There are many good reasons to negotiate and conclude a bilateral trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom. One of the best reasons is that it offers two of the world`s largest economies – both deeply committed to the institutions of free market capitalism and the rule of law – the opportunity to explore new avenues and advance the rules of a truly liberal trade agreement of the 21st century. What should cause traffic jams are the controversial elements of a quality free trade pact. Both sides should negotiate banking regulations that would facilitate the free trade in financial services. They should put an end to the mutual recognition of professional qualifications so that british and American architects, engineers, accountants and others can work freely on both sides of the Atlantic. There should be mutual recognition of product safety rules and inspections. In order to further facilitate the benefits of the free movement of persons, the agreement should include a language defining the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. In this regard, the agreement may follow the precedent of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997, which allows any registered person to practice a profession in one country, in the other country. However, Brexit has caused some complications in the exchange of services between Britain and the United States.

For example, exit from the single market could undermine the UK`s commitment to the “single passport” protocol, which allows UK subsidiaries of US banks to provide cross-border financial services within the EU. The UK government has powers over trade agreements and international agreements, as well as the right and power to pass laws on all matters under parliamentary sovereignty, but the UK government will generally seek the compliant advice of the Devolved Parliament (s) when areas of agreement conflict with issues of decentralised jurisdiction. Regardless of their ability to legislate, even if political realities limit it, the United States and the United Kingdom – traditionally two of the world`s leading defenders of free trade – might be able to conclude a free trade agreement that would reorganize the model by pushing for more trade liberalization and less governance, which is attractive enough for others to which they want to join. In the United States, a precondition for approval to grant the president the power to negotiate trade agreements with foreign governments and bring them back for expedited (rapid) legislative review (no amendments, no expanded debate, just an up or down vote), Congress requires an agreement to achieve a large number of negotiating objectives. First of all, it should be noted that free trade and free trade agreements are not the same. Free trade is the freedom of people to act as they want, with whomever they want, and without politicians or bureaucrats as gatekeepers. With regard to free trade, it is a matter of removing the barriers that benefit some at the expense of others, so that each of us individually has the broadest choice in deciding how best to use our own resources. In this context, what could be a realistic U.S.-U.K. What do FTAs look like? First, the objective should be a complete and rapid liberalisation of trade, with the exception of the most sensitive products. The United Kingdom Free Trade and Free Trade Agreements should be a living agreement open to new members who are ready and able to meet their terms. Membership provisions are common in trade agreements and in the UK.

The free trade agreement should take into account other countries that wish to join as long as they are ready to make important and liberal commitments.