On the #ChequersPlan, this is where we're let down by our media the most. They indulge in the betrayal narrative because it suits their court scribe approach to politics rather than offering serious analysis. Even a basic knowledge of EU trade tells you this plan won't fly.
The common rulebook proposed simply does not exist - so it would need to be a bespoke set of rules based on complex rules which don't work independently of the regulatory system they were designed for. Moreover the single market is not a rule book. It is a system.
But our government seems to think it can define the bare minimum set of rules, disregarding everything it doesn't want oblivious to the fact that the single market is an integrated system to preserve standards integrity. It does not do such deals with those who mix and match.
It also presupposes than that goods can be usefully broken out of the single market stack, while also allowing us the ability to diverge for the sake of third party deals. This is a variation of the Legatum nonsense which Brussels already rules out.
And this is without even going into the proposed mechanism for dealing with the customs union aspect - which is so completely issue illiterate it's not even worth mentioning. Nobody on either side of the debate thinks it is practical or grounded in reality.
Meanwhile we have Mr Mogg attempting to scupper an NI solution - which to be fair is an abysmal proposal - but it is the one and only legally compatible option. The EU did not propose it for shits and giggles. They simply followed the logic of the system.
So we are wasting an enormous amount of time and political capital, not to mention column inches, churning over total fabrications and delusions, while whittling down the options to just two. No deal or EEA - the latter being the only proposal that could ever have worked.
Myself and the Leave Alliance have been saying this since long before the referendum yet for all the collective efforts of the think tanks and industry associations they have totally failed to grasp the issues, producing total garbage. They can do that because they have prestige.
What we needed was a media capable of understanding the issues and ripping apart not only the politicians but also the self-appointed experts and wonks. But instead we have a pack of court eunuchs lacking any intellectual curiosity or journalistic vitality.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1. Today in #Brexit tedium: You all saw the Barnier tweet reiterating that a Canada+++ is available and has been from the beginning. The ultra brexiters have taken that to mean an FTA plus whatever fiction they want tacked on to it.
2. They are dishonestly claiming this as a vindication of their position, conveniently ignoring that the EU will not agree to begin talks on any such agreement unless the UK signs up to an NI backstop. The EU is entirely consistent on this.
3. The ultas claim that a Canada+++ deal where they get to define what the plusses mean means that we don't need a backstop, Two problems here. The EU won;t agree to it and secondly, the details of their proposal has the same basic flaw as Chequers which the EU already declined.
1. It is not conspiratorial to say that both Johnson and Rees-Mogg are front men for a very narrow set of interests. they are relying entirely on the IEA think tank set for ideas - which sees #Brexit only in terms of how their financial backers can advance their interests.
2. I have never heard JRM or Johnson give a detailed and convincing anti-EU speech. They know how to drop in buzzwords and eurosceptic terminology but they have stolen the clothes of anti-EU scholars who used to make up the eurosceptic movement.
3. Very skilfully they have cleaved euroscepticism away from Ukip which has freed itself to concentrating on grunting about Muslims. Most of the founders have either gravitated to the Tory fringes or bowed out completely.
1. All the solutions to the various technical #Brexit concerns are to an extent sub-optimal, complicated and require a degree of compromise. Tories, though, would rather queue up round the block to be told life is simpler than it is.
2. Anyone can blether about sovereignty and self-determination but in the real world, regulation and rules are the WD40 of trade and without agreed norms trade simply doesn't happen. All trade agreements to one extend or other place constraints on sovereignty.
3. Brexit requires of us that we seek a balance between isolationism and subordination but since the EU is the regional and global regulatory superpower in this equation, to a larger extent it will call the shots. This is a simple fact of life. They are bigger than us.
1. For the benefit of the hard of thinking and for possibly the billionth time, there is only ONE way to ensure the UK maintains its current trade with the EU and that is by joining Efta and retaining the EEA agreement. (#Brexit thread)
2.There are means to ensure the bare minimum essentials continue but the EU is a major market actually on our doorstep so there is no way we should even be considering options that only maintain the bare minimum. The UK as a matter of fact needs a fully comprehensive relationship
3. As pointed out by the European Commission, a customs union covers only those functions listed in red and is not EVEN required to address those issues. The majority of border concerns are regulatory issues covered by the EEA.
1. So if reports are correct it looks like Mrs May is going to go with a customs union as her next move along with those rules necessary to keep the trucks rolling. No doubt this is going to upset the #Brexit Taliban. (thread)
2. As ever she's got it ass backwards where the the differences then between NI and mainland will be more profound than if we'd stayed in the EEA and ditched the customs union. This is what happens when you equate customs controls with customs unions.
3. So the plan, if we can call it a plan is a Turkey Plus sort of arrangement - or maybe the Jersey Option. Whatever ti is, it certainly is turkey - but it's bordering on workable which is closer than we've been before. It will probably fall over on the details.
1. Time of a thread on this Toryboy dribble. The problem with a #Brexit FTA+++ ("with maximum recognition") is that the EU does not do mutual recognition where it has already has harmonised rules. it is never going to agree to an equivalence system. ...
2. Put simply if we go for an FTA+++ then the EU gets to decide the terms of those plusses. It can can look at maximum facilitation for revenue issues in relation to VAT and tariffs and technology can help but that pertains only to the customs union. The bits in red.
3. As you can see it doesn't even begin to address the issue of regulatory controls and though the EU does do MRAs on conformity assessment, they are never universal and only if there are exactly matched standards. The belief we can unilateral diverge is a fantasy.