What to make of David Frost's first full speech as our EU negotiator? A personal story that oddly I think will be welcomed in Brussels, a fatal logical flaw that undermines the argument, and an unnecessary attack on economists... 1/
First task for Frost is to build up his own back-story - answer the question of whether he really believes what he's doing and is credible. Passed with flying colours in a language Brussels understands. They don't have to agree, but the UK is different citing Burke... 2/ 
The fatal flaw in the speech comes lower down. It is in the suggestion that an independent country has the absolute right and indeed on this reading requirement to set laws that suit it with no outside interference. When for all sorts of reasons it cannot be that absolute. 3/
States can and do make treaties to limit their rights for some greater good. Frequently. As in the Withdrawal Agreement last year. And once you accept that the state doesn't in fact maintain full independence, the question becomes the circumstances in which decisions are made 4/
I'm not convinced Frost is himself convinced of his own logic here, since the speech goes on improbably to claim that Free Trade Agreements are the perfect form of treaty between sovereign countries. Even though they differ significantly from each other 5/
I'm not sure the thought experiment - what if the EU had to accept UK laws - works. The EU would understand it, they wouldn't do it for the UK due to size, might not do it at all, but they'd understand it. This feels misplaced.
So in terms of regulation, the speech, while interestingly crafted, takes us no further forward. Because we know the UK doesn't want the dynamic alignment for GB we already accepted for Northern Ireland. But what if we chose as an independent state...? 7/
And in terms of Northern Ireland I think this paragraph will ring hollow there and in Scotland. There's no real evidence of a single country negotiating unit, the consensus or openness are not there. It is a self declaration. 8/
As for the economics, models have their limitations. But to attack them, particularly when as documented so many were right about post-2016, is rather short-sighted. Government economists put a lot into their 2018 study, they don't deserve this. 9/
Final point - the opportunity for the UK, once again defined as the opportunity to set new regulations. It is at least plausible if hardly a banker. But when doing this won't we hope others follow to get maximum benefit? And we cycle back to the beginning, on rule taking? 10/
Public diplomacy is good, the speech is welcome, the tone is good. But the point on regulation takes us no further forward because it presents an absolute not a relative concept. Until this is clarified the nobody can know the UK's actual goals 11/ end
NB see also good threads on the speech by @JamesCrisp6 and @RaoulRuparel - different points of view to mine as you'd expect, though not I think wildly different.
@JamesCrisp6 @RaoulRuparel Another different take...
