The UK has been pushing something between equivalence and dynamic alignment for five years with the whole EU - essentially the less onerous responsibilities of the former combined with the market access of the latter. Or cakeism as it came to be known. Still, talk is good, and... 
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1406137964200140800
Every time I see a minister make a false reference to the ECJ like this one you wonder if a climbdown is in the air. The UK 'wins' no ECJ oversight that there was never going to be, and the EU graciously allows the kind of alignment always on offer that will reduce checks.
Ultimately for agricultural trade the equation is the EU has detailed rules and tough checks applied to all countries, but third countries able to build up trust in their food production systems can gain equivalence agreements and other easements. So a choice for the UK...
The UK can seek to build a relationship of trust in food supply with the EU, to include equivalence or similar arrangements. Or we can insist that we should have no checks as of right, then claim the EU is threatening peace in Northern Ireland if they don't agree.
Hence also why the EU does not believe the UK government is sincere about peace - because there's a way to tackle issues without necessarily ECJ or dynamic alignment. But equally without triumphant media headlines. So trust / sobriety or claims / headlines. Our choice.
None of which should ever be mistaken for the EU being particularly flexible - they aren't. But there is a way to address international trade issues, as the US might just have reminded the UK. It isn't buccaneering. We shall see if the UK were really listening. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
