Share this page!

David Henig Profile picture
Twitter logo
11 Oct, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Where "regressive" = unable to do a trade deal with the US. Who incidentally have stringent processes for food imports.

Basically the continued effort to define free trade, wrongly, as a trade deal with the US.
There need be no inconsistency between free trade and setting regulations as long as the latter is not discriminatory. Those who would claim otherwise should explain why they think the US setting UK food rules equals free trade. Take back control, remember?
Incidentally, and more tomorrow, it is not illegal under WTO rules to have regulations covering imports. But it might displease the US. So could we have an honest debate about that, rather than pretending government resistance to food rules is not about a US trade deal?
Final word for now - it might be in the UKs interests to have that US trade deal and accept any hit to UK farmers. But it is noticeable that I haven't seen anyone make that case. Instead we hear of 'free trade', or WTO. Lets stop dodging the real issues.

• • •

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

Keep Current with David Henig

David Henig 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 @DavidHenigUK

David Henig Profile picture
12 Oct
So much being written today about UK food and trade, so time for the thread. In short, factually:

- reasonable for the US to want us to accept their food
- reasonable (& broadly WTO compliant) for us to set conditions
- the lack of evidence, plus distractions, is troubling 1/
Start with the reason we're having a food and trade debate, easy to forget when distractions are thrown in around protectionism and developing countries. The US want as a price for a trade deal a guarantee their food can be sold in the UK (i.e. repeal any current bans). 2/
The US are behaving in trade talks just like the EU. As the bigger player, an insistence on their rules. A sign of our debased UK debate is that few make this equivalence, or indeed ask why the UK doesn't do similar to smaller countries? 3/
Read 17 tweets
David Henig Profile picture
12 Oct
Wholly inadequate, which is why business and civil society stakeholders have been pushing for more open processes around UK trade deals for over two years.

Starting at the beginning there is no opportunity to have a debate on a trade agreement before or during negotiation.
"Independently verified" - but not by a body that has any trade expertise.

"Full scrutiny" by Parliamentary committees - 10 days to read and digest ~1000 pages before the scrutiny process starts

"CRAG process" - 21 days to delay at most. Image
Not even close to best in class. Those affected get 21 days tops between receiving the detailed trade agreement and it being agreed. And as we've seen recently sometimes it takes even governments 9 months to understand a 50-page agreement. Image
Read 5 tweets
David Henig Profile picture
9 Oct
Can anyone with a straight face argue that test and trace has been anything other than a Grade A shambles so far?
Tough job running a country during a covid outbreak. Seems to need a respected leader who can bring a country and institutions together with relentless focus.
Incidentally the Minister for everything the government considers important (sorry, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) leads on, inter alia, covid, Brexit, and civil service reform.

To do even one of these properly looks like a full time job.
Read 8 tweets
David Henig Profile picture
8 Oct
While I get the importance of allowing US food into the UK for those committed to a UK-US trade deal it seems entirely reasonable to ask questions about the impacts on the UK, and discuss those. And I see plenty on left and right, free traders and not, in agreement about this.
It is interesting and right to see developing countries being brought into the discussion. In many cases they already have to meet exacting rules set by supermarkets. Is that the best way, or perhaps consistent UK standards would suit them?
Or perhaps we are fine for the US to set our food standards, in which case could we admit that? For example, take ractopamine in pork, banned in over 160 countries according to this article. Should we just go with the US approach? pigprogress.net/Health/Article…
Read 5 tweets
David Henig Profile picture
8 Oct
I was struck by this paragraph in particular on civil service reform - screams "we want something different" but whispers "we haven't really worked out what" so let's sack some senior civil servants now and work the rest out later...
So many problems with reforming a big organisation (and I've worked for a few) - you need a clear vision with wide support, leaders from within who can be the change, and reform of many 'boring' areas like assessment. I don't see any of these in the government's plans.
The civil service has plenty of issues widely recognised, including poor management, lack of detailed expertise, and endemic bullying linked to an insider / outsider culture. But it feels like the government's idea of reforms is just to have a few more people who think like them.
Read 4 tweets
David Henig Profile picture
8 Oct
This looks like a government admission - for the first time - that a US trade deal will require the UK to change our food standards. Which has been widely known by experts but something the government has repeatedly denied until now.
The US and EU as trade giants are able to insist imports meet their approach to food standards in trade deals. The US also insists on their food being allowed in your market. Probably less of an issue for deals with other countries (though unknown in the case of CPTPP).
Ironically as the UK government reserves the right to change food standards for a US trade deal, California is insisting on higher animal welfare standards, and hoping to cut all trade from the rest of the US not meeting their standard. Perhaps a UK-California deal...?
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

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

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get email notifications when new thread is out from this Author!

Check out other threads from this Author!

Read all threads by @DavidHenigUK