Yet the EU seems to think that a mere FTA would allow post-Brexit UK to outcompete that single market. 🤔
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)
Yet the EU seems to think that a mere FTA would allow post-Brexit UK to outcompete that single market. 🤔
https://t.co/irsRwPApxr
Have heard similar. This essentially amounts to trying to force dynamic alignment through the back door. I don't think UK can or will accept this. A thread with some potential solutions & noting some irony... 1/ https://t.co/1mIB1hWyVX
— Raoul Ruparel (@RaoulRuparel) December 9, 2020
- 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.
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.
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.
More from Brexit
Both the @ChathamHouse and @Policy_Exchange reports are excellent and leave a healthy tension to the UK foreign policy debate. I\u2019m left with two questions that won\u2019t go away. Is the first underestimating how the world has changed. Is the second overestimating Britain\u2019s capacity?
— Ben Judah (@b_judah) January 11, 2021
1. The two versions have a converging point: a tilt to the Indo-pacific doesn’t preclude a role as a convening power on global issues;
2. On the contrary, it underwrites the credibility for leadership on global issues, by seeking to strike two points:
A. Engaging with a part of the world in which world order and global issues are central to security, prosperity, and - not least - values;
B. Propelling the UK towards a more diversified set of economic, political, and security ties;
3. The tilt towards the Indo-Pacific whilst structurally based on a realist perception of the world, it is also deeply multilateral. Central to it is the notion of a Britain that is a convening power.
4. It is as a result a notion that stands on the ability to renew diplomacy;
5. It puts in relation to this a premium on under-utilised formats such as FPDA, 5Eyes, and indeed the Commonwealth - especially South Pacific islands;
6. It equally puts a premium on exploring new bilateral and multilateral formats. On former, Japan, Australia. On latter, Quad;
You May Also Like
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".