At today's Future Relationship with the European Union Committee - we're hearing from @CSBarnard24 that the deal has a slightly "alice in wonderland quality" about it - nothing really appears quite as it first looks. If you compare to what we had until 1 Jan, it falls short. 1/

For example, there's a statement that the dispute resolution mechanisms doesn’t apply, but if you plough on until the end you see that some chunks of the DSM are actually incorporated over non-regression provisions. @CSBarnard24 2/
From @SamuelMarcLowe: "the premise of this agreement [is] to remove tariffs & do v little to remove barriers to trade and services. If you’re prioritising the economic status quo and economic integration with Europe then of course this deal is going to disappoint you." 3/
"This deal is actually very unstable", says @CSBarnard24. "One of the problems is that this constant contestation of the deal creates quite a lot of difficulties for businesses." 4/
"If you’re a car manufacturer that wants to invest in a new plant, you don’t know whether tariffs are going to be imposed either because the deal is brought to an end or due to potential govt retaliation - this is the main concern of this deal." @CSBarnard24 5/
From @RaoulRuparel: "There are lots of parts where we don’t know yet what they mean until they’re put in place - a ‘grey area’, such as parts of LPF in terms of non-regression. How is that going to be defined? These sorts of things are up in the air until they’re tested." 6/
More on the deal's instability from @CSBarnard24: "There are so many ways that this trade agreement can be brought to an end by either party. We can terminate the agreement on 1y notice. Equally, the deal is also something to review in 5y and there will be a vote in NI in 4y." 7/
From @RaoulRuparel "Labour law & social employment law likely to be biggest areas that could become an issue. Working time came 10y ago and has been evolving. It will take time to emerge, not a big bang issue but something that happens overtime until we reach a tipping point." 8/
Disagreement with @pritipatel that the UK will be safer. @CSBarnard24 says "UK instrumental in setting up all of these mechanisms when it was a member of the EU and the fact is a number of them have been turned off and we’ve been refused access to them." 9/
Of particular concern is the loss of access to the Schengen Information System (SIS) "which we previously used 600million times a year" @CSBarnard24 10/

More from Brexit

Two excellent questions at the end of a very sensible thread summarising the post-Brexit UK FP debate. My own take at attempting to offer an answer - ahead of the IR is as follow:


1. The two versions have a converging point: a tilt to the Indo-pacific doesn’t preclude a role as a convening power on global issues;
2. On the contrary, it underwrites the credibility for leadership on global issues, by seeking to strike two points:

A. Engaging with a part of the world in which world order and global issues are central to security, prosperity, and - not least - values;
B. Propelling the UK towards a more diversified set of economic, political, and security ties;

3. The tilt towards the Indo-Pacific whilst structurally based on a realist perception of the world, it is also deeply multilateral. Central to it is the notion of a Britain that is a convening power.
4. It is as a result a notion that stands on the ability to renew diplomacy;

5. It puts in relation to this a premium on under-utilised formats such as FPDA, 5Eyes, and indeed the Commonwealth - especially South Pacific islands;
6. It equally puts a premium on exploring new bilateral and multilateral formats. On former, Japan, Australia. On latter, Quad;
This very short article by Jeremy Cliffe is the best thing I have ever read on Brexit and the EU. It pivots on the contrast between Delors’ and Thatcher’s authentically provincial Christian visions and suggests the battle in Britain between the two is not over.


Thatcher: Protestant believer in the totally free market and absolutely sovereign centralised nation state. Delors: Catholic believer in third way personalism, corporatism and federalism. Individualism versus relational love. Heterodoxy versus Orthodoxy.

The article useful gives the lie to the idea that the Catholic vision of the EU has altogether vanished even though it is weakened. Delors wanted a social dimension to the free market and single currency and yet lexiteers laughably insist the EU is more neoliberal than the U.K.!

Subsidiary federalism is a doctrine of democracy and human fraternity. State sovereignty is a doctrine of naked power. It is a face of Antichrist. Leviathan.

Those combined that democracy can only be inside a single state fail to power just how much of private law and evermore so is necessarily international. Thus if political institutions don’t extend over borders there can be no democracy.

You May Also Like