New paper alert! On the vexed subject of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
Quite simply it does not look like the right vehicle to resolve political disagreement between the UK and EU. We need a new approach, that builds on and takes inspiration from 1998.
This is not going to be a comfortable message for either UK or EU, but what we have right now is in effect a zero-sum game, where either UK or EU single markets get to be protected. Northern Ireland becomes the venue as contested territory, too much for a fragile polity. 2/
The Northern Ireland Protocol is a trade agreement. But without a shared political vision, the argument over medicines or SPS checks becomes political. It also becomes about identity, given the 1998 agreement allowed an ambiguity over being British or Irish. 3/
It is easy to blame EU or UK for the problematic nature of negotiations over Northern Ireland, and most of those involved do. I also have, frequently. But it doesn't actually get us anywhere if ultimately divisions deepen. Solutions become harder to find. Positions harden. 4/
We need a new political approach to issues around Northern Ireland and Brexit, that openly recognises and debates the issues. That's a lesson I take from the run up to the Good Friday Agreement, and the inspiration in particular of John Hume. Not pretend them away. 5/
Is it even possible to find a starting point on Northern Ireland and Brexit? Very difficult, without trust. I think it has to be a modified Protocol and accompanying political process which is markedly different to that in existence right now. And builds on the GFA/BA. 6/
Easy of course for the outsider to say what should happen to the Protocol - the EU thinks the UK just needs to implement what was agreed, and the UK that the EU just needs to drop the idea of checks. I just don't see either side 'winning', and therefore deepening problems. 7/
I was asked why a trade guy was seeking to change EU-UK politics over Northern Ireland, and that's simple. You're trying to use my subject - trade and regulations - to resolve political divisions, and it doesn't work.
So how about some political leadership? 8/
It is hard to be overly optimistic that we will soon find stability on issues relating to Northern Ireland and Brexit. Too much invested by those involved in their positions. I just hope there may be more reflection on where we're headed. 9/ end ecipe.org/publications/f…
Thanks for all the feedback so far on the Northern Ireland paper and tweets. Lot of scepticism about whether a new approach is possible - which I share. But chances are without it the political situation will worsen and then intervention will be required. So maybe start now?
A reminder that we are almost certainly heading to a deeper crisis in Northern Ireland after May's elections. In such circumstances the UK government might like to have some plans beyond repeating the same lines on the protocol. politico.eu/article/no-ret…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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…
With @AnnaGuildea@ecipe I have a new short paper on specialisation and comparative advantage as part of our New Globalization project. We show that developed countries still produce a wide range of goods and services - but specialise in complexity.
@AnnaGuildea@ECIPE What we are really exploring is the idea that the EU, US, UK are increasingly vulnerable due to the rise of other countries, in particular China. The evidence for this remains slim - we may not make everything, but we hold the knowledge, and can trade. ecipe.org/publications/c…
It is part of our continuing work to show global trade has actually delivered, rather than being a failure to be corrected. As we have shown with other papers such as this on the response to the pandemic. Not perfect, but better than suggested alternatives ecipe.org/publications/g…
A new phase in difficulties over the Northern Ireland protocol in which a DUP Stormont minister instructs his officials to stop enforcing an international treaty. Impossible to know what happens next, if these continue or not, or how the EU responds. bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northe…
As we can see from events in Russia / Ukraine, there is no enforcement power in international law if one party decides to breach treaties. However, we also know that it is normally the larger powers that have more scope for breach than smaller ones.
Expect a strong reaction from the US and the EU if the UK fails to enforce the Northern Ireland protocol. At a time when the US wishes to focus attention on Russia / Ukraine, such a move would not be seen in a positive light. (see e.g. Suez / Hungary)
Supply chain problems are the modern economy. The fact the world only noticed them in 2020 doesn't make it a crisis now. We've had a pandemic in which the world has by and large continued to enjoy the goods it did beforehand. An incredible achievement. nytimes.com/2022/02/01/bus…
The question to ask is whether a different system of production and distribution would have delivered better results in response to a pandemic. Never say never, but there's no history of an alternative delivering in a better way.
The aftermath of a major shock, whether war or a pandemic, is a problematic time, as readjustment is needed. That's normal, it doesn't need some great panic around it. Not least from populist politicians liable to make things worse in their limited understanding.
This bit is slightly interesting. Those of us who understood how modern regulation worked always said "absolute regulatory freedom" was a delusion. It can't be used, because a modern economy is interdependent with others. But that's not an acceptable message right now.
Slurring everyone who argued against the hardest possible Brexit as 'remoaners' effectively meant accepting an alternate reality in which pure UK regulatory control was Brexit and hugely beneficial, as opposed to the global reality of complex inter-dependencies.
For the UK to yield huge regulatory gains you have to assume that we can regulate better than other countries, that companies will choose us because of this, and then other countries will not compete. All of which are problematic. At best, we may get some limited gains.
Lots of worthy stuff, but piecemeal devolution and funding competitions, plus lots of targets, makes Levelling Up feel like more of the same rather than anything particularly new.
Always easiest that way in government, but UK politics rather lacking in ideas right now.
Changing world, no great change in UK government thinking since 1997. Brexit as a distraction which doesn't solve many of our issues, and adds more. Treasury spending the main variable as various schemes come and go.
The UK muddling through, as the @DuncanWeldon book on our economic history has it. Still plenty of economic strengths, but uneven distribution of them a theme for many years, and there's honestly little in the levelling up plans seen so far to think that will change much.