1. Something that's really struck me in the Brexit negotiations this year is the surprisingly fragile confidence the EU seem to have in the competitive advantage conferred by the single market. Sounds strange, but bear with me.

(Thread)

2. The single market is the most comprehensive trade area in the world. It includes considerable regulatory alignment on products and services, free movement of people etc.

Yet the EU seems to think that a mere FTA would allow post-Brexit UK to outcompete that single market. 🤔
3. Their current position seems to be that unless an FTA is accompanied by extremely onerous level-playing field provisions (explained by @RaoulRuparel here), then an FTA with the UK isn't worth doing because it would be a threat to the single market.

https://t.co/irsRwPApxr
4. But if you voted Remain (as I did), the idea that a mere FTA with, say, enforceable non-regression clauses rather than "dynamic alignment by the back door" is going to give post-Brexit Britain a competitive trading advantage over the single market is quite a strange one...
5. I mean, whatever happened to "non-tariff barriers are more important than tariffs"? Even with an FTA, the UK will face:
- Customs and regulatory barriers
- No free movement
- Rules of origin

Hardly a menu for out-competing the SM, you'd think, even with more freedom on LPF.
6. So what's going on here?

Perhaps, ironically, the EU actually rates the UK's chances of 'making a success of Brexit' by out-competing them quite highly. Despite the clear absence of any desire in the UK for a so-called 'Singapore on Thames' model.
7. And maybe they're right. Maybe the UK will be successful and out-compete the EU (I certainly hope so).

But if you follow the logic, it doesn't seem that the EU has a great deal of faith in the ability of the SM to withstand competition. Or the SM's superiority to an FTA.
8. Another explanation is that they're trying to show Brexit has consequences to deter others from trying to leave. But given that Brexit has *already* dampened hard Euroscepticism on the continent this would suggest a lack of self-confidence that that will remain the case, no?
9. Anyway, I hope there will be a deal. But to re-iterate, an FTA is a huge step down from the single market in trade terms for the UK. The fact that *the EU* seem to think there's a risk the UK will be able to out-compete them from that position deserves scrutiny. (End)

More from Brexit

On this, I think it’s highly unlikely to occur in the timeframe given. For several reasons, I don’t think it’s realistic for Scotland to secede, and then join the EU, in 9 years.

For that, thanks goes to Brexit.

A thread because why not...


Two important dates: March 2016 and January 1st 2021.

Firstly, prior to the 2014 referendum, the Nationalists proposed a date of March 2016 to secede.

Secondly, today - the end completion of Brexit five-and-a-half years after Cameron’s majority in 2015.

Brexit has demonstrated many things, primarily that splitting unions is not easy. The UKs membership of the EU was 47 years and by the end it was not at the heart of the EU. The Union has existed for over 300 as a unitary state.

Dividing a unitary state, like the UK, will not be easy. Frankly, it will make Brexit look simple. Questions of debt, currency, defence, and more will need to be resolved ... something not addressed with Brexit.

Starting with debt. Scotland will end up with its proportionate share of the UKs national debt. It’s not credible to suggest otherwise. Negotiating what is proportionate won’t be easy when both sides disagree.

It’s importance will be seen shortly.

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party