I think this is the best critique of the government's approach to spending and levelling up I have seen. "centrally controlled funding pots thinly spread across a range of initiatives”. Good for headlines, unlikely to be effective. Classic populism. ft.com/content/e81469…
This also. Big questions of future UK industrial strategy, warning flags all over the place (bitty initiatives, little understanding of UK strengths, no overall strategy, trade barriers to nearest markets), little debate in parliament or government.
And then this on a government which is probably even fooling itself with its use of language (and how good a first tweet in a thread is this? eagerly waiting the rest). But note how often critics of government's language are accused of being anti-UK.
As for Brexit so for UK trade policy in general - not a static exercise but an ongoing interaction of UK economic policy with other countries. But what if you don't really have a serious economic policy or even philosophy?
We have to wonder the extent to which China and Hong Kong can now be considered a safe destination for any politician or business from the UK, EU or US. The implications of this for global trade and politics are significant.
Immediate thought - the extent to which removing Chinese two term limits and raising Xi Jinping on to a pedestal may have led to increased arrogance or carelessness - managing to quickly unite UK, EU, and US, against all previous policy.
This indeed. And while global trade cannot immediately exclude China, there's going to be a lot more efforts to move important production away with likely harm to China's attempts to move up the value chain.
To be clear this is the UK choosing a purist definition of sovereignty over trade. And in turn sovereignty of Britain over that of Northern Ireland. It also isn't right as all trade agreements and other treaties involve some element of rule taking.
The UK government policy on non-tariff barriers that we don't want to tackle them if it involves rule taking is so obviously ludicrous in the 21st century that it can't in fact be followed to the letter, but will be stated anyway. Such a bastion of free trade!
Also Brexit friendly 'experts' assured the government that equivalence was the norm in international trade, and the EU approach was wrong. But that's only true for a loose 'equivalence' that doesn't actually remove checks. Removing checks requires greater alignment.
Yes. The media are absolutely certain they know how vaccines are allocated. A number of sudden experts in contract law are also absolutely certain. Politicians as well.
Tbqh I'd be surprised if even many in the pharma companies themselves know.
Not only that but we do not know and probably never will exactly why the UK got however many weeks ahead of the EU on vaccines. We have some pretty strong clues, but far from the full story. And we shouldn't underestimate the power of it just being more of a UK priority.
In such a complex interconnected world it may just be generally easier and more effective for politicians to pose next to pictures of large flags rather than explain exactly what is happening and how it can be made better.
Ultimately the cost of hostile EU relations is always too high for the UK. The cost of performative strops for media consumption is on the other hand quite low, at least while nobody pays much attention to the failure of those as a negotiating strategy.
Plus the performative strops help disguise the extent to which the UK will from now be a rule taker from the EU. But since 2016 the UK has not once followed through on a strop - we've always chosen deal over no-deal. Which should tell us a lot.
Certainly we have been short of global political cooperation on vaccines (global science cooperation has been good). But so many issues - which industries when modern trade is complex supply chains? Which countries when US, EU, China, India etc seek various advantages?
Certainly modern trade politics does not support modern trade operations, which sort of flows around WTO, FTAs, global / regional / national regulation and so on. Question (which is part of my research) is what you can do about this.
Global supply chains can already be seen as a competition between what firms can do (locate and produce anywhere, best production at best prices) and the risks of doing so (restrictions, transport costs, changing trade relations etc). ecipe.org/publications/g…
My @BorderlexEditor Perspectives column this week focuses on whether the EU should be talking export bans for vaccines. The answer is no, not primarily due to vaccines (supply coming), but because the world trading system needs the EU as a core supporter. borderlex.net/2021/03/24/per…
Simply, of the three main trade powers only the EU can be seen as a reliable supporter of the WTO and global rules. The US is always a reluctant multilateralist, while China's participation appears largely transactional. And the EU benefits from being a global rule maker.
The Commission needs to be showing a much steadier hand on vaccine proposals than we've seen for a couple of months. A misbehaving supplier and temporarily thriving ex is not a good reason for big threats against the world. borderlex.net/2021/03/24/per…