Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Dmitry Grozoubinski Profile picture
@DmitryOpines
Aug 15, 2019 • 8 tweets • 3 min read • Read on X
1/ There are actors in the Brexit conversation who have consistently evoked the WTO to hand-wave the consequences of No-Deal.

They have been at it for years and they still are.

They are wrong and dangerously so, and the proof has started to emerge.

A thread on one example.
2/ Context: Earlier, the French Embassy tweeted out a fact-sheet on what UK plant and animal product exporters will have to do in order to bring their goods into the EU.

It's a procedure including paperwork and at-border vet checks.

The very definition of a non-tariff barrier.
3/ There's nothing surprising in this document. The French are planning to apply to the UK the same checks and obligations as they do to any 3rd country supplier.

This was always coming...

... but that's not what the British public were told.
4/ Here's Professor David Collins in the Spectator in August last year writing that the exact barriers described above and confidently predicted by literally everyone wouldn't happen because they'd be illegal under the WTO's SPS and TBT agreements.

spectator.co.uk/2018/08/whos-a…
5/ Here he is providing the legal rationale behind this view in September of 2018.

I particularly enjoyed the last few paragraphs where he speculates whether those who disagree with him are fear-mongers, EU agents or profiteers.

lawyersforbritain.org/brexit-and-the…
6/ Prefer to be misled by economists instead of legal scholars?

My boy Professor P. Minford has your back, yo.

Here's a passage from the Economists for Free Trade Report "No Deal is the Best Deal for the UK."

You can read it here: economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/upl…

... but I wouldn't.
7/ What about some political leaders?

Well, here's Jacob Rees-Mogg making the claim these barriers will never happen while chiding the Treasury for being silly enough to model that they will.

telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/…
8/ So there you have it.

The No-Dealer's favorite WTO law professor, their favorite economist, and their favorite Charles Dickens Esq character.

All confident.
All dismissive of dissenters.
All wrong about what UK exporters will face.

Draw your own conclusions. /end

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Dmitry Grozoubinski

Dmitry Grozoubinski Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DmitryOpines

Dmitry Grozoubinski Profile picture
Aug 9
1/ I guess (with no expertise) that one reason the Ukrainians may have gambled on Kursk is that the Russian army is at its weakest when having to react quickly.

That's when rigid top-down leadership, low morale, poor communications, terrible logistics and so on hurts the most.
2/ In Donetsk the Russians are playing to their strengths. It doesn't take a lot of coordination to slowly flatten one village after another with glide bombs until meat waves can seize it, then advance a kilometre and do it again.

It's grinding attrition. Warfare by spreadsheet.
3/ The Ukrainians could have sent these forces that are currently rampaging around Kursk to Donetsk instead, but maybe they felt the fighting there was too rigid, too constrained by terrain, defences and so on to make full use of their advantages?
Read 4 tweets
Dmitry Grozoubinski Profile picture
Jul 18
1/ Except Ukraine isn't in Russia's Sphere of Influence anymore.

That's the point.

You could argue Ukraine WAS in Russia's Sphere of Influence immediately after its 1991 independence from the Soviet Union, but Russia (not the CIA or Nuland's cookies) completely blew that.
2/ A Sphere of Influence is an area of the world where you can shape events even though you don't have any formal authority to do so.

A part of the world where your cultural, economic, clandestine, diplomatic and military assets let you shape local government decisions.
3/ Russia has spent the better part of the last three decades losing its Sphere of Influence because being in the Russian sphere absolutely sucks.

Moscow operates like an extractive mafia, draining resources while giving back very little.
Read 11 tweets
Dmitry Grozoubinski Profile picture
Jun 27
1/ Ukraine joining the EU, which everyone claims to want, will mean accepting Ukrainian agriculture flowing into the Customs Union without tariffs.

In that regard, EU unwillingness to face down its farmers over Ukrainian grain _now_, at the height of the war, is troubling.
2/ Ukrainian agriculture is only going to grow more competitive once it has won the war.

Beyond the peace dividend itself, investment will flow in, mechanisation will increase, facilities for meeting sanitary/phytosanitary requirements will be built and scaled.
3/ At the same time, the moral case for letting Ukrainians sell grain into Europe will never be stronger than it is today, when they are fighting for their own, and Europe's freedom.

If the EU can't win this argument now, it will only get harder during Accession talks.
Read 6 tweets
Dmitry Grozoubinski Profile picture
Jun 6
1/ In his great piece today Alan lays makes a case for why the UK should cease doing trade agreements as they'll deliver little value, and may imperil eventual re-joining or alignment with the EU.

I agreed with the facts, but disagree with the prescription.

🧵of my thinking 👇
2/ The facts I absolutely agree with:

First, no combination of free trade agreements, with anyone, will ever come close to offering the same trade benefits as membership of the EU.

It's like trying to offset shutting down the London Underground by improving bike lanes.
3/ Second, Alan is absolutely right that FTAs just do not tend to significantly increase the access of services firms to foreign markets.

The reasons for this are boring, but just trust me... no matter how many times the Trade Ministry puts 'digital' in their press release.
Read 17 tweets
Dmitry Grozoubinski Profile picture
May 18
1/ First and foremost, if it ever comes to a real jets, tanks and missiles shooting war with China, the paltry parcels of old tech the US is contributing to Ukraine will be completely immaterial to the outcome.
2/ A conflict with China will either be very small and contained, with both sides desperately monitoring escalation - in which case what the US has already will suffice, or a massive total war requiring production on levels that dwarf what's being sent to Ukraine.
3/ Even discounting nuclear weapons, a total war with China scenario is virtually impossible to 'prepare for' adequately unless the US is ready to basically put its economy on a war footing immediately.

Certainly you can't prepare for it by cheaping out on aid to Ukraine.
Read 11 tweets
Dmitry Grozoubinski Profile picture
Apr 30
1/ One of the common reactions to this was that the WTO rules compel the UK to introduce checks on EU goods.

First, well done everyone on knowing about the WTO and Most Favoured Nation. I'm proud and apologetic in equal measure.

Second, that's not entirely true (in practice).
2/ To oversimplify things, the Most Favoured Nation rule requires that you do not have different rules for different countries.

If your rules state that beef with Mad Cow Disease is not allowed you can't then say that actually Mad Cow Disease is fine as long as it's French.
3/ However, you do have a lot of freedom under the rules to differentiate how you enforce those rules based on your perception of risk.

North Korean toys are more likely to have lead on them than Canadian ones, so you can screen North Korean Transfirmors (tm) more thoroughly.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(