Much nonsense from Hannan in this piece, not least an apparent "gotcha" I've seen repeatedly over the years - it's apparently impossible to support completely zero-tariff trade with the EU but not Australia (unless you're a Remainer/Pro-EU stooge).

conservativehome.com/2022/08/03/dan… The fact is, whether you supported Leave or Remain, its perfectly feasible – and I'm looking from a farming perspective – to be broadly supportive of a zero-tariff deal with the EU and sceptical of one with Australia. Here’s why. 2/

Next week Parliament is likely to ratify the UK/Aus trade deal - an oddly active term for a very passive event. There’s no vote or debate, just a clock ticking down…

MEGA THREAD
🧵🧵🧵

...on why scrutiny of trade deals in the UK is still not adequate – and why it matters 1/ In the UK, Free Trade Agreements are ratified under what’s known as the CRAG procedure. This is a good summary from @hhesterm in a piece on 2019’s meaningful vote. 2/

Another weekend, another article on trade and agriculture that deserves a closer look. /1

conservativehome.com/platform/2021/… This time its New Zealand rather than Australia in the spotlight – a timely reminder that the UK is actually currently negotiating trade deals with more than one country /2

Aus, NZ, USA, Canada, Mexico, CPTPP....

gov.uk/government/col…

Ooh! Guess what - the Times stable is running another well-informed opinion piece about trade and agriculture! /1

thetimes.co.uk/article/tories… This time Emma Duncan… the name rings a bell. Ah yes, she wrote about farming back in 2016. One reader at least wasn’t impressed. /2

https://twitter.com/nvonwestenholz/status/751851239374254080?s=20

I see Lawson is at it again. While I tend to think ad hominem arguments are generally a “bad thing”, given his personal attacks this morning I’m happy to suspend that belief briefly. 1/

thetimes.co.uk/article/a-bogu… Good columnists like Danny Finkelstein are regularly even-handed. Presenting, honestly, each side of an argument, and being rigorous with facts. Lawson is not that type of columnist. Let’s have a look at today’s piece. 2/

The Agriculture Bill returns to the Commons tomorrow, perhaps for the final time...

services.parliament.uk/Bills/2019-21/…

It’s had a long, drawn out passage. The first iteration, in the last Parliament, appeared back in September 2018) /1 After many improvements since then, our final concerns around the Bill have been about how best to safeguard high standards in UK farming from increased volumes of imports produced more cheaply to lower standards /2

nfuonline.com/news/latest-ne…

A thread on trade scrutiny:

This is Parliament’s website for Treaties. I’m a big fan. I’m eagerly waiting the inclusion of yesterday’s UK/Japan trade deal

treaties.parliament.uk

PS – its online already (gov.uk/government/col…) if you can’t wait

1/ As you can see, there’s a lot of treaties already on it. Including quite a few FTAs and Association Agreements signed over the last couple of years. These are the “roll-over” (or continuity) agreements. What are they..? 2/

As the Agriculture Bill comes back (again!) to Parliament this week, some reflections on the issue of trade policy and food standards: **featuring** some myth-busting, some corrections of misconceptions, and some clarity on the reality of the challenge that still exists 1/ LONG THREAD ALERT!!!

FIRST ISSUE – “This is a non-argument. Our standards are already safeguarded in law. The EU Withdrawal Act has transferred existing protections, and they’ll remain in place from Jan 1st.” 2/

I always try to stay quite measured and objective on twitter – but frankly this is bollocks

https://twitter.com/TelePolitics/status/1315003608459603969

Firstly, this is a misrepresentation of the amendments. One of them simply requires Parliament to be given full, independent information on the impact of trade deals before they are signed, so MPs can have a say. /2

There are reports in the press today that Lord Curry’s amendment to the Agriculture Bill due be debated tomorrow, will not be debated. This has been described as a “government move”. In truth, this is actually a technical matter that has come from the Speaker of the Commons 1/ Although the Speaker's call, the government could, if it wished, enable a debate/vote on the amendment. Furthermore, there will still be a debate on the issues of food standards and on strengthening the remit of the Trade & Ag Commission re trade deals and standards. A thread: 2/

@rcolvile @thesundaytimes Sunday Times having another crack at the “protectionism” v “free trade” topic, like its 1845 all over again (spoiler – it isn’t). Let me rehearse some of the points I’ve made in recent weeks /1 @rcolvile @thesundaytimes Firstly, we all bandy the term “free trade” around, but its rarely defined. In its purest form it would mean no barriers or restrictions at all to trade. In fact we tend to accept some restrictions are justified… e.g. for safety, etc /2

After another weekend of coverage of trade deals and food standards, there’s been particular interest in the joint letter from Liz Truss and George Eustice sent to MPs on Friday. Lets break it down (long thread, apologies)…. /1 We should welcome it as an important re-statement of the commitment to UK farmers’ high standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and food safety in trade policy. It’s also in the government’s manifesto and the US/UK negotiating objectives /2

One of the frustrations watching the debate around trade policy in the UK, e.g. during the recent debates on the Trade Bill and Agriculture Bill, is the assertion that everyone will win from liberalising trade and striking trade deals. It’s nothing but sunlit uplands. 1/ Obviously, the proposed value of “free trade” is that there’s a net gain for an economy, which extends to a net gain for trade partners and ultimately for the world if you have an effective, properly policed multi-lateral system. 2/

I’ve seen a number of tweets from MPs and others regarding yesterday’s amendments to the Agriculture Bill – which sought to ensure British standards of production aren’t jeopardised by future trade policy - and why they didn’t feel they could support them 1/ It’s obviously fair to have concerns over the workability of the amendments, although in my view they were drafted quite carefully to avoid some of the criticisms that are being levelled at them 2/

This is a very interesting piece, and it raises questions about the UK’s attitude to post-Brexit trade policy that need to be addressed (indeed, it’s a shame they weren’t three years ago…) 1/

https://twitter.com/ChathamHouse/status/1234436178558038017

Firstly, the government’s own rhetoric is confusing – as the article notes, with regard to the EU/UK negotiating position, “It’s odd to claim to be campaigning for free trade at the exact moment you are creating new barriers to trade.” 2/

If you’re wondering whether the time being made available for Parliamentary scrutiny the Withdrawal Agreement Bill is adequate - a comparison with the recent Agriculture Bill /1 Both Bills will establish the future of UK farming, for better or worse, for decades to come. Making sure they are right is a critical responsibility for anyone who cares about our food, farming, welfare standards and natural environment /2

Seems like an error that UK government continues to ring-fence its trade policy re. the EU (DExEU and central govt) with its trade policy for the rest of the world (DiT). Wouldn't a more strategic approach be better? 1/

https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1173657991096061952

Put the passion and politics of Brexit to one side. If a country the size of the UK was considering its trading priorities on the basis of a clean slate, then a trade deal with an economy of 450m people on its doorstep should very, very clearly be the priority. 2/

In 2016, Boris Johnson spoke in typically persuasive fashion about Brexit at a rally in Dartford, arguing that, if we leave the EU, trade in food products between the EU and UK would continue to flow freely. See here around 11 mins: He said, “All those who say that there would be barriers to trade with Europe …do you seriously believe that they would put up tariffs against UK produce of any kind when they know how much they want to sell us their cake, their champagne, their cheese…” 2/

1/ Only just got round to reading last week’s @spectator editorial on Trump's visit and post-Brexit trade opportunities. We need better than this if we’re to have an informed debate about our optimum trade relationships with the EU and US post-Brexit

spectator.co.uk/2019/06/playin… 2/ This extract is an irritating straw man that advocates of quick and dirty trade deals keep making – that “chlorinated chicken” issue is all about the safety of chlorine. It isn’t.

There's a lot being made on Twitter about this letter from Lord Bamford. He is of course entitled to his view, and indeed his views on the impact of Brexit on his company (and his sector more broadly) should be respected... But... 1/

https://twitter.com/matthew_elliott/status/1075802826922692610

...it would be completely wrong to extend his past experience to the impact across the economy/society as a whole if we crash out without a deal in March. Here’s at least three reasons why: 2/

Thoughts on the #AgricultureBill, and 5 key areas for MPs to focus on in today's Second Reading debate... #1 – it needs to be much more clearly an “Agriculture” Bill. Michael Gove has said the Bill will introduce changes that will transform the agriculture sector. We hope so - for the better!