Share this page!

David Henig Profile picture
Twitter logo
23 Jul, 4 tweets, 1 min read
Sense in the last few years that Ministers didn't really understand that trade deals could be controversial, thought all opponents were simple protectionists, didn't really understand the changing world. That's starting to bite. ft.com/content/fbc38c…
All made worse by the first UK trade deal being with Australia, whose climate change denial was never going to allow linkage of huge gains for their agriculture sector with that issue or animal welfare. A strategic error with likely longer term consequences for UK trade.
It is simply not consistent for the UK government to say it is concerned about climate change or animal welfare, but that those who wish to tie preferential trade to these issues are protectionists. The second means you don't actually care about the first.
UK trade policy rather like the government as a whole - bold statements undermined by lack of understanding or clear decision making as to how they can be achieved, liable to lead to future problems.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with David Henig

David Henig Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DavidHenigUK

David Henig Profile picture
24 Jul
Lots of stories and tweets about shortages of food, and whether this is all about Brexit, covid, or a combination. In the last week I've seen one local supermarket overflowing and one with bare shelves. But the latter, a truly dreadful Tesco, often has those. So what's happening?
Sorry if you've heard this one before, but if you're running hugely complex modern supply chains, and throw in major changes to trade relations and labour market at the same time as a pandemic then some disruption is pretty likely. But generally we don't seem to have shortages.
Away from the excitable worlds of extreme remain and leave, seemingly only different in what happens after the country entirely collapses, lies the dull reality of global giants maintaining their supply chains as best they can around political change. Harder post Brexit, but...
Read 7 tweets
David Henig Profile picture
23 Jul
Basic millenarianism, the belief particularly common among cults of an impending fundamental transformation away from a rotten and doomed present. Average success rate, very low. But always more superficially attractive than gradualism.
Brexit as the path to fundamental societal transformation is particularly fragile given you immediately enter a permanent negotiation with a much larger neighbour dominated by small details upon which your economic structure depends.
Back to the classic Kafka quote, "Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy." Brexit as a revolution is leaving behind an expanded UK state because that's the global trend, the EU wasn't the unique evil after all.
Read 4 tweets
David Henig Profile picture
23 Jul
It is indeed interesting that in October 2019 the UK government's own impact assessment on the Northern Ireland protocol simply states that there will be extra costs for movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
This section from Wednesday's UK government paper seems to be deliberately misleading - the further discussions were on the exact administration of the checks, not their existence, which were known.
The UK government knew in October 2019 of the checks that would be put in place on GB - Northern Ireland goods. To suggest otherwise is simply a lie. A lie which in turn, by blaming the EU instead, makes serious negotiation impossible, because there can be no goodwill.
Read 4 tweets
David Henig Profile picture
22 Jul
I was asked a few times yesterday where I saw discussions on the Northern Ireland protocol heading, and the simple answer is that we're right now in an unsatisfactory but not completely unstable equilibrium between all parties, which could endure. politico.eu/article/brusse…
The EU thinks the UK is not implementing the protocol properly, taking account of EU flexibility, but ultimately should align. The UK thinks the EU is not implementing the protocol properly, taking account of UK implementation, and ultimately should allow a border free-for-all.
As long as the UK does not invoke Article 16 or the EU more serious legal action, then they can uncomfortably for both sides carry on as is - both unhappy it isn't being done to their specification, but both in particular not upsetting the US by going further.
Read 7 tweets
David Henig Profile picture
21 Jul
The UK government's Northern Ireland statement in short - rewrite history as to how we got here, whinge about the impact with a handful of select figures, suggest preposterous and shallow honesty scheme to replace almost the entire protocol, threaten Article 16 later.
It is another fundamentally unserious document from the UK government with regard to Northern Ireland, taking the debate backwards and lowering trust. Obviously the proposals would be unacceptable to anyone, which leads to what happens in September. Conflict or climbdown?
Teaser alert - the largest section in the UK government's Northern Ireland command paper is on how we got to the current position. In case that provides a clue as to whether the emphasis is more on self-justification or practical solutions.
Read 22 tweets
David Henig Profile picture
21 Jul
Insofar as I've been able to read until the paywall kicks in, more on the rapidly changing global trade debate, in which conditionality is increasingly threatening non-discrimination (although they may not be mutually exclusive) - driven by the EU and US.
It is the contrast between the active global trade debate on conditionality, and the UK's nice tariff and market distortion obsessions that is so disappointing. We could have played a part in the debate, as a new entrant, but chose instead to look back 50 years.
A sensible UK contribution to the new debate on conditional trade would have been to accept the necessity, but insist on the retention of broad principles such as non-discrimination and open trade. In other words, to use open trade to incentivise positive results.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @DavidHenigUK has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @DavidHenigUK!

Read all threads by @DavidHenigUK

:(