As is traditional for this time of year, and more in hope than expectation, my top ten trade / Brexit hopes for 2021...

1 - The UK Government ditches the unnecessary secrecy and engages much more openly with business, NGOs etc about their priorities, and reflects them

As promised, a little story. Of how the EU ask of the UK on the level playing field is indeed new, how that came about, and why we should have been able to deal with this a lot better. And how, indirectly, David Frost is one of the reasons. Beware, contains analysis... 1/

Let us go back 5 years to the height of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) discussions. As you may recall, by 2015 TTIP was about as popular in the EU as allegedly the EU is these days in the red wall. What, thought the EU and Member States, could be done? 2/

TTIP will be more popular, declared more than one insider, if we show there are tough labour and environment protections against undercutting by the nefarious and probably untrustworthy US. That, optimistically they said, will get NGOs on side. 3/

But there was a problem with EU level playing field provisions in 2015. The unit of DG Trade responsible absolutely did not believe anything should be enforceable. Pages of loose commitments, fine. Add more! But apparently enforcement was best done through a good chat. 4/

Now such soft-touch EU enforcement of level playing fields was probably designed particularly for developing countries, where sanctions were seen as unfairly penalising struggling business and individuals for the actions of a terrible government. Not the US. 5/

Plenty of talk this morning about how UK sovereignty is what is stopping an EU deal, that the EU want to impinge on this.

Sorry, the argument is totally bogus. It is a combination of EU hatred and cakeism dressed up in respectable clothing. 1/ n

How do we define sovereignty in trade deals? Complex question, so let's just look at this government. It believes in trade deals and membership of the WTO. These contain binding rules. Therefore for this government sovereignty and binding rules are compatible. 2/

Therefore sovereignty in terms of trade rules for this government is a relative concept either in content or partner terms. So when they say the EU proposals go too far is that because of what is proposed, or who it is proposed with? 3/

We haven't been told the detail. But with regard to the level playing field it is suggested that no country could sign up to a situation where not following the rules leads to tariffs being imposed. However we agree to this in the WTO and FTAs. So that is untrue. 4/

Fish is a slightly different matter, and it is being said that the EU proposal would deny the UK control of our waters. But definitionally that can't be true. We're showing our control through the discussion. We don't have to do a deal. 5/

There is a sense of disbelief about the new trade problems between Great Britain and the EU / Northern Ireland. Which we need to lose. This is the new normal. And we face a difficult period of adjustment - immediate paperwork needs, and to longer term uncompetitiveness.

As we trade folk might have mentioned before, outside of the single market and the customs union of the EU, problems at borders are normal. Delays common. Great job of the Brexit supporters to find supposed experts claiming otherwise, but now back to reality...

Such delays at borders were in fact part of the origin of the single market, in the days when the Conservatives didn't see a contradiction between free markets and sovereignty. Such delays weren't really compatible with a supposed common market. So, the single market...

The delays and individual issues will ebb and flow. There will be new regulatory requirements in EU and UK affecting different products. But for UK and EU business as a whole it will mean UK-EU trade is more costly and less predictable, and there will be economic adjustment.

To put it bluntly, some UK firms will go out of business due to new border barriers. Some EU firms will stop supplying the UK, at a cost increase to UK consumers but a possible new opportunity for firms. This adjustment will take some time though.

Small business in particular struggling with new Brexit red tape. Entirely predictable, and a function of a world trade system distorted against smaller traders. Stay with me a short while as Brexit threadmeister and story author @pmdfoster may say... 1/

The nub of the issue is the extra costs for most exports, whether this is paperwork or meeting different regulatory requirements. A fixed cost per exported load inevitably adds a higher percentage cost to small than larger business... and they may lack expertise. 2/

You'll note that in the EU, with virtually no paperwork or differing regulations, the costs of exports are similar for smaller and large companies - though even there there is a big company bias, because who can afford to lobby for friendly regulations? 3/

The same unfortunately typically applies to trade deals. If you are Nissan and threaten to leave the country without the right deal you have more clout than a small cheesemaker. As we see. But is it just the EU that is over-bureaucratic? Sadly not... 4/

One of the best UK business groups on trade policy @BritAmBusiness (and yes you can quote me @EmanueAdam) has a new report out on a UK-US trade deal and SMEs. It shows opportunities. But unfortunately problems unlikely to be solved. 5/

Ten days in and it seems the government's post-Brexit economic policy is to ignore reality, priority and choice, and just claim with no evidence that everything is going to be great. This, needless to say, is dangerous territory. Exhibit 1... 1/

Here's a good example of what is currently passing for UK economic policy. The theory the UK can be 'nimble' in regulations has been present since 2016. In 5 years nobody has found the detail. We presume others might have a similar idea. And trade needs regulations to align 2/

There will of course always be someone to blame. Usually the EU. Because they do indeed want to compete with the UK. This is not exactly surprising. A vague UK idea versus the bigger next door market (or indeed a big one over the pond). Who's going to win? 3/

Next, 'Global Britain' and specifically the Liz Truss speech in the Commons yesterday. To summarise, we are going to do trade deals on everything with everyone while still protecting UK industry and poor countries. Yup, more warm words and no priorities.

Useful example here. The long running EU-US trade battle over food, one claiming to be about quality, the other science. The UK solution. We'll do both! Fabulous, why did nobody think of this before? Unless they did, and found they still had to choose. Note other warm words 5/

Short fun thread on Brexiters expressed through the medium of the Sicilian word "minchia" & its variants.
N.B. "minchia" is not necessarily a vulgar word, having been used by authors as diverse as Giovanni Verga & Frank Zappa in their works, but it is uniquely expressive >>

Proprio un gran minchione!

'sta minchia di...

Chi minchia cumminastivu?l

Cu minchia è?

New: the European Parliament's announcement that it will not ratify any treaty before the end of December unless the deal is concluded by midnight on Sunday comes amid signals that, despite progress, a deal won't be concluded until early next week.

2/ This is because there are still some formidable hurdles in the way of closure on the level playing field issue, and they haven't even got into fisheries in a big way yet. And both sides say things there are "extremely difficult".

3/ Yesterday there were some signals that a deal could be done by the weekend, but the mood seems to have dipped somewhat.

4/ The EP is saying it wants a "provisional" text from the European Commission "as soon as possible" - not clear if that means even before the midnight deadline

5/ If a deal is not concluded by Sunday night then we are in uncharted waters

Brexit. A Eurovision Negotiating Contest. How are the contestants doing? To read the UK press you’d be forgiven for being ... completely misinformed. We’re lurching into a crisis on a scale not seen since at least 1956 & probably 1945. Here’s what’s really going on. A thread./1.

For a number of key journalists, their only job is to take dictation from the 10 Downing Street spokesman & give it to the Times, Telegraph or Spectator for publishing. This is part of a therapy effort for the small minority of the population who read those publications & .../2.

... would otherwise be confused by being confronted with the reality of the world around them. The articles are interesting for two reasons:

⁃They tell you precisely what 10 Downing Street currently wants those readers, which include other journalists, to hear. /3.

⁃Looking at their detailed content, such as it is, shows just how possible a “deal” quite obviously is & how nonsensical a “no deal” would be. They also (if you’re familiar with a bit of background, which you surely are) highlight just how bad a “deal” of the sort .../4.

... the government envisages - a massive climb down from the UK’s extraordinarily privileged position in the EU’s customs union & single market - would be for the UK. And how a “no deal” would be even worse - substantially so - than such a (really awful) “deal”. /5.

How to make sense of the increasing number of UK-EU trade disruption stories?

In short - outside of a single market product checks and people working restrictions are inevitable. And outside a customs union you will have tariffs and / or rules of origin.

Detail ---> 1/

The UK decided to leave a Customs Union. Within that Customs Union, no tariffs, just a common external tariff or preferential rates for bilateral deals or developing countries. Hence, distribution hubs in one country for all make a lot of sense. 2/

Outside a Customs Union our choice was tariffs under WTO rules or remove them subject to rules of origin with a deal. We chose the latter, but it means we can't just import from China, rebadge, and get zero tariffs from the EU. As we could until December 31. 3/

Net result of being outside of the Customs Union - it no longer makes sense for the UK to be a distribution hub for the whole of Europe. Particularly when so many neighbouring countries remain in it. No trade deal changes that. 4/

Now, product checks, of the sort causing problems for food exporters (see Scottish seafood). In the single market, we shared regulations, so a safe product in the UK was safe in France. No inspections. We chose to leave that system, as we want to change some regulations. 5/

1/ Lots of good analysis out there on why the EU-China CAI is a bad decision in the context of Xinjiang, transatlantic partnerships, etc. But I also think that even the trade/econ benefits of the CAI look quite limited. Thread:

2/ It highlights, as a win, that China’s preservation of existing liberalizations. That’s positive, but not really a big problem; the bigger issue is stagnation, where reform pledges have failed to materialize after years/decades of promises. Great example is in the FDI openings,

3/ which are highlighted to include cloud, auto, fin services etc—all areas of EU/MNC interest. Thing is, these openings aren’t new. China has begun opening auto/finance since 2018/19, while the 50% cap on cloud services has remained unchanged since 2015 (or before if we consider

4/ WTO ascension commitments vs the 2015 Telecom Catalogue, but that’s for another day). So these are existing openings that are repackaged as “wins.” More critical issue beyond FDI caps is around licensing issuance, which still big problem. Arguably some more significance in

5/ R&D and health? Not an expert, but the FDI conditions (eg hospitals only in certain cities) are limiting, while R&D could be complicated by data/info controls. It’s also unclear how existing tech transfer prohibitions exceed existing protections in the foreign investment law,