Paging @julietemckenna.bsky.social , the reigning queen of Dantasy....

Looks like a red kite to me.

So. Erm. Anyway. That's how I see it.

The only way it could be any better is if we got some sort of extra-special sweetheart deal, one which allowed us greater control of borders, let us keep the pound, and gave us a massive rebate on our EU contributions.

You know, like the deal we HAD before Farage et al. MADE US GIVE IT UP.

The only way to fix this - to get our say in the deliberations of the EU - is... wait for it....

To REJOIN THE EU.

The barriers to trade go down! We become a reasonably big player in the EU, instead of an irrelevance nobody much likes! It's quite clearly the best deal for the UK.

It's not ideal, though. It would leave us beholden to EU rules, but without any say in the formation of those rules. No MEPs to argue for UK interests. No voice in the Council of Ministers. If the EU decides that our sausages no longer meet the standards of Wurst, we just have to take it.

The next step, then, would be to seek official recognition of this from the EU. Call it customs union, or rejoining the single market - official alignment with EU regulations would bring down the barriers to trade that Brexit put up.

Anyway, all these places are still further away than Europe.

So. Because the EU is still our biggest trading partner, UK businesses are strongly incentivized to maintain EU standards on goods. As a practical matter, we have to align ourselves with EU regulations.

There's China, which no doubt remembers us fondly from the Opium Wars. Or India, which no doubt remembers us fondly from the Bengal Famine, or the Amritsar Massacre, or a couple of centuries of general colonial oppression. (See what I mean about imperialism making you no friends?)

Of course, there are other nations with which we could reach agreements. For example, the USA, which is now the 800-pound gorilla in world trade. So the USA trades with us on ITS terms, not ours. And it is run by a malevolent orange pillock with a long record of screwing over his partners.

Unless we saw the UK off its foundations and float it over to Nova Scotia, trade with CPTPP partners will ALWAYS be slower and more expensive than trade with the EU. The EU is, still, where we do most of our trade, because it's THAT MUCH EASIER than swapping stuff with Canada.

Boats cost money, running boats costs money, and there are risks involved in crossing 3500 miles of famously storm-tossed ocean, which can be mitigated by marine and shipping insurance, which costs money.

North Atlantic Ocean, too. Not even the right ocean.

Getting stuff from Canada - I apologize, again, for the highly technical terminology here - TAKES MORE TIME and COSTS MORE MONEY. And there is nothing we can do to mitigate this. Stuff from Canada has to be put on a boat and sent over the sea.

Our closest European neighbour is the Republic of Ireland. It is right next to us, actually touching us (not in a bad way) (since 1996, anyway.)

Our closest CPTPP neighbour is Canada. It is not right next to us. It is over 3500 miles away. 3500 miles of ocean.

The UK has joined another trading bloc, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP. This was formed by 11 nations, all in or around the Pacific Ocean.

I am going to use a technical term from geography here: the UK is NOT IN the Pacific Ocean.

The UK put back most of the obstacles to free trade with Europe that EU membership removed. But it leaves us more free to make our own deals outside Europe, doesn't it?

It is time to talk about a barrier to free trade that is *not* amenable to legislation. It is called DISTANCE.

International trade when you are the 800-pound gorilla in the room looks a lot different from international trade when you are a small irrelevant archipelago off the coast of an actual trading bloc. Especially when those European wars, due to free trade and mutual prosperity, don't happen any more.

We should recall, though, that in the late Victorian era, we could do this sort of shit, because we had the world's largest colonial empire and all the economic clout that went with it. In case you hadn't noticed, we don't have that any more.

And so, Brexit happened, and the UK decided to go it alone.

There was a time when this would have been sound policy. "Splendid Isolation" made a lot of sense in the late Victorian era. We didn't get embroiled in lots of European wars, and we could trade with other nations on our own terms.

So, across the continent of Europe, sausages and other kinds of stuff were traded freely, without (too many) legislative barriers to this trade.

In 2016, the UK (apparently) decided we didn't want any of that. The EU's rules were too onerous, too restrictive, and suppressed our Sovrintee.

... is a system where it is easier for everyone to sell sausages.

It takes a lot of work to keep the EU going. Most of it is dull, dreary, highly technical, finicky, and easy to satirize. But the system only works if everyone can be completely confident in that sausages=Wurst thing.

It is bureaucratic, heavily regulated, and subject to constant strains as supplies of stuff change over time, and individual members jockey for favourable conditions. But, in the end, a system where (e.g.) a German can buy a pound of sausages and know they're getting 0,454 kg Wurst...

Some of these obstacles can be overcome through legislation. Trade becomes a lot easier if you and your trading partners have mutually standardized weights and measures, agreements on quality and production methods, and clarity of language.

The EU is an example of this.

Solid, equitable trade agreements can make the movement of stuff between nations a lot easier. Which is good! It means everyone can get the stuff they need or want, so everyone prospers. Free trade is a good thing. But there are lots of obstacles to free trade.

These systems tend to be complex, and subject to change. Individual nations will always compete to have the systems rigged in their favour. But, in the main, a successful system will have conflicts resolved by means of stultifying 800 page documents and not 88mm shells, so that's good.

(e.g. Iran and enriched uranium).

Conflicts over the movement of stuff (or "international trade" if you want to get fancy) can lead to all sorts of bad things - poverty, famine, war, "Episode 1: The Phantom Menace", and others. Systems develop, then, to reduce the chances of conflict.

Sometimes people are protective of their stuff and strictly limit the sharing of it (e.g. China and silkworms). Sometimes people are overly aggressive about selling their stuff (e.g. Britain and the Opium Wars). Sometimes other people prevent the movement of stuff for reasons of their own

Making a deal can be fraught. The imperialist method of "give us the stuff we want or we will insert sharp pointy things in you" may work for a while, but wins you no friends. Better to negotiate deals peacefully, but there are many complicating factors.

The way I see it is like this:-🧵

People need stuff to live. People live in places where there is stuff.

There are lots of different kinds of stuff, and they are not evenly distributed.

So, if you need or want stuff that isn't available locally, you must deal with people who live where it is.

Good morning Womble. "Slow Gods" is on my TBR, like so many things, but right now I'm reading Colin Wilson's "The Outsider".