,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
.@bbcnickrobinson doing better on pointing out the gaping errors in @TiceRichard’s claims for no deal Brexit on @BBCr4today.
Held on to the point that Art. XXIV requires “a deal” if zero tariffs to be maintained as an “interim” (or any) FTA.
Such a deal would require agreement by the EU. Which (Tice blithely assumes) would drop all its red lines to get one. This is fantasy.
But he also allowed Tice to slip past a reference to a “2 year standstill”. This is a complete canard. A “tariff-only” agreement (even if such a thing would be agreed, which it wouldn’t) would be a spectacular and serious deterioration in all our businesses’ access to EU markets.
If you want a “standstill”, that would have to be negotiated in detail and agreed. It doesn’t just happen, and certainly doesn’t happen under “WTO rules”.
See here for background telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/…
If you want a “standstill” (and @TiceRichard seems to accept it’s rather important) you should be supporting the Withdrawal Agreement. Where there is one, for 18 months-3 1/2 years. All agreed.
But also NB that a “standstill” presumably means accepting *all*EU rules (financial contributions/FOM), as in the WA (else it isn’t a standstill, but something much more complex, that needs lots of time to negotiate and which the EU would have to agree).
Tice also slipped in a reference to “bilateral” deals. There’d doubtless be some (eg on air transport). But not enough to avoid huge disruption. And they’d be on the EU’s terms (set out in its no deal notices) and designed for the EU.
It’s of course hard in a 5 minute interview to deal with someone who is spouting rubbish on complex issues. Perhaps a longer slot?
Or to have someone who knows their way around this (look on Twitter for real experts with communication skills eg @DmitryOpines or @DavidHenigUK) to set the scene or comment before or after the interview?
