Just for a change, a good news story about a UK negotiating success in Europe. The European voluntary standards organisations CEN and CENELEC have agreed that BSI can continue to be a full member and will change their statutes accordingly. linkedin.com/posts/bsi-nati…
It was not at all a given that BSI could remain part of the European standards framework given existing rules and doubts about UK policy intentions. Indeed I was told here by a few usual Brexit suspects that there was no way the EU would agree (though these aren't EU bodies).
So how did the BSI achieve what the UK government apparently couldn't and get what they wanted in Europe? A clear objective agreed internally, extensive engagement, trust-building, and persistence. Starting in the days after the referendum.
It is another example of modern negotiations being more about building mutual trust than adversarial combat. Persuade the other side something is in their interests, not tell them they're wrong for saying no. A lesson the UK government should learn.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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.