New @instituteforgov report on managing UK-EU relationship. I would start in a different place, and I think get to a different result - our priorities should be resolving trading issues and influencing future regulations, plus general political relations. instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/…
I think we get distracted by the elaborate committee structures set up by UK-EU treaties. The EU aim to do this with everyone. The only way we're special is we have two treaties so two sets of committees. That's actually quite revealing in its way.
So how do the committes help us if we have day-to-day business issues, as we do and will, or want to try to influence EU regulation? They don't, necessarily. This is going to have to be the same stuff as we do with every country in the world. Only more so, more at stake.
Cabinet Office is not set up to manage this kind of business as usual diplomatic and trading relationship with the EU, US, China etc. That has to be an FCDO lead, with strong support from DIT and every other department. Visions of cross-Whitehall meetings...
You can have the PM's team (i.e. Lord Frost etc) setting the direction for the relationship, as per typical role of PM's international lead. But the firepower has to be serious and large teams across government. Business has to know where it goes for EU trade issues.
As far as I can see right now we aren't anything like set up for the EU relationship. Not a priority for any department, even though this is 50% of our trade, 3 of 7 G7 members etc. That has to change as a matter of urgency, otherwise it will be all politics and no substance.
And yes it means recognising the EU Ambassador as soon as possible. Important interests are at stake for the country - 50% of our trade. Risking that to have a political argument of no basic consequence is everything that is currently wrong with our EU relationship.
We have to assume at this stage the committee structure with the EU delivers nothing, and need to build the engagement structures outside. We might be pleasantly surprised, but more likely if we put in serious effort.
Right now the EU are discussing multiple regulations which could have major implications on the UK. Yet as a country we are seen in a heavily negative light. There isn't much interest in what the UK thinks. That is what has to change. And that's a diplomat led job. /end
NB another needless UK battle being set up with the EU. More than anything else we need a change of mindset that means we value relationships within Europe asap. Burning diplomatic capital with your main trading partner for no reason is sheer stupidity.politico.eu/article/eu-cou…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Take one guess as to who according to a Danish Liberal MEP (sort of politician who should be a UK ally) is "abusing the situation shamelessly and opportunistically"... @tconnellyRTE back to Brexit Saturday amp.rte.ie/amp/1195326/?_…
As I suggested yesterday the EU is not in any way impressed by the UKs handling of the Northern Ireland protocol, which it regards as totally dishonest. London has nowhere to go given especially Biden, another negotiating failure looms.
Until the UK government understand the realities of trade and borders and construct sensible internal negotiating positions expect continued failures with the EU. OK while media is supportive but some may notice that Johnson waves the white flag nearly as often as the Union Jack.
Long thread. My view - the UK has since 2016 underestimated what goods border checks mean, and still does. That makes it very difficult for the EU to respond effectively to suggestions the operations of the protocol must be seriously changed. Especially after a month.
If the UK government went to the EU and said "here are three things that if you do we will resolve internal UK issues like unionist opposition to the protocol" then that is interesting. "Here are 20 things and we still don't guarantee we won't be back for more" is almost useless.
Let us be blunt the EU fear the UK wish to erode the Northern Ireland protocol to nothingness with a series of demands that never end. So yes this is about disruption, but it is also about trust. And that needs the UK side to change - such as the PM to admit there are checks.
Interesting thread, expect to see the rate of vaccinations to rise in France in the coming months, as I suspect also to be the case in many other developed countries. Adds to previous suggestions that covid shows modern globalisation is stronger than national exceptionalism.
Not that relatively equal nation states can't get advantages in a globalised world, but the speed of information and goods transmission means they are likely to be short lived. Suggests to me the long term fundamentals are more important than short term actions.
A Brexit angle on covid and globalisation? One fundamental is changed, the level of our trade integration with the EU. But not others, such as our general demand for regulation or strength in services.
Might start a Brexit dictionary. In this case "absurd" means perfectly normal outside of a single market. bbc.com/news/amp/enter…
Just wait until UK Ministers discover that every country has non tariff barriers to trade and the only group of countries to remove them almost completely are the EU plus EEA countries.
Integrated supply chains like this affect all sectors of the economy, and are in turn affected by greater barriers. ft.com/content/9fb6b5…
Someone made the very good point to me earlier this week that even small companies can have their own global supply chains - technology raised that possibility. But now many UK companies are disadvantaged.
So why don't we bring the entire supply chain back to the UK like in the 1970s? Because that will not produce the same quality of goods at the same price. And we'll be hopelessly uncompetitive compared to those drawing on a range of inputs.
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?