Thread by @EmporersNewC

Despite the fact this trade deal does not "guarantee continuity" for flower importers, it does lead us back to an important point.

https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1323645223520657411

Kenya hasn't always grown and exported so many flowers, but it now exports them in serious volumes.

In the Patrick Minford model of trade this happened because the Lomé agreement was signed in the mid-1970s, but the growth did not come as a result of the trade deal.

The difficulty wasn't the tariffs, it was getting the product from A to B at speed. It need to be transported by air for this to be viable, and the outlay for cargo handling was too big for the initial small market penetration.

It took a increase in tourism to Kenya in the 1980s that led to passenger flight cargo being cheaper and more available, and this enabled the flower exports to grow.

Even when they grew big enough to transfer to dedicated freight, Kenya doesn't import a lot from Europe, meaning the flights returning to Kenya are under capacity and there is pressure to reduce the number of flights.

If the UK are going to grow its trade in the world with products that require to be transported by air-freight, then the relationship with the Single Market is essential.

It's also not just a case of importing cheap things with trade deals, if the freight is largely one way and is under capacity coming back, that freight is going to have to go up in price or the capacity will come down.

Passenger flights were also important in terms of making that market viable. Trade does not begin and end with tariffs.

People need to realise doing a trade deal with Kenya and going to WTO rules could seriously damage our trade with Kenya.

Until they invent teleportation, adequate access to the necessary freight is important if you want to maintain or increase your trade.

Therefore, our relationship with the EU is essential to how successful we are trading with the rest of the world.

The Kenya example shows us it's not either/or.

/End