Thank you for your valuable post.

There are, indeed, potential mutual benefits from closer economic integration across the Pacific. But there are far more imaginative ways to achieve that than yet another trading block, whose costs would fall largely on the poorest economies of the rest of the world.

There is no prospect of genuine liberalisation of agriculture except in the WTO.
And getting rid of nuisance low tariffs does not need an FTA in goods.

An FTA in services can seem more useful at first sight. But a closer examination of the issues will soon reveal that the problems are ones of market regulation, not simple border barriers.

As noted in the post, it is more important to move on new issues. That was recognised by Sir Leon Brittan and others more than a decade ago. Instead of recommending an FTA across the Atlantic, they perceived that there is a far smarter way to deal with the mostly regulatory problems limiting the already remarkably deep economic integration across the Atlantic.

That led to the Transatlantic Economic Partnership (TEP) which is analysed in my 1998 paper:
“Open regionalism going global: APEC and the new Transatlantic Economic Partnership”, Pacific Economic Papers, No 296, Australia-Japan Research Centre, December 1998.

The TEP initiative,was not followed up, but forgotten, leading to attempts to reinvent the wheel or to turn to the shop-worn idea of yet another so-called FTA.

It would be far better to revive the TEP. I would be happy to collaborate in an effort to do so.

Best wishes,

Andrew Elek