Apparently the US elections and Brexit combined lead to rather particular takes on the UK, alliances and foreign relations. Allow me to make three points in this regard. My main point is at the end. Bear with me (thread)
1) The UK is and remains an important country. It is a P5 nation. It is a significant economic and military power. It is an important ally. Yes,...
... some of the statements made in the Brexit context will worry partners, as decision-makers claim increasingly that UK law allows disregarding international law. They regard Brexit as special, but many of these statements are now made as describing a general UK position.
But that doesn't change the basic fact: the UK remains significant. Period.
2) The EU and its 27 Member States are an important and significant partner and an attractive ally. Economically it is a superpower (if less coherent than the other 2 main players). Militarily and in foreign policy for lack of coherence not, but it is significant.
3) And now that we have the insecurity out of the way - the whole conversation seems to assert some sort of major shift in alliances. That, however, is just plain weird. Looking at the countries of the world, even now, who should/can build a close alliance?
Embrace autocratic Russia? Autocratic China? Who are we all kidding? In the end, some basic agreement on some basic values is needed. And looking around the world - we end up with many of the usual suspects.
And this, then, is the tragedy of the situation. Yes, the relative importance of the West - first of all economically - is in decline. An economic rebalancing is happening. But here's the thing: when they speak about this relative decline in economic importance, we are part of it
We need to embrace economic opportunities in Asia - yes (and some EU countries have already done so). But a) there are limits to this and b) given the believes, values and traditions this does not mean we can or should just change allies.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) Free Trade Agreements are massively, massively about interests. POTUS and PM might like each other, that's good'n all, but that doesn't change POTUS' approach to trade. And that is America First.
That is, of course, not a description or a reading between the line approach. POTUS is absolutely explicit about it. The US expects a win. For the US. What does that mean?
A prime example of our incapacity to understand exponential growth today in @derspiegel 's live feed on the coronavirus: hospitalized patients in the State of NRW are up from 950 to 1420 within a week. (short thread)
The article continues that this is "far" from filling the capacity. 1320 ICU beds with ventilators are unfilled (the article is somewhat unclear on correlations of numbers). What is clear is that hospitalization numbers doubled twice within a month.
In light of that and of lag time - the development is deeply uncomfortable. Even if the 1320 free beds correlate to the currently only 148 patients on ventilators.
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)
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?