🇬🇧🇪🇺 Who caused Hard Brexit? Some thoughts from the perspective of a social scientist. In the last few days we have seen an interminable debate on whether Remainers, Soft Brexiters, or Hard Brexiters are responsible for Hard Brexit. And it’s a false debate. Why? 1/n

1/ Lots of good analysis out there on why the EU-China CAI is a bad decision in the context of Xinjiang, transatlantic partnerships, etc. But I also think that even the trade/econ benefits of the CAI look quite limited. Thread:

2/ It highlights, as a win, that China’s preservation of existing liberalizations. That’s positive, but not really a big problem; the bigger issue is stagnation, where reform pledges have failed to materialize after years/decades of promises. Great example is in the FDI openings,

3/ which are highlighted to include cloud, auto, fin services etc—all areas of EU/MNC interest. Thing is, these openings aren’t new. China has begun opening auto/finance since 2018/19, while the 50% cap on cloud services has remained unchanged since 2015 (or before if we consider

4/ WTO ascension commitments vs the 2015 Telecom Catalogue, but that’s for another day). So these are existing openings that are repackaged as “wins.” More critical issue beyond FDI caps is around licensing issuance, which still big problem. Arguably some more significance in

5/ R&D and health? Not an expert, but the FDI conditions (eg hospitals only in certain cities) are limiting, while R&D could be complicated by data/info controls. It’s also unclear how existing tech transfer prohibitions exceed existing protections in the foreign investment law,

1/ What are the ‘new’ demands the UK says the EU has made in the Brexit talks and are they actually new? There are 3 specific areas of contention that have emerged, one each on state aid rules, the Level Playing Field/Governance, and fish. None of them should be a total surprise.

2/ First, on state aid. The UK says the EU wants the Commission and European Investment Bank to be given carve-outs from the subsidy control provisions in the deal. It says this would create an unfair imbalance, because there would be no similar exemption for British authorities.

3/ This is particularly relevant in light of the bloc's €750bn Coronavirus recovery fund. It has already been delayed by an internal political row, and the EU is keen to ensure that isn't exacerbated by legal disputes with the UK next year. Brussels denies this is anything new.

4/ The Commission is an ex ante regulator, meaning it is called in to pre-authorise state aid spending by EU countries. The EU wants the UK to set up its own independent regulator to approve subsidies in the same way. If it does so, many of the state aid problems will fall away.

5/ LPF/Governance. This is about the 'ratchet clause' which the EU has relabelled as 'equivalence' of standards. It addresses what happens if one side raises its standards on say environmental or labour rules in the future and the other doesn't, creating a competitive imbalance.

Bloody hell some ones built a hall of shame for the SNP.

https://t.co/qxyMnUS4iX

1. Derek Mackay sending text messages to a sixteen-year-old boy telling him he was really cute.

2. Mhairi Black bringing a drag queen called Flowjob to a primary school

3. Derek Mackay spending £230 million on ferries that were not built

4. John Swinney overseeing an exam fiasco leading to marks being inflated

5. John Swinney being responsible for teaching primary school children about anal sex, rimming and pornography.

6. Natalie McGarry resigned the SNP whip because of fraud offences relating to the Women for Independence group. She pleaded guilty was convicted and jailed, but later had the conviction quashed. She still faces trial for embezzlement.

7. SNP coverup over the Covid outbreak connected with Nike in Edinburgh

8. SNP Government involved in clinical waste storage scandal

9. SNP MPs Chris Law, Ian Blackford and Brendan O’Hara had expenses claims totally £760,000 from the UK Parliament. They were the three with the

The fuel injected Brexiter comments on the EU's vaccine problems miss many points.

1) no-one wanted to get out of the EU or the single market to protect ourselves better against a pandemic. See Brexit Tory controlled government policy 2016-2020 regarding the NHS and pandemic preparedness.

2) we could have, and, perhaps thanks to the need to genuflect to nationalists, or out of pragmatic needs, chosen to go our own way on procurement even within the EU.

3) none of this explains why it's good to be outside the single market, restricting our trade and making us poorer.

4) the implicit celebration of the vaccine nationalist cause, seemingly [but not actually] permitted by Brexit, ignores how this game plays out, namely: