Thread by @pmdfoster

Stunned off my ski lift by this No 10 tweet - not just because of its brazen disingenuousness, but because of what it says about UK thinking on future EU-UK relationship. It is (again) shot through with cakeism and misguided belief that threats will move EU 1/Thread

https://twitter.com/Number10press/status/1229893225663602693

First the disingenuous "the EU has moved the goalposts" part - the EU hasn't - as I explained to @telegraph readers here. Go way back to 2017 and the EU was clear that the 'size and proximity' of the UK meant it would not be treated like Canada. /2

telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/…

@Telegraph The slidemeisters at the EU Commission have produced another produced a new slide to illustrate this point visually. But the record shows @MichelBarnier has been consistent on this point for three years now. /3

@Telegraph @MichelBarnier So here it is in the March 2018 EU-UK future relationship negotiationing guidielines....

"Given the UK's geographic proximity and economic interdependence with the EU27.." /4

consilium.europa.eu/media/33458/23…

@Telegraph @MichelBarnier And here it is again in the Revised Political Declaration to the future relationship - the ONE THAT @BorisJohnson SIGNED UP TO LAST OCTOBER (when he didn't have a majority and was trying to woo all sides) /5

ec.europa.eu/commission/sit…

@Telegraph @MichelBarnier @BorisJohnson So in answer to @Number10press question, 'what's changed?' the answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Not a jot and flipping comma.

But that's the boring part. Trashing this cynical progagandising from No. 10 for domestic consumption. The Q is what it tells us about UK ambitions? /6

The UK feel that the EU is being unreasonable in its demands for a 'level playing-field' - both in its extent and in the role of the European Court of Justice in any oversight of EU state aid and competition rules in particular. /7

The UK says the EU of being stuck in an "Article 50 mentality" (and some EU commentators like @AndrewDuffEU have raised this); that the EU is unreasonable in reading of LPF demands "commensurate with the scope and depth of the future relationship and the economic connectedness"/8

@AndrewDuffEU And it is true that, as we speak, the French are leading the charge to further harden these 'level playing-field' demands in the final draft of the EU's negotiating mandate.

But welcome to fight club...the UK is a 'third country' now. Do we think this approach will work? /9

@AndrewDuffEU Because (clue here) the EU is indeed in Article 50 mentality - they just rehired @MichelBarnier, the dark lord of ticking clock and sequencing, to run the negotiation for them.

Threats didn't work last time and there isn't good reason to think they'll work again./10

@AndrewDuffEU @MichelBarnier Which is the depressing part, because by refusing to extend transition the UK is going to face a pretty binary choice come Oct/Nov (the EU is too) between a skinny 'zero tariff, zero quota' trade deal, or no deal at all - 'Australia' if it makes you feel bettter /11

@AndrewDuffEU @MichelBarnier There is no point in railing against the EU in demanding a 'deal' which is not on offer, and (see Tweets 1-5) has NEVER BEEN on offer.

This is a reprise of the N'Ireland stand off - all UK customs union/border in Irish Sea. Choose. We spent three years doing that. /12

@AndrewDuffEU @MichelBarnier This time around the choice is more compressed and has more profound consequences.

Zero/Zero FTA (with strings) or No Deal, which the UK govt says it is, apparently, happy to accept (unlike @theresa_may who didn't want either option).

Well, we'll see. /13

@AndrewDuffEU @MichelBarnier @theresa_may It may be that the EU will shrink its level-playing field demands - but in return will need a governance mechanism that gives it confidence that it can act to defend itself.

That means cross-cutting - so if one party misbehaves in a sector where it is strong.../14

@AndrewDuffEU @MichelBarnier @theresa_may ...it cannot just suck up a delayed or retrospective sanction.

The EU side wants a 'nimble' mechanism that enables it to retaliate, proportionately, in a sector where UK is vulnerable (and vice-versa, of course).

In short, give me a big enough gun and I'll take more risk/15

@AndrewDuffEU @MichelBarnier @theresa_may Now the UK has already said it doesn't like this either - it wants not an over-arching mechanism, but a series of siloed deals with there own dispute resolution mechanism.

Well, the EU might move on one (LPF) but I'm willing to bet it won't move on both (LPF and governance) /16

@AndrewDuffEU @MichelBarnier @theresa_may The UK response to this reality seems to be a mix of 'don't be so mean/unreasonable' OR 'well fine, we don't need EU anyway'...we're off to the beach and 'Australia'.

The risible @Number10press tweet rather shows up the paucity of the arguments, because.../17

@AndrewDuffEU @MichelBarnier @theresa_may @Number10press The UK DOES need the EU - 47% of our exports go to the EU - and the relationship IS asymmetrical. It is the massive market on our doorstep. Gravity is important in trade - 'double the distance, half the trade'. Check a map. Australia is 12,000 miles. /18

@AndrewDuffEU @MichelBarnier @theresa_may @Number10press It is true that modelling second-order effects of what the UK is proposing is difficult - but it stands to reason (GCSE-level reason) that if erect such barriers to trade with your biggest market, it cannot be positive. This is damage limitation. /19

@AndrewDuffEU @MichelBarnier @theresa_may @Number10press And when I talk to all the groups who do that trade - @techUK @Foodanddrinkfed @newsfromfta @CBItweets @SMMT @britishchambers @ADSgroupUK @MakeUK_ - I pretty much only get head-shaking.

"Like talking to the trade/econ equivialent of flat-earthers", to quote one. /20

@AndrewDuffEU @MichelBarnier @theresa_may @Number10press @techUK @Foodanddrinkfed @newsfromfta @CBItweets @SMMT @britishchambers @ADSgroupUK @MakeUK_ All of which is to say, the EU might well be unreasonable/over-zealous. It might cut off it nose to spite its face - but what is reverting to WTO terms, if it is not that. Yelling at them won't work. Really it won't.

None of this bodes well, I'm afraid. ENDS