Share this page!

Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
Twitter logo
25 Dec, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Reserving judgment on all else: industry, please be aware that the new relationship between the UK and the EU entails massive non-tariff barriers. Roughly the ones you know from other Free Trade Agreements. /1
The statement of the Prime Minister that there will be no non-tariff barriers is simply wrong. Prepare. /2
Source: gov.uk/government/spe…
Why do I bang on this drum and let all the rest slide? Because industry needs to get prepared. To pretend it doesn’t will cause enormous harm.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Holger Hestermeyer

Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @hhesterm

Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
21 Dec
I only believe this after seeing an official source, because this tweet is erroneous on several aspects:
- MPs don't get a vote on ratification. Never did. Not provided for in UK law.
- MPs vote on implementing legislation. They'd have to for provisional application (thread)
Some more detail: UK law knows TWO ways of treaty control:
CRaG treaty scrutiny - which relates to ratification and does not include a mandatory vote
Treaty implementing legislation. Here a vote is required.
The only exception to this I am aware of is the "meaningful vote" that a statute provided for with regard to the withdrawal agreement. That was the one instance in which Parliament had a mandatory vote on a treaty for ratification purposes. It did not work well. It was abolished.
Read 4 tweets
Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
21 Dec
Maybe it is time for some calm assessment of what has happened. A short thread.
1) The border closures we have seen temporarily seems to be based largely on UK government information. That led the UK government to drastic measures in the UK. Is @ABridgen alleging the government of lying? If so, he should come out and say that, but he better has proof.
2) What the government said is that the mutated virus spreads more easily. This alone makes it more dangerous. Why? Because one of the greatest risks of corona is overburdening health systems. More spread, greater risk.
Read 7 tweets
Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
20 Dec
Here's how the European Parliament could take control of Brexit and enhance rather than weaken its position @davidmcallister (thread)
1) establish a realistic timeline towards a possible deal. (Yes, the EP has set deadlines before that were ignored. Hear me out)
2) set out how the deal can be brought into force and the road towards ratification. Setting only a deadline for ratification won't help.
Read 6 tweets
Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
17 Dec
Three points on the whole “ramping up pressure” fallacy (thread) telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/…
1) I am not sure “we’ll send MPs home, they can always be recalled if there’s a deal” is very much a statement of anything except letting MPs have a holiday, which, given the time of year, is not all that unexepcted.
2) We’ve repeatedly read stories how the EU likes to run down the clock thereby exerting pressure on its negotiating partner. Certainly both cannot be true.
Read 5 tweets
Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
15 Dec
Curiously Erasmus+ covers NZ, Canada, Australia, the US, Brazil etc.
That said: The UK has a strong university sector. Particularly the big names have strong connections worldwide. That definitely applies to KCL.
But please refrain from commenting something something global Britain. Your fictional idea of global glory is not an existing global program.
Read 5 tweets
Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture
10 Dec
The President's amicus brief in the Texas case before the Supreme Court. It is insane. (short thread) supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/2…
First of all it literally says that a violation of state election law is automatically a violation of the constitution and hence a matter for the federal courts. And that's not the insane part.
The insane part is that its substantive argument starts off with a survey showing that a significant part of the population think the election was stolen and argues things like he's won Ohio and Florida, hence he cannot have lost the states at issue. How crazy.
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @hhesterm has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @hhesterm!

Read all threads by @hhesterm