1/ @SamuelMarcLowe, @Annaisaac and I started our show to accessibly break down trade issues in the headlines without the stress of a 3 minute TV slot or a pundit yelling at us.
Tonight, we talked through the most common questions about the Aus-UK FTA.
Some clips below!
2/ First, for those who haven't been following the debate, here's @Annaisaac summarizing what we know about the Australia-UK FTA and why it's proven controversial.
4/ Many have questioned whether a Free Trade Agreement to make it easier to import and export things to a country so far away will have implications for climate change and carbon.
1/ Since no one asked, here's a thread on the UK-Australia FTA.
Biases on the table:
- I was an Australian trade negotiator
- I have trained many of DIT's negotiators, likely including some of the ones working on this FTA
- I'm neoliberal scum who generally thinks tariffs = bad
2/ Like we all warned, most Free Trade Agreements, and all Free Trade Agreements including Australia, come down to agriculture.
Australian trade policy tends to be laser focused on getting beef, lamb, dairy and wheat into markets it's currently locked out of.
3/ Reports suggest that Liz Truss, with the Prime Minister's backing, is pushing to give Australian products complete tariff and quota free access to the UK market, phased in over 10-15 years.
Another faction, lead by Eustice and Gove is pushing back arguing for "TRQs" instead.
Because motivations are unknowable, it's hard to retroactively distinguish "trying to get my buddy a lucrative government contract" from "trying to get a bargain for the taxpayer."
That's why there are strict rules against Ministers interfering in procurement regardless of goal.
No matter how dodgy the deal, a Minister can always claim they thought it was a badly needed offering at a great price and that it would be wrong to penalise the vendor for being their friend.
But that's not supposed to be a defense.
If there are good deals on badly needed products or services out there, the procurement process is supposed to find and contract them on its own, without Ministers writing to Ministers to help it along.
If that's not happening either the vendor or the process sucks.
1/ This is a huge symbolic win for campaigners, but it could mean a number of things depending on the Administration's strategy here and what it does next.
A quick thread on three options I can see: the straight forward, the cynical, and the screws.
This is 100% what it appears to be. The US negotiates a few technical changes to the waiver and signs up, likely leaving the EU, Switzerland and other hold outs too isolated to maintain opposition.
The waiver passes largely unchanged.
3/ There is heated debate about whether the passage of the waiver will mean more vaccines in the short to medium term.
I'm not really qualified to weigh in on that, but one has to believe an IP waiver could shake some progress loose somewhere, and we need that right now.
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.
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.
"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.