,
9 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This claim and the underlying thread is rather misleading (thread)
Mr. Baker is right to say that a CU does NOT achieve free movement of goods. What it does eliminate is the need to worry about rules of origin.
That should not be underestimated - RoOs cause so much administrative costs that some companies decide to rather pay tariffs than use a free trade agreement- but many barriers remain.
Mr. Baker is right to then say that the SM is the aspect that takes care of these barriers. However,...
... the conclusion that the CU would make the U.K. a ruletaker seems to be based on this. That is erroneous. The SM would make the UK a ruletaker. The CU would do that only with regard to tariffs.
But there’s another problem here, which deserves discussion: the thread also promotes an FTA with the US. The US also demands the U.K. to become a ruletaker. Let me explain.
When signing FTAs you could focus on just tariffs - or try to tackle regulation beyond that. The UK does the latter. Think of agricultural standards, IP, Pharma.
The US explicitly strives to align partners in some regards. The do so explicitly. It‘s in the law. They have said so with regard to the UK. They are transparent. So - rule-taker.
The questions we have to ask ourselves are: what rules do we want, where are we willing to barcode rule-taker and to what extent.
