Thread by @DavidHenigUK

For some around the UK government, the initial point of joining the CPTPP was to use it to weaken UK food rules (particularly attractive to those being paid by US farm lobbies) as a US trade deal might be too controversial. politico.eu/article/canada…

Of course the UK government has long denied that it plans to weaken food laws. But it has also resisted a veterinary equivalence agreement with the EU which would make such weakening much more difficult. From which we can draw an obvious conclusion - this promise may be dropped.

Which is also interesting timing for another clash between House of Parliament committees and the government on the level scrutiny treaties receive. "far short of the European Parliament’s powers" as this article from @AlexanderHorne1 says prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/treat…

Full disclosure, @AlexanderHorne1 and I are both advisors to one of the committees studying treaties in Parliament, @HLIntAgreements. There are long running concerns that simply examining text once signed is barely scrutiny, particularly for major issues like food rules.

UK trade agreements will have consequences that future governments have to deal with, for example in years to come it is likely that Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish beef and sheep production will be affected by the Australia FTA. But a full discussion on this is unlikely.

It is not hard to see a scenario where the UK government says we have to change food rules in order to join CPTPP. Parliament will be able to do little. That's the nature of 'take back control' - it wasn't to Parliament but a secretive executive.

One hopes only limited damage is done to the UK from inadequate scrutiny of treaties, though as @AlexanderHorne1 also notes, "The current difficulties we face over the Northern Ireland Protocol show the dangers of agreeing new treaties without adequate scrutiny". We need better.

Details of a letter sent by the Chair of the House of Lords International Agreements Committee to the government.

https://twitter.com/Arabella_Law/status/1490971324252291072

"dismissive response" is strong language from a Parliamentary committee, but in the UK system a government does not have to take Parliament seriously.

https://twitter.com/HLIntAgreements/status/1490974109513097410