A coincidence to ponder. Yesterday after some time without mentioning the subject too much, a UK Minister once again made a UK-US trade deal priority. Meanwhile, UK words on triggering Article 16 have softened. Could the two be linked?
Northern Ireland unionists stand no chance of being treated as importantly as Nissan (EU trade deal) or a potential US trade deal by this UK government. Those the superior forces I referenced, which so upset unionists. Best they complain to the UK government direct...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As the Northern Ireland border / Brexit hot takes continue, a blunt reality that does not get mentioned enough. For good or bad, fair or unfair, whether you like it or not, the bigger players in trade and international relations can and do swing the rules their way. It isn't us.
So the Brexit ultra attitude that they are right on borders and the EU should be forced to follow our way is frequently argued on the first, less on the second, but that's ultimately the important one. The EU with US support are interpreting the rules and there's no real umpire.
Net effect, when the EU say, that's nice data protection or Nissan you have in the UK, be a shame if anything was to happen with it as a result of your choices on Northern Ireland, it is because they are bigger (they probably also have rules more on their side if that's relevant)
Starting to think that being good at one thing (election or referendum winning) does not automatically equate to being good at others (governing, international relations).
As we've seen before when business leaders are supposed to fix public sector governance problems.
The evidence mounts that very few people in the UK government since 2016 have understood trade, Northern Ireland, the economy, regulations, international relations, or power relations. Those that did have been largely ignored.
I hear stories of business leaders laboriously explaining to Cabinet Ministers what regulations are and why they are needed. Diplomats in despair at the lack of interest the government shows for what they do. You can't move on from Brexit if you don't understand it.
Aha! Someone noticed that the UK's threats to invoke Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol could not in fact deliver a sustainable solution. They may also have noticed that delivering trade war just before Christmas was not a great idea.
Biggest problem is the UK government's foolish and dangerous incitement of unionists as a negotiating tactic always liable to fail in the face of superior political forces leaves huge instability which now requires the kind of sensitive handling we have not seen of late.
Northern Ireland has to have special arrangements for trade under Brexit. Since there were already some special arrangements, this did not have be an existential issue. But it is now. It will take more than the technical fixes implied by Article EU or proposed by the EU.
Yet more trade deal food controversy. As ever the real problem is that the UK government doesn't have a trade policy, or rather it has a glib statement about not lowering standards, which it possibly doesn't mean, complex realities, engaged stakeholders. politico.eu/article/red-tr…
Then there are the conflicts of interest - essentially the lobbyists for large agricultural producers in other countries who have influence also with UK ministers. Their goal is to lower UK food standards compared to the EU, issue by issue. There's a lot of money in doing that.
There's agriculture policy, or what the UK actually wants to produce, and how this fits in with trade policy. Then consideration of developing countries, who currently have preferences over large producers, but won't once these deals are completed.
Last week the US and EU ended a Trump-era trade dispute by reaching a new agreement on steel and aluminium trade. On closer inspection it is one of the worst examples of undermining the WTO we've seen - my latest for @BorderlexEditorborderlex.net/2021/11/10/per…
@BorderlexEditor What happened was that the US raised some tariffs citing rather dubious national security grounds, and have now reached an agreement just with the EU on quotas. That's pretty much the entire founding principles of the GATT then WTO ignored. It is that blatant.
For the US, the value of the steel and aluminium deal is obvious - it explicitly aims to return manufacturing and reduce trade with China. The EU cares more about the WTO than the US does - but it clearly cares abut keeping competitive industry through its green deal more.
Suspect we're going to have plenty more disappointing GDP figures to come. Those high trade barriers will be a drag for some time (4% is a huge economic loss, and restrictions on immigration make it worse) and government has no plan for growth.
Self-proclaimed free marketeers, who are mostly in reality supporters of hard Brexit and therefore high trade barriers, are very confused, complaining about everything except the one thing doing more to drive growth downwards than any other.
And of course a trade war with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol will depress growth further, and even the threats will be having a chilling effect.
Brexit trade barriers are bad for the economy. As predicted by every reputable study.