A trade war is when governments start using the tools of trade policy (tariffs, bans, requirements, testing, procedures etc.) maliciously, instead of merely selfishly (as is normal).
3/ Question: "What does that mean?"
It means analysing another government's economy and imposing barriers to trade and investment where they'll do the most economic or political damage, ideally without hurting your own consumers or producers too much.
4/ Question: "Any examples, nerd?"
- Raising tariffs on their luxury exports (whiskey/Harleys)
- Banning sales of critical inputs they need (tech, energy, rare earth minerals etc.)
- Making it more difficult for your large funds to invest in their companies
5/ Question: "Aren't we already in a trade war?"
No. You are absolutely not.
While the UK and EU have been a little rough on some trade issues, they have overwhelmingly both leaned on the side of prioritizing trade flow and seeking compromise.
6/ Question: "Can the UK even fight a trade war when it's not enforcing a lot of border checks?"
Yes, yes it can.
The majority of businesses are not going to start smuggling just because checks are currently limited for the same reason your work doesn't just torrent MS Office.
7/ Question: "Won't the EU crush the UK in a trade war, it's so much bigger?"
No one wins a trade war.
While it's probably true the EU has more options for causing pain, absorbing pain, and finding alternative suppliers/customers than the UK does, no one is going to enjoy it.
8/ Statement: "It will all be worth it to finally highlight the folly of Tory rule/Brexit."
First, it's ordinary people who will suffer in a trade war, not Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Second, the Tory lead has survived a lot of stuff, you really think this'll do it?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
First, rolling over an EU FTA may not be exactly as hard as negotiating a fresh deal, but it's still an achievement and Whitehall rando anons who have never been in a negotiating room should probably shut the fuck up about how easy it is.
Second, DIT does a lot of stuff other than negotiating free trade agreements and Whitehall officials of all people should know better than reducing a department to the one part of its work that makes headlines.
Third, the fact that the UK has in many cases (though not always) managed to secure for the UK deals nearly identical to those negotiated by the European Union, a bloc many times its economic weight, is worthy of praise, not derision.
This is funny, but my incredibly lame opinion is that while the government "agreeing on a diagnosis" would be very karmically satisfying for Remainers, it is neither politically feasible nor (more importantly) a prerequisite for tackling current challenges.
To continue Matt's analogy, the patient here admitting WHY his arm is broken isn't vital provided he admits that it IS and lets the doctor treat it.
The government won't magically gain new tools to address HGV shortages if Johnson, Cummings and Mogg all say "Brexit was dumb."
I am firmly convinced that by constantly pushing the government to admit that "THIS IS BREXIT, RIGHT?!?" its opponents are effectively giving it a free pass for the fact that the country is facing some pretty significant challenges on its watch. 🤷♂️
1/ If you've never seen a departmental risk register, as mentioned by @TomTugendhat in his grilling of the Foreign Secretary, they work like this (at least in Australia)...
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.
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).