Mixing
Does unilateral free trade (no trade barriers from anywhere) imply no standards?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Some people have proposed that after Brexit, the UK could adopt the "Singapore model" with unilateral free trade, and have no tariffs or non-tariff trade barriers from anywhere. For example, see The Telegraph, The Guardian, or this Conservative Home article. From the UK perspective, this would resolve the Irish border problem, as the UK Customs would not perform checks at the Irish Border, and it would be compatible with WTO Most Favoured Nation principles, as the UK would not perform checks from anywhere else, either (of course, the EU would still check its external customs border, including in Ireland).
Does this model imply that the UK could no longer have any product standards? Or could the UK under WTO rules still set standards on what can be legally sold in the UK, even when there are no limitations on what can be legally imported?
united-kingdom brexit trade
asked 3 hours ago
gerrit
16.3k560146
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Some people have proposed that after Brexit, the UK could adopt the "Singapore model" with unilateral free trade, and have no tariffs or non-tariff trade barriers from anywhere. For example, see The Telegraph, The Guardian, or this Conservative Home article. From the UK perspective, this would resolve the Irish border problem, as the UK Customs would not perform checks at the Irish Border, and it would be compatible with WTO Most Favoured Nation principles, as the UK would not perform checks from anywhere else, either (of course, the EU would still check its external customs border, including in Ireland).
Does this model imply that the UK could no longer have any product standards? Or could the UK under WTO rules still set standards on what can be legally sold in the UK, even when there are no limitations on what can be legally imported?
united-kingdom brexit trade
asked 3 hours ago
gerrit
16.3k560146
"Or could the UK under WTO rules still set standards on what can be legally sold in the UK, even when there are no limitations on what can be legally imported?" Consider guns, drugs etc.
– Orangesandlemons
1 hour ago
@Orangesandlemons Well, maybe. Nobody said that the proposal to not do any customs checks ever isn't a radical proposal.
– gerrit
37 mins ago
1
Singapore still has Customs. Almost all goods are duty free, but there are sin taxes on a few (export.gov/article?id=Singapore-Import-Tariffs). Illegal goods are illegal. customs.gov.sg
– Paul Johnson
31 mins ago
1
@PaulJohnson True. So what some are describing as the "Singapore model" is actually even more radical than Singapore.
– gerrit
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Some people have proposed that after Brexit, the UK could adopt the "Singapore model" with unilateral free trade, and have no tariffs or non-tariff trade barriers from anywhere. For example, see The Telegraph, The Guardian, or this Conservative Home article. From the UK perspective, this would resolve the Irish border problem, as the UK Customs would not perform checks at the Irish Border, and it would be compatible with WTO Most Favoured Nation principles, as the UK would not perform checks from anywhere else, either (of course, the EU would still check its external customs border, including in Ireland).
Does this model imply that the UK could no longer have any product standards? Or could the UK under WTO rules still set standards on what can be legally sold in the UK, even when there are no limitations on what can be legally imported?
united-kingdom brexit trade
asked 3 hours ago
gerrit
16.3k560146
Some people have proposed that after Brexit, the UK could adopt the "Singapore model" with unilateral free trade, and have no tariffs or non-tariff trade barriers from anywhere. For example, see The Telegraph, The Guardian, or this Conservative Home article. From the UK perspective, this would resolve the Irish border problem, as the UK Customs would not perform checks at the Irish Border, and it would be compatible with WTO Most Favoured Nation principles, as the UK would not perform checks from anywhere else, either (of course, the EU would still check its external customs border, including in Ireland).
Does this model imply that the UK could no longer have any product standards? Or could the UK under WTO rules still set standards on what can be legally sold in the UK, even when there are no limitations on what can be legally imported?
united-kingdom brexit trade
united-kingdom brexit trade
asked 3 hours ago
gerrit
16.3k560146
asked 3 hours ago
gerrit
16.3k560146
edited 3 hours ago
asked 3 hours ago
gerrit
16.3k560146
asked 3 hours ago
gerrit
16.3k560146
asked 3 hours ago
gerrit
16.3k560146
16.3k560146
"Or could the UK under WTO rules still set standards on what can be legally sold in the UK, even when there are no limitations on what can be legally imported?" Consider guns, drugs etc.
– Orangesandlemons
1 hour ago
@Orangesandlemons Well, maybe. Nobody said that the proposal to not do any customs checks ever isn't a radical proposal.
– gerrit
37 mins ago
1
Singapore still has Customs. Almost all goods are duty free, but there are sin taxes on a few (export.gov/article?id=Singapore-Import-Tariffs). Illegal goods are illegal. customs.gov.sg
– Paul Johnson
31 mins ago
1
@PaulJohnson True. So what some are describing as the "Singapore model" is actually even more radical than Singapore.
– gerrit
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
"Or could the UK under WTO rules still set standards on what can be legally sold in the UK, even when there are no limitations on what can be legally imported?" Consider guns, drugs etc.
– Orangesandlemons
1 hour ago
@Orangesandlemons Well, maybe. Nobody said that the proposal to not do any customs checks ever isn't a radical proposal.
– gerrit
37 mins ago
1
Singapore still has Customs. Almost all goods are duty free, but there are sin taxes on a few (export.gov/article?id=Singapore-Import-Tariffs). Illegal goods are illegal. customs.gov.sg
– Paul Johnson
31 mins ago
1
@PaulJohnson True. So what some are describing as the "Singapore model" is actually even more radical than Singapore.
– gerrit
24 mins ago
"Or could the UK under WTO rules still set standards on what can be legally sold in the UK, even when there are no limitations on what can be legally imported?" Consider guns, drugs etc.
– Orangesandlemons
1 hour ago
"Or could the UK under WTO rules still set standards on what can be legally sold in the UK, even when there are no limitations on what can be legally imported?" Consider guns, drugs etc.
– Orangesandlemons
1 hour ago
@Orangesandlemons Well, maybe. Nobody said that the proposal to not do any customs checks ever isn't a radical proposal.
– gerrit
37 mins ago
@Orangesandlemons Well, maybe. Nobody said that the proposal to not do any customs checks ever isn't a radical proposal.
– gerrit
37 mins ago
1
1
Singapore still has Customs. Almost all goods are duty free, but there are sin taxes on a few (export.gov/article?id=Singapore-Import-Tariffs). Illegal goods are illegal. customs.gov.sg
– Paul Johnson
31 mins ago
Singapore still has Customs. Almost all goods are duty free, but there are sin taxes on a few (export.gov/article?id=Singapore-Import-Tariffs). Illegal goods are illegal. customs.gov.sg
– Paul Johnson
31 mins ago
1
1
@PaulJohnson True. So what some are describing as the "Singapore model" is actually even more radical than Singapore.
– gerrit
24 mins ago
@PaulJohnson True. So what some are describing as the "Singapore model" is actually even more radical than Singapore.
– gerrit
24 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
The UK could still have standards, but (from a CATO paper on regulatory protectionism)
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), one of the WTO’s
core treaties drafted in 1947, does not stop at border measures but
also requires national treatment of imports; that is, governments’
domestic laws must treat imports the same as goods produced at home.
This kind of thing can get tricky, since clever regulatory capture subtly takes ideas that seem to be defending consumers and promote them to the extent that their main effect is squashing competition. For example:
The U.S. Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (popularly known as
the “2008 farm billâ€Â) included provisions requiring country-of-origin
labeling (COOL) on all imported beef, chicken, lamb, pork, and goat
meat and certain perishable commodities sold in retail outlets in the
United States...
A WTO panel found, and the Appellate Body confirmed, that mandatory
COOL rules violate Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement by treating
imported livestock and meat from Canada and Mexico (the two
complainants in the case) less favorably than similar domestically
produced products. According to the Appellate Body report, the burden
of maintaining detailed records, which caused harm to foreign
livestock producers by increasing their costs, was not justified by
the goal of informing consumers, because the information ultimately
given to consumers was much less specific than what the processors
were required to keep track of. This disparity sufficiently revealed
the protectionist nature of the law.
Another example comes from anti-smoking regulation
In 2009 the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act banned the sale
of all flavored cigarettes in the United States, except menthols. Why
the exception for menthols? It’s not because menthol cigarettes have
fewer negative effects than other flavored cigarettes19 or because
menthol cigarettes are less favored by new, underaged smokers than
clove cigarettes.20 No, there are two reasons menthols were excluded.
One, because they are popular—25 percent of all cigarettes smoked in
the United States are menthols—especially among African-Americans (80
percent of black smokers choose menthols). And two, because a ban on
flavored nonmenthol cigarettes did not affect U.S. cigarette
producers, only their foreign competition. The result was a ban on
less popular flavored cigarettes from Indonesia but not on the
flavored cigarettes made in the United States.
The WTO found this law also to be inconsistent with U.S. obligations
under the TBT Agreement. Here, the Appellate Body considered that
prevention of youth smoking was a legitimate goal. They even accepted
that treating cloves less favorably than menthols would be acceptable
if that different treatment was based on a “legitimate regulatory
distinction.â€Â21 But they also recognized that exempting menthols did
not further the stated goal of the regulation, because there was no
evidence that young people would not choose to smoke menthols instead
of cloves.
These examples come from the United States and the notably pro-trade CATO institute, but they illuminate how the WTO looks at product standards and regulations.
So under WTO rules, the UK can still have product standards. These product standards cannot, however, be tariffs in disguise. They cannot impose a regulatory burden on foreign importers and not domestic ones without a compelling reason.
answered 28 mins ago
lazarusL
5,40722044
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
If there are no barriers then there can be no standards imposed on goods coming in to the country, as checking to see if goods meet those standards is itself a barrier that creates delays and costs for importers. A so-called "no tariff barrier" because it's not a direct financial penalty but nevertheless hinders free trade.
In fact Singapore does have border controls and trade barriers. For example, most types of chewing gum are banned and cannot be imported. Checks at ports and borders prevent it entering the country.
answered 21 mins ago
user
4,86521125
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
The UK could still have standards, but (from a CATO paper on regulatory protectionism)
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), one of the WTO’s
core treaties drafted in 1947, does not stop at border measures but
also requires national treatment of imports; that is, governments’
domestic laws must treat imports the same as goods produced at home.
This kind of thing can get tricky, since clever regulatory capture subtly takes ideas that seem to be defending consumers and promote them to the extent that their main effect is squashing competition. For example:
The U.S. Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (popularly known as
the “2008 farm billâ€Â) included provisions requiring country-of-origin
labeling (COOL) on all imported beef, chicken, lamb, pork, and goat
meat and certain perishable commodities sold in retail outlets in the
United States...
A WTO panel found, and the Appellate Body confirmed, that mandatory
COOL rules violate Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement by treating
imported livestock and meat from Canada and Mexico (the two
complainants in the case) less favorably than similar domestically
produced products. According to the Appellate Body report, the burden
of maintaining detailed records, which caused harm to foreign
livestock producers by increasing their costs, was not justified by
the goal of informing consumers, because the information ultimately
given to consumers was much less specific than what the processors
were required to keep track of. This disparity sufficiently revealed
the protectionist nature of the law.
Another example comes from anti-smoking regulation
In 2009 the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act banned the sale
of all flavored cigarettes in the United States, except menthols. Why
the exception for menthols? It’s not because menthol cigarettes have
fewer negative effects than other flavored cigarettes19 or because
menthol cigarettes are less favored by new, underaged smokers than
clove cigarettes.20 No, there are two reasons menthols were excluded.
One, because they are popular—25 percent of all cigarettes smoked in
the United States are menthols—especially among African-Americans (80
percent of black smokers choose menthols). And two, because a ban on
flavored nonmenthol cigarettes did not affect U.S. cigarette
producers, only their foreign competition. The result was a ban on
less popular flavored cigarettes from Indonesia but not on the
flavored cigarettes made in the United States.
The WTO found this law also to be inconsistent with U.S. obligations
under the TBT Agreement. Here, the Appellate Body considered that
prevention of youth smoking was a legitimate goal. They even accepted
that treating cloves less favorably than menthols would be acceptable
if that different treatment was based on a “legitimate regulatory
distinction.â€Â21 But they also recognized that exempting menthols did
not further the stated goal of the regulation, because there was no
evidence that young people would not choose to smoke menthols instead
of cloves.
These examples come from the United States and the notably pro-trade CATO institute, but they illuminate how the WTO looks at product standards and regulations.
So under WTO rules, the UK can still have product standards. These product standards cannot, however, be tariffs in disguise. They cannot impose a regulatory burden on foreign importers and not domestic ones without a compelling reason.
answered 28 mins ago
lazarusL
5,40722044
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
The UK could still have standards, but (from a CATO paper on regulatory protectionism)
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), one of the WTO’s
core treaties drafted in 1947, does not stop at border measures but
also requires national treatment of imports; that is, governments’
domestic laws must treat imports the same as goods produced at home.
This kind of thing can get tricky, since clever regulatory capture subtly takes ideas that seem to be defending consumers and promote them to the extent that their main effect is squashing competition. For example:
The U.S. Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (popularly known as
the “2008 farm billâ€Â) included provisions requiring country-of-origin
labeling (COOL) on all imported beef, chicken, lamb, pork, and goat
meat and certain perishable commodities sold in retail outlets in the
United States...
A WTO panel found, and the Appellate Body confirmed, that mandatory
COOL rules violate Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement by treating
imported livestock and meat from Canada and Mexico (the two
complainants in the case) less favorably than similar domestically
produced products. According to the Appellate Body report, the burden
of maintaining detailed records, which caused harm to foreign
livestock producers by increasing their costs, was not justified by
the goal of informing consumers, because the information ultimately
given to consumers was much less specific than what the processors
were required to keep track of. This disparity sufficiently revealed
the protectionist nature of the law.
Another example comes from anti-smoking regulation
In 2009 the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act banned the sale
of all flavored cigarettes in the United States, except menthols. Why
the exception for menthols? It’s not because menthol cigarettes have
fewer negative effects than other flavored cigarettes19 or because
menthol cigarettes are less favored by new, underaged smokers than
clove cigarettes.20 No, there are two reasons menthols were excluded.
One, because they are popular—25 percent of all cigarettes smoked in
the United States are menthols—especially among African-Americans (80
percent of black smokers choose menthols). And two, because a ban on
flavored nonmenthol cigarettes did not affect U.S. cigarette
producers, only their foreign competition. The result was a ban on
less popular flavored cigarettes from Indonesia but not on the
flavored cigarettes made in the United States.
The WTO found this law also to be inconsistent with U.S. obligations
under the TBT Agreement. Here, the Appellate Body considered that
prevention of youth smoking was a legitimate goal. They even accepted
that treating cloves less favorably than menthols would be acceptable
if that different treatment was based on a “legitimate regulatory
distinction.â€Â21 But they also recognized that exempting menthols did
not further the stated goal of the regulation, because there was no
evidence that young people would not choose to smoke menthols instead
of cloves.
These examples come from the United States and the notably pro-trade CATO institute, but they illuminate how the WTO looks at product standards and regulations.
So under WTO rules, the UK can still have product standards. These product standards cannot, however, be tariffs in disguise. They cannot impose a regulatory burden on foreign importers and not domestic ones without a compelling reason.
answered 28 mins ago
lazarusL
5,40722044
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The UK could still have standards, but (from a CATO paper on regulatory protectionism)
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), one of the WTO’s
core treaties drafted in 1947, does not stop at border measures but
also requires national treatment of imports; that is, governments’
domestic laws must treat imports the same as goods produced at home.
This kind of thing can get tricky, since clever regulatory capture subtly takes ideas that seem to be defending consumers and promote them to the extent that their main effect is squashing competition. For example:
The U.S. Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (popularly known as
the “2008 farm billâ€Â) included provisions requiring country-of-origin
labeling (COOL) on all imported beef, chicken, lamb, pork, and goat
meat and certain perishable commodities sold in retail outlets in the
United States...
A WTO panel found, and the Appellate Body confirmed, that mandatory
COOL rules violate Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement by treating
imported livestock and meat from Canada and Mexico (the two
complainants in the case) less favorably than similar domestically
produced products. According to the Appellate Body report, the burden
of maintaining detailed records, which caused harm to foreign
livestock producers by increasing their costs, was not justified by
the goal of informing consumers, because the information ultimately
given to consumers was much less specific than what the processors
were required to keep track of. This disparity sufficiently revealed
the protectionist nature of the law.
Another example comes from anti-smoking regulation
In 2009 the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act banned the sale
of all flavored cigarettes in the United States, except menthols. Why
the exception for menthols? It’s not because menthol cigarettes have
fewer negative effects than other flavored cigarettes19 or because
menthol cigarettes are less favored by new, underaged smokers than
clove cigarettes.20 No, there are two reasons menthols were excluded.
One, because they are popular—25 percent of all cigarettes smoked in
the United States are menthols—especially among African-Americans (80
percent of black smokers choose menthols). And two, because a ban on
flavored nonmenthol cigarettes did not affect U.S. cigarette
producers, only their foreign competition. The result was a ban on
less popular flavored cigarettes from Indonesia but not on the
flavored cigarettes made in the United States.
The WTO found this law also to be inconsistent with U.S. obligations
under the TBT Agreement. Here, the Appellate Body considered that
prevention of youth smoking was a legitimate goal. They even accepted
that treating cloves less favorably than menthols would be acceptable
if that different treatment was based on a “legitimate regulatory
distinction.â€Â21 But they also recognized that exempting menthols did
not further the stated goal of the regulation, because there was no
evidence that young people would not choose to smoke menthols instead
of cloves.
These examples come from the United States and the notably pro-trade CATO institute, but they illuminate how the WTO looks at product standards and regulations.
So under WTO rules, the UK can still have product standards. These product standards cannot, however, be tariffs in disguise. They cannot impose a regulatory burden on foreign importers and not domestic ones without a compelling reason.
answered 28 mins ago
lazarusL
5,40722044
The UK could still have standards, but (from a CATO paper on regulatory protectionism)
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), one of the WTO’s
core treaties drafted in 1947, does not stop at border measures but
also requires national treatment of imports; that is, governments’
domestic laws must treat imports the same as goods produced at home.
This kind of thing can get tricky, since clever regulatory capture subtly takes ideas that seem to be defending consumers and promote them to the extent that their main effect is squashing competition. For example:
The U.S. Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (popularly known as
the “2008 farm billâ€Â) included provisions requiring country-of-origin
labeling (COOL) on all imported beef, chicken, lamb, pork, and goat
meat and certain perishable commodities sold in retail outlets in the
United States...
A WTO panel found, and the Appellate Body confirmed, that mandatory
COOL rules violate Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement by treating
imported livestock and meat from Canada and Mexico (the two
complainants in the case) less favorably than similar domestically
produced products. According to the Appellate Body report, the burden
of maintaining detailed records, which caused harm to foreign
livestock producers by increasing their costs, was not justified by
the goal of informing consumers, because the information ultimately
given to consumers was much less specific than what the processors
were required to keep track of. This disparity sufficiently revealed
the protectionist nature of the law.
Another example comes from anti-smoking regulation
In 2009 the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act banned the sale
of all flavored cigarettes in the United States, except menthols. Why
the exception for menthols? It’s not because menthol cigarettes have
fewer negative effects than other flavored cigarettes19 or because
menthol cigarettes are less favored by new, underaged smokers than
clove cigarettes.20 No, there are two reasons menthols were excluded.
One, because they are popular—25 percent of all cigarettes smoked in
the United States are menthols—especially among African-Americans (80
percent of black smokers choose menthols). And two, because a ban on
flavored nonmenthol cigarettes did not affect U.S. cigarette
producers, only their foreign competition. The result was a ban on
less popular flavored cigarettes from Indonesia but not on the
flavored cigarettes made in the United States.
The WTO found this law also to be inconsistent with U.S. obligations
under the TBT Agreement. Here, the Appellate Body considered that
prevention of youth smoking was a legitimate goal. They even accepted
that treating cloves less favorably than menthols would be acceptable
if that different treatment was based on a “legitimate regulatory
distinction.â€Â21 But they also recognized that exempting menthols did
not further the stated goal of the regulation, because there was no
evidence that young people would not choose to smoke menthols instead
of cloves.
These examples come from the United States and the notably pro-trade CATO institute, but they illuminate how the WTO looks at product standards and regulations.
So under WTO rules, the UK can still have product standards. These product standards cannot, however, be tariffs in disguise. They cannot impose a regulatory burden on foreign importers and not domestic ones without a compelling reason.
answered 28 mins ago
lazarusL
5,40722044
answered 28 mins ago
lazarusL
5,40722044
answered 28 mins ago
lazarusL
5,40722044
answered 28 mins ago
lazarusL
5,40722044
5,40722044
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
If there are no barriers then there can be no standards imposed on goods coming in to the country, as checking to see if goods meet those standards is itself a barrier that creates delays and costs for importers. A so-called "no tariff barrier" because it's not a direct financial penalty but nevertheless hinders free trade.
In fact Singapore does have border controls and trade barriers. For example, most types of chewing gum are banned and cannot be imported. Checks at ports and borders prevent it entering the country.
answered 21 mins ago
user
4,86521125
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
If there are no barriers then there can be no standards imposed on goods coming in to the country, as checking to see if goods meet those standards is itself a barrier that creates delays and costs for importers. A so-called "no tariff barrier" because it's not a direct financial penalty but nevertheless hinders free trade.
In fact Singapore does have border controls and trade barriers. For example, most types of chewing gum are banned and cannot be imported. Checks at ports and borders prevent it entering the country.
answered 21 mins ago
user
4,86521125
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
If there are no barriers then there can be no standards imposed on goods coming in to the country, as checking to see if goods meet those standards is itself a barrier that creates delays and costs for importers. A so-called "no tariff barrier" because it's not a direct financial penalty but nevertheless hinders free trade.
In fact Singapore does have border controls and trade barriers. For example, most types of chewing gum are banned and cannot be imported. Checks at ports and borders prevent it entering the country.
answered 21 mins ago
user
4,86521125
If there are no barriers then there can be no standards imposed on goods coming in to the country, as checking to see if goods meet those standards is itself a barrier that creates delays and costs for importers. A so-called "no tariff barrier" because it's not a direct financial penalty but nevertheless hinders free trade.
In fact Singapore does have border controls and trade barriers. For example, most types of chewing gum are banned and cannot be imported. Checks at ports and borders prevent it entering the country.
answered 21 mins ago
user
4,86521125
answered 21 mins ago
user
4,86521125
answered 21 mins ago
user
4,86521125
answered 21 mins ago
user
4,86521125
4,86521125
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f34473%2fdoes-unilateral-free-trade-no-trade-barriers-from-anywhere-imply-no-standards%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
"Or could the UK under WTO rules still set standards on what can be legally sold in the UK, even when there are no limitations on what can be legally imported?" Consider guns, drugs etc.
– Orangesandlemons
1 hour ago
@Orangesandlemons Well, maybe. Nobody said that the proposal to not do any customs checks ever isn't a radical proposal.
– gerrit
37 mins ago
1
Singapore still has Customs. Almost all goods are duty free, but there are sin taxes on a few (export.gov/article?id=Singapore-Import-Tariffs). Illegal goods are illegal. customs.gov.sg
– Paul Johnson
31 mins ago
1
@PaulJohnson True. So what some are describing as the "Singapore model" is actually even more radical than Singapore.
– gerrit
24 mins ago