Let's have a crack at considering the TCA in light of the two side's starting positions back in March, shall we?
PDF: bit.ly/UshGraphic64
1/
PDF: bit.ly/UshGraphic64
1/
A couple of caveats as we head off:
- I've read what I can of the text, but I'm relying on others' analysis
- However, any and all errors are mine
- I miss the clarity of the WA text [sic]
2/
- I've read what I can of the text, but I'm relying on others' analysis
- However, any and all errors are mine
- I miss the clarity of the WA text [sic]
2/
The graphic maps out how much the outcome appears to map to each side's preferences, as set out in their opening positions
While the picture does seem to point to something closer to EU ideas, this needs important warnings, as you'll see
So let's run through the headings
3/
While the picture does seem to point to something closer to EU ideas, this needs important warnings, as you'll see
So let's run through the headings
3/
BTW the headings come from this summary I did back at the start, looking at what appeared to be the key issues
4/
4/
https://twitter.com/Usherwood/status/1226791096392568834?s=20
Legal basis went EU's way, to try and avoid a mixed agt (but let's see if any of the EU27 come back on this), but while it's a clear win, note that UK didn't have a formal view on this, so
5/
5/
(yes, I know legal basis matters, but UK side hasn't evinced necessary level of engagement on this for it to become a substantial issue)
6/
6/
More important is the governance
It's effectively a consolidation document, albeit with a couple of riders for info security and civil nuclear coop, plus a world of exceptions w/in the text
However, also lots of scope for more coop in future, so hits EU needs more
7/
It's effectively a consolidation document, albeit with a couple of riders for info security and civil nuclear coop, plus a world of exceptions w/in the text
However, also lots of scope for more coop in future, so hits EU needs more
7/
Dispute settlement is tricky. Basic mechanism is like WA's (I'll tweet later on this), but many exceptions and no CJEU role this time, so concessions on both sides
8/
8/
Territorial scope wasn't a problem at start, and wasn't at end: Gibraltar never likely to be included
However, I'll note Crown Deps and Oversea Territs also didn't get included, so depends how you read UK intention to act on their behalf
9/
However, I'll note Crown Deps and Oversea Territs also didn't get included, so depends how you read UK intention to act on their behalf
9/
So far, so general. EU has set main lines, but UK has scored some important text too
Let's dive into the substantive areas now
10/
Let's dive into the substantive areas now
10/
Trade in goods meets the joint zero-zero intention, even if hedged by some scope for other kinds of duties
LPF floats alongside, if not necessarily to EU's ambition
11/
LPF floats alongside, if not necessarily to EU's ambition
11/
Trade in services is very minimal and promissory, so while you can argue both got what they wanted, that's not much, which will be a problem for UK services sector
12/
12/
Fish is tricky, since while there is the longer phasing-in of reduced EU access followed by annual negotiations, that's balanced by the possibility of trade barriers should EU quota drop thereafter
Read @john_lichfield for more on this
13/
Read @john_lichfield for more on this
13/
https://twitter.com/john_lichfield/status/1342832551552049153?s=20
Likewise LPF isn't that clear. There's been some unpacking of different elements, some with more enforceability, and the EU did give way on state aid.
So EU gets a reasonable level of confidence about this, but UK has pushed back in some areas
14/
So EU gets a reasonable level of confidence about this, but UK has pushed back in some areas
14/
Read @StevePeers's mammoth thread on this element (and all the other elements TBH) here
15/
https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1342836512162013189?s=20
15/
Security cooperation is like services: fine words on both sides, but really rather thin.
EU held firm on non-access to sensitive databases, even as need to cooperation close to membership remains
Another area for future work, one senses
16/
EU held firm on non-access to sensitive databases, even as need to cooperation close to membership remains
Another area for future work, one senses
16/
And bringing up the rear, a very short list of other areas of cooperation
UK seems to have taken this purely on a narrow cost-benefit basis, with concern about multiannual commitments
Again, one that'll get revisited by ever new UK govt
17/
UK seems to have taken this purely on a narrow cost-benefit basis, with concern about multiannual commitments
Again, one that'll get revisited by ever new UK govt
17/
As an aside, if you'll like a great discussion of why non-participation in Erasmus is a bad move, check out @Cardwell_PJ's thread yesterday
18/
https://twitter.com/Cardwell_PJ/status/1342917640797483008?s=20
18/
So back to the tl;dr
As others have noted, this looks like you'd have expected - the bigger side gets more out of it
However, beyond that, this is not a necessarily stable model, so expect it to evolve for many years yet
19/
As others have noted, this looks like you'd have expected - the bigger side gets more out of it
However, beyond that, this is not a necessarily stable model, so expect it to evolve for many years yet
19/
Much of this is about continuing interaction and negotiation, quite apart from the options to do new things, so it's only a question of time before the next bout of talking about 'Europe' in Westminster
20/
20/
In sum
The TCA gives the two sides a set of tools, but it remains to be seen what they do with these
/end
The TCA gives the two sides a set of tools, but it remains to be seen what they do with these
/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
