Read on Twitter
Frustratingly vague (what does 'sovereignty' mean here?), but reminder: the parameters of any deal are 90-95% of what the ERG always said they wanted.
It will be goalpost-shifting of heroic proportions to claim that the deal, if there is one, is 'Brexit in name only'. (Thread) https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1331894655907192832
It will be goalpost-shifting of heroic proportions to claim that the deal, if there is one, is 'Brexit in name only'. (Thread) https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1331894655907192832
Any deal will mean
- Tariff free trade with our largest partner
- Allow the UK to do own trade deals
- No additional payments to the EU
- UK leaves the single market
- No dynamic alignment with EU law
Pretty good if you're a Brexiteer, no?
- Tariff free trade with our largest partner
- Allow the UK to do own trade deals
- No additional payments to the EU
- UK leaves the single market
- No dynamic alignment with EU law
Pretty good if you're a Brexiteer, no?
Yes, there's level-playing field and fish, but let's take a step back and simplify things for a moment.
On fish, the UK will be able to catch more fish in its own waters than it can now, the question is how much more and over what timescale...
On fish, the UK will be able to catch more fish in its own waters than it can now, the question is how much more and over what timescale...
On LPF, landing zone is roughly:
- UK has robust domestic state aid regime
- UK doesn't regress below current protections on environment/workers rights (which it doesn't want to do anyway)
- Either side can impose tariffs if there's a breach
Where's the sovereignty problem?
- UK has robust domestic state aid regime
- UK doesn't regress below current protections on environment/workers rights (which it doesn't want to do anyway)
- Either side can impose tariffs if there's a breach
Where's the sovereignty problem?
Sure, it's far from ideal or stable in the long-term that the EU can hit us with tariffs if we're deemed to have undercut them on LPF.
But the alternative is full tariffs on day one whether we undercut them or not. Pretty clear which of those is the better outcome, imo.
But the alternative is full tariffs on day one whether we undercut them or not. Pretty clear which of those is the better outcome, imo.
Overall the shape of the potential deal is pretty good from a 'sovereignty' perspective.
It's only a problem if you take a zero-sum approach where any compromise is unacceptable. I'd suggest that isn't a realistic or serious approach to trade negotiations going forward.
It's only a problem if you take a zero-sum approach where any compromise is unacceptable. I'd suggest that isn't a realistic or serious approach to trade negotiations going forward.
To re-iterate, overwhelming majority of Conservative MPs would have bitten your arm off for a trade deal like this in 2019, let alone 2016. It'll be as close to the fabled 'Canada style deal' as we could ever have hoped to negotiate. If a deal is done, they should back it. (End)
(PS yes I know I'm simplifying things a lot in this thread, but think sometimes it is useful to take a step back away from the detail and focus on the fundamentals).
