Dmitry Grozoubinski Profile picture
Apr 29, 2024 14 tweets 4 min read Read on X
1/ Thread of random things to keep in mind when reading these and other stories about the border this week as the UK attempts to start actually enforcing its own regulatory checks.

politico.eu/article/uk-bre…
2/ As @AnnaJerzewska points out, the government and the industry wildly disagree about the impact this will have on consumer prices.

Like by a factor of hundreds. 🤷‍♂️

3/ The UK's bringing in checks at the border is a largely unilateral decision. It doesn't have to do this, but is choosing to.

Checks at the border are always about trading greater control for more cost and hassle.

UK is somewhere on that upward arc. Image
4/ One reason the UK might be doing this is that goods going the other way (from the UK into the EU) face these checks already.

That means if you have customers in both, it currently makes more commercial sense to produce in the EU and export to the UK than vice versa.
5/ Prior to Brexit and during the transition period, the UK and EU considered one another's regulations equivalent which significantly reduced the need for checks - but required collective regulatory setting.

Even less cost and hassle, but even less control.
6/ The UK could simply choose, as it has been doing, to treat goods coming in from the EU as equivalent or safe enough further checks aren't needed.

However, this would mean accepting EU standards as valid, and the EU likely would not reciprocate.
7/ Greater checks at the UK border hurt UK consumers and EU exporters.

Greater checks at the EU border hurt EU consumers and UK exporters.

The average EU citizen consumes fewer UK goods and exports less to the UK than the other way around.

Hence the power dynamic here.
8/ Side note: One of the reasons for the (much maligned) European Court of Justice was to make a system where a group of countries are all enforcing the same regulations work.

You could "sue" another EU member state if they started slacking off when it came to enforcement.
9/ One reason the UK/EU border is especially tricky on this kind of stuff is that the absence of such checks for many years means:

1. There wasn't any infrastructure;
2. There weren't enough professionals;
3. Businesses built their supply chains on no-check assumptions.
10/ The UK has had to delay its implementation of these checks five times because addressing the three points above is hard, expensive and far from straight forward.

Number 3 especially led firms to deliver fresh food, in mixed consignments on tight turnarounds. Tricky.
11/ The UK political system has, for a variety of reasons, not been great at tackling this problem head on.

An inability to accept the reality of this chart, and have a frank and honest conversation with the public about the fact that reintegration has costs, not just benefits. Image
12/ The pathological need to keep anything resembling a bad news Brexit story out of the press has lead to a siege mentality on the part of the government that might otherwise have provided businesses the clarity they needed to plan and prepare.

Unfortunate. 🤷‍♂️
13/ There is no correct point to be at on the Control vs Cost curve.

Each government must make its own decision. I wrote my book because I wanted people to understand that these are decisions, and help voters challenge those who'd pretend they're easy.

canburypress.com/products/why-p…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dmitry Grozoubinski

Dmitry Grozoubinski Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @DmitryOpines

Aug 9, 2024
1/ I guess (with no expertise) that one reason the Ukrainians may have gambled on Kursk is that the Russian army is at its weakest when having to react quickly.

That's when rigid top-down leadership, low morale, poor communications, terrible logistics and so on hurts the most.
2/ In Donetsk the Russians are playing to their strengths. It doesn't take a lot of coordination to slowly flatten one village after another with glide bombs until meat waves can seize it, then advance a kilometre and do it again.

It's grinding attrition. Warfare by spreadsheet.
3/ The Ukrainians could have sent these forces that are currently rampaging around Kursk to Donetsk instead, but maybe they felt the fighting there was too rigid, too constrained by terrain, defences and so on to make full use of their advantages?
Read 4 tweets
Jul 18, 2024
1/ Except Ukraine isn't in Russia's Sphere of Influence anymore.

That's the point.

You could argue Ukraine WAS in Russia's Sphere of Influence immediately after its 1991 independence from the Soviet Union, but Russia (not the CIA or Nuland's cookies) completely blew that.
2/ A Sphere of Influence is an area of the world where you can shape events even though you don't have any formal authority to do so.

A part of the world where your cultural, economic, clandestine, diplomatic and military assets let you shape local government decisions.
3/ Russia has spent the better part of the last three decades losing its Sphere of Influence because being in the Russian sphere absolutely sucks.

Moscow operates like an extractive mafia, draining resources while giving back very little.
Read 11 tweets
Jun 27, 2024
1/ Ukraine joining the EU, which everyone claims to want, will mean accepting Ukrainian agriculture flowing into the Customs Union without tariffs.

In that regard, EU unwillingness to face down its farmers over Ukrainian grain _now_, at the height of the war, is troubling.
2/ Ukrainian agriculture is only going to grow more competitive once it has won the war.

Beyond the peace dividend itself, investment will flow in, mechanisation will increase, facilities for meeting sanitary/phytosanitary requirements will be built and scaled.
3/ At the same time, the moral case for letting Ukrainians sell grain into Europe will never be stronger than it is today, when they are fighting for their own, and Europe's freedom.

If the EU can't win this argument now, it will only get harder during Accession talks.
Read 6 tweets
Jun 6, 2024
1/ In his great piece today Alan lays makes a case for why the UK should cease doing trade agreements as they'll deliver little value, and may imperil eventual re-joining or alignment with the EU.

I agreed with the facts, but disagree with the prescription.

🧵of my thinking 👇
2/ The facts I absolutely agree with:

First, no combination of free trade agreements, with anyone, will ever come close to offering the same trade benefits as membership of the EU.

It's like trying to offset shutting down the London Underground by improving bike lanes.
3/ Second, Alan is absolutely right that FTAs just do not tend to significantly increase the access of services firms to foreign markets.

The reasons for this are boring, but just trust me... no matter how many times the Trade Ministry puts 'digital' in their press release.
Read 17 tweets
May 18, 2024
1/ First and foremost, if it ever comes to a real jets, tanks and missiles shooting war with China, the paltry parcels of old tech the US is contributing to Ukraine will be completely immaterial to the outcome.
2/ A conflict with China will either be very small and contained, with both sides desperately monitoring escalation - in which case what the US has already will suffice, or a massive total war requiring production on levels that dwarf what's being sent to Ukraine.
3/ Even discounting nuclear weapons, a total war with China scenario is virtually impossible to 'prepare for' adequately unless the US is ready to basically put its economy on a war footing immediately.

Certainly you can't prepare for it by cheaping out on aid to Ukraine.
Read 11 tweets
Apr 30, 2024
1/ One of the common reactions to this was that the WTO rules compel the UK to introduce checks on EU goods.

First, well done everyone on knowing about the WTO and Most Favoured Nation. I'm proud and apologetic in equal measure.

Second, that's not entirely true (in practice).
2/ To oversimplify things, the Most Favoured Nation rule requires that you do not have different rules for different countries.

If your rules state that beef with Mad Cow Disease is not allowed you can't then say that actually Mad Cow Disease is fine as long as it's French.
3/ However, you do have a lot of freedom under the rules to differentiate how you enforce those rules based on your perception of risk.

North Korean toys are more likely to have lead on them than Canadian ones, so you can screen North Korean Transfirmors (tm) more thoroughly.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(