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/
All developed countries have extensive safety regulations, particularly on food and drink products. They have stringent entry checks. Outside of a single market, you face the full weight of those checks. They take time. 6/ https://t.co/3NY7zgXRet
Countries outside a single market can negotiate with each other to reduce the number of product checks. Agreements usually involve commitments on both sides to build trust, such as not changing regulatory standards. The UK chose not to pursue this on food. 7/
You could be forgiven for wondering why if I knew all of this, the UK government, MPs, and businesses did not. But you recall there was a campaign for the purest possible Brexit. You may recall Brexit central. Not everything written there was true... 8/ https://t.co/PuppVdIHWZ
Individuals who said leaving the single market and customs union meant product checks and rules of origin were told we were biased. We weren't invited to advise government. Business was not encouraged to say this. EU-shills. Code for inconvenient. Anyway, enough Trumpism... 9/
There is a whole category of restrictions we are hardly seeing yet, on services. We aren't travelling to the EU for work right now, because of covid. After covid it will be because of work permit restrictions. Financial services changes are coming. 10/ https://t.co/ankZwPqeUp
For services like goods, it no longer makes sense for London to be the hub serving the EU, when there will be barriers in terms of trade, people, perhaps data. The UK's European HQs are threatened. Hard to know how exactly this might unfold, but there will be change to come/ 11/
But the UK government is not powerless to prevent the erection or maintenance of EU trade barriers. It was a choice not to prioritise easing of regulatory checks. We chose a quick deal, with little regulatory alignment. We could choose differently. 12/
The UK government can choose to prioritise easing checks on food exports to the EU. But it will probably mean less regulatory divergence. We can choose to prioritise a data equivalence agreement, but that might require certain commitments. 13/
The government could argue that global Britain means pursuing deals and regulatory freedom elsewhere. Thus for example a US trade deal to change our food standards. That again is a choice. Can Scottish seafood be sold to the US? Such are the choices. 14/
But this is where we are now. A government supposed committed to free trade has chosen high barriers to £670 billion (approx 50%) of our trade. It can try to reduce them, or accept the consequences. It can try to replace EU trade with further away countries. Tricky. 15/
All of this was known last year and before. What is happening now the inevitable consequence of the decisions taken. But we also need to talk about the future choices. Alignment and reduced checks, divergence and higher barriers. No getting out of it, whatever partisans say. 16/
Goods regulatory checks and to a lesser extent rules of origin also apply to Northern Ireland - Great Britain trade. As widely stated when the Withdrawal Agreement was signed in 2019 but denied by the Prime Minister. 17/
Finally, element of "told you so"? Sure, not denying it. It isn't always easy being told that facts = bias, doors in government being closed because easier to listen to those who are factually wrong but politically right. But more a hope we start dealing in reality. 18/ end
PS a telling little detail. A modern trading relationship is made up of numerous such decisions, and on them will trade and investment depend. https://t.co/1Mt8xjslnf

More from David Henig

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.
We need to talk about UK politics. More specifically we need to talk about the absence of opposition to a no-deal Brexit risking Scottish independence, Northern Irish peace, the end of the mass market car industry, more expensive food, and damaged relations with US and EU 1/n


Project fear and the red wall. The first meaning that every serious threat, such as that of Nissan that their plant will be unsustainable, is dismissed with little discussion. The red wall, apparently so angry with Labour about the EU they are afraid to have a position. 2/

Because 'sovereignty' apparently. But a particularly nefarious form of sovereignty in which the normal kind of things you discuss in a Free Trade Agreement - shared rules, access to waters - become when discussed with the EU unacceptable infringements and threats. 3/

You note in the UK we aren't having a discussion on what level playing field rules or access to fishing waters might be acceptable. Or normal. Or even what we might want, like shared increased commitments on climate change. No, all rumours. Evil EU. Worse French. 4/

Those who follow closely see incredible briefings in the papers, like today claiming the EU demand for raising minimum shared standards was only raised on Thursday, treated as fact. This was known months ago. But the media too often just reports the spin as fact. 5/

More from Brexit

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.

You May Also Like