BC BREXIT
Saved by @Alex1Powell

Breathless accounts of brilliant negotiating are oddly unaccompanied by statements of UK wins.

 Twice the PM has signed up to deals he previously said no PM could sign up for. The level of self-deception in turning these into triumphs is off the scale.
A wise man has suggested that Johnson's self delusions are good for the UK in the way he folds under EU pressure but denies it - that this actually delivers the best result.
But it doesn't do much for the country's politcal debate to have such delusions at the heart of the most important economic relationship. And they don't have such delusions in Belfast.
Perhaps it is the way of UK politics that no leader can be seen to be pro-EU, that the UK must be seen to be bigger than the EU, even though the UK is obviously smaller and needs the EU for trade.
On current precedent the UK will continue to lean towards the EU in practice but deny it in principle. All the EU has to do is threaten us with tariffs, and after bluster, here will come the concession.
And obviously you are going to struggle to win a negotiation when your public position is totally at odds with reality, and your actual position. But you can win the media.
Still going to be very hard to rebuild international business confidence in a UK unable to give a straight answer about relations with the EU.
As for a US trade deal, anyone want to trust the Prime Minister's word that UK farmers will be protected? Do you think the US will be impressed if he threatens to walk away?
The fracturing of UK politics into the comic book version of heroes and villains, and the real one of trade-offs and choices. But the first is more fun, and the PM plays it well. The second one is dull by comparison.
The challenges for the future. For the PM, keep politics away from the real world. For Labour, either the opposite, or get better at story telling. For business, identify how to navigate the gap between their real world and Johnson's fictional one.
The high drama phase of Brexit is over. Boris Johnson and the EU won. Many books will now be written about why and how. Now for the dull grind of implementation. There might be different winners and losers. /end

More from David Henig

David Henig
David Henig
@DavidHenigUK
There is a sense of disbelief about the new trade problems between Great Britain and the EU / Northern Ireland. Which we need to lose. This is the new normal. And we face a difficult period of adjustment - immediate paperwork needs, and to longer term uncompetitiveness.

As we trade folk might have mentioned before, outside of the single market and the customs union of the EU, problems at borders are normal. Delays common. Great job of the Brexit supporters to find supposed experts claiming otherwise, but now back to reality...

Such delays at borders were in fact part of the origin of the single market, in the days when the Conservatives didn't see a contradiction between free markets and sovereignty. Such delays weren't really compatible with a supposed common market. So, the single market...

The delays and individual issues will ebb and flow. There will be new regulatory requirements in EU and UK affecting different products. But for UK and EU business as a whole it will mean UK-EU trade is more costly and less predictable, and there will be economic adjustment.

To put it bluntly, some UK firms will go out of business due to new border barriers. Some EU firms will stop supplying the UK, at a cost increase to UK consumers but a possible new opportunity for firms. This adjustment will take some time though.
EU
David Henig
David Henig
@DavidHenigUK
Ten days in and it seems the government's post-Brexit economic policy is to ignore reality, priority and choice, and just claim with no evidence that everything is going to be great. This, needless to say, is dangerous territory. Exhibit 1... 1/

Here's a good example of what is currently passing for UK economic policy. The theory the UK can be 'nimble' in regulations has been present since 2016. In 5 years nobody has found the detail. We presume others might have a similar idea. And trade needs regulations to align 2/


There will of course always be someone to blame. Usually the EU. Because they do indeed want to compete with the UK. This is not exactly surprising. A vague UK idea versus the bigger next door market (or indeed a big one over the pond). Who's going to win? 3/


Next, 'Global Britain' and specifically the Liz Truss speech in the Commons yesterday. To summarise, we are going to do trade deals on everything with everyone while still protecting UK industry and poor countries. Yup, more warm words and no priorities.

Useful example here. The long running EU-US trade battle over food, one claiming to be about quality, the other science. The UK solution. We'll do both! Fabulous, why did nobody think of this before? Unless they did, and found they still had to choose. Note other warm words 5/
BREXIT
Advertisement
David Henig
David Henig
@DavidHenigUK
This potential benefit list from CPTPP is not the longest and is still misleading. Those Malaysian whisky tariffs - emilimated over 15 years (if they don't seek any specific exemption for UK). Those rules of origin benefits? Only apply to import / export to CPTPP countries. https://t.co/9TbheOVhsR


Here's my more realistic take on CPTPP. Economic gains limited, but politically in terms of trade this makes some sort of sense, these are likely allies. DIT doesn't say this, presumably the idea of Australia or Canada as our equal upsets them.


As previously noted agriculture interests in Australia and New Zealand expect us to reach generous agreements in WTO talks and bilaterals before acceding to CPTPP. So this isn't a definite. Oh and Australia wants to know if we'll allow hormone treated beef

Ultimately trade deals are political, and the UK really wants CPTPP as part of the pivot to indo-pacific, and some adherents also hope it forces us to change food laws without having to do it in a US deal (isn't certain if this is the case or not).

If we can accede to CPTPP without having to make changes to domestic laws it is fine. Just shouldn't be our priority, as it does little for services, is geographically remote, and hardly cutting edge on issues like climate change or animal welfare.
SOCIETY
David Henig
David Henig
@DavidHenigUK
"Fail to prepare, prepare to fail" has gone from being an irritating statement trotted out on a training course to a description of the UK government's modus operandi. And as well as on covid restrictions we're seeing it in EU negotiations - deal or no-deal. And here's why... 1/

The UK's goal in EU negotiations is to declare victory / sovereignty. Sounds good. But the problem is that there will always be winners and losers in a big trade deal, because it covers everything and involves compromising with the other side. An immediate problem. 2/

Take fish, on which apparently talks are stuck. No deal means we regain full control of our waters. Victory! And sell the fish where? EU tariffs and checks. Not victory. So share waters? But then, defeat! Point being, if you don't explain, the result will disappoint. 3/

We don't want the EU setting our rules and regulations. So minimal sovereignty provisions. No-deal and victory! But then what about the car manufacturers no longer viable? Ok, compromise. But then no win on sovereignty, or perhaps call it "freedom clauses"... 4/

Northern Ireland, customs checks, rules of origin, security cooperation and so on... all inevitably to require compromise. But if your game was all about victory and sovereignty, then what? Not make a decision perhaps? 5/
ECONOMY
David Henig
David Henig
@DavidHenigUK
So, deal or no-deal? I'm afraid it looks gloomy. Too many outstanding issues, a political context that is not conducive to compromise, and a tunnel leaking like mad. Quite possibly forming between them a vicious cycle. So, is this it? I suspect not... 1/n

Recall, this UK-EU negotiation is attempting to put in place an agreement unusually extensive (haulage, aviation, security, as well as trade) in a record timescale (9 months start to implementation) at a time of pandemic. That was always optimistic. 2/

A process driven EU against a naive yet overconfident UK in a short timeframe was also never going to be easy. In particular the UK's sole evident negotiating strategy, to say we'll walk away, is still in overdrive, making compromise harder. 3/

On the up side the UK has been inching slowly away from the purist notions of sovereignty which would prevent any deal towards a more realistic haggle over details, but possibly too late to resolve them, barring unexpected deep late concessions from either side. 4/

Geography isn't changing, and trading more with neighbours isn't either. Virtually all countries in the world have deals with their neighbours. It is unrealistic for the UK to be the sole developed country exception. Even if it takes a while. 5/
POLITICS

More from Brexit

Antonello Guerrera
Antonello Guerrera
@antoguerrera
EXCLUSIVE. "We want a Brexit deal with the UK. But the EU is ready for No Deal"

I interviewed Joao @ValedeAlmeidaEU, EU’s first ambassador to the UK. He expressed many interesting comments on the ongoing #Brexit negotiations

THREAD with some

1. Ambassador Vale de Almeida:

the aim is a "fruitful, ambitious, forward-looking relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit". BUT "it is very important to make sure that the Withdrawal Agreement is fully and completely implemented".

#Brexit

2. Then he said:

Another challenge is "to engage with the British authorities, [...] Whitehall, No10, FCDO and beyond, but also with the DEVOLVED UK nations. This country is a union. It's not only the government in London, BUT ALSO the governments in the 3 devolved nations".

3. But we'll talk later about this.

Then the Ambassador said that #Brexit "is a moment of sadness because we're losing one member of the family, but also we [the EU] need to reflect, draw lessons from it" and "to be humble as well about Europe and the project itself".

4. Which lessons?

Amb: "We [EU] need to connect better with people, understand better what are people's concerns, accept that there are national situations that need to be given full attention. We need to be humble and question ourselves: "Are we doing the right thing"

#Brexit
BREXIT
Dr Matt Prescott
Dr Matt Prescott
@mattprescott
As someone whose been researching BREXT, TRUMP + RUSSIA for a couple of years, it's pretty amazing to see the media suddenly starting to ring alarm bells - after yesterday's FASCIST COUP attempt! Too many have been positively incurious or complicit with boosting TRUMP + BREXIT.

The number of JOURNALISTS and CITIZEN RESEARCHERS who have been trying to investigate the links between TRUMP, BREXIT and RUSSIA is remarkably small, and so tiny that we have all more or less found each other on Twitter... I think this is shameful.

Below I will try to credit some of the people who have made important contributions and tried to explore different aspects of this terrifying, sophisticated and wide-ranging attack on democracy... Some won't want public acknowledgement because of the associated attacks + dangers.

Carole CADWALLADR : @carolecadwalla : has done more than anyone else to highlight the role of social media, data mining and profiling in attacking DEMOCRACY. Her warnings and scoops have been studiously ignored by many in power.

... a library of Carole's articles can be found here :
BREXIT
Advertisement
Ben W. Ansell
Ben W. Ansell
@benwansell
🇬🇧🇪🇺 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

People are confusing 'causes of effects' with 'effects of causes'. What this means is that we are all interested in - the former - why Hard Brexit happened - but using arguments about how one actor did something - the latter - as our explanation. These are different! 2/n

It is completely possible that Remainers not accepting a customs union increased the probability of Hard Brexit - that's an effect of a cause. But that does not imply responsibility. Because there are lots of other causes producing the same effect. 3/n

When most of us think about 'responsibility' we have clear lines of cause and effect. This one person did this one thing thus they are responsible. But with Brexit we have lots and lots of actors doing lots of things and we have ended up at this one historical moment. 4/n

So Boris choosing one of his letters; May wanting to end free movement; SNP/Lib Dems/ChangeUK (remember them?) not voting for customs union; they all contributed to a higher probability of Hard Brexit. But it's all so fantastically contingent that we can't pick out one. 5/n
BREXIT
Pernille Rudlin/Rudlin Consulting
Pernille Rudlin/Rudlin...
@pernilleru
Japanese companies in the UK who have moved their product distribution hub to the EU in anticipation of what is now happening. One in a long thread, just to make a point that *some* companies have been preparing for worst case Brexit for years 1/13

Allegro MicroSystems Europe, semiconductors and ICs, owned by Sanken Denki, now importing into EU via Netherlands rather than UK. Amano Enzyme Europe transferred EU stock to warehouse in EU 2/13

Anritsu EMEA (sales and service of testing and measuring solutions to communications industry) all EU deliveries now go to second transport hub in Netherlands. Audio Technica established European Distribution Centre in Netherlands for Brexit (bit of a 🇳🇱theme here) 3/13

Eisai Europe (manufactures pharmaceuticals in Hatfield) transferred centralised marketing authorizations to Frankfurt, established testing and storage facilities in Antwerp. Electric Glass Fiber holding stock in EU for Brexit 4/13

Enplas Europe (semiconductors) acquired warehousing in NL for Brexit. Fujichem Sonneborn opened warehouse in Spain for Brexit. Furukawa Electric Europe shifted warehouse and distribution to Germany. 5/13
BREXIT
Nick Reeves 3.5% #FBPE
Nick Reeves 3.5% #FBPE
@nickreeves9876
1/ Brexit politics is built on fear. Frightened people tend to seek security in the tribe. Once that tribe might have been the Labour movement, but now in a fragmented post-industrial society it is the nation. Tribal identification is emotional, not rational.


2/ A tribe that feels under threat wants to control its borders, and who enters into its territory. It demands loyalty and solidarity, and its prime virtue is self-sacrifice - economic arguments won't persuade tribalists. Its members want to feel it is strong and powerful.

3/ Tribalism at a time of crisis is intolerant of dissent. The tribe must pull together against its enemies. Dissent and questioning cause division and disrupt the collective effort. Criticism is seen as treason. The Brexit right have ruthlessly exploited tribal psychology.


4/ To understand Brexit politics it is necessary to understand that the working and middle classes are dead as coherent political forces and that frightened and insecure people are now clinging to the only available powerful tribe, the nation-tribe.

5/ The Brexit right understands and ruthlessly exploits basic social emotions. In contrast the centre and centre-left mostly can see no further than the blinkered logic of rational individualism, from which perspective everything else is irrational and incomprehensible.
BREXIT

You May Also Like

Erik Torenberg
Erik Torenberg
@eriktorenberg
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
LIFE
Elon Musk\u2019s Meme \U0001f171\ufe0fot
Elon Musk’s Meme 🅱️ot...
@theMemesBot
Thats a gg, Satan
FUN
Advertisement
David Rothkopf
David Rothkopf
@djrothkopf
If there is one thing I have learned it is that people love bullshit. They buy bullshit stories from professional bullshit artists, accept bullshit philosophies, purchase bullshit how-to-books, vote for bullshitting politicians.

At first, I resisted believing this because it is illogical and dumb and frankly, doesn't reflect well on the human race of which I am a member (and thus have long been hopeful that it is more of a distinction than it actually turns out to be.)

But if you actually are interested in facts you begin to notice how little most people care for them. Sometimes it is because they are heard to learn and bullshit is so much more widely and easily available. Sometimes it is because facts make them uncomfortable about themselves.

Sometimes it is because just one tiny fact will upset a whole worldview that has grown as comfortable as an overstuffed chair. (Settling into such worldviews is a lot like settling into chairs like that because the longer you're there and the deeper you sink...

...the harder it is to hoist yourself up and out of your fat-assed intellectual laziness.) But I actually think the reason people have such an appetite for bullshit goes deeper, goes to an aspect of ourselves we just can't accept.
LIFE
Jaya_Upadhyaya
Jaya_Upadhyaya
@Jayalko1
SRI KUMARIAMMAN, KANYAKUMARI (TN)
#bharatmandir #navratri2021

Created by Maharshi Parasurama and also one among the 108 Shakthi Peethas in the world. The name Kanyakumari stands for Kanya(Virgin) and Kumari(girl).
Devi took this form to vanquish the demon Banasura
@GunduHuDuGa


Once, Banasura(grand son of Mahabali) obtained a boon from Shiva that he could be vanquished only by a virgin.
So, Devi took the form of a kumari and started meditating with the desire to marry Shiva at Suchindram.
Pleased Shiva fixed the midnight hour for marriage with Devi.


Devarshi Narada knew that the marriage would end the chance of killing Banasura. So, he assumed the form of a cock and crowed. Shiva returned back to Suchindram thinking that it was dawn.
Angered, Devi cursed that all food and articles meant for wedding turn into sand and shells


When Banasura heard about Devi’s beauty, he tried to take her by force. Devi, then, killed him and granted the wish of Devas to remain there always protecting them.
The murti of Devi stands with a rosary in hand. Her diamond nose-ring is said to be visible even from the sea.


Once an ancient mariner mistook it for a lighthouse and sailing towards it, his ship wrecked upon the Kanya Kumari rocks. In order to prevent such a tragedy from happening again, the eastern door of the shrine is opened only on five special occasions throughout the year.
ALL
David Rothkopf
David Rothkopf
@djrothkopf
Pretending that voting for Trump or denying climate change or suggesting the solution to every problem is more guns is a legitimate point of view, worthy of respect is not "how America works." It is how it dies.

People in a free society are entitled to any point of view no matter how obviously wrong or outlandish or destructive provided they do not impose their views on others.

But suggesting that something ignorant or divorced from reality warrants the same kind of treatment in public debate as something based in fact or at least credible is absurd and when done on behalf of a society in public media or academic settings it is self-destructive.

We would not grant media coverage or much bandwidth at all to a group that argued that unicorns exist or that there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Yet views like denying climate change or basing policy decisions on sweeping, obvious lies, are just as unsound.

Somewhere, somehow, judgments must be made. Some behaviors are wrong and must be condemned. Someone must challenge lies and demand facts. Coddling people who embrace idiocies does not help them no matter how loudly they demand to be coddled.
POLITICS