Yes. There’s an institutional TCA structure. Yes, the Partnership Council will have to meet (and indeed soon because the deadline for provisional application needs to be moved). But let’s put this into context (thread)
Let’s start with the UK’s Association Agreement with Chile. Note that it has an institutional framework. There’s an Association Council. There’s an Association Committe. There are Special Committees. There’s the possibility to establish an Association Parliamentary Committee. /2
And there‘s a Joint Consultative Committee. And there’s a legal obligation to meet. Much like with the Partnership Council in the TCA. /3
So the UK-EU Agreement is not special in the regard of its institutional structure. However, what makes it more special is the following:
it’s governing a relationship with much more trade. That’s much closer than the Chile one. Requiring much more problem-solving.
So we could now say “no entanglement”. But that would not make the problems disappear.
We are stuck. With out neighbours. Which is not who we want to be stuck with, but if we’d move out and have NZ, OZ and AUS move in next to us, we’d have the same issues. Plus kangaroos.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Twitter. Today I saw idiotic takes on contract law that would make a 1L cry. I saw speculation that makes you wonder whether we actually need any basis in actual information or not. Don’t do that to me again. /1
One slightly more plausible take that also happens to not be convincing: the comparison of the contract with AstraZeneca (the one we don’t know) with that of Curevac (we do know). Why is that unlikely to say very much? /2
Because not only the product is different, also the functions and sizes of the companies involved. Curevac was the innovator. It has 500 employees and doesn’t even have the capacity to do a pharmaceutical trial (which is why they are still not on the market). AstraZeneca? /3
I should point out: they give advice in the regulatory environment as it is. If you are outside the single market and the customs union but want to serve many clients inside it, setting up a distribution centre makes sense...
(And as @JornTychsen rightly points out: EU business who used to send a lot of B2C from the EU might consider doing the same).
What a fascinating detail that the keen eye of @RaoulRuparel has dug up. But a caveat applies (yeah, lawyers): as the provision stands it is an interesting precedent, but arguably not enough to resolve the situation. Why?
From a glance at the treaty provisions the cumulation rules seem similar. So what does the guidance refer to? Footnote 3 of Annex 2. Which reads ""Canada/EU" means products qualifying as originating under the rules of origin of the" CETA. (leaving out sentence 2)
So the legal rule here seems to merely relate to putting "Canada/EU" into the form. What then does the guidance do?
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.