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
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.
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…
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
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
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?