It's interesting. I agree the world would be easier and better if we could create trade deals without these extra rules. My impression is that they're all neces

It's interesting. I agree the world would be easier and better if we could create trade deals without these extra rules. My impression is that they're all necessary parts of fair deals though. > Nor would I assume that agreements between the UK + US or Asian countries would necessarily include EU style requirements Sadly, they will. As an example, the UK trade deal with India has hit problems already (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-britain-india-trade-deal-freedom-of-movement-delhi-boris-johnson-a7534026.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-brit...) because 'we cannot separate free movement of people from the free flow of goods, services and investments'. It's not the EU: trade deals necessitate much more than just agreeing to both remove your tariffs. Some of these extra restrictions are pretty clearly necessary I think. You need to ensure matching certifications and quality standards and IP rules for the entire area covered by a free trade deal, and enshrine that in law on both ends. If you don't, you have no penalties (by definition, for a 'free' trade deal) for companies that move from the EU to Canada (or vice versa) to avoid some IP rules, or to sell products that wouldn't be up to scratch in the EU. I don't think there's any way you can solve that other than having the same rules for the whole area. The arbitration courts are more contentious. I'm not sure exactly why they're necessary, or what alternatives there might be there. I think there's a good argument for why the tie to free movement and more open borders is necessary too. The LSE has an article with the general argument, and some concrete examples: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/07/14/free-movement-free-trade/ http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/07/14/free-movement-f.... Essentially: if businesses can move around freely, people have to too, or you can screw your whole labour market. I'm fairly convinced that this isn't ideological (or the vast majority isn't, certainly). It's not that the EU is pushing this beyond what's necessary for the economics, it's that the economic interests necessitate a lot of these rules, and trying to build a trade deal without them can blow up in your face. Are there parts of these trade deals that could be removed without consequence? Genuine question, I really don't know. Definitely agree though that more transparency and better explanations of all this to the public are important, that part is certainly an enormous mess right now.