Thread by @WanderinTeacake

1/ Hold on, this is big. I've been wondering why I haven't seen much on this subject recently, because it seemed a bit naive to assume it would just all work. Turns out, it hasn't. I'll explain...
ft.com/content/7beae1…

2/ When the UK and EU part ways, the UK doesn't just lose access to the trade arrangements it has with the EU, but also loses all the trade arrangements with other countries it has enjoyed while a member of the EU. The UK has no trade deals of its own.

3/ The big plan to deal with this was for Disgraced Former Minister Liam Fox to fly round the world and redo all the trade deals. As you know, he has racked up lots of air miles, but so far not a lot of deals. He's got the Faroe Islands and Chile to show for his efforts so far.

4/ So in order to save time, the UK is trying just to roll over all the existing trade deals. In effect they are breezily saying to every non-EU country "we'll just carry on trading exactly as before under the same rules as before, old chap. Job done."

5/ a cynic could insert a comment here asking: what's the point of leaving the EU for better trade deals if all we're going to get is exactly the same trade deals?

6/ But there is some sense to this, if you assume the UK is then going to go back and renegotiate all these deals over the next 20 years. But they don't want to hint things might be so complex and long-winded, so that bit's rarely mentioned.

7/ But there are genuine problems with this approach. Firstly, the UK can't just decide to do this on its own. The other parties to the treaties have to agree as well. They might not agree.

8/ Since the UK is looking to change how its trade relationships and regulations work at a fundamental level, those existing trade deals may no longer be any good. They were written for the EU as a whole, UK included.

9/ They assume access to the whole EU market, and a set of regulations and protections in place, all of which the UK is leaving. And there is no clarity at the moment as to what - if anything - is going to replace any of that.

10/ So picture yourself as the US Government, say. The UK is asking you to treat it - a market of 70m people - exactly the same as a market of 550m people. A much smaller market access. A much smaller customer.

11/ You are being asked to agree to carry on trade arrangements indefinitely with a country that is openly talking about ripping up its rulebook and perhaps importing goods with no border checks. Goods that your own market are then exposed to because of your trade with the UK.

12/ You've being asked to guarantee your behaviour towards the UK, while the UK is putting itself in a position where it can't guaranteee its own behaviour.

13/ It's a big ask. It's an increased risk. And you're going to want a payback for that increased risk.

14/ And that's before you consider that the UK is against a deadline and in a distressed state here. It's going to be tempting to use the leverage you've got to gain some favourable concessions. Access to the NHS. Relaxing food standards. Whatevs.

15/ As we've seen with the attempts to separate the UK's tariff quotas from the EU, which ought to be relatively uncontroversial, countries have lined up to take advantage of the situation to open disputes against the UK. They want something back in return for their agreement.

16/ There's a problem with transition too. Particularly if you're a fan of taking back control...

17/ *If* the Withdrawal Agreement ever gets signed, then during transition the UK and EU are planning to run a little fiction where they act as if the UK is still a member of the EU, even though legally it's not any more. Except...

18/ While the EU and UK can have a pretend relationship between themselves, they can't just decide the relationship on behalf of every other country the EU has trade arrangements with. Those countries have to agree, or it won't work. This gives them yet more leverage.

19/ I've seen suggestions the Withdrawal Agreement binds the UK to EU rules during transition, including treaties it has with third parties. If that's the case, we could see a bizarre situation where the UK is bound by a treaty with, say, Turkey, but Turkey isn't bound in return.

20/ So that's not even a bilateral discussion between two countries, with some give and take over what you'll agree to in order to get what you want. That's the UK tied down at the start, and the other country potentially able simply to dictate terms.

21/ We're likely to see the sudden and unprepared for loss of some trade arrangements on which we rely, even if there's a Withdrawal Agreement, even in transition.

22/ The UK is likely to have to make pretty big concessions in order to maintain some trade arrangements, and others may not happen at all because the country concerned cannot judge at the moment what the UK's situation is going to be.

23/ This is a mess. The UK's negotiating position has never been weaker, and nobody in the Goverment seems even to be grasping the scale of the problem, let alone start to do something about it.

And the UK is voluntarily doing this to itself.
/Ends

Addendum/ My apologies. In my haste, I used the incorrect title for the individual referenced in my third tweet. He is of course the DIsgraced Former *Defence Secretary* Liam Fox. I apologise to anybody affected by this mistake.