,
15 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I voted Remain, but I now think there is a great opportunity for us in leaving the EU......
......EU regulation is also moving in a more anti-competitive direction and the ability of the UK to break that trend has diminished within the EU.
......EU regulation is also moving in a more anti-competitive direction and the ability of the UK to break that trend has diminished within the EU.
We will have the opportunity to improve our regulations in transportation, telecoms, energy, retail banking, housing and land, where atm we have many anti-competitive restrictions. We can open up our tariff schedules, putting zero tariffs on goods we don’t produce, lowering costs
Then we can do bilateral trade deals around the world, including a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, a deal with the US, plurilateral access to the Trans-Pacific Partnership and do more to reform services in the WTO. This could inject a significant amount of growth...
....No Deal is not an end state. It’s just what happens if we don’t agree. It won’t last very long because the economic forces are such that the EU will desperately want some sort of deal that offers zero tariffs and no quantitative restrictions into the UK.
We should remember that the vast majority of trade does not flow between north and south, but between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain.
To avoid checks at the border, Diageo and Lactalis, the two large manufacturers that are shipping things back and forth between Ireland and Northern Ireland, should be granted a trusted trader status......
The problem is that the government has interpreted the December Agreement it signed with the EU to mean that there should be no customs checks at all throughout Northern Ireland. What it actually says is that there should be no physical infrastructure or checks at the border....
Perhaps this interpretation was down to incompetence. Or perhaps it was a deliberate choice....
I actually think the European Commission has been more receptive to the ideas of the Malthouse Compromise and these alternative arrangements than No10.
I actually think the European Commission has been more receptive to the ideas of the Malthouse Compromise and these alternative arrangements than No10.
The US is constantly saying they want a comprehensive free-trade agreement with the UK. The US president and his team say this repeatedly. Some argue that we’re too small outside of the EU to be of any interest, but that’s not how trade deals work.
There is this ridiculous myth that if we did a deal with the US, Britain would be flooded with chlorine chicken. First of all, chlorine washes are used for cleaning fish and salad in the UK already. It’s in our tap water and it’s safe.
But for the most part, the US does not even use chlorine: 80 to 90 per cent of US chicken is treated with peracetic acid, which the European Food Safety Agency declared safe for human health five years ago.
It is protectionism from Europe that stops us importing US chicken, not safety. The incidence of Campylobacter from European poultry is about three or four times that in the US...... If people knew that, they might think twice about how safe European food is!
There is also this great fear that the US is going to go after the NHS in a trade deal
That is nonsense. What they do want is transparent rules on government procurement on drugs. If these were in place, the cost of pharmaceuticals would go down...surely a good thing for the NHS
That is nonsense. What they do want is transparent rules on government procurement on drugs. If these were in place, the cost of pharmaceuticals would go down...surely a good thing for the NHS
It’s not about more or less regulation. We need regulations that place the least restrictions on trade and are not anti-competitive, as long as they are still consistent with our regulatory goals. Regulations which distort trade and competition increase costs and lower output.
The people this affects most are the poor: increased costs are an inconvenience for the rich and a catastrophe for the poor. Our goal should be to lower the costs of regulation to create a market based on competition and merit, not cronyism.
