🚨🇬🇧🇪🇺🚛🍤🐟🥬📦✈️🇬🇧🇪🇺🚨
So here it is. After the euphoria, the @FinancialTimes @FTMag long read of how @BorisJohnson did his Trade deal with the EU. Tl:dr...not so much “build back better”, more “build back the borders” - stay with me/1.
Well, for example leaving EU aviation safety agency (EASA); Chemicals agency (ECHA), not getting a waiver of 'safety and security' declarations for hauliers, not seeking special arrangements for animal products...on and on it goes /4
Did Whitehall object? Yes it did - Defra and Beis and Treasury all tried at some level to temper the revolutionary fury. But mostly failed. /5
https://t.co/DE5wV3HNH6
\U0001f6a8\u2708\ufe0f\u2708\ufe0f\u2708\ufe0f\U0001f4a5\U0001f4a5\U0001f4a5\U0001f6a8
— Peter Foster (@pmdfoster) March 10, 2020
EXCORIATING OpEd from \u2066@PauleverittADS\u2069 on \u2066\u2066@grantshapps\u2069 decision not to seek assoc membership of EU air safety body EASA after #brexit - says govt is ideological and not listening. \U0001f525\U0001f525\U0001f5251/thread
https://t.co/S1Z8Ui5ar7
https://t.co/kYX7jOn8n9
Andrew Neil tells @MakeUK_ manufacturing conference that 10 Downing Street is happy to see the end of complex, cross-border supply chains after Brexit.
— Joe Mayes (@Joe_Mayes) February 25, 2020
`Those days are coming to an end', @afneil says
Says govt. sees rise of 3D printing, more domestic sourcing as the future pic.twitter.com/yAfH4IMU9a
https://t.co/1kLxFovh1U
So that 'success' defined by @BorisJohnson's own terms - landing a Canada-style deal - meant the constriction of trade. We slipped through the looking glass./11
Wow/12
https://t.co/vH7H8p44zZ
https://t.co/fNX50cPPKu
https://t.co/o88fnMkQKy
https://t.co/FPP3IgFHLH
Odd to be so proud of a Canada deal, then disown it. /18
less flexible"...but the upside seems less clear. /19
More from Peter Foster
Another head-banging day for the £112bn UK creative sector that is starting to ingest how difficult #Brexit is going to make their lives - and how little the government is really willing to do to fix the lack of a 'mobility' chapter in the EU-UK trade deal. Quick update.../1
First Equity @EquityUK put out a letter to @BorisJohnson warning that #brexit was a "towering hurdle" (you'd want Brian Blessed reading that part) to UK actors plying their trade in EU - a double whammy with #COVID19 /2
https://t.co/mXjTAISqZk
@BorisJohnson One third of Equity members say they've seen job ads asking for EU passport holders: "Before, we were able to travel to Europe visa-free. Now we have to pay hundreds of pounds, fill in form after form, and spend weeks waiting for approval" /3
@BorisJohnson Worth recalling that all this goes back to the UK desire NOT to have a 'mobility' provision within the TCA - all part of 'ending Free Movement' and the professional services folk - including musicians, actors, fashion models etc -are all victim of
@BorisJohnson What's the government going to do about all this? Good question, which brings us to todays @CommonsDCMS hearing in which the Culture Minister Caroline Dinenage @cj_dinenage frankly pin-balled around the issues /5
First Equity @EquityUK put out a letter to @BorisJohnson warning that #brexit was a "towering hurdle" (you'd want Brian Blessed reading that part) to UK actors plying their trade in EU - a double whammy with #COVID19 /2
https://t.co/mXjTAISqZk
@BorisJohnson One third of Equity members say they've seen job ads asking for EU passport holders: "Before, we were able to travel to Europe visa-free. Now we have to pay hundreds of pounds, fill in form after form, and spend weeks waiting for approval" /3
@BorisJohnson Worth recalling that all this goes back to the UK desire NOT to have a 'mobility' provision within the TCA - all part of 'ending Free Movement' and the professional services folk - including musicians, actors, fashion models etc -are all victim of
@BorisJohnson What's the government going to do about all this? Good question, which brings us to todays @CommonsDCMS hearing in which the Culture Minister Caroline Dinenage @cj_dinenage frankly pin-balled around the issues /5
So. The hunt is on in Whitehall for #brexit dividends...to show some clear value in the freedoms given by Brexit.
As we report today one area being looked at is workers' rights...but it is politically difficult territory.
No cabinet decisions have been taken, but per sources, three potential areas been identified in Business Dept...
- the 48 Hour Week
- holiday pay/overtime calculations
- new EU rules on reporting hours worked...
All potentially possible post #brexit /2
The government says it has no intention of “lowering” workers’ rights....and notes that UK has actually gold-plated many EU regulations...BUT (think of government saying it won't "lower" animal welfare standards)...the devil will all be in the detail, if and when it comes /3
So the government likes to talk about ensuring workers’ rights are protected but ALSO making sure businesses has freedoms and flexibility to grow...so one man's reduction in rights is another freedom to get richer/work harder/be more prosperous. It depends how you sell it. /4
So take this 2017 story from The Sun on the cash bonanza that will be rained down on hardworking families by Brexiteers' (long standing) desire to scrap the 48-hour week. Overtime booooom..../5
https://t.co/QLqQ7rCzkv
As we report today one area being looked at is workers' rights...but it is politically difficult territory.
No cabinet decisions have been taken, but per sources, three potential areas been identified in Business Dept...
- the 48 Hour Week
- holiday pay/overtime calculations
- new EU rules on reporting hours worked...
All potentially possible post #brexit /2
The government says it has no intention of “lowering” workers’ rights....and notes that UK has actually gold-plated many EU regulations...BUT (think of government saying it won't "lower" animal welfare standards)...the devil will all be in the detail, if and when it comes /3
So the government likes to talk about ensuring workers’ rights are protected but ALSO making sure businesses has freedoms and flexibility to grow...so one man's reduction in rights is another freedom to get richer/work harder/be more prosperous. It depends how you sell it. /4
So take this 2017 story from The Sun on the cash bonanza that will be rained down on hardworking families by Brexiteers' (long standing) desire to scrap the 48-hour week. Overtime booooom..../5
https://t.co/QLqQ7rCzkv
BREAK: 🚨🚨🇫🇷🇬🇧🚗🚙🚗🚙🚗🚙🚗🚙🚗🚙🚗🇫🇷🇬🇧🚢🚢🚢🚨🚨 The UK rejects Dover funding bid to double French passport booths via @FT - long queues ahead...as other ports also don’t get money they asked for to build #brexit border. Stay with me/1 thread
So what is this all about? Well back in October the govt announced a £200m Port Infrastructure Fund - details below - for ports to get ready for the new trade processes for #Brexit border. Dealing with those 215m extra customs decs etc..
Today we find out what everyone got - but it turns out that 54 ports asked for more than £450m - so a LOT have been bitterly disappointed. Not just Dover (on which more in a second)...they are furious the government is not willing to fully fund the very borders they mandated /3
So here is the list of what everyone got - 41 ports had winning bids totaling just over £194m - but you'll note that Dover got...wait for it...£33k. No, that is not a type. Thirty-three thousand pounds. They asked for £33m!! Why? Well to build new passport lanes. /4
Why? Because as an @NAOorguk report warned in November the Govt's 'reasonable worst case scenario' for delays at Dover for passenger traffic was "one to two hours" and "much longer" in the summer. Eeek. Happy hols everyone! /5
https://t.co/K77Is5tfxk
So what is this all about? Well back in October the govt announced a £200m Port Infrastructure Fund - details below - for ports to get ready for the new trade processes for #Brexit border. Dealing with those 215m extra customs decs etc..
Today we find out what everyone got - but it turns out that 54 ports asked for more than £450m - so a LOT have been bitterly disappointed. Not just Dover (on which more in a second)...they are furious the government is not willing to fully fund the very borders they mandated /3
So here is the list of what everyone got - 41 ports had winning bids totaling just over £194m - but you'll note that Dover got...wait for it...£33k. No, that is not a type. Thirty-three thousand pounds. They asked for £33m!! Why? Well to build new passport lanes. /4
Why? Because as an @NAOorguk report warned in November the Govt's 'reasonable worst case scenario' for delays at Dover for passenger traffic was "one to two hours" and "much longer" in the summer. Eeek. Happy hols everyone! /5
https://t.co/K77Is5tfxk
More from Brexit
It is time to talk Brexit and standards again. (thread)
Let's start off with: I don't think any trade experts are surprised by this. It is why the TCA did not do much on SPS. It is why the EU did not offer much on SPS. It is why the UK did not ask much on SPS.
But it also shows that the popular slogan "after Brexit we'll have the same standards as before, so why would anything change in trade" was wrong - and worse, it was purposefully trying to stifle a necessary debate.
And this leads me to the next point: I have no issue with changing the rules, I have a massive issue with how it is done. Here's what we should discuss:
The decisive question: What are the standards the UK as a country wants. To inform this debate, we need the following information:
London intends to make use of its costly SPS regulatory autonomy. As widely anticipated, first area of divergence expected to take place in the field of Crispr technology for genome editing, area where the UK has long argued for a more liberal stance.https://t.co/btRoxU3saZ
— Emily Rees (@emilyrees_eu) January 7, 2021
Let's start off with: I don't think any trade experts are surprised by this. It is why the TCA did not do much on SPS. It is why the EU did not offer much on SPS. It is why the UK did not ask much on SPS.
But it also shows that the popular slogan "after Brexit we'll have the same standards as before, so why would anything change in trade" was wrong - and worse, it was purposefully trying to stifle a necessary debate.
And this leads me to the next point: I have no issue with changing the rules, I have a massive issue with how it is done. Here's what we should discuss:
The decisive question: What are the standards the UK as a country wants. To inform this debate, we need the following information:
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.
The rupture between Margaret Thatcher and Jacques Delors lives on in Brexit https://t.co/r3YiyPoSFB
— john milbank (@johnmilbank3) January 9, 2021
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
The first area to focus on is diversity. This has become a dogma in the tech world, and despite the fact that tech is one of the most meritocratic industries in the world, there are constant efforts to promote diversity at the expense of fairness, merit and competency. Examples:
USC's Interactive Media & Games Division cancels all-star panel that included top-tier game developers who were invited to share their experiences with students. Why? Because there were no women on the
ElectronConf is a conf which chooses presenters based on blind auditions; the identity, gender, and race of the speaker is not known to the selection team. The results of that merit-based approach was an all-male panel. So they cancelled the conference.
Apple's head of diversity (a black woman) got in trouble for promoting a vision of diversity that is at odds with contemporary progressive dogma. (She left the company shortly after this
Also in the name of diversity, there is unabashed discrimination against men (especially white men) in tech, in both hiring policies and in other arenas. One such example is this, a developer workshop that specifically excluded men: https://t.co/N0SkH4hR35
USC's Interactive Media & Games Division cancels all-star panel that included top-tier game developers who were invited to share their experiences with students. Why? Because there were no women on the
ElectronConf is a conf which chooses presenters based on blind auditions; the identity, gender, and race of the speaker is not known to the selection team. The results of that merit-based approach was an all-male panel. So they cancelled the conference.
Apple's head of diversity (a black woman) got in trouble for promoting a vision of diversity that is at odds with contemporary progressive dogma. (She left the company shortly after this
Also in the name of diversity, there is unabashed discrimination against men (especially white men) in tech, in both hiring policies and in other arenas. One such example is this, a developer workshop that specifically excluded men: https://t.co/N0SkH4hR35
"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".