So, the 11 members of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement Trans-Pacific Partnership (#CPTPP) have agreed to start negotiations for the UK to accede.
Many others have commented. I won't repeat them. Just a few points to consider
Starting negotiations with the UK is only one part. The statement ends with: ministers and senior officials “hope that those Signatories for which the CPTPP has yet to enter into force will ratify the Agreement as soon as possible”
The accession candidate (here the UK) must be “prepared to comply with the obligations in this Agreement”, although negotiation is envisaged. Final approval is needed by each of the countries concerned.
Some CPTPP members consulted their public on the principles of accepting new members.
Canada—generally positive but some concerns about cultural issues and with one province wanting ambitious market access while preserving supply management:
“Many gaps remain but we are making progress,” @NOIweala told members on Tuesday Jun 7
“The success of this whole endeavour is in our hands. Let us deliver. The people outside are waiting for us and, believe it or not, I really think we will do it.”
Was it worth the time looking at the UK’s big deal with Indiana? The one the government hails as a “milestone” and the minister calls a “US trade deal”?
They wants us to take it seriously. So I did. Let’s say I did it so you don’t have to.
Indiana “will actively work towards” (not a commitment) treating UK suppliers the same as suppliers from other US states except those neighbouring Indiana.
“That’s the weirdest MFN clause I’ve ever seen,”—@Lorand_Bartels
“Agreement with Indiana marks milestone in UK’s trade with the US”—the UK government proclaims
Read on
It's a memorandum of understanding on what the UK and Indiana want to develop in their trade and economic relations. That stretches the meaning of “agreement” quite a lot
“The MoU creates a framework to remove barriers to trade and investment, paving the way for UK and Indianan businesses to invest, export, expand and create jobs.”
Remember: all major trade barriers are handled in Washington
It’s been clear for some time that WTO members are unlikely to agree on anything substantial on agriculture—despite declaring it a priority—when their ministers meet in Geneva Jun 12–15
Information from trade sources on a meeting last Thu May 19 reinforce that assessment🧵
1/11
The focus has changed in recent months—the Ukraine war has increased concerns about food security.
But the best binding decision that can be expected is to exempt the World Food Programme’s humanitarian purchases from export restrictions—still opposed by India & Tanzania.
2/11
Expect some non-binding/“best-endeavour” statement on food security, eg, the UK-led proposal⬇️, which draws on familiar themes of keeping supplies flowing, increasing transparency, minimising market disruption.
Chair @WillsSantiago briefed the media after a stock-taking meeting of the membership.
Sandwiched between plenaries Mon and Fri, were sessions in various formats. Wills said 30-40 delegations were involved in each of those sessions, total about 50.
WTO members on all sides were urged today to sort out their reservations over the proposed compromise, so that a deal on waiving some intellectual property protection for COVID-19 can be struck by the Jun 12-15 Ministerial Conference, trade sources say.
In an informal meeting of the WTO intellectual property (TRIPS) council, Director-General @NOIweala said WTO members have no option but to produce a result for the #MC12 Ministerial Conference, even if that means negotiating round the clock, the sources said.
2/14
Today's meeting was held to take stock of the first two days of real negotiations on the compromise text⬇️, on Mon&Wed, May 16&18. During those sessions, @NOIweala urged delegates to be prepared to compromise: "the perfect is the enemy of the good"