"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Mark Allread wrote:
But it wouldn't be a *free* trade deal, we'd have to re-negotiate
those,

and that is where I was told I was wrong (along with others) and that
the UK would *not* need to re-negotiate any trade deals. Reference was
made to India as an example but what I have seen clearly states that we
have no current trade deal with India.

Of course it doesn't *have* to negotiate any trade deals. Most countries
do allow trade with others. It's the terms of that trade which need a
deal.

For example, India might put a tarrif on all imports from countries where
it hasn't got a deal.

India is a member of the WTO

It cannot randomly put tariffs on items willy-nilly, it has to follow WTO
rules, or risk being thrown out (it has been a member of GATT since 1948, so
seems reasonable to assume it does want to stay in the club)

Say 25%. Obviously they'd be happy to *sell* to the
UK tarrif free. But this would put the UK at a trade disadvantage over
another country that had a deal with India to sell to them tarrif free.

which countries would that be (we have learnt that it doesn't include the
EU)?

Such trade deals tend to take ages to negotiate. Some ongoing for many
many years. Even more so between a large country like India and a small
one like the UK. A large country is going to be keener to make a deal with
another large one.

The measure of "size" for trade deals has to be based upon GDP. On that
measure the UK is a large country.

It is pointless India putting more effort into a deal with Bangladesh than
the UK on the basis that Bangladesh had 3 times the population, because all
of these, almost 200 million people, are poor and don't have the money to
buy much of what India has to sell.

tim

i