So how would the UK react to this argument made by Spain over Gibraltar, or China over Hong Kong? Not to mention that this government said the opposite two years ago. Rewriting history with do much counter evidence...
I mean sure, it used to be called a backstop and changed to be called a protocol. Come up with a different name, but the facts it covers haven't changed in five years.
Oh sheez, not the only offender, but can we make some better attempt to understand negotiations and the EU? Everything is theoretically negotiable if you have the capital. The EU doesn't suddenly offer gold, and didn't yesterday. For the oldies, RTFM.
It might be hard to believe in the UK, but numerous countries are currently negotiating with the EU on all manner of trade subjects. Few involve threats, most are going slow, all involve both sides tweaking negotiating positions regularly, most will deliver something.
In briefing-world Brexit Northern Ireland is on the verge of collapse due to the imposition of the European Court of Justice, and the EU has just put forward remarkable proposals to sweep away nearly all checks under the protocol.
Fine. Except neither of these things is true.
Great Britain to Northern Ireland goods movements are largely continuing, though there's no doubt with greater costs and paperwork for which business has suggested fixes. Unionist anger at a protocol they opposed is real, though also inflamed by the UK government.
The EU has responded with limited proposals to meet the problems identified by Northern Ireland business, while claiming unconvincingly that these will sweep away enormous amounts of checks, and that Member States are strongly resisting any flexibility.
Sure, move fast and break things. But if those things are of interest to other countries, which many are given we trade, then its either the rule of law or law of the jungle in which the biggest / fastest etc win. The latter might sound fun until we're on the wrong side of it.
And have a go at international lawyers or thinktankers or whoever you want. But ultimately since Brexit no UK government has shown an interest in listening to the many people who really understand international trade or law, in the UK or elsewhere. Perhaps listen more, yell less?
Theories of change as well, the UK government has gone for the small revolutionary cadre approach to Brexit, where only the ideologically pure need apply, as opposed to the building of a broad team which is more normally considered best practice (but maybe wrongly).
Important to be clear that the UK risks de-skilling as a result of our policy choices - that those formerly working in higher productivity export sectors will end up working in lower skilled lower productivity domestic areas. We chose trade barriers.
Government's definition of free trade = lower tariffs is appropriate only to around 1980. For the last 40 years free trade has been more about movement of people and regulatory alignment, on both of which we are now comparatively protectionist.
As promised, worth taking some time over a remarkable speech, one that demonstrates the UK government seeing the world quite differently to the common understanding of others. gov.uk/government/spe…
First, possibly uniquely in the world the UK has no interest in influencing its neighbour's choices, covering 50% of our trade. Even the US and China want to influence EU regulations, recognising their importance, but not the UK.
I doubt there are too many trade specialists in the world who think customs practicalities are more important than trade regulations, though energy suppliers will certainly be important. But yes, lobbying Portugal will apparently be more important than the EU. Its a view.