The only thing I would add is that I think that “defending the integrity of SM” at the end of the day wasn’t about the details- checks and formalities. It's a concept.
The EU was/is after the one thing that the UK does not want to provide – reassurance and certainty.
/1
The EU was/is after the one thing that the UK does not want to provide – reassurance and certainty.
/1
https://twitter.com/NashSGC/status/1408371842499420165
Reassurance that the UK understands that this integrity, as @Mij_Europe points out, is fundamental to the politics of some of the big players.
The certainty that the UK will be a serious partner in implementing the Protocol.
But what does that mean in practice?
/2
The certainty that the UK will be a serious partner in implementing the Protocol.
But what does that mean in practice?
/2
Respecting certain principles, dependencies and trade-offs? – Yes.
That some derogations and simplifications would not be possible on the ground? I don’t think so.
Why? – customs.
/3
That some derogations and simplifications would not be possible on the ground? I don’t think so.
Why? – customs.
/3
The EU was after all able to accept the less than perfect definition of goods at risk and the UK Trader Scheme based on self-certification.
Do the current customs arrangements ensure 100% the integrity of SM? No, it does not.
/4
Do the current customs arrangements ensure 100% the integrity of SM? No, it does not.
/4
The solution is patchy and imperfect. There will be goods that get through.
But it is based on the perceived scale of risk and expected volumes.
/5
But it is based on the perceived scale of risk and expected volumes.
/5
It’s no secret that the UK’s attitude and approach to the implementation of the Protocol caused the EU to double down.
There is a gap between terms and concepts – dynamic alignment vs “control of your own laws and your own ways of doing things" etc
/6
There is a gap between terms and concepts – dynamic alignment vs “control of your own laws and your own ways of doing things" etc
/6
That is what prevents an equally patchy solution to the SPS issue as we got on customs.
If the UK truly wanted a “flexible and pragmatic” solution to the SPS issue, it's taken the worst possible approach to getting that.
/7
If the UK truly wanted a “flexible and pragmatic” solution to the SPS issue, it's taken the worst possible approach to getting that.
/7
As it is, the lack of alignment on principles prevents an actual practical and flexible solution on the ground.
The conversation is stuck on the opening statements!
/8
The conversation is stuck on the opening statements!
/8
And I'm not saying that the UK doesn't need to implement what it agreed to and that being a third country doesn't come with strict rules on SPS.
/9
/9
All I'm saying is that the EU demonstrated how flexible and creative it's willing to get with existing rules on the customs side.
A point that the UK perhaps interpreted as proof that chest-thumping works.
/10
A point that the UK perhaps interpreted as proof that chest-thumping works.
/10
Basically, I'm not sure that the integrity of the SM and practical and flexible solution are mutually exclusive.
Thanks to @anandMenon1 for a fascinating interview yesterday.
11/11
Thanks to @anandMenon1 for a fascinating interview yesterday.
11/11
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
