The chart-topping band of @ChrisGiles_ @jimbrunsden (me on drums) have a piece up about the Brexit level playing field stand-off. But here's the thing: the opacity surrounding these (as so many) trade talks is making things much worse. Quick 🧵

One of the things that struck me talking to experts about this was a lot of hedging about "this is what I think the EU means" and "this is what the UK appears to believe". There's lots of jargon (non-regression, ratchet, equivalence etc) capable of multiple meanings. (2/n)
And even if the negotiators have been clear with each other about what they mean, they certainly aren't being transparent with their domestic constituencies: the EU member states and Westminster MPs aren't being given full details about exactly what's being proposed. (3/n)
There's an unhelpful culture of secrecy around almost all trade talks. Few texts are released along the way. The standard reason is so not to give away negotiating positions to the other side. This is, to use a technical WTO term, obvious bollocks. (4/n) https://t.co/95Qp5ugHIo
If you're not telling the other side what you're proposing, you aren't negotiating, are you? Duh. The function of secrecy is actually to hide from the public what's going on. But how are you supposed to build domestic consensus around a proposal no-one can see? (5/n)
On Monday I wrote about the possibility of rational failure in the talks. It's quite possible eg Boris Johnson is failing to tell the British public about what UK & EU are really proposing because he wants no-deal. OK, that's his choice. He's PM. https://t.co/A4gMXUoOxt (6/n)
But it's also possible that a feasible landing zone is missed because both sides are genuinely unaware what their domestic constituencies (France, the ERG) will accept. (7/n)
And unless you drag these proposals into daylight and let us all work out exactly what we are talking about, the chance for mishap will increase. Might it mean the talks immediately die, as there clearly is no chance of the red lines intersecting? Maybe. (8/n)
But at this rate, unless this whole stand-off is carefully choreographed (a real possibility btw) they're heading for failure anyway. Might as well give transparency a go. When all else fails, try telling the truth. You never know, it might work. (9/9)

More from Brexit

A quote from this excellent piece, neatly summarising a core impact of Brexit.

The Commission’s view, according to several sources, is that Brexit means existing distribution networks and supply chains are now defunct and will have to be replaced by other systems.


Of course, this was never written on the side of a bus. And never acknowledged by government. Everything was meant to be broadly fine apart from the inevitable teething problems.

It was, however, visible from space to balanced observers. You did not have to be a trade specialist to understand that replacing the Single Market with a third country trade arrangement meant the end of many if not all of the complex arrangements optimised for the former.

In the absence of substantive mitigations, the Brexit winners are those who subscribe to some woolly notion of ‘sovereignty’ and those who did not like freedom of movement. The losers are everyone else.

But, of course, that’s not good enough. For understandable reasons Brexit was sold as a benefit not a cost. The trading benefits of freedom would far outweigh the costs. Divergence would benefit all.

You May Also Like