2/ Failing to be transparent around gifts and loans, especially comparatively small ones, can seem like a pretty minor infraction.
No one seriously thinks you can buy the Prime Minister of a G7 country for a few gold curtains.
But that's not why we have transparency rules.
3/ Transparency rules exist for three reasons:
1⃣ Scrutiny
2⃣ Security
3⃣ Perception
They are important, even if you don't think the Prime Minister should face serious electoral or career consequences for allegedly breaking them in this instance. They deserve explanation.
4/ ** Scrutiny **
There is real discretion available to Ministers and officials in how they make decisions, and opportunity to put a finger on the scales for friends, even subconsciously.
Declaring gifts shows scrutinizing authorities and journalists where to look closer.
5/ Moreover, knowing that giving a gift will place any decisions in your favor under greater scrutiny, or that doing something for someone that has loaned you money will be looked at, is itself a disincentive to curry favor through presents.
Transparency is itself a dissuader.
6/ ** Security **
This is perhaps the biggest one.
The story of a large undeclared loan or gift is politically damaging. That gives whoever gave it to you (and thus knows about it) power over you. They can threaten to release the information to embarrass you politically.
7/ For obvious reasons, it is a bad idea for people (even friends) to have blackmail material on Ministers or senior officials.
I believe the government may be Cummings to that realization as we speak.
Transparency robs that blackmail of its power.
8/ Finally, perception.
Few in a modern democracy are under any illusions about the greater access moneyed interests have to leaders and decision makers.
However, public faith in government depends in part on knowing that such interests can't overtly & brazenly bribe favors.
9/ Being transparent and up front, rather than having the information trickle out through front page headlines by investigative journalists, is important for preserving public confidence that their leaders aren't being bought.
Outside twitter cynicism city, that matters. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
During the UK-EU FTA talks, I was frequently asked why the EU were insisting on securing fishing rights as part of that deal, and not in separate subsequent annual negotiations.
This. This is why. It wanted to avoid being in the situation the UK now finds itself in with Norway.
"She thinks I'm inexperienced does she? I'll show her! Here Minister, here's some fresh concessions and no need to worry about our agricultural market asks. I'm sure once I explain you called me amateurish our farmers will understand."
The very best case scenario is that after mouthing something unprintable in his hotel room and having a bit of a seethe session with his staff, Dan Tehan orders the negotiation team to ignore it and proceed as before, and does so himself at their meeting.
1/ If you missed the stream tonight, the full recording of @GeorgeMRiddell explaining Brexit and services trade is now available here: twitch.tv/videos/9774989…
It's pretty long though, so I've clipped answers to some of the bigger questions in this thread.👇
2/ What ARE financial services and how are they traded?
A consistent pattern with Brexit disruption is large, established and well capitalised players being able to roll with the punches while smaller operators get knocked out.
1️⃣ Bigger firms have economies of scale on everything from paperwork to shipping.
2⃣ Bigger firms less likely to send mixed groupage consignments of lots of different things (customs nightmare).
3️⃣ Bigger firms have on house expertise, and/or can more easily afford bespoke external experts.
4⃣ Bigger firms are more able to shape policy, enjoying better formal access (consultations), semi-formal access (lobbying), and informal access (kids at same school as Ministers).
On the one hand, experts warned for years about the impact of Brexit red tape on British businesses.
On the other, I'm not sure ten trade nerds tweeting their hearts out in their spare time is the optimal way to deliver critical business information to a country of 65 million.
Probably the most followed pure customs expert in the discussion is @AnnaJerzewska. She's followed by 28,000 people.
If every single one of those people were a business owner trading with the EU (they're not), that's still less than 20% of the UK businesses that do so.
When Anna (or @SamuelMarcLowe, or @DavidHenigUK or @AllieRenison etc.) get invited to do TV or Radio, they generally get under 10 minutes, most of which is spent reacting to whatever insane thing is the Westminster Talking Point Du Jour.