Please stop highlighting obvious flaws in the Brexit argument, several DS members' heads will explode.

Wasn't Turkey meant to be a member of the EU by now?

Opening up new pork markets in Beijing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRhlRM6rYck

But not as much as the single market does now.

The only decision the British people made was to leave the EU, the official Leave campaign promised we'd be part of the Customs Union.

Not afaik it didn't and iirc the customs union was hadly ever mentioned during ther referendum campaigns by either side.

I thought that to be able to negotiate trade agreements the UK would need to leave the customs union and this point is made by a number of sources. This is incorrect according to the article below which cites Turkey, a customs union member, as making FTAs with other countries. The article sees no advantage to the UK remaining in it.

http://campaignforanindependentbrita...nograph-16.pdf

"There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it" was a direct quote from the official Leave leaflet. Not "access to it" note.

Also, Switzerland was specifically mentioned by name in the official leaflet that the Leave campaign distributed to every household, as an example of potential new trading arrangements.

Yes, vote for one thing and get another; still showing why referenda are a bad idea.

No mention of the customs union though which is what you claimed.

There is nothing in the WTO definition of a Customs Union that stops parties making their own FTAs. However it's unusual as as it kind of defeats the purpose of the Customs Union.
In the case of the Turkey /Eu agreement the purpose was set out in the Ankara agreement and it was to harmonise the Turkish position with the EU so that Turkey could eventually join the Eu. So the Eu can go off and sign FTAs with other countries without including Turkey. Turkey, under the Ankara agreement rather than the Customs Union are then meant to go off and try to replicate the same deal with the third party but the third party is under no obligation to play ball.
The EU did this with Mexico but Turkey was unable to get the same agreement with Mexico. So if a Mexican car is exported directly to Turkey it pays a 12% tariff. However if the car should be imported via an EU country it comes in tariff free and can be moved into Turkey tariff free. As Turkey has a land border with Bulgaria the Mexican car manufacturer has no incentive to put pressure on the Mexican government to do a free trade deal with Turkey.

This doesn't suit the UK which has a land border with Ireland and a tunnel to France. So even though we could do our own FTAs our negotiating position would be weakened. I don't think it is the long term deal that is right for the UK.

(The Turkey agreement was initiated in the late 1960s when the EC was still the group of 6 with no land border with Turkey and the nearest Ec port was in Italy - so the additional costs of shipping via the EC would often be greater than the Turkish tariffs. It was meant to be a precursor to Membership and even for Turkey was never meant to be the ideal long term solution.)

So the Ankara agreement, which was actually in the early sixties, was signed, and Turkey subsequently applied for full EU membership in the 80s. It's hard to think that such an application wouldn't be laughed at when you consider Cameron and others stated it would be decades before Turkey was allowed in and had absolutely no chance of entry in the foreseeable future. Someone, somewhere, is pulling someone's leg.

The WTO appears to say otherwise as it makes the proviso that, if goods are then re-exported to the territory of another member of a customs union, the latter member should collect a duty. (And that this duty should be equal to the difference between the duty already paid and any higher duty that would be payable if the product were being imported directly into its territory). This is the basis of what are known as the "rules of origin" (ROO), which apply as much to free trade areas as they do customs unions.

This is only the case if the CET is deemed to be the higher tariff. If the CET is the lower tariff then it's not the case. In the Eu Turkey case the Eu tariff rather than the Turkish one is the CET. If Turkey has the lower tariff the goods entering the Eu via Turkey would have to pay the difference between the tariffs on entering the EU - goods are deemed to be in free circulation within the Customs Union once the Common External Tariff has been paid and they have cleared Customs.

What do you think the "free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border" is? That we will be part of according to the official Leave campaign.

A Scout group?

Indeed, which make it a far less satisfactory arrangement than we have now.