Read on Twitter
Sovereignty one tweet version. If there's no deal and extra economic harm it wasn't because the EU didn't respect the UK, but because the UK chose not to pay the price asked for a trade deal. Which is the choice the government will make, on which they can be judged. https://twitter.com/DavidHenigUK/status/1336951447339081728
For the avoidance of doubt I make no comment on whether EU negotiating requests are reasonable or not. They often aren't, similarly the US or China. Comes with being trade superpowers. So what do we do if trade superpowers aren't reasonable? Deal or retreat?
Vent. Up to the EU of course, but are serious people really suggesting that it is unacceptable for the EU to move beyond 10 year old provisions for the level playing field agreed for a less ambitious deal with a further away country?
That the EU, having just appointed a Chief Trade Enforcement Officer to ensure preferential trade partners meet their obligations, should not do this for the UK? That they should ignore the demands from MEPs for stronger enforcement in all trade agreements?
An EU about to introduce, probably, tough carbon borrder adjustment measures, should have a trade agreement with a neighbouring country which wouldn't be changed and therefore that country could gain an advantage? Read the room folks.
UK choice whether to accept fundamental EU terms for a trade deal or not. But don't act like it is a surprise the EU wants tough measures. That's trade politics in 2020. Would be even if the EU trusted the UK. So let's work out how we want to deal with it. And a demanding US.
