> No. But the rest of your comment seems to say "Yes." > Trade deals get signed because all parties involved believe it will be to their mutual benefit. I th

> No. But the rest of your comment seems to say "Yes." > Trade deals get signed because all parties involved believe it will be to their mutual benefit. I think that's optimistic. Deals get signed fundamentally because each side individually benefits. A better deal will see the weaker partner able to grow as a result, but that's not necessary for it to be worthwhile to the stronger partner. > Why would you want to sign a trade deal with a weak country? It is self-defeating: you would get little out of it. There's always a stronger and a weaker player at the table. It might take some fiddling to work out which is which, and it's certainly not limited to a single axis, but deals still happen. > abuse regulatory passporting I don't see that as abuse, that's just playing the game with the pieces that are on the board. From France's point of view, given the choice between a quick zero-sum win where they gain the limited number of banks available and a long-term mutual win where everyone grows, why not do both?