,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
It is rare that I disagree with Peter but I think he puts the case against the customs union too weakly. There are good arguments against for MPs to consider. In macro-economic terms NIESR find it delivers a 1% benefit to GDP in 15 years over and above a free trade agreement. 1/
This could even overstate the benefits. Most studies assume a customs union means no customs costs. It doesn't. It still means a movement certificate and possibly a customs declaration as well. @AnnaJerzewska's helpful diagram compares the two... 2/ 
What actually removes all the barriers for Northern Ireland is remaining the VAT area, the union customs code and the relevant parts of the acquis. All the customs union does is remove one behind the border barrier which is rules of origin. This is an internal compliance cost. 3/
It is a significant cost. It is not checked by kiosks on the frontier but after the fact. Also submitting the paperwork is getting easier. Under the REX system traders can register and simply declare on the invoice the origin of the traded goods. ec.europa.eu/taxation_custo… 4/
When it comes to customs there are legitimate solutions for facilitation that have yet to be explored. The backstop provides opportunity to do so without losing the fall-back of a CU anyway. For GB if its going to have a customs border anyway it makes sense to explore options 5/
For NI if you only dropped the CU you're system would just need to deal with rules of origin. Of course it still involves a cost. But companies would adapt, especially if they have years to prepare. Is this cost really worth giving up the power to do FTAs for good? 6/
Peter is right to point out the minor benefits that FTAs provide in terms of headline GDP. The UK is not going to replace lost trade with the EU through this. But trade deals are not just commercial tools they are diplomatic ones too. In a post-Brexit world this matters. 7/
It is one of the ways the UK can look to forge closer relations with other countries. It does signal an independence that matters. It is also a learning curve which will require Government to actually engage the public on the trade offs that trade deals represent. 8/
If you care about bringing some new responsibilities back into the hands of a UK Government, this is one that is important and does not militate against a close relationship with the EU. There is a reason why the Swiss and the EEA have not agreed one. 9/
Ultimately it comes down to whether you value the ability to do trade deals and whether you can see them as more than just commercial tools - although they obviously do provide some economic benefit... 10/
The UK is not likely to do amazing trade deals particularly to start with. That is part and parcel of getting a competency back you've long since forgotten how to do... On the other hand if you regard the objective of Brexit as removing all possible costs this doesn't fly. 11/
You can legitimately argue the cost of rules of origin isn't worth it and we're better off sticking to the EU trade block. You can also argue you don't trust the UK not to do trade deals that damage the UK's interest. But the CU does represent a difficult trade off for MPs 12/
It is not a choice between some fantasy option and the customs union. It is a real choice between the cost of rules of origin and the ability to do trade deals ends/
