NI is all too often used as a pawn in political games. I very much applaud this sentiment: let us tackle the problems and work pragmatically to find solutions.
On SPS specifically: I urge the government to treat the group on regulatory divergence as a matter of priority. The country needs to finalize the regulatory debate about divergence to start a meaningful debate about further trade simplifications @naomi_long
We cannot remain in this limbo in which “we can finally deregulate” and “we have the same regulations” continue to be two simultaneous mantras. So: let’s urgently decide where to diverge and where we actually like what we have.
At that point we can tell partners “this is the regulation we have, of course the future is always unknown, but we like what we have, how can we work together to simplify trade - also in the area of regulation”

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Holger Hestermeyer

Holger Hestermeyer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @hhesterm

7 Feb
Some thoughts about the UK’s stage approach of setting up a full border with the EU (text here from assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…) (short thread)
The UK opted for a phased approach to building up the border. This allows the government to build up the border control posts needed until July (see the first graph).
One would hope that this will give industry time to adapt, but I am not all too optimistic seeing the current issues. And it creates another issue: the illusion that the UK won’t impose the same type of border the EU imposes.
Read 4 tweets
29 Jan
That is a terrible idea. @MichelBarnier bbc.com/news/uk-northe…
I did not bother commenting on the export debate in general, because it felt like the old PPE debate. Everyone forgets that they are misbehaving, but looks only at the misbehaviour of the others. politico.eu/article/uk-cor…
But invoking Art. 16 ... no.
Read 5 tweets
27 Jan
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
Read 6 tweets
26 Jan
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
Read 5 tweets
23 Jan
Praise to @tradegovuk . And it should be pointed out that they help UK business and thereby the UK. What they do saves jobs in the UK. theguardian.com/politics/2021/…
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).
Read 5 tweets
19 Jan
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?
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!