The key issue is therefore to keep trade moving, to agree at the international level on procedures that facilitate and encourage economic exchanges between nations, and to prohibit or prevent restrictive or discriminatory trade policies, while recognizing the need to promote concerns of general interest. The system to which all these controls contribute must be clear; transparent; Be open on a fair and equitable basis to all shock absorbers in international trade, whether developed or developing; governments and democratic institutions are accepted and managed fairly. In any event, governments and international regulators must develop and manage rules commensurated to meet the needs to be met. This international trading structure is far from being « free » in the simple sense of the word, but it aims to be as accessible and fair as possible to all those involved. Corn laws caused a great deal of misery and were abolished in 1846, but at the end of the 19th century, the so-called customs reform movement in the United Kingdom again advocated the imposition of tariffs on goods imported from foreign sources, subject to exemptions or preferences for imports from the British Empire. This movement failed, but in response to the economic collapse of the 1930s, the United Kingdom followed the United States and other major trading countries by imposing ruinous safeguard rights and other restrictions on international trade (in the case of the United Kingdom, which is itself subject to preferences for the protection of imports from Empire sources), with a misleading belief that this would protect and promote domestic industry and employment. All these agreements still do not collectively add up to free trade in its form of free trade. Bitter interest groups have successfully imposed trade restrictions on hundreds of imports, including steel, sugar, automobiles, milk, tuna, beef and denim. This current mass of regulations, direct or indirect, that have an impact on trade reflects very specific objectives and priorities of the national and international population.
He won`t disappear. In this context, a totally « free » trade – which denies any domestic intervention – is neither possible nor desirable. In general, trade diversion means that a free trade agreement would divert trade from more efficient suppliers outside the zone to less efficient suppliers within the territories. Whereas the creation of trade implies the creation of a free trade area that might not otherwise have existed. In any case, the creation of trade will increase a country`s national well-being.  The increasing technological and political complexity of trade has meant that the scope of trade rules goes far beyond traditional border trade measures, and that these are measures that are applied across the border and address issues of regulation, standards, market structure in the services sector and intellectual property protection. Unlike a customs union, parties to a free trade agreement do not hold common external tariffs, i.e. different tariffs, or other policies concerning non-members.
This function allows non-parties to free themselves as part of a free trade agreement by entering the market with the lowest external tariffs. Such a risk requires the introduction of rules for determining which products originate may be preferred under a free trade agreement, which is not necessary for the establishment of a customs union.  In principle, there is a minimum processing time leading to a « substantial processing » of the products, so they can be considered original products.