,
18 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
OK, let’s see how Esther did…
As Holger Hestermeyer explains here, it is misleading to say that WTO law provides the rules for up to 98% of world trade.
Next claim: The UK is making good progress in replicating some of the UK’s most important preferential agreements.
As far as I know this isn’t entirely true, and the UK hasn’t had that much dialogue with Norway (6th biggest export destination).
As far as I know this isn’t entirely true, and the UK hasn’t had that much dialogue with Norway (6th biggest export destination).
With regard to our second biggest export destination under a preferential agreement, Turkey, we really don't know how we can reproduce those terms.
If you voted for Brexit do send the government on a stamped addressed envelope what you voted our trade relationship with Turkey to be.
At least so they have a blueprint on what damage to do.
At least so they have a blueprint on what damage to do.
Next claim: Switzerland accounts for over a quarter of our exports to countries with FTAs?
No. According to the latest annual ONS figures, Switzerland does not account for over a quarter of our exports to countries with FTAs, even excluding Turkey.
No. According to the latest annual ONS figures, Switzerland does not account for over a quarter of our exports to countries with FTAs, even excluding Turkey.
As for Switzerland, in the event of no deal, subject to parliamentary approval, the text will replicate “in substance the vast majority of trade agreements” that regulate relations between the UK.
As for Canada staying with CETA, yes. I expect Canada to maintain CETA until a future negotiation, because that’s what their government is saying.
Remarks about the EU-SADC are correct, there is talk about continuity. But real continuity isn’t possible without cumulative rules of origin, and therefore in a 'No deal' scenario, damage limitation is the only thing possible. (As Sam explains here)
No country has refused to negotiate rollover deals? As far as I know this is true.
Notably though, no many countries have been in a hurry to rollover either, because none of the countries believe the UK is dumb enough to go to ‘No deal’.
Notably though, no many countries have been in a hurry to rollover either, because none of the countries believe the UK is dumb enough to go to ‘No deal’.
Japan has said they will support us joining the CPTPP, this is true.
(But the SPS chapter of CPTPP may involve us from accepting things like Chlorinated chicken)
(But the SPS chapter of CPTPP may involve us from accepting things like Chlorinated chicken)
It’s also true that the type of deals that we want tend to be deeper in areas that weren’t necessarily covered in CPTPP, and the EU-Japan deal is probably better suited to us in terms of service exports.
The EU hasn’t been invited, but then why would it want to? It has been in the process of creating bespoke deals suitable for the economies of the 28 members.
OK, it's fair to say there appears to be a lot wrong, although the most appalling part of this video is why anyone would think that this would be a good argument for ‘No Deal’.
In the event of ‘No deal’ the price of entering the UK market will still increase for countries that have a trade deal. Maybe even to the point where access to the market is prohibitive.
Buying from the EU would be more expensive than it is now, and it still could be cheaper than sourcing from countries with trade deals.
I suggest the ‘No Deal Numpties’ go away and learn about why that is and what they are advocating for, because clearly they don’t understand it at the moment.
