So many stories of new barriers to trade between UK and EU, but you might be thinking at some point these will run out. The government is certainly hoping so. Well they may slow down, but trade relations and regulations are not static, and changes will lead to further problems.

The likelihood of continued trade problems for a £650 bn trade relationship is why there should be a huge cross-government effort led by the Foreign Office and Department for International Trade to put in place the necessary resources to seek best results.

There isn't.
So the UK's relationship with the EU currently consists of two not particularly good deals and no consistent effort to manage current problems or prevent future ones. Joint committees are a second order problem to putting in place the right internal structures.
But that's been the consistent UK problem in relations with the EU since 2016. Lack of focus on getting the right internal structures, people, asks, strategy, too much attention on being tough and a single leader.
News just in. This doesn't necessarily mean the right structure being put into UK-EU relations. I suspect Frost's main role is to ensure no renegotiations with the EU.

Also, wonder what this says about the PM's trust in Michael Gove? https://t.co/7VOJTATToP
In fact Frost takes over Gove's role in EU relations. Buckle up, I suspect this means turbulence ahead. Frost appears much more hardline in thinking than Gove, though end result of UK climbdown has typically been the same. https://t.co/5PUvsAQcgu
This tallies with my instinct. In particular I think Frost had a hand in the rather strong Northern Ireland letter sent by Gove, was probably not happy Gove then backed down completely over the content... https://t.co/kDiLc45wtJ
I am far from clear that today means Lord Frost will now be Cabinet lead for the whole EU relationship, as in managing all the day to day issues. Still much to be worked out I suspect. https://t.co/yCK7sTBaki
Also just considering the possibility that Michael Gove might want David Frost to own all the consequences of his Brexit deal, and the compromises that will be required. But surely such thinking is too cynical?
Personalities aside I agree with this. Negotiating and operating a deal are not the same job, and it makes a lot of sense to hand over. But the politics I suspect do not allow. https://t.co/2FtXpxQyVW
This is important on UK-EU relations. Problems including:

1/ Northern Ireland protocol
2/ Existing business lost / compensation
3/ Financial services equivalence
4/ Large business asking for stronger EU ties
5/ Potential new EU restrictions

https://t.co/9RBUDEktXE
What if we shout loudly, slowly and (I'm sure this is important) in English? https://t.co/TLdSCWBV6N
Not feeling particularly reassured. "What the new Minister meant to say was that his first priority was the country and he thinks he may best of service continuing with EU relations..."

Nah. My ball, give it back... https://t.co/kMM1Rtt3Sr
The deals, both the Withdrawal Agreement and Trade and Cooperation Agreement, are poor from a UK point of view. So poor the PM can't honestly admit their content. Politically they look safe from Labour, but internal tensions grow (musicians, farmers etc). Watch that...

More from David Henig

Morning. And its Groundhog Day today. https://t.co/gRs4Dc8RH2


Some useful threads will follow, first on the Northern Ireland protocol, where unfettered is still being defined...


And on fish and level playing field. The latter seems, has always seemed, the most problematic, because the UK has apparently ruled out any compromise on shared minumum levels even if not automatic. That would be a deal breaker, but seems... unnecessary.


Your reminder closing complex deals is never easy. But there are ways to facilitate and EU is good at doing this if you meet their red lines. But still the biggest concern that the UK never understood level playing field terms are fundamental to the EU.


In the UK, one man's decision. Allegedly backed by a Cabinet who in reality will be quite happy to blame the PM either way. The temptation to send Michael Gove to seal the deal and end his leadership ambitions must be there...
Going to have to disagree with my learned friend here. If anyone moved on level playing field it was the UK, on the principle of a ratchet, or tariffs for divergence which was still being denied midweek. Changing the way in this might be achieved (many options) is insignificant.


It is the same "I move in principle you move in detail" shift we saw with the Northern Ireland protocol last year, when no PM could accept a border between GB and NI suddenly did, just as recently no PM would accept tariffs for divergence and seems to have done.

So, are we at deal yet? No, and it remains far from certain, but better than the gloom of Saturday. I still think the PM wants his ideal where everyone is happy, still hopes if only he can speak to Macron and Merkel he could get it, still to decide.


And even if there is a deal it is now too late for either business to adjust to it, or the EU to ratify it according to normal procedure. In both cases you'd think we'd need an extension, but there is a big shrug on this whole question. Nobody knows.

And so, yet again on Brexit, we wait. In particular, those who actually do the trade, the businesses we rely on, are forced to wait for a formal outcome while preparing as best they can. Let's see what happens.
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.

More from Brexit

You May Also Like