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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

While we await white smoke signalling a #Brexit deal, let us consider what the end of the transition period on 31 Dec (deal or no deal) will mean for the future of UK politics. Will the end of the Brexit process lead to the end of British #populism? I am very sceptical.
Thread 1/

This thread serves as an English summary and translation of a long essay I published in the Swiss @RepublikMagazin last week. Contrary to its title, it is not just about @BorisJohnson

British populism is a political method, not an ideology. It is not identical with Trumpism, even if it shares some of its traits. The populist method in the UK does not become redundant with #Brexit, because its use hasn't been limited to the UK's relationship with the EU.
3/

The populist method in the UK consists of two key elements:
1) the emotionalization and over-simplification of highly complex issues (such as Brexit, the pandemic, migration, culture or history)
2) the reliance on bogeymen ('enemies') both abroad and at home

4/

Populists depend on enemies, real or imagined, to legitimize their actions and deflect from their own shortcomings. There has been an obvious candidate for the enemy abroad since 2016: the EU. But once transition is over, this may, in the long term, become more difficult.
5/

This is the second time in one week that I have to engage with something written by a British academic on their assessment of Brexit & Ireland. In this case @HelenHet20 in @NewStatesman 🧵

1. @HelenHet20 Europe’s vaccine crisis has revealed the true nature of the EU?? Ireland has been a member state since 1973, has had more refs on EU topics than any other country & thus its political & administrative elite knows & understands EU @BrigidLaffan

2. Said elite & electorate never idealised EU-small states are acutely aware of limits of their power & deploy capacity with care-the Swedes coined the term smart states. Small states understand they have to be smart. @BrigidLaffan

3. Since 24th of June 2016 Ireland has been shown unstinting solidarity from 26 EU states & EU institutions. During this time, its nearest neighbour tried to power it off the diplomatic pitch & kept thinking that It could peel Ireland off from EU solidarity. @BrigidLaffan

4. On the vaccine debacle & it was one the lesson the Irish will take is that having a seat at the table & voice matters-it took an Irish Taoiseach & Foreign Minister a couple of hours to sort this out. @BrigidLaffan

Japanese companies in the UK who have moved their product distribution hub to the EU in anticipation of what is now happening. One in a long thread, just to make a point that *some* companies have been preparing for worst case Brexit for years 1/13

Allegro MicroSystems Europe, semiconductors and ICs, owned by Sanken Denki, now importing into EU via Netherlands rather than UK. Amano Enzyme Europe transferred EU stock to warehouse in EU 2/13

Anritsu EMEA (sales and service of testing and measuring solutions to communications industry) all EU deliveries now go to second transport hub in Netherlands. Audio Technica established European Distribution Centre in Netherlands for Brexit (bit of a 🇳🇱theme here) 3/13

Eisai Europe (manufactures pharmaceuticals in Hatfield) transferred centralised marketing authorizations to Frankfurt, established testing and storage facilities in Antwerp. Electric Glass Fiber holding stock in EU for Brexit 4/13

Enplas Europe (semiconductors) acquired warehousing in NL for Brexit. Fujichem Sonneborn opened warehouse in Spain for Brexit. Furukawa Electric Europe shifted warehouse and distribution to Germany. 5/13

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/

The fuel injected Brexiter comments on the EU's vaccine problems miss many points.

1) no-one wanted to get out of the EU or the single market to protect ourselves better against a pandemic. See Brexit Tory controlled government policy 2016-2020 regarding the NHS and pandemic preparedness.

2) we could have, and, perhaps thanks to the need to genuflect to nationalists, or out of pragmatic needs, chosen to go our own way on procurement even within the EU.

3) none of this explains why it's good to be outside the single market, restricting our trade and making us poorer.

4) the implicit celebration of the vaccine nationalist cause, seemingly [but not actually] permitted by Brexit, ignores how this game plays out, namely: