Fiercely protective of their interpretation of the single market perhaps. And constantly believing the Commission can't negotiate and France is getting a bad deal as a result.
More importantly, in my experience the EU is pretty united in thinking the UK government signed up to a treaty they didn't fully understand in the belief they could later break it without consequence, and don't care about peace. And the US agree. But they can't force change.
Because if the EU take further action against the UK over the Northern Ireland protocol it can be accused of not caring about peace hence is stuck. But there is zero trust in Johnson or Frost, and you can't really negotiate on that basis.
Anyway, another reminder that we have an interesting session tomorrow of @UKTradeBusiness on the state of UK-EU diplomatic relations. Timely.
Is China serious about CPTPP? Well you can find reference to interest in joining back in 2013. Then President Xi said they were considering joining in November 2020. So this isn't new. There was concern dating back to TTIP / TPP of China losing out.
How does the US respond? In large part China's application to join CPTPP is a direct consequence of US failure to deliver the TPP / TTIP architecture planned under Obama. Under Trump and Biden, the turn inwards.
This week's @BorderlexEditor column turns the attention to the EU's new 'magic weapon', the Brussels Effect, increasingly being seen as a missing link between regulation and growth, the first leading to the second through global adoption borderlex.net/2021/09/15/per…
Unfortunately for the EU's plans, the Brussels Effect has hitherto been a market led process where companies spending to meet stringent EU regulations in areas like chemicals influence other governments towards similar. It is far from clear it can be deliberately deployed.
Deliberate extra-territorial regulation is a tricky business, and it is far from clear it can work for example in artificial intelligence. Even to try risks justifying over-regulation and angering trade partners. Beware therefore the new Brussels Effect. borderlex.net/2021/09/15/per…
Right, new team incoming at the Department of International Trade, and despite what some suggest, not the easiest inheritance from a Secretary of State who preferred self-promoting announcements over resolving issues of substance. More in hope than expectation, 6 priorities...
Top one, since formation the DIT has been obsessively secretive, regarding all stakeholders as potential enemies with whom little should be shared. Except these are also the people on whose behalf the department negotiates. They are unhappy. Overdue to fix.iccwbo.uk/products/trade…
Next, the Australia FTA, in our desperation to get a deal we gave them everything, with little in return, and no conditionality on issues like climate change. Only agreement in principle so tweak deal and policy. The precedent is otherwise very difficult. lowyinstitute.org/the-interprete…
A persistent Brexit theme. UK politicians who said we had no voice in Brussels as members believe that the EU should now listen to us and are surprised when this does not happen.
Not a good look, misleads the country, infuriates Brussels, damages our businesses.
The constant jibes about 'protectionist' Brussels are a bit of a giveaway, the EU like the US, Australia etc have stringent rules for importation of food items, but of course one is closer to us than the others. If the EU is protectionist so is every country in the world.
Mrs Thatcher, hero to so many of those who complain about the EU, actually did something about bureaucracy for exports, in pushing through the single market. Her successors decided to undo her work in leaving, then complain as businesses did before 1992.
Calling the Speakers of the Commons and Lords "despicable and cowardly" is not exactly diplomacy. China seems happy to weaken relations further with the UK (and EU).