There are persistent misunderstandings about what 'Canada-style' means. For the UK, at first blush, the stress is on 'Canada', though in fact the UK ask goes well beyond CETA so that's disingenuous. 1/5
Whereas for EU the stress is on 'style' i.e. that this would be in the category of an FTA relationship, rather than SM membership (that's what the Barnier staircase meant). But Canada is geographically distant, does far less trade with the EU and is far less integrated. 2/5
In short, UK isn't really like Canada (history, geography, economy). And, anyway, there are all the non-trade things. So, actually, both UK & EU accept their deal can't just be CETA. 3/5
So when BJ complains that EU won't give a Canada deal "even though" UK has been an EU member for 45 years (as if that gave some kind of entitlement), it misses the point that such a deal is impossible *because* UK has been a member for 45 years. 4/5
And of course the differences between 'Canada' and 'Canada-style' have been flagged up by the EU since 2017, and BJ accepted them in the PD, so his complaint is nonsense anyway. 5/5
You can follow @chrisgreybrexit.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: