These two statements by government issued 48 hours apart are incompatible. So which is it to be, fix the rules governing at least 80% of our trade by 2022, or take a more agile approach?

I'd suggest not being in such a tearing hurry. Here's why... 1/n thread

A Free Trade Agreement is a grand bargain, two parties giving each other preferential market access according to their relative sizes, and agreeing all the rules which will apply. In doing so, delivering for their businesses as much as they can in the other market. 2/

The rules in FTAs go into great detail. Which regulations will be accepted as equivalent by the other. What forms should apply. The level of inspections. As well as reduced or zero tariffs at individual product level, and the rules for eligibility. Notr for the faint hearted. 3/

The argument for the UK to move quickly on FTAs (apart from government bragging) are twofold - that if we don't have preferential arrangements our businesses lose out compared to others, and that the US President wants to destroy the basic WTO rules of trade. 4/

Why not go quickly on FTAs? If you don't know in great detail what businesses / the economy needs then you will give away your largest bargaining chip - access to your own market - and get little in return. Then when you find you need something new how do you get it? 5/

In both our EU and US negotiations we are prioritising lower tariffs for UK exporters. There are other asks but they are pretty generic (bind access to services markets, data flows). For both we have defensives - food standards, fish, ECJ. Where are our specific interests? 6/

Turn it round. What are US and EU interests in negotiations with us? For the US, products made according to US standards to have free access. For the EU, protection of their geographical indications, fair competition, regulatory alignment. We don't have equivalents. 7/

To annoy remainers and Brexiteers alike our unpreparedness applies equally to deals with the EU and the US. In both cases accelerated negotiations this year looks like a bad idea. Even 2021 would be pushing it. We don't know enough, even before the current crisis. 8/

One obvious solution to taking time would be to extend the Brexit transition period. But I only ever thought that was feasible for a few months, not two years, given full rule taking. Government says no, though, because freedom or some such. Bad reason as suggested, but... 9/

If no extension, what next? For the US, fairly straightforwardly, there's no need for this to be a priority. Trade is mostly fine already, and US FTAs are all their demands and giving nothing in return, so even if we had detailed asks they wouldn't be much use. Move on. 10/

The EU case is harder. UK exports in areas like automotive and agrifood are hammered by no-deal exit from transition period. GB - Northern Ireland trade will involve even more checks if no-deal. But the EU like the US doesn't expect to back down much in talks. 11/

With the EU the current choice is a deal that doesn't particularly reflect UK interests, or no-deal and exporters lose from day one. It leaves me thinking if we can't extend transition whether we could instead suggest a new fixed term agreement. Usually I'd run a mile, but... 12/

Short term arrangements are bad for business certainty and investment. But no-deal would be worse, with no increased certainty. The EU could drop their harshest level playing field demands. And it would give us time to actually negotiate our interests properly. 13/

Is a short term EU deal politically realistic? Probably not. But time runs out and options are poor. Debate in the UK and EU emotive. Post divorce, hardly surprising. Now a separate crisis. Really not the time for new long term commitments. Time at least for new thinking. 14/ end