On the rejection of global trade norms, this is the key point. Frost and advisors have come to believe that the single market is overly legalistic and there is an alternative, equivalence, that can prevent checks. Major problem is this doesn't exist anywhere in the world.
Indeed it is a certainty the UK plan will be rejected by the EU, as similar have been for five years, because it is essentially saying the single market does not require the ECJ or even harmonization. Good luck trying that with any other country as well.
Such a view leads Frost to believe the Northern Ireland protocol is unjustified, and caused by the May government accepting the EU view. Which is actually the globally accepted norm in trade. Alignment or border checks. We're back to 2018 again...
This view is also highly problematic, rejecting both countries like the US and Canada with state level laws, and supra-national organisations like the EU or even standard setting bodies. Basically it is far too simplistic for the real world.
In turn any talk of Northern Ireland having the best of both worlds must also be treated with caution according to Frost - and alignment is completely out. The fact this may come at a cost of economic or social damage is obviously just unfortunate in this reading.
But this becomes then the key two paragraphs. The Frost vision is of a UK not living by the same rules as the rest of the world, but, crucially, not actually prepared to follow that through in the only way possible, by walking away. Hence stalemate.
So essentially the Frost doctrine is that the current reality of trade, regulations and checks is wrong, and there is an alternative of divergence and yet no checks.
Unfortunately hardly anyone outside a few around the UK government agree.
So either the EU and rest of the world come into line with the Frost approach to trade. Or, possibly after a while, after economic and political damage, the UK approach is changed in line with the rest of the world.
Realistically, it will be the second.
In short what we have is pure ideological dogma from the UK government over business, the economy, the people of Northern Ireland, the Biden administration, the EU, etc.
That needs to be more widely understood and challenged. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A good mini-thread. My view, both the EU and UK are misreading the current fundamental positions of the other (single market for EU, right to diverge for the UK) but various trade / economic / geopolitical realities prevent relationship breakdown, especially Northern Ireland.
At a global level the US wants EU / UK cooperation. In terms of trade and economics so do UK business. The NI protocol requires it. But the UK isn't going to align, or the EU accept the UK's globally novel equivalence idea.
All of which I think leaves us currently doomed to endlessly repeat a UK / EU argument / deal loop. Fractious and unstable, and yet also oddly stable. Glass half full and half empty at the same time. No absolute victory for either possible.
I still hear from UK government denial of basic global trade principles:
- gravity
- divergence means trade barriers
- equivalence scarcely reduces said barriers
- tariff removal isn't free trade
And that precludes serious engagement with business or experts who understand.
In the minds of the UK government there is some magic bullet that the EU is denying called equivalence, where everyone has their own rules but there are no checks or barriers on trade.
Trouble is it doesn't exist anywhere.
What I hear repeatedly from businesses is that there are many officials who do understand global trade or are starting to do so, but that they can only make a difference in the margins because ministers won't drop the fantasy trade world.
I see the usual suspects are already saying the EU has backed down over the Northern Ireland protocol, notwithstanding that the UK's stated aim of fundamental renegotiation has yet again failed. EUphobia and Boris-worship are two strong drugs.
As a wise man said, while the EU can be flexible on small details like sausages and keep the overall protocol structure intact they will be quite happy. And for the UK and unionists - well saying no is not really a sufficient negotiating position.
NB because wasn't clear who I'm suggesting as an EUphobe it certainly isn't @Mij_Europe - we don't fully agree on the interpretation of the latest NI protocol moves but I think we have mutual respect as fellow analysts. Thinking the rather more partisan types.
Trade deals being mostly about tariff reduction can't ultimately fully deal with issues like mobile phone roaming (and many other complex trade barriers). That's why they have limited economic impact compared to single markets.
Here we go, the end of free mobile phone roaming from the UK into Europe, as widely predicted. And to note therefore that the section on this within the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement proved to be of no assistance. bbc.co.uk/news/technolog…