One of the root causes of the Govt's Brexit difficulties is that it has overpromised.

We can, it is said, reclaim our sovereignty, with the freedom to make our own rules, and, at the same time, retain many of the advantages of EU membership. 1/14

The reality is that we cannot.

Unless we agree to certain standards and rules (and there is scope to argue about which rules), there will be borders, and checks, and tariffs. 2/
There will always be a relationship between rights (eg tariff free access to EU/UK markets) and responsibilities (eg abiding by level-playing field commitments). 3/
A 'good' outcome for the UK, in the Govt's view, would involve access gains (eg fewer border checks) without corresponding obligations (or with weak, or difficult-to-enforce obligations). 4/
The chances of this sort of 'good' outcome are low. The EU looks likely, in the face of the threats in the Internal Market Bill and now the Finance Bill, to insist on rigorous governance provisions. [Also, such provisions are the foundation of the single market.] 5/
It is easy to understand why Vote Leave overpromised way back in 2016. They had a referendum to win.

It is far harder to understand why, in the years since 2016, there has not been a dampening of expectations. 6/
As a result of the mythologised hype, any deal will look like desperately thin gruel. It is literally impossible for any deal to live up to the expectations which Vote Leave and the Govt have spent years stoking. 9/
So, as deals hove into view, the UK finds itself unable to commit. Why? Because the Govt knows that the Brexit it is proposing to deliver does not match the claims it has made, and is still making, for Brexit. 10/
Much of the commentary underestimates just how difficult it will be for PM Johnson to sell a thin deal whose disruptive consequences will start to become apparent in a matter of days. 11/
So, he is stuck in a familiar place - overpromising and underdelivering.

I can't help thinking that he would be in a much better political place had he started toning down the Vote Leave rhetoric some time ago... 12/
...enabling a more mature debate to take place, about the UK's preferred balance of rights and responsibilities, and about the nature of the UK's continuing relationship with the EU. 13/
That debate hasn't happened. Instead, the Govt's rhetoric has pushed the UK towards an ever harder Brexit.

Lots of damage has already been done. And there will be lots more to come. 14/14

More from All

Master Thread of all my threads!

Hello!! 👋

• I have curated some of the best tweets from the best traders we know of.

• Making one master thread and will keep posting all my threads under this.

• Go through this for super learning/value totally free of cost! 😃

1. 7 FREE OPTION TRADING COURSES FOR


2. THE ABSOLUTE BEST 15 SCANNERS EXPERTS ARE USING

Got these scanners from the following accounts:

1. @Pathik_Trader
2. @sanjufunda
3. @sanstocktrader
4. @SouravSenguptaI
5. @Rishikesh_ADX


3. 12 TRADING SETUPS which experts are using.

These setups I found from the following 4 accounts:

1. @Pathik_Trader
2. @sourabhsiso19
3. @ITRADE191
4.


4. Curated tweets on HOW TO SELL STRADDLES.

Everything covered in this thread.
1. Management
2. How to initiate
3. When to exit straddles
4. Examples
5. Videos on

You May Also Like

I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x


The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x

Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x

The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x

It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x