The idea of 'free trade' dominates international economics today.

It locks national economies into depending on international export markets and competing against each other. This has led to a downward spiral of social and environmental standards as companies seek to keep their costs as low as possible and their profits as high as possible.

The rules of the World Trade Organisation, the body that governs international trade, do not allowed a country to introduce barriers to protect their farmers at home, nor do they allow the offering of subsidies as a helping hand to poorer farmers.

Countries are allowd to challenge each other's laws if they fee that another country has broken WTO rules. These rules are enforced via the Dispute Settlement Process.

Disputes are not resolved in an open court of law. Instead, cases are decided by a panel of three trade bureaucrats. Their decisions are binding and override local or national laws.

Richard Cobden, a member of the Anti-Corn Law League and one of the original 'free trade' campaigners, believed that free trade could lead to better international relations as people across the world had more communication with one another.

That has not happened. Only certain things have been 'globalised' in today's free trade project.

Wealth has not been globalised. It has been concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Meanwhile the number of people living on under $1 a day is expected to increase from the current 1.2 billion to 1.9 billion in 2015.

Borders have not been globalised. There are massive restrictions on people moving around the world, despite war or difficult conditions driving them out of their homes.

Finance, however, has been globalised. Money can flow in and out of countries, leaving speculators to determine exchange rates.

And, inside countries, public assets are being handed over to corporations, labour and environmental rights have been weakened; taxes on corporations have been cut; and people are only getting pensions, education or healthcare if they have the money to pay for it.

The original supporters of "Manchester economics" might remind us that free trade was a project, not an inevitability.

They might even recognise that it's high time we got rid of it.