Finally discovering non-tariff barriers? Or the realities of the Northern Ireland protocol agreed 15 months ago and on which no scrutiny was apparently required?
The UK government is slowly learning what free trade really means and it would be nice if they would hurry up before the UK sustains too many more economic losses from the establishment of such significant barriers.
Reasonable to think that the UK government should have a strong case to extend Northern Ireland protocol grace periods as a quid pro quo for Commission mistake last week. But that of course is far short of what some in NI are calling for wherein lies the problem.
From @pmdfoster on Northern Ireland theme - the UK government may now make some requests for further easing. But what is really needed is openness and dialogue on the implications of the treaties signed by government.
And their alternate suggestion that they have not yet rejected is? But make no mistake, difficulties ahead. Dialogue and openness urgently needed, as I think the UK government has realised. But how much damage has been done by failing to do so?
Remember the UK government were still denying there were checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain a few weeks ago. They previously denied there would be checks. Such things come back to cause problems.
This is going to grow as a problem for the UK government if they don't work out a DUP handling approach pdq. Because the DUP isn't a party to the relevant treaties. And using the Commission error to press for easing is ok, but not for fundamental change.
The problem in a nutshell. A Prime Minister still refusing to admit that he signed up to checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and making them the EU's fault. Forcing officials to negotiate in bad faith. Irresponsible and bad for the UK.
The Prime Minister just undermined the UK's position just as much as von der Leyen did the EU position on Friday. A truly awful negotiator, because he has no realistic negotiating objectives.
Bears repeating - they opposed all realistic long term alternatives. Unless they've changed their mind and realised there would have been far fewer barriers with the original backstop.
Dial down the politics and uncertainty and Northern Ireland has a potentially strong offer to business. Unfettered goods access to EU, mostly unfettered to GB, plus large numbers of population eligible for dual passports so can work across UK and EU.
In general the UK will do better with the EU once it stops treating those who want to negotiate better outcomes as opponents, and moves away from tried and failed techniques of bluster followed by retreat.
What is the UK gaining from this refusal to fully recognise the EU Ambassador? A good headline at the expense of an ability to influence our major trading partner and a global regulator?
Useful. And adds to my feeling that UK negotiating hand over Northern Ireland is rather weak. Yes the Commission mucked up. And yes there are difficulties. But the UK previously made threats, and PM doesn't seem to understand what he signed up for. Needs cleverer UK approach.
If UK politics can't be honest about what has happened in EU talks particularly with regard to Northern Ireland then we face having the same conversations on repeat, to the frustration of all, leading to the same outcomes. And causing economic loss and political impotence.
This is what I mean by lack of honesty about the outcome of talks. Facilitated by the English print media and opposition not wanting to have the conversation about the way we lost negotiations then pretended it was a victory.
Interesting thread end point end point. I hope, and I could be wrong, that the UK government knows that to actually trigger protocol safeguard mechanisms would be incredibly counter-productive in showing a total lack of good faith. I suspect this is more an idle threat.
Obviously the UK government is under pressure from the DUP to renounce the protocol. But that's been true for 15 months. They are under pressure from EU and US not to do so. And that pressure has been more important to date, and probably wil continue to be so.
Then the UK government is under pressure trying to protect the PM who denies an Irish Sea border, while trying to make things better which Michael Gove and team knows means ignoring what the PM says. All together very tricky.
UK politicians of all stripes have used the EU as a punchbag / excuse for many years. In that we were true Europeans, other Member States do exactly the same. There is negligible cost. But as non-members there probably is a cost to axting in the same way. Is it still worth it?
One of the reasons I reject the idea the UK was somehow 'not European' - because our behaviour as members was not as different as many claimed. But as others have suggested, you may get a result as non-members by being more pro-EU than members.
UK politics is in a confused state with regard to trade and external relations. Unable to make the (cynical but necessary?) leap to EU as friends, a one-way special relationship, no wonder we seek solace on the other side of the world. Old habits, but distance...
We have two new @ECIPE blogs for you today on the UK. From me on the linkage between the UK government not listening seriously to business, and their lack of ambition on outcomes with an apparent goal of get the agreements, don't worry about the content. ecipe.org/blog/uk-trade-…
My colleague @ErikvanderMarel has been crunching the numbers on services and CPTPP, and finds the opportunities to be limited. Because distance matters in services, and the UK is already over-performing with most members. ecipe.org/blog/uk-joinin…
What should UK government trade priorities be? Removing US Scotch tariffs for sure. But beyond this, services and non-tariff barriers, since we already see with the EU how important these are. Conclude our WTO negotiation, sure add a couple of FTAs, but focused on quality.
Very important thread - reporting of the Northern Ireland protocol is typically inaccurate because it only refers to new East-West barriers (goods), not the new North-South ones (services). It affects both communities.
There is currently no realistic alternative to the protocol.
Maybe negotiable if combined with trusted trader / enhanced market surveillance? Won't change the fundamentals though. And bear in mind it is only two months since the UK government claimed to have fixed issues with the NI Protocol.
Once again the problem of the difference between the Prime Minister denying there are checks on GB-Northern Ireland trade and a negotiation about how the checks should work. And the DUP and Brexit ultras wanting the protocol to be scrapped.