Since subsidy control is at the core of the “tricky” issues, ask these questions, and demand answers, when evaluating the coherence and rationality of the current PM’s position that “there are limits which no sensible independent country could go.”
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1336241792342233090
1. He fought the 2019 election on the basis of a political declaration that promised to “uphold the common high standards applicable in the [EU] ... in the areas of State aid ... [and] to maintain a robust and comprehensive framework for ... state aid control.” 
He presumably did not then believe that a commitment to a robust subsidy control regime exceeded “limits [beyond] which no sensible independent country could go”. And nor, presumably, did those who voted for him. What, precisely, has changed?
2. When deciding whether to accept a contract (or treaty) term, the rational questions to ask are (a) “Does this stop me doing something I actually want to do?” and (b) “If so, is it worth refusing the term even if it means I don’t get the other benefits of the contract/treaty?”
In relation to the EU’s proposed terms on subsidy control, what process of evidence-based reasoning has the current government engaged in to answer those questions?
What, exactly, would it like to do that it couldn’t do with a robust subsidy control regime? And are the benefits from whatever that is worth tariffs and the other enormous additional disruption to individual lives and businesses that will flow from no deal?
I have seen no plausible answers to any of those questions from the current government or its various cheerleaders. I do not think that there are any.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
