A great deal to be desired: Europe-Britain trade

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month. Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for a three month plan.

Equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only.

Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy, taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com hey, Ryan Reynolds here wishing you a very happy half off holiday because right now Mint Mobile is offering you the gift of 50% off unlimited. To be clear, that's half price, not half the service. Mint is still premium unlimited wireless for a great price. So that means half day. Yeah. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent.

To $15 per month.

Required new customer offer for first three months only.

Speed slow.

135 gigabytes of network busy taxes and fees extra.

Cmintmobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence on Economist Radio. I'm your host Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. More and more women are serving in their country's armed forces with particular skill in peacekeeping missions. But they still face barriers both to getting to active duty in the first place and to doing their jobs once they get there. And two months ago, Chinese social media lit up to praise Chloe Zhao on her Golden Globe for Best Director. Now that she's won an Academy Award for her directing, her name has all but disappeared from China's Internet. We ask what changed. First up though, This morning the final tally emerged from last night's vote in the European Parliament on a post Brexit trade deal with Britain. 660 in favor and five against. But in a separate vote, the Parliament also overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling Brexit a historic mistake. And the evident support of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, or tca, isn't a reflection of a great deal of trust. Despite recent improvements, winner Europe is not yet convinced about the willingness of the British government to respect the TCA and the protocol in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Before this year, Europe and Britain had stuck to previous rules on trade as the slow rolling divorce played out. That is until New Year's Eve when the so called transition period expired. The TCA was struck at the 11th hour to patch a looming hole in the law on how Britain and Europe could continue to trade goods. But it was only to last until this week at the latest. Last night's vote may have made it more permanent, but the comments of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and make clear that the battles are probably not over.

This agreement comes with real teeth, with a binding dispute settlement mechanism and the possibility for unilateral remedial measures where necessary.

And all this is just about cross border trade. The finer points on all kinds of standards are still to be hammered out.

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement covers mainly goods trade on which there will be no tariffs. But apart from that, it's a pretty thin deal.

John Peat is the Economist's Brexit editor.

It doesn't stop non tariff barriers. There are quite extensive non tariff barriers to trade between the UK and the eu. It doesn't cover services or hardly cover services, which accounts for 3/4 of the UK economy. It doesn't have any arrangements for future cooperation on foreign and security policy and it doesn't really cover things like data rules. It doesn't really cover much on cooperation over veterinary standards and other regulations. So there's quite a lot missing from a really comprehensive free trade deal.

And so what reservations did the European Parliament have about signing this update to the deal?

Well, this deal was done at the last minute. It was done, in fact on Christmas Eve and came provisionally into force on January 1st. So that didn't leave much time for anybody to examine what is a 1200 page document. And the European Parliament wanted to take more time. But there was also, I think, throughout this process an atmosphere of some mistrust of the uk, a feeling that the Boris Johnson government wouldn't necessarily stick to all the promises it made the deal. And indeed there has been legal action about the provisions in relation to Northern Ireland. So the European Parliament wanted to take their time because they wanted to be sure that there wouldn't be sort of squabbles, legal difficulties about the implementation of this deal. And that's why they have taken until now to ratify it.

So Northern Ireland is still a sticking point for these negotiations.

Well, Northern Ireland was always going to be one of the most difficult problems in the relationship between the UK and the EU after Brexit, because it's the only place where there is a land border between the UK and the European Union on the island of Ireland. And that was a problem for the Theresa May government. They didn't know how to deal with Northern Ireland. When Boris Johnson took over, his answer to the problem of Northern Ireland was to leave Northern Ireland inside the EU's Customs Union and single market, while taking the rest of the country out of the single market and the Customs Union. The problem with doing that, of course, is it requires a border of some kind with customs checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Irish Sea. Boris Johnson has always been reluctant and to acknowledge that there will be a border in the Irish Sea. And now that we've got one, and it's causing a lot of political tension inside Northern Ireland, he still seems reluctant to acknowledge that the full panoply of controls that are normal for goods moving into the single market of the European Union. And because of that reluctance, he has unilaterally extended grace periods for some of the food products that move between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. And the EU considers that to be illegal. It's against the rules for one side to take unilateral to change the terms of what's called the Northern Ireland Protocol. And so there's quite a lot of argument between the two sides over what happens to Northern Ireland. And there's a lot of political tension in Northern Ireland over the terms of the protocol.

But what do all of these tensions look like on the ground? How is this affecting the people who are trying to do this trade?

Well, a lot of businesses are finding unexpected barriers that they didn't really anticipate when a new trade deal came into force to their exports to the eu. And indeed the other way around, EU businesses are finding the same thing. Problem for small businesses that have become dependent on quite complicated patterns of trade and supply chains that have included a lot of stuff moving across borders, sometimes several times, and each time having to go through some kind of controls, checks on what are called rules of origin, which have added hugely to costs. If you're a big company, I think most of the big companies are adapting and finding different ways of trading around Europe. If you're a very small company, it can be so expensive that actually you lose business and the business just goes somewhere else. And in that sense, Brexit is clearly inflicting a cost to the UK economy and also to some European Union producers. That's what happens when you introduce trade and other barriers in a completely free trade market.

And another sticking point this whole time has been on fisheries. Is that still a concern?

Well, fisheries was an awkward problem all the way through the negotiations because one of the reasons the UK decided to leave the EU was to take back control of its fishing waters. But of course, UK fishermen also export a lot of fish to the European Union, so some kind of deal had to be struck between the two sides. And what has happened is it's preserved some of the fishing rights of European Union vessels in British waters, which has upset British fishermen. But there are still problems about the export of particularly shellfish from the UK to the eu.

But as you say, the deal doesn't cover things like financial services or data standards or what have you. I mean, are we getting any closer to an all singing, all dancing to move into an indefinite future?

I think there are going to be. Particularly now that the deal has been fully ratified, I think there are going to be continuing negotiations over a lot of different things, financial services, data, possibly veterinary standards and so on. We're going to see a raft of committees set up, including ministerial committees that will handle this relationship between two very close trading partners, whether they will succeed in actually adding new bits to the agreement, like a recognition of financial services equivalence, it's called, which would mean that financial services could be exported more easily out of London to the European Union. I think a lot of that depends on whether there's a feeling of trust between the two sides, that both sides are willing to stick to the rules and observe all the sort of commitments that they may enter into. And I think that is going to take quite a long time, because right now, the mood between Britain and the EU is one of some acrimony, some tension over particularly Northern Ireland, but also the two sides are sort of just not being terrible nice about each other, which I think makes the negotiation process much more complicated.

John, thank you very much for joining us.

Thank you.

I can honestly say that for the first 10 years of my military career, I didn't want anyone to notice that I was a woman. I just wanted to fit in and to be one of the blokes, I suppose.

Rachel Grimes served three tours of Northern Ireland as an army officer. Her colleagues in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the region's former police force, noticed something when she joined patrols.

One of the RUC policemen said to me, when you're at the checkpoint, your soldiers behave differently and the locals are also more willing to talk to you. I did realise that, actually, although I wanted to be one of the lads, there might be benefits to being a woman in the military.

Years later, working for the United nations forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Lieutenant Colonel Grimes found her ability to communicate, particularly with women, made a crucial contribution to operations.

We went to talk to the women in the Congo in Erenguetti they just told us horrific stories. They basically said, if we're going to be raped during the daytime, we're going to be raped by the Congolese security forces. But if we get raped at nighttime, it's normally armed groups which are hiding in Barunga National Park. And, you know, this sort of information just hadn't been getting through to the headquarters. And we got the information by talking to the women.

The number of women in the military has been growing in recent years. And though experiences such as those of Lt. Col. Grimes have prompted new thinking about what women can bring to soldiering, there remains resistance.

Around the world, militaries are grappling with gender issues both in war zones as well as in their own ranks. And more and more women are playing a really active role in their country's armed forces.

Sasha Noute is the Economist's public policy editor.

For example, a fifth of officers in the American army are now women. And it's not just Western countries. I mean, the UN has pledged to increase the share of female peacekeeping troops. So the blue helmets where just 1% of peacekeepers in the early 90s were women, they're hoping to get that up to 15% by 2028.

And what benefits do female soldiers bring to the field?

Well, it's hard to measure in all honesty, in part because there have been so few historically. But many women who have come back from the field report that they felt that they had special access to the local population, in particular to women and to families, as they can be seen as less threatening. But also there's a claim that they might empower local women and girls by showing that women can be anything they want. And people argue for female peacekeepers because they think they might be able to keep their male colleagues behavior more in check. So basically stop male peacekeepers or male soldiers from misbehaving.

And given all of these potential benefits, in particular in campaigns that are of the hearts and minds sort, you'd imagine that armed forces would want more women than them.

Yes, you would imagine that. And yet in 2021, it's still possible to graduate from a professional military education in America without ever really learning about gender and war. I mean, the quite telling figure here is that in 2018-19 defense budget in America, 4 million was allocated to women, peace and security issues. And in fact, that was the first time that that topic received any money at all. And I think one of the things I would mention is that even women who do make it to the field, they're underused. So studies have shown that female peacekeepers are more likely to only be sent on missions later in the conflict when fewer bullets are flying. And painfully. They are particularly underrepresented in conflicts where pre existing rates of sexual violence are higher. So basically they're held back, they're underused, even when they are well trained.

And so how much of that is because the old school male dominated ways of running the armed forces are still dominant?

I mean, that's definitely part of the story. There are lots of barriers to women joining armies, including sexism, household constraints, election criteria, et cetera. And all of these things also influence retention of women. And others have pointed out, you know, the hypocrisy, frankly, of military leaders holding back women from sort of dangerous areas, which they've actually been very well trained for, whilst not at all considering the risks of harassment that they might face on their own base. From fellow soldiers, I was told that it's not uncommon at all for women to say that they actually feel safer when they are on patrol than when they are on base with colleagues.

And is anything being done to sort of address those issues in the round?

Well, the response is patchy. So for many, assimilating women successfully into armed forces is still unfortunately seen as a niche subject. Canada is a good example of how you can make more meaningful adjustments. And actually, for over 10 years now, the Canadian government has used a tool to assess how any policy or initiative would affect both men and women differently. And now America is slowly but surely trying to follow suit, some of it's relatively straightforward work. In March, Joe Biden gave a speech outlining the work the DoD was undertaking.

Designing body armor that fits women properly.

Creating maternity flight suits, updating requirements for their hairstyles. And some of it is going to take an intensity of purpose and mission.

To really change the culture and habits.

That cause women to leave the military. And these are really encouraging words. And the good news is that 70% of American troops and vets now approve of women serving in combat, but 30% don't. And perhaps the most vivid example of this point of view was given by Tucker Carlson on his Fox News show.

So we've got new hairstyles and maternity flight suits. Pregnant women are going to fight our wars. It's a mockery of the US military. And given that kind of resistance, how do you see this playing out? Will women become more present on the battlefield, more accepted on the battlefield?

I think in the hope that they will. And unsurprisingly, Tucker Carlson, in my opinion, is fighting yesterday's war. I mean, modern armies no longer just rely on physical brawn alone. They require troops that are savvy with technology and capable of navigating complex battlefields and engaging with local populations. I would just add two caveats. First, there is a temptation, particularly in UN peacekeeping missions, to think that women will fix all sorts of deeper problems, such as lack of trust with the local population. And quite obviously they won't. It's mad to think that women will fix all these new, deeper issues simply because they are women. And then second, related to that, there is a danger in putting too much emphasis on this question of what value add women might bring. You know, nobody's ever asked me as a journalist what value add I am bringing to the newsroom. So why ask it of a soldier? Nobody's ever asked that of a man. So most women I've spoken to just want to get on with the job that they were trained to do. And the best thing commanders and armies can do is remove the barriers that currently stand in their way.

Sasha, thanks very much for joining us.

Thanks Jason. Thank you. Thank you to the Academy.

Thank you to my When Chloe Zhao won the Oscar for Best Director for Nomadland on Sunday, she spoke of the inspiration she turned to when things get hard.

People at birth are inherently good.

Ms. Zhao was quoting from a classical Chinese text, the Three Character Classic. As well as being only the second woman and the first woman of color to be awarded Best Director, Ms. Zhao was also the first Chinese person, but the reception to her win within her country of birth hasn't been a warm. 1.

Two months ago, when Chloe Zhao won Best Director at the Golden Globes, Chinese state media said she was the pride of China. She became the most viewed topic on Chinese social media and very high profile Chinese celebrities rushed to post their congratulations.

Su Lin Wong is a China correspondent for the Economist and is based in Hong Kong.

The reaction in China to Chloe Zhao's win at the Oscars is radically different. Censors have scrubbed almost any mention of her win from Chinese social media. No major news organizations in China have reported her win. So it seems that even the state has intervened to suppress her. And the movie.

What is it that's changed in those two months time?

So a few days after Chloe Zhao won Best Director at the Golden Globes, some Chinese Internet users pulled up old interviews that she had given. One from 2013 where in the course of a very long interview she had made one comment about China saying it was a place where there were lies everywhere. And then Internet users also found a second comment from an interview she did in 2020 where she was quoted as saying, america is now my country, ultimately. Subsequently, the news site said it had misquoted her and in fact Ms. Jao had said, america is not my country ultimately. But by then it was too late and the nationalist trolls in China had captured the narrative.

But censorship of this sort isn't new, particularly of those cultural figures who are critical of China.

So it's not just nationalist trolls that are spreading conspiracy theories and rumors and lies on social media that has long existed. What is particularly concerning now is that the state is making political decisions based on what are often rumors on Chinese social media media. But when it comes to Nomadland, in some ways, it's really quite a mind boggling story because I think there's a missed opportunity for the Communist Party. China has long admired Hollywood's success of promoting American soft power, and here is an opportunity for them to promote Chinese soft power. And then I think another aspect of this, which is something that film critics in China have sort of cheekily pointed out, is that Chinese propaganda organs have been very, very keen to promote this narrative of the decline of America, fueled by poverty and inequality in American society, juxtaposed with the rise of China. And in some ways, Nomadland is a very sensitive portrayal of seasonal workers on the margins of American society that could in fact feed into this popular narrative.

So where does all of this leave Ms. Zhao then?

So Nomadland was scheduled to be released in Chinese cinemas on April 23, but there haven't been any screenings yet. And there's a sense right now that it doesn't seem like we're going to see the film released anytime soon. That having been said, there may be room for redemption. The Global Times, which is a nationalistic Chinese tabloid, published an English language commentary on Monday praising Ms. Zhao for her warmness towards her Chinese roots. And what is quite interesting about Ms. Zhao is that her next film, which is due to be released, is a Marvel superhero movie called Eternals. Film experts I speak to say one of the reasons that Hollywood executives chose Ms. Zhao was because of her background. And they were hoping that that would help with promoting the film within China, which has now overtaken America, to become the largest box office market in the world. But I think when that decision was made, no one could have anticipated the twisted plotline that would unfold. And so now Miss Jowl might appear to be a liability to these Hollywood studios.

Su Lin, thanks very much for joining us.

Thanks very much, Jason.

That's all for this episode of the intelligence. If you like us, leave us a rating and a review and you can subscribe to the economist@examiner.com intelligenceoffer. The link is in the show Notes. See you back here tomorrow.