Thread by @swardley

X : Thoughts on trade deal with Japan?
Me : First step to CPTPP?
X : What about Withdrawal Agreement changes?
Me : You mean internal market bill. Needed to fast track a US - UK trade deal and CPTPP? Then UK just needs a China deal.
X : What about the EU?
Me : UK playing hardball?

X : Why do you keep answering with questions?
Me : A fluid space in which players won't want to show their hands. That's negotiation for you.

X : What about the threat to international law and UK's reputation?
Me : Saying you have the option to break a treaty obligation (which is always the case for a Sovereign nation) is not the same as actually doing it. We shall see how this plays out.

X : So, you're not worried?
Me : Oh, quite the opposite. There are huge issues of trust at stake here. Theresa May was right to call these out.

Me : Oh, and that's not even covering the trust issues with the devolved Governments. This should have been a process of consensus building rather than Westminster imposing standards.
X : U-turn?
Me : They've got form. We shall see. It depends upon what's really at stake.

X : How do you mean?
Me : If they hold the cards of CPTPP, US-UK trade deal and China-UK trade deal ... and if this is what it takes ... they might play the hand.

X : Couldn't it cause a break up of the nations?
Me : Hypotheticals on hypotheticals. It all depends on what hand is held. If CPTPP + US-UK + China-UK are in play, I suspect it'll be hard for the nations to leave on a promise of joining the EU giving most trade is internal to UK.

X : So do you think they have it?
Me : It would be guesswork. However, the internal market bill seems an odd move to make now unless they had these trade deals in play.

X : Can Labour stop the internal market bill?
Me : Gosh. First, not on the numbers but I would be wary of trying. The timing of the bill looks like a trap to paint Labour as a party trying to frustrate brexit especially if the trade deals are close.

Ramping up the accusations to the EU acting in bad faith - bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi… ... negotiations are usually bruising even without adding in the court of public opinion.

X : Do you think the timing of the bil is odd?
Me : It fiits with the self imposed deadine but without the trade deals in the bag then it seems a high risk move to overcome a perceived logjam. It'll be difficult to tell for those outside the room. It really depends upon context.

X : Hence the trap?
Me : Yep. I'd be wary. Without the context you could end up opposing what becomes an obvious move and get painted as "anti brexit' which is what destroyed Labour at the last election.

X : Is the Internal Market bill justified?
Me : Lots I'm unhappy about, particularly over standards and lack consensus building among the nations. However, only those inside the negotiations have the context to judge i.e. one alternative narrative is

https://twitter.com/GlobalVision_UK/status/1303711258810683393

Hence I'm wary of rushing to judgement on this especially when there is so little clarity on the context.

X : Does the bill break the Good Friday Agreement?
Me : Creating an economic barrier between Northern Ireland and Great Britain which is what the Withdrawal Agreement could do would breach the Good Friday Agreement. I suspect UK will argue that the bill prevents this breach.

Negotiations, especially in the court of public opinion, can be very ... dirty. The context of this matters. If the EC have been banging on about protecting the peace (i.e. GFA) but at the same time using something that would break the GFA (NI border) to gain concessions ...

... then this is a very different context from a UK Gov not gaining concessions that it wants and deciding to renege on previous agreements without legitimate cause. Hence my reservation on this whole matter.

i.e. one possible scenario is the internal market bill passes, UK leaves without a deal, UK does not add any border between GB / NI (internal market) or NI / Rep. Ireland (GFA) and now the EC has to choose - protect the single market and break the GFA with a border or don't ...

... I would imagine (it's a guess) that something along those lines is how UK intends to exert pressure on the EC. It would be uncomfortable for the EC having run around the world saying it's all about the peace agreement and then have to break it to protect an economic market.

X : Do you think this will work?
Me : I think it's bad form. Threatening to breach agreed obligations never goes down well. There is a dispute resolution mechanism within the agreement that applies exclusively but it takes time.

Well, no surprise, the internal market bill seems to have been mostly a trap designed to paint Labour as anti-brexit -

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1305901418109374466

... threatening to break international law and damaging UK reputation purely as a ruse to score a few political points is a new low.

On the upside, the standards section must surely mean they're close to announcing some deal with the US, CPTPP and possibly China.

aka chlorinated chickens for everyone, whether you want them or not and an end to national bargaining for the NHS.