Dmitry Grozoubinski Profile picture
Apr 29 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

May 18
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
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
Apr 22
1/ Recorded a guide to how I personally would go about challenging seven of the most common arguments against the US sending aid to Ukraine.

Hopefully some of you find it useful.

Will very briefly summarize the counter-arguments I make in this thread.

Arguments addressed:
Image
2/ Ukrainians were fighting before US aid arrived and continued fighting after it paused.

Depriving Ukrainians of hope to drive them to the negotiating table is morally abhorrent.

Putin won't negotiate reasonably if he thinks he can militarily crush an abandoned Ukraine. Image
3/ It's a war of attrition and every shell matters. Russians are taking significant casualties already, with US aid they'll take a lot more.

Prior to the pause in US aid, Russia was on the defensive, now it's made incremental gains. US aid matters. Image
Read 10 tweets
Mar 18
🚨Slightly Mortifying Personal News 🚨

I wrote a book and it's now on pre-sale (link below).

I've spent years yelling at my screen as influential people who can or should know better said wild things about trade to advance their agendas.

This book is my attempt to push back. A book called "Why Politicians Lie About Trade... and What You Need to Know About it" by Dmitry Grozoubinski. The front cover depicts a man in a suit speaking to a crowd from the deck of a laden container ship.
The book will be released on May 23rd of this year, published by @CanburyPress. You can pre-order it below.

It is my attempt to explain trade policy and the choices it involves as I would if anyone were ever dumb enough to ask me over a glass of wine.

canburypress.com/products/why-p…
The book's premise is that trade policy is a growing part of the conversation around issues, from jobs to healthcare and even war that voters actually care about...

... but it's complex and counter-intuitive, so politicians can lie about it with impunity, and that matters.
Read 6 tweets
Nov 5, 2023
1/ I like people and think they're overwhelmingly good and decent.

My default assumption is that whatever the slogans, or extremist elements, the vast majority of the people on the streets are just appalled by the images coming out of Gaza, and are calling for peace.
2/ Has every single person marching got a comprehensive and fool proof 12 point plan for reconciling Palestinian independence, Israeli security, regional geo-stability and the million other factors at play?

No, and that's fine. Marches are about sending signals that we care.
3/ Do I, as a Jew, wish the marchers were a little bit more thoughtful about the implications of some of their messaging?

Sure. I guess.

But it's a mass movement and like all such things, creates its own social incentives for having the spiciest take in the room.
Read 5 tweets
Oct 28, 2023
1/ International law lacks enforcement because major powers negotiating it did not want mechanisms that could kinetically prevent, curtail or punish the pursuit of their ends, even if the means involved breach the letter or spirit of the law.

They still don't.
2/ What little power international law has is almost entirely normative.

It only matters as long as countries believe it matters - and so for lack of better options we repeat ad nauseum that it does, while also arguing its broad benefits outweigh any specific constraints.
3/ What's infuriating about this is that reinforcing the normative power of international law rhetorically requires a great deal of exaggeration, selective vision and hypocrisy.

To make the case that international law matters we have to ignore all the times it clearly didn't.
Read 6 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!

:(