Thread by @hhesterm

Some thoughts on a trade tweet that - as many have pointed out - is wrong. Now I try to no longer critcise tweets of others, but there’s a point here and I would ask you to refrain from any ad hominem attacks (thread)

First the obvious: the tweet makes two points. Both of them are factually wrong. Let’s take them one by one. /2

First on tariff free quota free access: No. The partners had an FTA, but it did not provide for zero tariffs zero quotas. The FTA is here if you are interested. /3 austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/…

Many experts have pointed this out. I’ve seen @MichaelAodhan for example. So no point in dwelling on this plus the point of this thread is a different one anyways. We’ll get there. /4

Second point: the EU severed that relationship. That is wrong. The UK severed that relationship. To join the EU (yes, yes, predecessor...), that’s true. But consciously and fully aware of what it was doing. /5

Many trade experts and lawyers have spent quite a bit of time correcting wrong statements on twitter. I cannot speak for all of them. I am a bit tired of this and would not write this thread for these errors alone. My point is a different one. /6

And while I share worries about news stations that have the purpose of having a political slant - (I am damaged by Fox News), that also is not my point here. /7

My question and issue is a different one: does it matter? What is the consequence that these narratives are built up and maintained. After all, this is all a rather exotic trade issue. What is the consequence of this? /8

A story is constructed that infantilises this country, the UK. It presents the UK as a victim of the decisions of others. The EU severed the relationship with Australia. Not a UK decision. Pre EU the relationship was one of milk and honey. /9

The complexity of history, the pros and cons of decisions, the fact that incredibly capable UK officials weight arguments. That politicians took decisions based on these arguments. That the pros were considered to outweigh the cons at the time - gone. /10

The risk of the fiction that is built up is that future decisions will no longer be based on complex assessments of pros and cons, but on the basis of deeply engrained - but wrong - narratives. /11

There are contradictions in the storyline that is told - what is presented as a patriotic tale actually is based on a view of the UK that is ridiculously negative: an infantile country unable to think for itself. That is, of course, entirely wrong. /12

The UK might not be a superpower, but it has been, is, and remains a significant power. With impressive competences. Strangely, those contradictions seem to be accepted. /13

What is - a further question (and I am sorry I have more of them than I have answers) - the effect of this narrative that is so popular drifting further and further away from people actually looking at these facts, studying these treaties? /14

Or are these just the rambling thoughts of someone overthinking this because these issues are his day job, whereas people with different jobs spend 5 minutes on this (just like I do on other issues) and so it simply does not matter?

Btw some reading on uk-oz trade apo.org.au/sites/default/…