1/ I consider myself neoliberal and I think this is great.
Even if you disagree with some of their policy prescriptions (and I'm sure I do), there's no way you get ANY momentum on climate without passionate activism.
Think tankers writing 942 page reports can't do it alone.
2/ Even if you're a libertarian and believe 'the market will fix it' the nature of climate change means the demand has to be partially created by activism.
Loud activism boosted many of the current market demand signals driving green growth and innovation in clean technologies.
3/ There's a huge amount of complexity in tackling climate change in a practical, politically sustainable way. Most of the debates there don't fit on a placard.
However, the only reason we get to have the debate at all is activists keep pushing it onto the front page.
Good.
4/ By the way, I was a trade negotiator. On TiSA, among other things.
I've had protest signs waved in my face that were so utterly ill-informed and ridiculous they beggared belief.
But like, at least those people gave a shit?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
For the record, my employees wanted to be able to work from home when convenient without losing the spontaneity of office drop-in chats so we built a virtual one:
For those curious, this is three of us chatting in the hallways:
1/ Despite US support-in-principle, efforts to pass a WTO waiver for vaccine intellectual property seem quagmired in Geneva... and everyone here is about to take a month off.
1⃣ Disagreements among those who support a waiver on its scope (what it should cover) and duration (how long it should last, and procedure to end it); and
2⃣ EU and a handful of others still opposed or proposing non-waiver alternatives.
3/ Back when the US first announced its support in principle for the waiver, I wrote this thread on what I think might be happening:
I think activists may be undervaluing the chance the US position is actually maximum cynicism (#2).
Every week it gets harder to achieve the zen state required to separate legitimate underlying trade issues in something like the Northern Ireland Protocol from the nonsense politicians say, and have said, about them every time political points could be scored.
The NIP isn't flawless, and there are genuine grounds for complaint and concern...
... but fuck me is it hard to hear that from the people who declared it to be the single greatest negotiating accomplishment in human history, delivered by Johnson in spite of expert naysayers.
Experts: "The border has to go somewhere, and there are trade offs in terms of friction if you want to leave the EU SM/CU and not have a border on the island."
May's Team: "Yup."
Johnson's Team Then: "Fuck you nerds, no there aren't."
If you want a quick primer on the new Northern Ireland Command Paper I recorded this 8 minute overview.
As per @SamuelMarcLowe's guidance, I skipped past the somewhat mopey political stuff at the front and just tried to neutrally talk about the proposal.
Immediately after, I stuck around and answered some great questions from the viewers including of course, "How is the EU likely to feel about all this?"
1/ Explainer thread on what this is, and why it's a good thing to explore.
Many wealthier countries, including the EU and now the UK in its own right, allow a range of developing countries to sell them goods tariff free or tariff reduced, without a free trade agreement.
By providing developing countries an advantage in your market over (some) wealthier competitors, you give them the chance to build up export industries that create jobs and upskill their human capital.
(Not uncontroversial but won't get into that here)
3/ EU programs on this are called:
- The GSP, reducing some tariffs for developing countries.
- The EBA (Everything But Arms) eliminating tariffs for LEAST developed countries
- The GSP+ Plus, reducing GSP tariffs to 0% conditioned on joining 27 int. conventions
Under GDPR if you want to handle the data of EU citizens you have to either:
- Have an adequacy decisions from the EU; or
- Do a huge amount of expensive legal disclaimer/terms of reference work to effectively replicate GDPR for every user
If the EU hadn't granted this, a huge number of UK businesses that so much as store e-mail addresses would have potentially had to spend a lot of money on expensive additional GDPR compliance, stop serving EU customers, or risk fines.