Strangely not mentioned in this story - the fact that the US, EU and Japan agreed to sytrengthen rules to tackle Chinese subsidies in January 2020. So we appear to be urging the EU to join something they joined and we didn't over a year ago. thesun.co.uk/news/14089864/…
Does it matter that there is a media story about trade briefed by the government that is almost completely inaccurate? Because these four paragraphs are complete fantasy. The UK are trying to divide the EU and US on trade, and we were the ones putting up barriers to trade.
I had quite a shock recently when a mainstream US think-tanker described the UK in the same camp as Poland and Hungary as having been taken over in part by populist nationalism. Of course the UK government would deny this, but do they care that this is being suggested?
Alternate headline "UK Minister begs Brussels help to end punitive US Whisky tariffs after her negotiating failure".
Unfair? Maybe. But no more partial than the original headline.
And frankly a better use of her time as the UK is so far playing no positive world trade role.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm afraid that trying to reconcile hard Brexit and no barriers between GB and NI unionism through inventing new forms of borders has been, is, and will be a doomed enterprise. The report on which this article is based is no solution. irishtimes.com/opinion/david-…
I have been sympathetic to unionist concerns about Brexit and Northern Ireland throughout the process. I opposed the original Northern Ireland backstop for this reason. I thought an all-UK backstop was better. But the DUP joined Conservatives in thinking this not Brexit enough.
My sympathy is lessened by language about annexation by the EU, and also the failure to recognise that the post-Brexit settlement affects both communities, both East-West and North-South trade. It makes me think the author's hatred for the EU is dominating his approach.
Thread, particularly this. In time our two agreements with the EU will come to be seen very badly, and blame will be apportioned. Right now Brexiteers try to blame PM May for the NI Protocol. Not convincingly.
Reason for problems of both NI Protocol and EU FTA are fundamentally the same. Unrealistic negotiating position not compromised until too late, by which time it was take EU deal or not. And the PM preferred to take deal, claim victory, defer consequences.
Government is very lucky that a sympathetic press and commentariat is not yet calling out problems with the EU deal. But the management of substandard deals and public opinion, along with international relations, is going to be very difficult.
My Friday provocation - which I know is not widely shared in Brexit twitter circles - is that the UK government has been structured wrongly on Brexit since 2016 and the appointment of Lord Frost compounds the error. Not about personalities but balance of roles... 1/
So in the usual UK government system departments set policy and implement it, and the centre of government (Cabinet Office, Number 10) coordinates, arbitrates, sets overall strategy, and all the other things you'd expect from a centre. Though without much resource tbf... 2/
For international policy there was always a Prime Minister's 'sherpa' who was also the head of a Cabinet Office secretariat, their role to represent the PM at various international meetings, drawing on all different departmental interests. A specific and limited role perhaps. 3/
The latest on UK-New Zealand according to what passes as UK government transparency. Tells us nothing of use whatsoever. gov.uk/government/new…
Fortunately we can tell you a little more about what is happening in UK-New Zealand trade talks courtesy of the New Zealand government, who take consultation seriously. mfat.govt.nz/assets/Trade-a…
Let us compare a little shall we. Here is what the UK government says about tariff negotiations with New Zealand. All under control.
This is I think one of the better articles on the subject of UK-EU relations published from a Brexit-leaning point of view. Quite a lot in here that is worth considering.
Start with the the fact there are those in both EU and UK who want the other to fail. True. Rarely said.
We then go on to the EU treating the UK as a third country. Still I think some denial here of what this means. It means the EU will behave badly towards us. That's not our special privilege. That's the reality of modern trade and regulations. You'll find it in the US as well.
So we come to a risk point. The UK government argues that the EU is behaving badly towards us because of Brexit. They want to avoid accusations that they should have seen it coming, and chose this path. The article is right we need to cool it. But again, can we accept realities?
Cuts right to the heart of possibly the most significant Brexit myth in the Conservative Party, that the EU is a uniquely heavy regulator holding back business.
When actually regulation, whether of bananas or buildings, is a developed country norm, including the US.
The Brussels regulatory myth also sits heavily on one former journalist. Boris Johnson was mocking EU regulations in the late 90s but nobody was bothering to check whether the rest of the world were also regulating. They were. Of course there were mistakes. But universal action.
We tend to forget that the growth of regulations in the 1980s and particularly 90s was largely a centre-right initiative, a corollary to privatisation. So the state would no longer be extensively involved in providing services, but would regulate instead.