewhat arbitrarily — in particular the long files of goods schedules are split at arbitrary places, making it difficult to identify what each file contains.

The files linked here were taken from that website (on October 24, 2020), then redivided and in some cases recombined into chapters and annexes, and labelled accordingly.

This should also help in comparing the agreement, chapter by chapter, with the EU-Japan agreement (full details here).

Iain Duncan Smith & co are wrong about GATT Art24, Brexit and getting out of jail

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED SEPTEMBER 5, 2019 | UPDATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2019
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE TELEGRAPH WEBSITE, SEPTEMBER 2, 2019

Does the World Trade Organization (WTO) have a magic legal provision, one that Britain can use to get out of the “no-deal” Brexit jail?

No, and this has been pointed out repeatedly. And yet Iain Duncan Smith, David Campbell Bannerman and co, still think it does, judging by their piece for the Telegraph on August 30, 2019.

They are wrong because they misunderstand the provision they cite: Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). They are wrong because they overlook the realities of what it means.

Text of the UK-South Korea free trade agreement

Posted by Peter Ungphakorn
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019 | UPDATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2019

These are links to the text of the UK-South Korea free trade agreement, signed in London on August 22 and published on the South Korean Government website. It has been posted on that site in separate parts.

The longest sections are the schedule of commitments on goods (912 pages) and rules of origin (128 pages).

(A few days later, the texts were published on the British government website on September 10, along with an explanatory memorandum. A report to Parliament was published separately the previous day.

(See also an earlier piece on rolling over the EU-S.Korea free trade agreement. This deal does that, but the devil is in the detail.)

GATT Art.24 — In-depth answers to frequently and not-so-frequently asked questions

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JUNE 27, 2019 | UPDATED NOVEMBER 9, 2019

This explanation of GATT Article 24 is pretty heavy-going,
because it looks at a lot of the detail. A much simpler explanation is here.

See also:
The myth of a 10-year grace period, Brexit and trade talks with the EU  | The Article 24
red herring in less than 400 words | Brexit through the magic land of Eksive
GATT Article 24: they still don’t get it (video)

I thought/hoped it would die away, but it features ever more prominently in Brexit news. The current favourite to be the next UK prime minister wants to use it, sparking a huge debate — some of it way off the mark. And yet, we really don’t need to be talking about it at all.

“It” is Article 24 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), more specifically the paragraphs dealing with free trade agreements.

The bottom line is this: GATT Article 24 governs free trade agreements in goods. Politically, the article is unimportant and should never have been brought into the debate.

So if Article 24 is unimportant, what is important? These questions are:

• What kind of UK-EU deal is proposed?
• What would it do?
• Does it cover the UK’s needs? Who would it affect and how?
• Does it cover the EU’s needs? Who would it affect and how?
• What would it take for the UK and EU to agree?
• How long would it take?

That’s it.

IN DETAIL

A real beginner’s guide to GATT Article 24

Photo: Speed limits for 3-year-olds

By Peter Ungphakorn
POSTED JUNE XXIV, MMXIX | UPDATED NOVEMBER 9, 2019

We don’t usually argue about what a law means. Somehow this WTO rule has found its way into British political debate. It has become even more prominent because it’s advocated by Boris Johnson. And yet, we really don’t need to be talking about it at all.

I wrote a Twitter thread and was trying to recreate it as a blog post (it’s now published here). Then up popped a tweet from Dr Dominic Pimenta, responding to something then-UK Trade Secretary Liam Fox said:

“Yes I think this is needed. GATT 24 for a three year old please @CoppetainPU (Like you did for the WTO)”

So, this is for three-year-olds everywhere.