The Cato Institute has published a white paper (PDF) on their notions of what a free trade agreement between the U. S. and the U. K. would look like. I’m glad to see that they mentioned this:
Historically, free trade agreements have not been about “free trade†per se. These deals are better characterized as managed trade agreements because they tend to simultaneously liberalize, divert, and stymie trade and investment flows. Whereas some parts of these agreements clearly reduce barriers, other provisions work to insulate incumbents and the status quo from dynamic, competitive forces.
Here’s the basic outline of their plan:
• Zero tariffs on all goods (agricultural commodities, primary industry resources, and manufacturing industry goods);
• Zero discriminatory nontariff barriers, which means no discrimination by either party in the content or exercise of the laws, regulations, or practices affecting the provision of services of either party, including no restrictions on the entry of businesspeople in the conduct of the provision of business services;
• Zero restrictions on competition for government procurement;
• Zero restrictions on foreign direct investment in the economy;
• Zero restrictions on cross-border data flow;
• Elimination to the fullest extent possible of impediments to expeditious customs clearance procedures for both imports and exports;
• Preclusion of the adoption of antidumping or safeguard measures between or among parties; and
• Strict prohibitions against the use of nontariff barriers, such as performance requirements, restrictions based on scientifically unsubstantiated public health and safety concerns, and restrictions based on national security concerns that fail to meet certain minimum standards.
That barely scratches the surface of what would be required and even that is politically impossible. Said another way we will continue to have managed trade for the foreseeable future, even with the United Kingdom.
If we are to have managed trade, it should be managed so that many, many more people benefit from it than at present. Our present strategy of managing trade subsidizes the wealthy and throws the unprotected to the wolves.
The US really should take a shot at a UK/USA trade deal. The two countries are very similar (high income with huge trade deficits — the only major developed economies running trade deficits) economies. My only suggestion is to give the trade agreement an ability to be updated if the trade becomes unbalanced (like some adjustment system if the trade deficit exceeds a certain % of GDP).
I even have a name; the common trade area agreement.