,
13 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
Had a few comments and emails in response to this thread outlining some good counter-arguments for the Customs Union which I think are worth repeating. There are three main ones that came up, largely centred on the underplaying of rules of origin 1/
First, it was argued that the impact of rules of origin in the short-term for specific industries and specific products is obscured by the relatively smaller macro impact. For example see this excellent report for the food and drink industry 2/ fdf.org.uk/rulesoforigin-…
There are options for mitigation of these impacts such as the Pan-Euro-med convention. It would provide immediate access to pooling content requirements (cumulation) for a number of countries. But its rules are not necessarily well suited to the UK. 3/ medium.com/@SamuelMarcLow…
The report outlines a lot of cases where products don't meet content requirements to qualify for 0 duty based on existing alternatives: "Neither PEM nor a CETA-type origin framework is tolerant of a sourcing strategy for UK-milled flour from wheat grown outside the UK" 4/ 
There's no way around some impact. The best but also the most difficult approach would be for the UK to negotiate a more permissive framework for rules of origin than had been agreed in CETA. That is a mammoth task that will have to go product by product. 5/
I'm not sure if the Government could actually negotiate this because it requires so much detailed information on individual products and then requires a lot of expertise. But its not impossible - the report for food and drink offers some suggestions. 6/
The 2nd criticism is from @SamuelMarcLowe. Though in the short-term you have sunk costs and investment in the UK, that can change. In the long-term the UK will be shut out of pan-EU supply chains as an intermediate supplier because it will make more sense to base in the EU. 7/
I'm sure that would be the case for some companies and products and there may well be a net shift in future investment. But there are a lot of factors to long-term competitiveness and I think that the benefits of distance still apply here too. 8/
The last criticism is really about the enforcement of rules of origin. A few people commented that if we left the CU it would be enforced at the border because you get a fiscal imperative to do so 9/
The EU's REX system provided for in CETA is a good starting point. The fundamental check is between customs authorities verifying the validity of self-certifications. There is already variance in compliance protocols for different ROO regimes, we could design a better system 10/
A lot of customs people I talk to do not see borders on the frontier as necessary, as long as you accept increased cost, and possibly increased risk. That might be unacceptable for Northern Ireland but its not a unicorn as it would be based on existing customs techniques. 11/
Overall even with more detail about the significant impacts for some industries ROO is still not going to be a major determinative of economic growth. There still is a valid trade off between the diplomatic, political and trade advantages of FTAs and the cost of ROO 12/
It depends on whether you see the long-term costs outweighing the other arguments based on sovereignty and the benefits of having greater autonomy in a key foreign policy competency. Can Brexit only be a cost-reducing exercise? The CU is a microcosm of that debate ends/
