The first working day of the new UK-EU relationship. We're going to hear a lot this year from all sides (remain and Brexit in UK, EU, etc) using any possible scrap of evidence. But what we need to look for is trends, over time, so a few to think about in this thread... 1/
More from David Henig
Not the easiest to follow, but for those interested in the big picture of trade relations between US, EU and China this exchange between @alanbeattie and @IanaDreyer is an essential read. Real debate on key issues, and good points on both sides.
Also reading this from @gideonrachman on EU-China. My view (cynically?) - that EU-China is a deal that makes a lot of sense given a probably unresolvable trade policy superpower triangle with the US, and best for the EU to move while China will.
The US and EU roughly agree on China that it should do some things differently, but not really the details of what those are. Meanwhile the EU and US have long standing trade policy differences, which neither (or their key stakeholders) prioritise resolving.
For the EU, the China deal has sent a message to the new US administration, you can't just tell us what to do. And delivered some (probably marginal in reality) benefits to business. For China, this is the 3rd deal with EU or US in 12 months. Pretty clear strategy there.
The key assumption that lies at the heart of too much writing on EU-US relations is that the two should cooperate on trade. After 25 years of largely failing to do so, I'd suggest we might want to question that a bit more deeply.
V good points but overall I stick with the conclusion that this is a v risky deal.
— Alan Beattie (@alanbeattie) January 5, 2021
1. It\u2019s overstating it to say that COM now has final say over investment. FDI screening remains a MS competency. COM has had to take a v secondary supporting role over Huawei and 5G.
1/n https://t.co/RVg2jnoFgK
Also reading this from @gideonrachman on EU-China. My view (cynically?) - that EU-China is a deal that makes a lot of sense given a probably unresolvable trade policy superpower triangle with the US, and best for the EU to move while China will.
The US and EU roughly agree on China that it should do some things differently, but not really the details of what those are. Meanwhile the EU and US have long standing trade policy differences, which neither (or their key stakeholders) prioritise resolving.
For the EU, the China deal has sent a message to the new US administration, you can't just tell us what to do. And delivered some (probably marginal in reality) benefits to business. For China, this is the 3rd deal with EU or US in 12 months. Pretty clear strategy there.
The key assumption that lies at the heart of too much writing on EU-US relations is that the two should cooperate on trade. After 25 years of largely failing to do so, I'd suggest we might want to question that a bit more deeply.
Quick intro to more analysis later - since Freeports are mentioned in this article worth making the point that it seems to me under the UK-EU deal that if the UK provides subsidies for them, or relaxes labour or environmental rules in them, the EU can take retaliatory action.
There has never been level playing field content like this in a trade deal. The idea it is any kind of UK win, when the UK's opening position was no enforceable commitments whatsoever, is ridiculous.
The EU can take retaliatory action against the UK if we weaken labour standards, weaken pretty firm climate change targets, unfairly subsidise, or just in general seem to be out of line. There are processes to follow, but it looks like the PM did it again...
Final one for now. Quite how Labour gets itself in such a fuss about whether to support a deal with the strongest labour and environment commitments ever seen in a trade deal is a sign of just how far it hasn't moved on from leaving.
PS well... (sorry DAG). It certainly didn't have a good effect. And I think if we had settled LPF issues with the EU much earlier there is a good chance the conditions would have been far less stringent. By making an issue, we made it much worse.
Michael Gove: "Outside the EU, with a good trade deal in place, we can tackle the injustices and inequalities that have held Britain back."
— Jennifer Rankin (@JenniferMerode) December 26, 2020
The UK did not need to leave the EU to tackle injustices and inequalities at home. Not a new point, but true.https://t.co/fE4glUAylc
There has never been level playing field content like this in a trade deal. The idea it is any kind of UK win, when the UK's opening position was no enforceable commitments whatsoever, is ridiculous.
For the lawyers. Night. pic.twitter.com/5XvFMhcaeE
— Sam Lowe (@SamuelMarcLowe) December 25, 2020
The EU can take retaliatory action against the UK if we weaken labour standards, weaken pretty firm climate change targets, unfairly subsidise, or just in general seem to be out of line. There are processes to follow, but it looks like the PM did it again...
Final one for now. Quite how Labour gets itself in such a fuss about whether to support a deal with the strongest labour and environment commitments ever seen in a trade deal is a sign of just how far it hasn't moved on from leaving.
PS well... (sorry DAG). It certainly didn't have a good effect. And I think if we had settled LPF issues with the EU much earlier there is a good chance the conditions would have been far less stringent. By making an issue, we made it much worse.
As a lay person is it fair to say that the \u201cthreat\u201d to break international law in Ireland was possibly a strategic blunder that has now determined the future trajectory of the UK for the next 20 years? I can imagine most countries will study what\u2019s baked into this and replicate?
— Meister 1 (@blueelmacho) December 26, 2020
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.
Fish was never a deal breaker. Level playing field was
— Mujtaba Rahman (@Mij_Europe) December 14, 2020
But LPF now more likely to come together after @EU_Commission move (on trade test for unlocking remedial measures & scope of arbitration over remedial measures)
If it does, expect deal on \U0001f420\U0001f421 too
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.
Second, I still maintain that Johnson has not made a decision here. Some days he leans towards Deal, sometimes towards No Deal
— Jon Worth (@jonworth) December 14, 2020
He has been stuck for weeks, and still is. He\u2019d ideally just not decide *anything*
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.
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...
Source say Michel Barnier has told EU ambassadors that there has been no breakthrough on the fisheries question, and that reports to that effect were \u201ccompletely untrue\u201d
— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) December 7, 2020
Some useful threads will follow, first on the Northern Ireland protocol, where unfettered is still being defined...
The trouble with \u2018unfettered access\u2019...
— JPCampbellBiz - Wash your hands keep your distance (@JP_Biz) December 6, 2020
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.
1/ On fish, both sides are far apart, but it sounds like the UK wants the EU to jump first before it, in turn, shows flexibility. The UK is offering a three year phase in but with an upfront payment of \u20ac300m in demersal fish (ie, out of the \u20ac650m EU boats catch in UK waters)
— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) December 6, 2020
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 case it wasn't obvious the final choreography of a complex trade deal is complex. The big issues, and potentially some smallprint / related matters of relevance to both sides (for example I wonder if soon after a deal we hear about data or financial services equivalence?)
— David Henig (@DavidHenigUK) December 6, 2020
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...
Fact is: EU objectives/focus unlikely to change much in remaining 24-48 hours: fish, non-regression & ability to retaliate across sectors/entire agreement in case of systematic divergence by HMG
— Mujtaba Rahman (@Mij_Europe) December 7, 2020
Most in Cabinet want a deal. @BorisJohnson has big decision he now needs to make https://t.co/mJ49WLt3Qd
More from Brexit
They have started in the Scottish case
Looks like a near-concession that the side letter is Padfield-compliant
Looks like a near-concession that the side letter is Padfield-compliant
O\u2019Neill says @BorisJohnson \u201cat the very least sailing close to the wind\u201d by potentially breaching promises to #courtofsession not to frustrate #BennAct in his signed letter to Donald Tusk
— Severin Carrell, Esq (@severincarrell) October 21, 2019
1/ A challenge in parsing Brexit news is that businesses are facing overlapping types of challenges that can be difficult to separate.
The key questions are:
1⃣ Given the model of Brexit chosen, could this have been prevented, and by whom?
2⃣ Can it get better?
2/ To put those another way:
"If you knew everything you needed to know and did everything right, is your existing business and delivery model still viable and competitive?"
The answer to that question determines if for you the problem is Brexit, or how Brexit was delivered.
3/ Some of the challenges at borders could have been prevented while still having the exact same model of Brexit (No Single Market, No Customs Union, but an FTA).
That they're appearing is an implementation failure and you can fully support Brexit but still be pissed about them.
4/ Examples include:
1) Government guidance and IT systems being ready earlier and/or easier to navigate;
2) More support for businesses, and more affordable bespoke help;
3) More time to prepare and better government communication about what preparation actually requires.
5/ This thread you've all seen from Daniel Lambert the wine merchant (primarily) deals with problems in this category.
There's no policy reason he can't export his product, but the procedures are a nightmare to navigate and he's badly under-supported.
The key questions are:
1⃣ Given the model of Brexit chosen, could this have been prevented, and by whom?
2⃣ Can it get better?
#Brexit & #fishing: True to their word, it looks like British #seafood exporters are taking their concerns around #trade to the streets of London #Brexality pic.twitter.com/CIqmDQR69d
— Bryce Stewart (@BD_Stew) January 18, 2021
2/ To put those another way:
"If you knew everything you needed to know and did everything right, is your existing business and delivery model still viable and competitive?"
The answer to that question determines if for you the problem is Brexit, or how Brexit was delivered.
3/ Some of the challenges at borders could have been prevented while still having the exact same model of Brexit (No Single Market, No Customs Union, but an FTA).
That they're appearing is an implementation failure and you can fully support Brexit but still be pissed about them.
4/ Examples include:
1) Government guidance and IT systems being ready earlier and/or easier to navigate;
2) More support for businesses, and more affordable bespoke help;
3) More time to prepare and better government communication about what preparation actually requires.
5/ This thread you've all seen from Daniel Lambert the wine merchant (primarily) deals with problems in this category.
There's no policy reason he can't export his product, but the procedures are a nightmare to navigate and he's badly under-supported.
Over the past 15 days I have not only been running my company as normal but I have been faced with largest threat to its future since it began in 1992. This is #Brexit & here is my thread on just how bad things are getting. 1/26
— Daniel Lambert (Wines). \U0001f1ea\U0001f1fa\U0001f1eb\U0001f1f7\U0001f3f4\U000e0067\U000e0062\U000e0077\U000e006c\U000e0073\U000e007f\U0001f347\U0001f942 (@DanielLambert29) January 16, 2021
