That's not what the government or the EU are doing. Allow me to give you a very short primer in three tweets: what is a Customs Union, the Single Market, a Free Trade Agreement. Bonus tweet: what is the UK negotiating. (Thread)
What is a Customs Union? A CU abolishes internal tariffs and introduces a common external tariff, so that all members have the same external tariffs (The WTO lists 18 CUs, 4 concern the EU. Others are, e.g. SACU)
What is the single merket, also referred to as the internal market or the common market? It allows free movement of goods, services and workers. To do that it provides for some harmonization and, vitally, for mutual recognition of rules (the EU, to some extent NZ-Australia)
What is a Free Trade Agreement? The WTO (in an article whose name shall not be mentioned) states that it's two or more territories getting together and eliminating internal duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce on substantially all trade.
The negotiating goal between the EU and the UK is an FTA. Not a CU. Not the SM.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Es ist an der Zeit, dass wir erkennen, dass @markuspreiss zwar nicht unrecht hat, aber dass das, was er beschreibt, nicht EU-spezifisich ist - es beschreibt eine geradezu notwendige Eigenschaft der Politik an sich (thread)
Politiker verfolgen ein Ideal und werben dafür. Sie erklären eine große Idee, ehrgeizige Ziele. Dann aber müssen sie Mehrheiten bilden. Dafür müssen sie Vertreter anderer (ebenso großer) Ideale überzeugen. Kompromisse machen. Mehrheiten bilden.
Und so wird aus der großen Idee ein kleiner Schritt. Oder Stillstand, weil sich Mehrheiten nicht finden lassen, das angestrebte Ziel schlicht nicht asreichend populär ist oder mal wieder niemand die Konsequenzen tragen will.
Norway is part of the Single Market, but through the EEA and the EFTA court, not as an EU Member State. That makes it very difficult to achieve continuity of trade conditions. (Actually read impossible). Why?
Because the Single Market relies on using harmonisation and a bucket full of EU law. A no go for the UK. So what to do?
Let me add to this metaphor - and in the process explain a common mistake her. Think of a local businessmen who moves his business. To a richer city, say. Sounds promising? (Short thread)
Here‘s a problem, though: the businessman cuts his existing ties. Everyone who used to contact him won’t be interested any more. You go to the other local businesses. So what about the new, wealthier area?
He might be able to build up a new business there. But nobody was waiting for him. Everyone already has the relevant contacts. It’ll be tough. Outcome not assured. No matter how great our businessman is.
How to think of the current impasse in UK-EU negations - boring trade nerd edition (thread)
The newspapers and some commentators will say things like "the UK is going further than anyone would in trade negotiations" or "the EU is making an unprecedented offer". What to think of that?
The current situation - without any of the rhetoric - is simple. The EU and the UK need to find some common ground on level playing field including state aid, fisheries, governance. They currently do not have that, because their positions are still apart.
This is historically wrong. Britain maintained in force the navigation acts (until 1849), cutting the US off from trade to its traditional partners - Britain and its colonies. /1
Things got worse for the US a bit later when the UK cut of trade with France as part of the Napoleonic war, which the US challenged as illegal. Ultimately there was the war of 1812 between the US and the UK /2
In the course of which Fort McHenry was attacked by the British Navy - the events described in the US national anthem. /3