Catching up on end of week reading and I come across this, by some distance the sloppiest pile of meaningless buzzwords I've been unfortunate enough to read for many years. Cannot believe this was thought to deserve five pages in print. newstatesman.com/politics/uk/20…
"For example the low carbon production required by a green new deal cannot be achieved unless much of manufacture and service provision moves in the direction of a socially inclusive knowledge economy". Many words, no meaning.
"The UK has stopped making enough goods and services that the rest of the world wants". Lazy cliche without justification, and not backed up by any figures.
Continues ad nauseam for far too long in such a vein.
(pretty much the whole article could be lifted and placed in Private Eye's Pseuds Corner)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Useful for talking about the impact of the Suez Canal, and indeed potential decoupling from China, over 50% of UK goods imports form China by value come in these five categories. From an upcoming paper.
Modern globalisation explained - the ability to get specialists when you need them wherever they are (or to get cheaper production if that's the goal). You can regulate, but not switch it off.
So I am reading that the EU should change their approach to food checks on Great Britain Northern Ireland movements. I get the politics. But those advocating this have to realise it legitimises signing treaties in bad faith, which is quite a step.
The UK government knew in October 2019 of the checks they were committing to on Great Britain Northern Ireland trade. Trade experts told them. The DUP told them. They chose to sign anyway. Claiming otherwise is simply dishonest.
Those who say the government were trapped by the EU over Northern Ireland are also missing the point. That was the reality of 2019 which the government had to handle - the choice of Boris Johnson was to treat Northern Ireland differently.
An important point is that the loss of trade, work and study opportunities with those countries nearest to the UK is not going to be offset to any significant degree by countries further away - the days of seamless exchange have gone.
That said if someone doesn't soon set up a GB / EU trade clearing house in Northern Ireland soon I'll be tempted to move and do it myself.
(This is also incidentally why any significant weakening of GB-NI checks under the protocol is problematic).
Another thread. Roads to global Britain lead via the EU. Rather inconveniently for the UK government there is a price to the anti-EU yelling and absurdly purist notions of sovereignty.
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.