Twitter | Search | |
David Henig May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
Reply Retweet Like
David Henig May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
Still trying to give up Geographical Indications to make the US trade deal more likely. Rearrange these words. Chance. A. Not.
Reply Retweet Like
David Henig May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
Not surprisingly this section of the UK's draft EU agreement is strikingly unambitious.
Reply Retweet Like
David Henig May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
Unsurprisingly weak level playing field provisions.
Reply Retweet Like
David Henig May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
Sorry, broke my thread. Reparing with this.
Reply Retweet Like
David Henig May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
Transition for conformity assessment.
Reply Retweet Like
David Henig May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
Not many EU partners get mutual recognition of automotive type approval.
Reply Retweet Like
David Henig May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
My summary of the draft UK text for the EU relationship - more ambitious than the FTAs we claimed to be using as a guide, combined with flimsy level playing field provisions, and the bizarre omission of a typical provision UK business would want (procurement).
Reply Retweet Like
David Henig May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
Not a text that would ever be acceptable to EU or US. Also huge areas of detail missing, as we might expect, but which make reaching agreement in a few months difficult. This text and the one put forward by the EU are incompatible without huge compromises. /end
Reply Retweet Like
David Henig May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
PS on reflection of some comments, does it matter that the UK text is ambitious in some areas? Yes, in that not reflecting what government is saying, and yes when it is truly unrealistic. No where it is more targeted (strong case we should ask for automotive mutual recognition).
Reply Retweet Like
David Henig
PS2 And only two hours ago Michael Gove was saying it was the EU wanting us to keep to the rules of EU membership when our text in several areas clearly wants to keep single market benefits.
Reply Retweet Like More
David Henig May 19
Replying to @AnnaJerzewska
PSmore: As drawn to my attention by the UK has not attempted to define the territory covered by a future EU relationship. The EU draft excludes Jersey, Gibraltar... one of many questions of detail that should be asked.
Reply Retweet Like
David Henig May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
PSfour: Sorry, turns out this one is in CETA as well as the UK draft. Hence this is the tradespeak definition of ambitious, which means not...
Reply Retweet Like
Andrew Hurrell May 19
interesting. Seems more Norway than WTO.....
Reply Retweet Like
Alex Moore May 19
Probably better but not what they said would do!
Reply Retweet Like
Lynn #FBPE #Proud Bristolian🔸🇪🇺🇬🇧🌈 #3.5% May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
It does seem that we have people working on this who really don’t know what they’re doing!
Reply Retweet Like
The Cart Horse May 19
Replying to @Lynn_GT @DavidHenigUK
Can we help people to understand what "one of the very best reasons to have supported Brexit" was?
Reply Retweet Like
Adetroy May 19
Replying to @DavidHenigUK
Barnier’s speech last week makes more sense now. At the time many suggested that his claim that U.K. wanted to retain many of the benefits of Single Market was an overreach.
Reply Retweet Like