
Trading with the European Union under World Trade Organisation rules is âperfectly manageableâ for the UK, the worldâs leading trade diplomat told me last week. This is an important intervention â one that could impact the UKâs Article 50 negotiations with Brussels.
Having been granted an audience with Roberto Azevedo, I travelled to the WTOâs Geneva Headquarters. Formal interviews with the Director-General are rare â and Azevedo has barely commented on Brexit since the UKâs referendum on EU membership back in June 2016.
Our discussion ranged far and wideâŠ
Does Azevedo think the world is becoming more protectionist â with countries responding to economic difficulties by erecting more trade barriers?
âThere is a danger, yes, but we are not there yet.â
Given how fast the weight of global economic activity is shifting eastward, should large multi-lateral organisations like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the WTO, set up by leading Western nations after World War Two, change to reflect new realities?
âIt is already happening.â
Replied Azevedo, pointing out that both China and Russia have joined the WTO over the last twenty years. âWe are progressively universalising,â he continued, reminding me that the WTO now has 164 member states, between them accounting for over 95% of international trade. And, of course, Azevedo himself, as a Brazilian in the top job, is a symbol of the on-going transformation of the international regulatory bodies that oversee the global economy.
For my money, the WTO is the most important multi-lateral of them all. Negotiators from all member states congregate in Geneva, permanently arbitrating on trade disputes, under a system of agreed international rules. As such, the WTO is, effectively, the worldâs supreme court on trade. Rules are strictly enforced, with nations agreeing to block exports from any member unfairly discriminating against any other. Tariffs are allowed under WTO, but they are generally low, and falling.
This multi-lateral framework has, for decades, checked politiciansâ myopic tendencies to use trade barriers against specific competitors for short-term gain â a practice that, history shows, is often reciprocated, sparking mutual escalation, recrimination and deeply damaging trade wars. The WTO, then, acts as an insurance mechanism against global protectionism and commercial conflict.
As such, over the last 70 years, multilateral rules have enabled an enormous expansion of world trade, creating an age of unprecedented commercial cooperation across international borders â and, in relative historic terms, widespread peace. âThe WTOâs multilateral system is fundamental,â says Azevedo. âItâs the main core that holds the global trading system togetherâ.
Our conversation moves, inevitably, to Brexit. If Britain fails to strike a no-tariff free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU ahead of March 2019, when scheduled to leave, then UK-EU trade will revert to WTO rules. This scenario has been bitterly criticised by many Parliamentarians determined to frustrate Brexit. Labour MP Chuka Umunna has said âtrading with the EU under WTO rules would be disastrous for British firms and jobsâ. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable warns that the disruption could be âas serious as the [2008] credit crunchâ.
The Director-General of the WTO disagrees:
âAbout half of the UKâs trade is already on WTO terms â with the US, China and several large emerging nations where the EU doesnât have trade agreements. So itâs not the end of the world if the UK trades under WTO rules with the EUâ.

Azevedo acknowledged that an FTA with the EU would be the best outcome for Britain, given that trading under WTO rules would result in some UK-EU tariffs but he remains sanguine:
âIf you donât have a fully-functioning FTA with the EU, there could be rigidities and costs â but itâs not like trade between the UK and EU is going to stop. There will be an impact, but I suppose it is perfectly manageableâ.
I wrote up my exchange with Azevedo in detail in last weekendâs Sunday Telegraph. Here, on UnHerd, Iâd like to provide more context, emphasising longer-term implications.
Not so disastrousâŠ
To characterise trading under WTO rules as âdisastrousâ is alarmist and wrong. Having said that, a âbold and ambitiousâ FTA, keeping UK-EU trade largely tariff free, is obviously the UKâs preference. Theresa May made this clear in her Lancaster House speech of January 2017. But if we donât secure an FTA with the EU by March 2019, we then charge reciprocal WTO tariffs, averaging some 2 to 3%. This is no way stops UK trade with the EU, as Azevedo has said, gainsaying the doom-mongers. All nations have âaccessâ to the single market, provided regulatory standards are met and that generally low tariffs are paid. The US and China conduct hundreds of billions of dollars of EU trade annually with no FTA. Britain can do the same. Weâre well placed to trade with the EU on WTO terms as weâd start with full regulatory compliance.
If trading under âWTO rulesâ is so bad, how does the UK already sell the majority of its exports beyond the EU â largely under WTO rules? Such non-EU trade generates a surplus and is fast-growing, as oppose to our EU trade which is shrinking and in deep deficit â despite the single market. Britainâs existing trade with the US, our largest single trading partner, is on the basis of WTO rules â not least as the EU, given the often conflicting needs of numerous member states, has failed to agree a US trade deal despite 60 years of trying.
Commercial logic, in the shape of the EUâs ÂŁ71bn trade surplus with Britain, suggests Brussels should want a UK-EU trade agreement but a desire to âpunishâ Britain â or the refusal of some sub-regional EU parliamentary outpost to ratify any deal â could prevail. On a purely practical level, therefore, itâs vital that the UK prepares for WTO trade with the EU â making the necessary upgrades to cross-Channel customs clearance, of both physical infrastructure and staff.
This makes strategic sense too. Unless the EU sees Britain is willing not to sign any FTA Brussels puts on the table, weâll only be offered a bad one. Signing a terrible FTA out of desperation to âget a dealâ would disadvantage UK exporters and consumers for years. When Britain joined the European Economic Community in 1973, existing members changed our entry terms at the very last moment, forcing the UK to give up sovereignty over our fishing waters. Similarly today, the UK will only secure an advantageous FTA, and ensure that it isnât altered to our detriment at the last moment, if weâre willing, ready and able to trade instead under WTO rules.
Once the drama of Brexit is over, beyond March 2019 and any subsequent transition, WTO rules can then be used as a âplatformâ to cut an FTA with the EU under less time pressure, making a better long-term deal more likely. Some UK firms are worried that WTO rules will hurt âcomplex supply chainsâ across the EU. Yet most components are zero-rated for tariffs, even if the goods attract a tariff on final sale. Our EU deficit also means WTO rules will raise several billion pounds in net tariff revenues each year â which can be used to help UK sectors like automotives and agriculture, where EU tariffs are likely be higher.
âNo dealâ â trading with the EU with no FTA â is an entirely coherent position. It is very different from just âwalking awayâ â which means failing to settle administrative issues with the EU such as mutual recognition agreements on each othersâ exports. No one is advocating such an approach. It is unthinkable existing and uncontroversial EU protocols granted to countless other non-EU members would not also apply to Britain after Brexit. For Brussels to deny such rights, in a reckless bid to block UK-EU trade altogether, would itself breach WTO and EU treaties, while incensing EU businesses and voters by threatening billions of euros of profit and countless EU jobs.
And when it comes to lurid scare-stories about planes not flying, Europeâs âOpen Skiesâ agreement applies to numerous non-EU nations and those outside the single market. The UK boasts a huge aviation industry, with numerous EU-based airlines using our airports, giving us much leverage. Politicians will beat their chests, and spread fear, but the commercial imperatives to strike new flight deals are mutual and massive. If the details arenât finalised by March 2019, memorandums of understanding will surely extend current practice until new agreements are reached.
Again, âno dealâ, in this context, means trading with the EU under WTO rules â the basis on which we already conduct most of our trade with the rest of the world. This is a position we must be publicly willing and able to adopt, if we are ultimately to secure the best post-Brexit EU trading arrangements possible. The EUâs on-going and increasingly blatant intransigence â on everything from citizensâ rights, to the âdivorce billâ and the Irish border â highlights why Britain must prepare to operate without an EU FTA, as such a deal may be refused, whatever we do.
Itâs good news, then, that Chancellor Philip Hammond, in last weekâs budget, committed the funds1 to do upgrades to the UKâs customs and security infrastructure, that are needed anyway, and which make us ready to trade with the EU under WTO rules.
âWe know what is going on hereâ
A few months after the 2016 referendum, the then Liberal Democrat Business Secretary Sir Vince Cable tried to calm fellow delegates at his own party conference who were disappointed the UK had voted for Brexit:
âThere are people in the party who donât accept the outcome, who feel incredibly angry and feel itâs reversible, that somehow we can undo it. The public have voted and I do think itâs seriously disrespectful and politically utterly counterproductive to say âsorry guys, youâve got it wrong, weâre going to try againâ â I donât think we can do that.â
Cable has now changed his mind, of course. When the Liberal Democrats campaigned on a âfight Brexitâ platform during the June 2017 general election, the partyâs vote share slumped to an all-time low. Yet in July 2017, when Cable became party leader, he promptly adopted the same second-referendum policy, despite previously stating that it would be âseriously disrespectfulâ to the electorate.
This volte face by one of the UKâs most respected and thoughtful parliamentarians is indicative of the febrile mood at Westminster, given the uncertainties raised by a hung parliament. Not only in the Commons, but also the Lords, the anti-Brexit lobby is mobilising â with opposition parties sensing their moment could soon arrive.
Cableâs actions illustrate that, when it comes to base politics, carefully reasoned positions and instinctive principals go out of the window. If you can damage your political opponents to the benefit of your party, you adopt the policy position required to do so. The close parliamentary arithmetic since Juneâs General Election means rational debate has given way almost entirely to blatant opportunism. This is why Azevedoâs intervention is potentially so important.
In her Lancaster House speech, the Prime Minister pledged a parliamentary vote at the end of the Article 50 process. âI can confirm today that the government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament,â she said. But a strong Remain-supporting lobby in the Lords, then made a concerted attempt to alter the vote offered by May, attempting in March 2017 to amend the legislation to trigger Article 50.
Under the governmentâs proposal, if Parliament votes against any UK-EU deal, Britain reverts to a default option of trading with the EU under WTO rules, from outside the EU. A group of ultra-Remain peers instead promoted a default option that was somewhat different. Under their amendment, should Parliament choose to reject any UKâEU deal, the UK would then stay in the EU, despite the referendum result of the June 2016 referendum. This amounts, of course, to a Parliamentary veto on Brexit â even though both Houses of Parliament voted strongly in favour of granting the EU referendum and have since both passed Article 50.
As such, a âdefault EU membershipâ parliamentary vote would seriously undermine the UKâs negotiating position. If Parliament were able to veto Brexit, EU negotiators â mindful of Britainâs large annual financial contribution and wanting to discourage other nations from seeking to leave â would ensure any deal ultimately offered was so bad as to guarantee public outcry and parliamentary rejection.
A vote that reverts to WTO rules, in contrast, gives the EU an incentive to make the trade aspects of any UKâEU deal beneficial to both sides, mindful that imposing unfair conditions on the UK could result in WTO rules, including tariffs on EU exporters. Powerful European commercial interests would then be incentivised to push for a constructive UKâEU free-trade deal, making a success of our on-going commercial relationship post-Brexit. This is precisely the outcome that the EU, and the pro-EU UK establishment, doesnât want to happen.
The highly contentious amendment on a vote defaulting to EU membership was tabled in March 2017 by the crossbench peer Lord Pannick â the barrister behind the high-profile Supreme Court case brought by fund manager Gina Miller, which originally forced Theresa May to seek parliamentary approval for triggering Article 50.
Pannick had âa hidden agendaâ, according to former Conservative Cabinet minister Lord (Michael) Forsyth:
âI have to say to the noble Lord, we know what heâs up to, we know what is going on here. This House is absolutely full of people who still havenât come to terms with the result of the referendum and this is a clever lawyersâ confection in order to reverse the referendum result.â
Forsyth is exactly right.
In the end, despite more than seventy hours of parliamentary debate, the 137-word bill triggering Article 50 was eventually passed without amendment. But that was all -re-election. The combination of a hung parliament and the ongoing determination of the Lordsâ pro-Remain lobby suggests peers will try once again, over the coming months, to amend a future Brexit-related bill with a âbinding voteâ amendment, including a ârevert to EU membershipâ clause.
Thatâs why Parliamentarians determined to stop Brexit â in both the Commons and the Lords â want to paint âWTO rulesâ as a disaster. Language often linked to this option such as âcliff-edgeâ and âcrashing outâ, while repeated verbatim by broadcasters, is entirely misleading. It is designed to scare and confuse, preparing the ground for a Parliamentary showdown forcing the government to offer not a vote on accepting any EU deal offered or otherwise reverting to âWTO rulesâ, but instead on whether or not we should leave the EU.

During that battle, the testimony of such an unimpeachable, authoritative source as Roberto Azevedo Âsaying the UK could manage perfectly well under WTO rules could prove extremely important. Thatâs why, since I published my Telegraphinterview, Iâve been subject to endless abuse on social media â with numerous Brussels-Remain lobbyists calling me âa liarâ, casting doubt on the veracity of my reporting, accusing me of tricking Azevedo and even â absurdly â suggesting the WTO Director General âis confused about global trade rulesâ.
âNo Dealâ deadline
Agreeing no FTA with the EU before March 2019, is an entirely acceptable outcome for the UK â and it would be a major strategic error to think otherwise. Much of the florid language connected to âWTO rulesâ â the âgun to the head optionâ is another favourite of âStop Brexitâ campaigners â amounts only to scaremongering, as Azevedo has now confirmed.
His intervention was welcomed by Liam Fox, International Development Secretary:
âFar from the doomsday predictions given by some, if the UK trades under WTO rules with the EU, as Roberto Azevedo has said, that will be perfectly workable. While we clearly want a free-trade agreement with our friends in the EU, using WTO rules is entirely manageableâ.
Dr Fox said that after Brexit, the UK will benefit from operating independently within the WTO, the result of no longer having to conduct trade policy as a member of the EU:
âMy department is a firm supporter of the WTO and, as Britain becomes an independent trading nation once again, we will be one of the worldâs strongest advocates for further trade liberalisation and modernisation.â
It is, then, by no means âa disasterâ, to leave the EU with no FTA in place. This is a perfectly acceptable â and, in my view, given the EUâs bullheaded approach so far, it is now probably the most likely outcome. Thatâs why the government should very soon set a âno dealâ deadline for the middle of 2018, after which the focus of the UKâs attention will switch from trying to negotiate an FTA with the EU to all the other aspects of departure that must be agreed, not least the various protocols required to trade under WTO rules.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe