This is a good piece from @anandMenon1 and @jillongovt. It makes a lot of important points. But it has a (for me...) strange conclusion. 1/7
https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1339828722061488128
First, we are indeed in the realms *not* of the UK having 'membership' of the single market, but instead of it only having an FTA. If there's a deal, the differences will become obvious very soon. 2/7
Second, it is also right to say that the 'threat' from the UK, armed with an FTA, to the integrity of the single market, isn't that great, and also that the level-playing field isn't as level as all that. 3/7
The key question is what terms should the UK and EU agree to in order to sign off on the FTA, and avoid no-deal.
As the piece says: 'the EU is, of course, perfectly entitled to press the UK to sign up to stringent level playing field provisions.' 4/7
As the piece says: 'the EU is, of course, perfectly entitled to press the UK to sign up to stringent level playing field provisions.' 4/7
My thought is that this stringent approach is the result of a) the relative power of the EU; and importantly b) the stance adopted by the UK through the negotiations. 5/7
The UK has, at various times, insisted that the point of Brexit is the freedom to set its own standards - to be free of EU constraints. The Singapore-on-Thames model has fans in Govt. The Internal Market Bill shows its willingness to breach international law. 6/7
The EU has responded by making the text of any deal as stringent as it can.
Had the negotiations been conducted differently, there may well have been a different outcome, relying on more trust, cooperation, etc. But that's not on the table now. 7/7
Had the negotiations been conducted differently, there may well have been a different outcome, relying on more trust, cooperation, etc. But that's not on the table now. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
