Read on Twitter
Short thread need. To be clear - getting agreements, even continuity ones, is good news for the UK and an achievement for those who have worked on them in such a short, pressured period of time.
But to claim, as Steve Baker does, that this is a UK strength is false. /1 https://twitter.com/Cardwell_PJ/status/1337349454437953536
But to claim, as Steve Baker does, that this is a UK strength is false. /1 https://twitter.com/Cardwell_PJ/status/1337349454437953536
First, it hardly needs to be said that a continuity agreement is not the same as a new agreement from scratch. The current EU agreements were negotiated with the UK as a Member State, so the UK's interests were already built in. /2
The proof of this can be seen by comparing agreements (eg. the new Japan-UK and EU-Japan) side by side. The differences are often due to the lack of need of details such as what the equivalent of 'lawyer' is in 24 official EU languages. /3
So, the UK is able to piggy-back on the long-term negotiations that took place by the EU. In the case of Japan, I was a stagiaire in the Commission in Tokyo right at the start of the pre-pre-negotiation process ... in 2000-1! /4
Is the EU particularly cumbersome? There is an argument to be made than the UK (or any single state) could act more nimbly because of the lack of need to integrate the interests of 27+ Member States. BUT is there any evidence of this? Not really. /5
For example, the EU-Korea agreement took around the same amount of time to negotiate as the Canada-Korea one (both around 9 years). There are few examples of states acting very quickly (Singapore perhaps the only one). /6
EU free trade agreements are usually 'mixed' so the ratification needs to take place across the Member States. This can slow or derail the process (hello Belgium!). But the alternative would be to not allow Member States or their Parliaments a say - not an attractive thought.. /7
... although one that the UK Parliament seems happy to have given up, given the executive-driven model now in operation in the UK. Again, not really fulfilling the 'take back control' mantra. /8
The main counterweight to the potentially problematic ratification of EU-led trade deals is that the sheer combined weight of the EU - 27 members and a population of 450 million - gives it far more clout than any single state, bar the US or China. /9
So the tests for if UK is 'better' at securing deals are:
1. How many *new* deals have been agreed? (None so far)
2. Are new deals balanced, or what did the UK give up (paging chlorinated chicken..)? (TBC)
3. Has the UK overtaken the EU's efforts re new deals? (No so far) /10
1. How many *new* deals have been agreed? (None so far)
2. Are new deals balanced, or what did the UK give up (paging chlorinated chicken..)? (TBC)
3. Has the UK overtaken the EU's efforts re new deals? (No so far) /10
Until we are able to evaluate responses to these tests, we need to be extremely wary of claims that the UK is better equipped than the EU. Because on the evidence so far, the UK is still only catching up on what will be lost on 31 Dec 2020. /11
I defer to others, including @AnnaJerzewska @DavidHenigUK @SamuelMarcLowe @DmitryOpines, who have way more practical experience than me and have made a massive contribution to demystifying the trade and negotiation world. And who have inboxes destined never the reduce... /END
