For a long time, the EU insisted that all parties sign the EU`s “Pan Euro-Med” rules of origin to allow the so-called `diagonal accumulation`.  Michel Barnier recently stated that the EU would not allow the UK to become a meeting ground for third-country inputs for further export to the EU and the draft Treaty on the European Union totally rejects the approach presented by the United Kingdom. In fact, it does not even offer the “Pan Euro Med” system, but proposes that only products manufactured in the EU or the UK can originally count in the case of supply chains between the EU and the UK. (This is a “bilateral cumulative” in trade negotiations.  Sometimes free trade agreements also contain provisions of the MFN, but they are not the same as the WTO`s MFN obligations. For example, Article 7.8 of the EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement provides that if one party agrees to grant better access to services to another country in a subsequent free trade agreement, the same treatment will be extended to the EU or South Korea. This means that if a free trade agreement between the EU and the UK on services goes beyond the South Korean model, this treatment may also need to be extended to South Korea. In addition to the more intransigent comments to the Commons committee, Frost said: “We are not saying that there can be no level playing field… All we are saying is that there must be provisions that are appropriate for a free trade agreement… None of these requirements is without merit from the British point of view and, indeed, the UKTPO has strongly advocated such profound integration. The ambition of a negotiation is not bad either. However, it is difficult to understand the tactic of transferring it to the EU while reducing the time for negotiation by refusing to extend the current transition period. Is it pride, are the claims not serious, are they mere bargaining games to create levers for fishing and freedom of the “same conditions of competition”? Or is the government suddenly serious about these issues and will it try to reach an agreement by October with an implementation period that would give way to negotiations so that they can be negotiated in the years to come? One thing they do not do is ensure safety.
The role of trade agreements in reducing NB and promoting trade facilitation is often underestimated. For goods, for example, it is estimated that ntbs are added to about 10% of the costs. In terms of services, it is not uncommon, in the meantime, for NB to prevent or render cross-border trade totally unprofitable. Similarly, the impact of border bureaucracy on the cost of imported goods is estimated to be between 2% and 15% more. The short answer to this question is “no,” although the United Kingdom is agreed in a number of cases, namely that it is negotiating agreements to obtain as many benefits as possible in existing trade agreements. A second point of disagreement is the “equivalence” of financial services. The policy statement acknowledges that the parties “maintain their ability to make equivalency decisions in their own interest,” but commits to “transparency and appropriate consultation in the process of accepting, suspending and withdrawing equivalency decisions” (point 37). Article 17.19 of the UK`s draft free trade agreement introduces this last point at the same time as the obligation of “regulatory cooperation (…) (a) establish and maintain close and structured regulatory cooperation” in the area of financial services. The EU sees this as a call for a common decision.