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.
Yes, the Northern Ireland protocol is special, but so is the Swiss model, the way the EU talks with Turkey, and so on. We're all special. As to which get the better deal from which negotiating style, well you can have long studies, but ultimately, what do you want?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Since I'm feeling generous, shall we take Conservative and Reform opposition to today's UK-EU agreement at its word and see what would happen - assuming of course this government actually completes what is currently merely intent.
Clue... back to Brexit chaos... 🧵
Let's start with SPS, a future Conservative / Reform government pulls out of alignment, so immediately barriers come back up between Dover and Calais, and indeed GB and NI (we'll come back to the latter). Exports fall again, and imports need to be checked again...
Free to set our own SPS rules, Reform accepts US food standards and does some further trade deal, the Conservatives don't. In the first case, revolt in the countryside, in the second, merely more turbulence without any extra trade deals, in both, few extra exports to the US
"UK political culture seems to be fixated on maintenance of the ‘special relationship’ just as much as it is on treating relations with the nearby European Union with scepticism".
A mid-sized power can't have everything, and the UK prioritising the special relationship means we can't be open trade leader for fear of causing offence to DC. That choice wasn't supposed to happen in the world of Brexit, but unfortunately the US had other ideas.
This is a subtlety between the UK wanting to trade with everyone and having favoured partners. The first is fine as a general principle, but the second happens rather easily without considerable care to take a principle-based approach.
Welcome to US tariff day during which a lot will be written and most of it won't be quite right. What we know - the US will impose arbitrary ("reciprocal" only in name) tariffs on most or all goods entering the country, on top of others already announced. 1/n
US tariffs are being imposed because President Trump likes tariffs. There is no economic logic. There are many stated reasons including encouraging US manufacturing, narrowing the trade deficit, due to unfairness of others, and raising revenue. None are convincing.
Tariffs will harm the US economy. All reputable economists will agree to this. As with any populist leader, some individuals will seek preferment over reputation. These tariffs will also be contrary to WTO rules, and trade deals the US including Trump previously signed.
My morning has been pemmed. Which is fine, I've advocated for the UK joining, talked to relevant folk in the EU, heard businesses who it could help, etc. Problem is - this should be completely obvious. Every country in the region is a member. Why is it so hard for the UK?
Leavers don't care about PEM. Few businesses will lose, far more will gain. Third countries like Switzerland and Morocco want the UK to join. Yes nobody knows for sure why we didn't previously join, or why it isn't a priority now.
Until the UK does the obvious stuff like PEM, forget having a meaningful trade policy still less any meaningful EU reset. Got to take the baby steps first...
What you seem unlikely to read elsewhere - yesterday's Starmer - von der Leyen meeting was successful, and had the right outcome - a commitment to regular ongoing summits, and joint working to prepare them.
To those complaining about the UK's lack of detail - a lazy, uninformed complaint. The EU doesn't (yet) have a mandate, the UK doesn't (yet) need to have all the asks. Both need to come in time. That will be the test of the next few months, now was not the time. As was agreed.
Those saying this is going nowhere until the UK implements everything in full, that message was received and @NickTorfaen explicitly said this at an EU reception at Labour Conference. Labour's messaging hasn't been perfect to date, it has though been good enough.
Three days in Brussels mostly talking UK-EU relations after the elections with various folk on all sides, but also hard to get away from US-EU-China talk, or concerns about the direction of travel for the EU. So what were my top 10 findings? Settle down for a thread 🧵
1 - though far from top priority, the EU will happily engage with the UK. There's interest in what a new government will do. But they also expect their own interests - recently youth mobility, and fishing - to be taken seriously. Where there's overlap - security - expect progress
2 - the UK has to prepare for a really tough ongoing engagement with the EU. This will not be a single negotiation but a series of small encounters, mini-deals, cooperations etc. Unless Labour red lines change. A new narrative for the relationship - but only in part.