The £1 trillion export target was a flop when first a government policy in 2012 and there's no reason to believe it is anything but a gimmick for the week now it is being re-announced. There is no export strategy. ft.com/content/b0d0d4…
"Made in the UK, sold to the world". That will be most of the ugly tower blocks currently going up around my part of London, though I don't suppose Ministers consider housing in their definition.
They probably think we'll sell £1 trillion of biscuits or something.
80% or more of global trade comes in supply chains, and the UK is the number two services exporter in the world specialising in the likes of education, finance, culture, sport and so on. Both of these facts appear inconvenient to the government.
Oh, and obviously if exporters from the UK face more barriers into nearby markets than exporters from all of our geographic competition then that is a problem not overcome by reduction on 5% tariffs on biscuits to a market on the other side of the world.
Fantasy trade politics.
If only there was a part of the UK that had privileged access to the EU, a government that wanted to take advantage of this rather than threaten it, and the largest party of devolved government that thought attracting such business would strengthen their core political purpose.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It might seem a small thing, but there's no way the EU can think the UK government sincere about the relationship when Ministers go out of their way in articles and speeches to avoid referencing "EU". I've seen several examples in the recent days, for example relating to Belarus.
The most important actor in Europe is the EU. Whether it is security, trade, or whatever, the EU will be part of any conversation. If you can't bring yourself to admit this, as for example a Foreign Secretary, then you can't be a serious player.
Isn't about liking the EU.
And if UK foreign policy is suspected of wanting to see the EU disintegrate - well that's quite a serious problem for any kind of relations.
And no, the EU did not say in Brexit talks that the UK would break up as a result.
Multinational companies delivered globalisation, not governments. And they are likely to continue to do so, though constantly monitoring supply chain robustness and points of potential failure. ft.com/content/a0683e…
From earlier this year, factors driving global supply chains. Worth considering for those governments who think they can rewire the choices - possible to a degree, but you have to understand the basics that drove globalisation. ecipe.org/publications/g…
As for the UK, our position in European supply chains is weakened by our decision to put up significant trade barriers. Likely that we find it easier to maintain our position as services suppliers, and manufacturing suffers more. ifs.org.uk/publications/1…
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)
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?
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.