Got it! We solve the problem of GB food exports to Northern Ireland by not producing any food and importing it all from Australia instead...
My 'solution' makes nearly as much sense as most of the UK government sympathetic commentary on the Northern Ireland protocol or Australia deal...
But that's the thing with a populist simplist government - things are the right thing to do because it says they are the right thing to do. Consequences are for losers.
Talking of losers, never mind the EU or UK farmers I suspect the big losers from the Australia trade deal will be poorer commonwealth countries whose tariff free privileged exports have just been undermined. Certainly the sugar growers.
Meanwhile thinking of real trade issues like supply chains and regulations, what happens to UK processed food exporters if they can no longer source UK sugar for example?
Just a little note - from Australia of all places! - about what might happen if you don't think through the consequences of trade deals. autocar.co.uk/car-news/indus…
Asking serious questions about trade deals is not the last gasp of remainer subversion, but a first real test of what the UK is going to be. As we have already seen for the Northern Ireland protocol, treaties have rather deeper implications that 7 pence off a bottle of wine. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This week the UK and Australia signed a Free Trade Agreement while the EU and US signalled further their turn away from prioritising such deals. Why? Essentially FTAs have become too much effort for too little reward. My @BorderlexEditor latest borderlex.net/2021/06/16/per…
Recalling the old Ronseal advert, does what it says on the tin, Free Trade Agreements are the opposite. They can do a lot of useful things, but they don't deliver free trade. And the distorting effects of regulated trade meanwhile grow.
More detail on the UK-Australia deal has been released and the point becomes clearer. There is a lot there. But how much more trade will actually be facilitated as opposed to diverted from poorer countries (which could be quite an issue)? gov.uk/government/pub…
My twitter feed features many in the EU planning, indeed starting their travels and many in the UK lamenting their inability to do so.
We didn't use that vaccine head start did we?
Between the ridiculous statements of the lockdown sceptics, the inability to plan beyond the next headline from the government, and the puritanism of the Labour leadership, we probably never stood much of a chance.
The danger that the UK just becomes increasingly insular stares us in the face and we ignore it because we're too busy being insular over our remain v leave splits and plenty more besides.
This actually doesn't make any sense when you think about it. Of course positions are political, of course they can be changed. But they are also about many other things, including safety, internal EU trade, and global norms - of which EU processes are in line.
You can replace "EU view" with "global norm" here and get a better picture. Unfortunately the UK government, plus some very questionable advice, has decided there is a different form of equivalence available.
I have been given some very strong advice by experts in food trade that if the UK really wants to solve the sausage trade issue it should be putting in place processes to guarantee safety rather than just saying the EU is wrong. Prove it.
The biggest trade news of the day (also the biggest in the UK given Airbus presence here). Interestingly not announced at the G7 but rather in Brussels (don't tell me, they were still negotiating... these decisions are made for a reason) ft.com/content/985ae1…
Context - US want to remove trade irritants with the EU to focus on China. For both EU and US there is a domestic economic focus in which China is now the enemy. But then there's a globally interlinked economy. Much to piece together. politico.eu/article/trade-…
Looking globally the UK's deal with Australia is small beer. Protectionist stances of the US and EU (towards China) and the UK (towards the EU) are more worrying. But maybe also less effective given the realities of modern global trade.
Morning. In broad terms it seems the government is announcing today that it hasn't quite finalised a trade deal with Australia.
This is regrettably normal in global trade policy terms, where the same deal can be announced several times.
Indeed one of the reasons why so many have lost faith in trade deals is the repeated announcement of completed deals of very limited benefit. And so the UK government has chosen to follow that rather dismal path.
We're not expecting too many details today about what has been agreed beyond that we know already such as tariff elimination, though from the Australian press it seems generous terms on people movement might be new.
Not it seems a particularly productive G7 summit. That's in line with most of them to be honest. But also a lost opportunity for the Global Britain project. As has been stated so frequently there is a large chasm between UK domestic politics / media and global realities.
Global Britain is right now destined to be seen as a domestic media management project (look at how impressive we are) more than a realistic project to put the UK on a world stage (which would involve money, serious negotiation etc).
A UK-Australia trade deal doesn't change that given economic and trade insignificance. Unless taking more lamb and beef from Australia, and a few pennies off a bottle of wine, is the new definition of Global Britain.