Problems with that. 1. There is no public appetite for divergent regulation. 2. Both keeping trade going with NI and business pressure point away from divergence. 3. Economic gravity. 4. Need for framework for mobility, security is rather determined by being surrounded by the EU.
Like Canada or Switzerland, a close relationship with the elephant next door - and to a large extent on the elephant’s terms - isn’t optional.
As for “establishing our independence”, cf “sovereignty”: it is a silly and incoherent way of thinking about the real issues (or, rather, a way of avoiding discussion of the real issues).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
While on the topic of Lexit pieces that go off piste when it gets to the detail, some particularly strange passages from Larry Elliot’s piece in the Guardian. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
Discuss what this is supposed to mean as a claim about the real world, with particular reference to the word “reputation” (and to the fact that many countries in the EU don’t have that “reputation” - let alone the reality).
The authors appear to have read my analysis of it eurelationslaw.com/blog/the-subsi… (because they link to it). But they don’t seem to have understood it at all - and the quote attributed to me is simply incorrect.
The authors don’t appear to have any understanding of what EU State aid rules actually are. This, they seem to think that this is all new.
TLDR (though do read). The subsidy control provisions commit the UK to a robust subsidy control regime that is enforceable in court and has an independent authority.
The key concepts of the regime (eg what counts as a subsidy, application to tax measures, principles for clearing or prohibiting subsidies) are very familiar to State aid lawyers, though the State aid terminology is deliberately avoided.
The point of my short letter was simply that all significant trade agreements are about trade-offs: accepting limits on what you can do in return for limiting others’ ability to do things that harm your economy or limit your people’s opportunities.
Talk about “sovereignty” (or, in Lee’s case, erecting the “ever closer union” straw man) is usually designed to hide these trade-offs.
I don’t think that it’s sustainable for the EU to say (if that’s what it is saying) that COVID subsidies *granted by the EU* don’t fall under the subsidy control provisions of the UK FTA while equivalent UK subsidies do.
I don’t follow the “it would require a change in the Treaties” line: the EU is competent to enter into trade agreements that impose international obligations on it not to exercise Treaty powers in certain ways. Eg GATT.
Nor do I understand the “we can’t allow the UK to block us” line. All that is being proposed is that the UK could impose tariffs (subject to any arbitration/conciliation) mechanism if it objects to what the EU is doing.
About 100 years ago, Attorneys General frequently appeared in big criminal trials - and was obliged to prosecute all poisoning cases personally. He (always he, of course) would also represent the government in important civil cases.