About Peter Holmes

Peter Holmes is a Fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory and Emeritus Reader in Economics at the University of Sussex Business School.

BP 28 – What is the extra mileage in the reintroduction of ‘free zones’ in the UK?

Download Briefing Paper 28 Briefing Paper 28 – February 2019 Ilona Serwicka and Peter Holmes Key points Introduction Definition of free zones Free zones in the EU and globally Free zones and enterprise zones: the UK experience with regional policy interventions Rules on the operation of free zones and enterprise zones in the EU Rules on the operation of free zones and enterprise zones in non-EU countries, including EU preferential trading partners Analyses of the possible impact of free zones in the UK The Centre for Policy Studies report The Mace report The US experience of operating free zones The economic impact of free zones and enterprise zones Possible savings from the introduction of free zones in the UK Savings on tariffs inversion Savings on duty deferral Conclusion Footnotes Key points Since the referendum to leave the EU, there has been interest in the reintroduction of free zones in the UK to help boost British trade after Brexit. • All measures used for free zones and enterprise zones must be compliant with the EU state aid rules as tax exemptions and fiscal incentives are a form of subsidy. • Even free zones in non-EU countries operate under some [...]

By , |2025-12-17T16:28:39+00:0026 February 2019|Comments Off on BP 28 – What is the extra mileage in the reintroduction of ‘free zones’ in the UK?

BP 27 – Equivalence, mutual recognition in financial services and the UK negotiating position

Download Briefing Paper 27 Briefing Paper 27 – January 2019 Authors: Andy Tarrant, Peter Holmes and R. Daniel Kelemen Key points Introduction Equivalence in financial services Would equivalence as it currently exists benefit UK financial services? Mutual recognition within the EU The version of mutual recognition preferred by the UK What are the institutional differences between mutual recognition and equivalence with a third country? The different defaults under equivalence and mutual recognition Nature of the tests for establishing or withdrawing equivalence and withdrawing mutual recognition Nature of the decision-making body The difficulties for the EU in agreeing mutual recognition with the UK Political difficulty Potential legal difficulty Would equivalence with the revisions proposed by the UK in its subsequent White Paper resolve barriers to cross-border trading with the EU? Is there a precedent for the UK’s negotiating position in previous trade agreements? Don’t EU guidelines mean that UK financial services firms can establish themselves abroad, so what’s the issue? Conclusion Footnotes Key points The Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration do not fully determine the content of a market access agreement for financial services between the UK and the EU post-Brexit. The UK initially sought market access on a mutual recognition [...]

By , , |2025-12-12T11:46:33+00:004 February 2019|Comments Off on BP 27 – Equivalence, mutual recognition in financial services and the UK negotiating position

Briefing Paper 28 – WHAT IS THE EXTRA MILEAGE IN THE REINTRODUCTION OF ‘FREE ZONES’ IN THE UK?

Since the EU referendum, there has been a growing interest in the reintroduction of free zones in the United Kingdom. Those advocating free zones believe that they will help to boost British trade after Brexit and promote economic growth. This briefing paper presents a history of free zones in the UK and US and then looks at the EU context. Although there are potential benefits and savings that businesses can accrue from simplified customs procedures and relief on customs duties and tariff inversion, the authors explain that such benefits will be very limited in the UK context. This is due to state aid rules which limit the scale of assistance possible. The UK would still be affected by these in some way post-Brexit. Thus, while there is a scope for free zones shaping an export-oriented place-based regional development programme, policymakers should devise measures that counteract possible diversion of economic activity from elsewhere, and offer a wider set of incentives than just free zones, while keeping within our WTO and any ‘level playing field’ obligations that arise from our trade agreements. Read Briefing Paper 28 – What is the extra mileage in the reintroduction of ‘free zones’ in the UK?  

By , |2024-11-20T13:21:46+00:001 February 2019|Briefing Papers|0 Comments

A Free Trade Agreement will not solve the Irish border problem

17 January 2019 Dr Peter Holmes, Reader in  Economics at the University of Sussex, Director of Interanalysis and Fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory Since the Government’s defeat in the House of Commons, there has been a flurry of comments, notably from Steve Baker arguing that Mrs May’s deal can be replaced by some form of Free Trade Agreement. One must immediately point out that the treaty basis of the Withdrawal Agreement does not include a long-term trade agreement. This can only be negotiated after Brexit. But even if it could be negotiated now, it would not solve the problem of the Irish Border. The UK and the EU in both the Good Friday Agreement and the Dec 2017 joint statement committed themselves not merely to barrier-free trade in goods with no hard border in Ireland, but to the preservation of an All-Island Economy. […]

By |2025-07-18T13:28:54+01:0017 January 2019|UK- EU|6 Comments

Briefing Paper 27 – EQUIVALENCE, MUTUAL RECOGNITION IN FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE UK NEGOTIATING POSITION

This briefing paper explores the likely content of a market access agreement for financial services between the UK and the EU. Despite the UK Government’s early hopes that all trade issues could have been settled in the Withdrawal Agreement, the actual situation is that this Agreement addresses only those trade issues necessary to ensure an open Irish Border.  The accompanying Political Declaration on the future relationship between the UK and the EU lays out some broad non-binding principles on which negotiations around financial services access are intended to proceed during the transition period, but important details are undefined. During the negotiation of the Political Declaration itself, some counter-briefing took place as to the meaning of some of these principles. The existence of such counter-briefing suggests that when these negotiations commence, the rules of access for UK financial services will again be a contentious issue. This paper uses what we know now to analyse the options that may emerge and the likelihood of their adoption. Read Briefing Paper 27 – EQUIVALENCE, MUTUAL RECOGNITION IN FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE UK NEGOTIATING POSITION

What should we make of the Government’s Brexit estimates?

30 November 2018 L. Alan Winters CB, Professor of Economics and Director of the UK Trade Policy Observatory, Dr Michael Gasiorek, a Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of Sussex and Peter Holmes, Reader in  Economics at the University of Sussex both fellows of the UK Trade Policy Observatory. We welcome the Government’s estimates of the economic consequences of alternative Brexits. They are way overdue. The modelling was very competently done. But the assumptions made tended to favour the Government’s preferred position over other alternatives. On Tuesday, the UK Government released a set of cross-Departmental estimates of the possible economic costs of different Brexit options. They were based on the Government’s own modelling, which uses a technique known as a Computable General Equilibrium modelling and is based on the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) consortium’s world model and dataset. The aim is to model (very approximately) the important linkages in an economy over a medium to long-term horizon and to assess the possible impact of changes in trade policy on the economy. (Short-term modelling, over a five year period, was simultaneously released by the Bank of England, but we do not discuss it here). The modelling approach is relatively [...]

By , , |2025-07-18T13:36:57+01:0030 November 2018|UK - Non EU, UK- EU|0 Comments

Goods In – Services Out: Can the UK Walk on One Leg?

01 October 2018 Dr Ingo Borchert is Senior Lecturer in Economics, and Dr Peter Holmes is a Reader in Economics, both are fellows of the UK Trade Policy Observatory.  The UK Government is currently proposing to the EU, broadly speaking, to adopt a common rulebook for goods.  By contrast, not much if anything is sought in the realm of services, let alone movement of people or other areas of the Single Market.  Part of the EU’s response has been that goods and services are so interlinked that one cannot have a goods only single market.  Is this response just posturing as part of the negotiations process, or are there real issues with separating goods and services? […]

By , |2025-07-18T13:40:49+01:001 October 2018|UK- EU|1 Comment

“Mamma Mia – here we go again” Equivalence for goods regulation in the Chequers proposal

3 August 2018 Dr Emily Lydgate is a lecturer in Law, Dr Peter Holmes is a reader in Economics and Dr Michael Gasiorek is a Senior Lecturer in Economics at the University of Sussex.  They are all fellows of the UK Trade Policy Observatory.   In describing the future regulatory relationship between the EU and UK, the recent UK White Paper proposes the notion of ‘equivalence’ in some areas. This may seem like a mere technical requirement, but equivalence is a loaded word in trade policy circles, and the UK government’s reliance on it bears further scrutiny. With respect to goods, ‘equivalence’ shows up in two main ways. First, the UK states that it will maintain equivalence (rather than exact harmonisation with EU regulation) for some food policy rules in the context of a […]

By , , |2025-07-18T13:42:52+01:003 August 2018|UK- EU|6 Comments

BP 20 – The Future of US-UK Trade: What case for a bilateral trade agreement?

Download Briefing Paper Briefing Paper 20 – July 2018 Marc Busch, Michael Gasiorek, Peter Holmes, J. Brad Jensen, Rod Ludema, Emily Lydgate, Anna Maria Mayda, Pietra Rivoli, Jim Rollo, Stephen Weymouth, Rorden Wilkinson and L. Alan Winters Key points Introduction Public support for a US-UK trade agreement What is the economic case for a US-UK trade agreement? So, do the data suggest an agreement is worth pursuing? The regulatory elements of a US-UK agreement: “A TTIP for Two”? Conclusion Endnotes Key points There is public support for a US-UK trade agreement, but this sits alongside worries about existing trade agreements, particularly over NAFTA in the US, and is contingent on the kind of regulatory framework pursued. Seeking an agreement allows both countries to present themselves outwardly as pursuing a sovereign policy in their own best interests as well as constructive members of a liberal world trading order. Any meaningful agreement (economically as opposed to politically) will need to deal with the barriers to trade in services, and the regulatory barriers within specific manufacturing sectors. Given the different approaches to regulation, this may be challenging. Among the most important of challenges in negotiating a US-UK trade agreement will be [...]

By , , , , , , , , , , , |2025-12-17T16:03:41+00:0012 July 2018|Comments Off on BP 20 – The Future of US-UK Trade: What case for a bilateral trade agreement?

Briefing Paper 20 – THE FUTURE OF US-UK TRADE: WHAT CASE FOR A BILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENT?

Both US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Theresa May have stated their keenness to negotiate and agree the groundwork for a bilateral trade agreement after Brexit. This briefing paper looks at what the key issues are likely to be and what a transatlantic agreement may, or may not, comprise. First, we explore the extent to which a trade agreement between the US and the UK would have popular support at a time when debate about trade on both sides of the Atlantic is contested. Second, we consider what the benefits of such an agreement might be by considering the aggregate economic case. Finally, we probe where problems and tensions may lie, focusing primarily on the regulatory aspects of a transatlantic commercial tie-up. Read Briefing Paper 20 – The Future of US-UK Trade: What case for a bilateral trade agreement?

Go to Top