7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
The UK is starting talks to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (#CPTPP)

One way of finding out what it is: look at the text.

Here goes.

It doesn’t have a Secretariat so the text is published by each govt. Google “CPTPP text”

1/13


New Zealand is a good place to start. It has the text by chapter, 30 of them:
https://t.co/UvtW9wgRky

(Canada has summaries by chapter: https://t.co/PswL4vt3WD)

#CPTPP

2/13


“Wow! 30 chapters. Better start reading”

“Hang on. There’s more.”

https://t.co/UvtW9wgRky

#CPTPP

3/13


“Right. Is that it?”

“Those are only the side agreements involving New Zealand. Here are Australia’s”

https://t.co/1Rav6hI3zZ

#CPTPP

4/13


“Er, how many members does #CPTPP have?”

"Eleven.

“Don’t worry. We’re not going through all the side agreements.

“But these next bits are important. The Annexes. Annex 2-D contains the tariff commitments of each country.”

https://t.co/UvtW9wgRky

#CPTPP

5/13
Hi @BlackstoneChbrs @EHRC @EHRCChair @KishwerFalkner @RJHilsenrath @trussliz @GEOgovuk

The Equality & Diversity Monitoring form in your job application asks for the 'gender' of the applicant with options:

Male
Female.

However...

https://t.co/Did1oeP6tH

1/9


'Gender' is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 and is not defined in the Act.

https://t.co/qisFhCiV1u

2/9


Sex is the protected characteristic and the only two possible options for sex are 'Female' and 'Male' as defined in the Act and consistent with biology, but you don't ask for that.

https://t.co/CEJ0gkr6nF

'Gender' is not a synonym for sex.

3/9


'Gender' relies on demeaning, regressive stereotypical notions of societal roles for the two sexes, concepts that I'm sure you would not wish to be associated with.

4/9

Asking about a personal characteristic such as 'gender' that is not a protected characteristic under the Act, may be in breach of the GDPR by processing personal - and potentially Special Category - data without a lawful basis.

5/9
This potential benefit list from CPTPP is not the longest and is still misleading. Those Malaysian whisky tariffs - emilimated over 15 years (if they don't seek any specific exemption for UK). Those rules of origin benefits? Only apply to import / export to CPTPP countries. https://t.co/9TbheOVhsR


Here's my more realistic take on CPTPP. Economic gains limited, but politically in terms of trade this makes some sort of sense, these are likely allies. DIT doesn't say this, presumably the idea of Australia or Canada as our equal upsets them.


As previously noted agriculture interests in Australia and New Zealand expect us to reach generous agreements in WTO talks and bilaterals before acceding to CPTPP. So this isn't a definite. Oh and Australia wants to know if we'll allow hormone treated beef

Ultimately trade deals are political, and the UK really wants CPTPP as part of the pivot to indo-pacific, and some adherents also hope it forces us to change food laws without having to do it in a US deal (isn't certain if this is the case or not).

If we can accede to CPTPP without having to make changes to domestic laws it is fine. Just shouldn't be our priority, as it does little for services, is geographically remote, and hardly cutting edge on issues like climate change or animal welfare.
Saw this paper on floating on the TL and decided to take a break from death by R™️

A lot to unpack...but we’re in the middle of a pancetta so I’m gonna leave most of it in the bag 🧵

https://t.co/XrV77u6rUp


I almost quit after the section on “Racial Categorizations in the United States” b/c it oversimplifies & inaccurately recounts the history of census racial designations.

(No “Black” or “Native” in the 8/2/1790 census, btw. Indigenous ppl were first counted in the 1860 census)


Many weren’t “white” until coming to the US & many immigrated to access “whiteness”

The US census can’t be used to demonstrate the merits of race as a proxy for biology or ancestry - white is a group for the non-Black/non-othered & includes Northern European & North African folx

The authors then refer to ethnicity as a way to capture “common values, cultural norms”

The oversimplification is offensive. Hispanic/Latino is not a monolithic grouping of people. The authors even show in (figure 1) how different ancestry can be *within* this ethnic group.

That difference in ancestry translates to VERY different cultures in terms of food, customs, & even language. Sociopolitical relations also translate to different ways that people are treated based on the precise origins of their Hispanic identity.