One might have thought that believers in Brexit would need no prompting as to good ideas as to what can be done outside the EU/EEA. But no.
Asking Whitehall for ideas as to what can be done outside the EU is as helpless and hopeless an exercise as asking it for ideas as to how to “slash red tape” or to “level up”.
It’s for elected governments to set policy direction and to have sensible ideas as to the best policies to pursue. The best governments we have had have done this.
The worst governments have nothing but vapid slogans and are reduced to asking Whitehall for help in thinking of policy ideas.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A further thread on the EU/UK musicians/visa for paid work issue (the issue is paid work: travelling to sing or play at eg a charity event for free can be done without a visa).
In essence the UK permits foreign (including EU) nationals to stay up to 30 days to carry out paid engagements, but they must (a) prove they are a professional musician and (b) be invited by an established UK business.
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.
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.