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. 4/https://t.co/ObOo9crPu7
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/
Now about those trade deals. There is a deal we need now with the US to remove punitive tariffs on Scotch that is costing the UK economy millions of pounds. It was supposed to be close before Christmas. Any word of that in the speech? No. 6/ https://t.co/iiG0UEAmUl
No US deal yet, instead we have the usual warm words about being deep in talks, and the CPTPP. But for what? If we get deals with Australia and NZ we'll have deals with 10 of 12 CPTPP countries. How will joining then help goods trade? And why goods, not services? 7/
Just to prove this speech about global Britain really is motherhood, apple pie, and virtually nothing of any substance, in fact every country is a priority. We love you all. All can benefit from trading with us. Except perhaps our neighbours, who get virtually no mentions. 8/
There was also no mention yesterday for this kind of UK trade, the type that damages other countries. Limitations of space I guess. But does somewhat take the gloss off the wonderful trading opportunities we present. 9/ https://t.co/WvwPkBK9xM
Back though to the Chancellor to finish this roundup of the UK's economy, and let's look at Northern Ireland. Not everyone's favourite here, Sammy Wilson, raised with him yesterday problems of GB-NI trade. Brushed off with scarcely an answer. 10/
Now that's all good knockabout stuff, but the key point is a government that simply can't accept in public or possibly in private that it can't have everything on trade / the economy. We've seen it on Northern Ireland. We're now seeing it on EU trade. 11/ https://t.co/GHCEsmE1R5
So a multinational business wants to invest in the UK. They get a meeting with the Chancellor. He doubtless assures them everything will be great, regulations, trade, whatever. Do they believe him? Would you?

Right now they don't. Big talk, little reality. Tough world. 12/ end
PS sorry, it is 11 CPTPP members right now. We'll have bilateral deals with all except Brunei and Malaysia. 12 was TPP, with the US. Not sure why I suddenly regressed to 2015. https://t.co/3joFp2L9tz

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.
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.

More from Brexit

End of week 2 thread on post Brexit food trade

There is continued growing unease. The main picture remains one of depressed/tentative trade (c50% down y-o-y) and some high profile logistics business have taken the rational step to stop and regroup.

The big worry here is that ‘not-trading’becomes a habit. We can’t/won’t carry on at half the volumes of before, but as volumes claw back we may only reach something like 80% of previous volumes and that is a disaster for a food industry already battered by a recession.

Lots of focus has been on the idea of EU businesses stopping serving the UK. Worries about how we feed ourselves has trumped worry about our exporters at every stage. Even though it is the collapse of our export businesses that is (and has always been) the greater threat.

To reassure the mainland British shopper that feels like less of a risk. UK is a large market of wealthy consumers, and UK gov has shown it will do anything (however unfair) to ensure stuff gets in - even letting supermarkets have access to the fast track lane to Dover.


I am not as close to this but it feels like shortage on the shelves is more of a genuine immediate threat for the island of Ireland. The types of innovative solutions we have discussed this week can help but will they come in quick enough?

You May Also Like