I’m in the “one the one hand, but on the other” camp on this (whether @CMAgovUK should be the new U.K. subsidy control authority). @AlexanderPHRose and @jamesrwebber have a good point but...
1 The CMA has an established reputation and credit with the EU and other trading partners. 2 It has a role under the U.K. Internal Market Act that means dealing with the devolved governments - and that complements a subsidy control role that will also deeply concern those govts.
3 No one really knows what resources this role will need: if it’s the CMA, it can move people in and out depending on work load.
But, as I said, I see pluses and minuses.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Temporary switch in focus of this account: am doing the #Coast2Coast walk starting today with St Bees/Ennerdale. Views out to sea (Isle of Man) and inland to Lake District.
Last bit along a lovely valley and a view of Ennerdale Water.
The U.K. is already pretty “liberal” in most sectors, so “including” really means “mostly in”. And “moving away from the EU” in that area means (a) more difficult to resolve NI Protocol issues/smoothing exports to EU and (b) political problems (food and welfare standards).
By all means advocate such agreements. But ignoring the fact that FTAs of this kind (if they do anything much at all) involve difficult policy choices and generate significant losers as well as winners is part of what has given free trade a bad name in many quarters.