1/ On top of that, Habib's description of the TCA is full of falsehoods. The "level playing field" does *not* tie the UK to EU regulations: it provides that if either side reduces *its own* standards "in a manner affecting trade or investment", the other side can retaliate.
https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1475424546924773377
2/ In the absence of the TCA, the UK would not have that constraint - but it would also have less access to its largest export market, a point which Habib neglects to mention.
3/ As for tax cuts, the TCA "level playing field" provisions do not apply to tax rates in the first place. So they do *not* hinder the UK cutting any tax in any way. [tweet redone to correct typo]
4/ Habib's complaint about the TCA and State aid not only includes a falsehood (the TCA doesn't require the UK to apply EU State aid law) but is more deeply confused: a UK which was freer to chuck State money at industry without retaliation would not be his deregulatory fantasy.
5/ The confusion is between greater regulatory freedom in general - which could be used to *increase* State involvement in the economy (as Lexiters advocate) as well as to reduce it - and a solely deregulatory type of Brexit.
6/ Returning to tax, and building on @DmitryOpines thread, it is notable that the UK has signed up to the OECD agreement on minimum corporate tax rates, as well as increased corporate tax rates unilaterally. Neither is anything to do with the TCA.
7/ Finally, Habib's comments on the Northern Ireland protocol include another falsehood (Art 16 only allows for temporary suspension of parts of the protocol), but also skip over the fact that *Habib voted for it as an MEP*.
8/ Was any of this questioned by the GBNews "journalists"? Was it hell. They could have been replaced by nodding dogs.
9/ I *might* have woken up some family members while shouting at that clip. Ah well, it was time for them to wake up anyway.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
