And yes yes head of government. But the Queen shouldn’t either...
Just to make sure - of course the head of government SHOULD be aware of all major decisions and their impact. And yes, I would argue that includes reading some of the text.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
And divergence is in the news again. And Peter gets the order exactly right: before we even get to rebalancing, we should have a discussion: do we actually WANT the different rules and here a fundamental problem kicks in (thread)
The EU debate has been messed up for a long time, because too often public debate became "the EU forces us to do X, how dare they". And the nuance was gone. What nuance?
The nuance that on the EU level much like on the national level some people push left, some people push right, some yell "vegan bonanza" others "beef boom" and in the end you get to an outcome, quite often with a significant UK impact.
What's happening is not unexpected. And there are a number of causes: 1) non-tariff barriers as a consequence of moving from CU+SM to FTA 2) teething problems made worse because 3) no prep time for an FTA announced last second.
Over time, a new normal will settle in with higher transport costs, more red tape and less trade.
Many excellent contributions on the future of EU-UK relations by @SamuelMarcLowe , @fromTGA , @DavidHenigUK . Maybe the debate could be summarised as follows (short thread)
For a while UK politics will inevitably be looking for regulatory divergence with the EU. After that there are two scenarios: either the debate continues to focus on divergence at all cost - without regard to the regulatory content. In that case the TCA will fail.
Or we enter calmer waters, regulation is debated on its merits, divergence will happen here and there, but the obsession with being different fades away. In that case, a partnership can built. That partnership can go further than the TCA also on trade...
To start off - this actually is a zero-tariff and zero-quota deal. Which, for "normal" free trade agreements is unusually good. (Yes, wait for it)...
In every FTA only qualifying goods get these conditions. Yes. Rules of origin. This is a difficult topic and requires administration. The deal is not unusual in that regard at all.
For two days we now had surprise at the fact that Rules of origin become relevant in UK-EU trade. A surprise that, as @SamuelMarcLowe has eloquently pointed out, surprises trade people. So: a very very short thread on: WHY are there rules of origin?
And FTA is concluded between 2 (or more) parties. So it benefits those parties. Not others. What does that mean for goods? It benefits goods "from those parties". How do you know that the goods are from those parties? Well, that's what RoOs do.
Why can we not just get rid of this unnecessary red tape? Quite simple. Let's say the government says: there shall be no red tape.
From tomorrow on, China would export every single item it exports to the UK via the EU. And it would be tariff-free.