Small business in particular struggling with new Brexit red tape. Entirely predictable, and a function of a world trade system distorted against smaller traders. Stay with me a short while as Brexit threadmeister and story author @pmdfoster may say... 1/

"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/

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/

Plenty of talk this morning about how UK sovereignty is what is stopping an EU deal, that the EU want to impinge on this.

Sorry, the argument is totally bogus. It is a combination of EU hatred and cakeism dressed up in respectable clothing. 1/ n

How do we define sovereignty in trade deals? Complex question, so let's just look at this government. It believes in trade deals and membership of the WTO. These contain binding rules. Therefore for this government sovereignty and binding rules are compatible. 2/

Therefore sovereignty in terms of trade rules for this government is a relative concept either in content or partner terms. So when they say the EU proposals go too far is that because of what is proposed, or who it is proposed with? 3/

We haven't been told the detail. But with regard to the level playing field it is suggested that no country could sign up to a situation where not following the rules leads to tariffs being imposed. However we agree to this in the WTO and FTAs. So that is untrue. 4/

Fish is a slightly different matter, and it is being said that the EU proposal would deny the UK control of our waters. But definitionally that can't be true. We're showing our control through the discussion. We don't have to do a deal. 5/

The first working day of the new UK-EU relationship. We're going to hear a lot this year from all sides (remain and Brexit in UK, EU, etc) using any possible scrap of evidence. But what we need to look for is trends, over time, so a few to think about in this thread... 1/

Obvious disruption or reduction to UK-EU trade flow. Here we may be thinking e.g. of a permanent 10% fall in traffic, or regular queues, or indeed no change. And apart from goods, the same with individual travel, for work, residence etc... 2/

As a reminder we're not expecting permanent scenes like those of the week before Christmas when borders were closed. But 5-10% reductions in UK-EU traffic would not seem to be out of line with economic forecasts of a hit to the UK economy. 3/

Then we'll need to look at whether UK-EU trade is being substituted by UK-non EU trade. This probably should happen to a degree, and in theory efficiencies could come this way. But its also possible that all UK trade falls, with the UK no longer an EU entry point. 4/

Inward investment is another key post-Brexit indicator. There isn't a single obvious data set here, but the impression of the last four years has been a fall off in manufacturing, but not in services, particularly tech. Continuation would suggest economy tilting to services. 5/

It's OUT! My latest #Brexit Briefing for @FinancialTimes - examining @BorisJohnson
"buy now, pay later" Northern Ireland Protocol, why the EU-UK trust deficit is killing it, how that can be restored - because it needs to work. /1

@BorisJohnson The danger here is that lingering animus over the opportunistic nature Johnson's Faustian bargain - dividing his Kingdom in order to 'get #Brexit done' and win an 80-seat majority - is clouding judgement on both sides of the Channel /2

@BorisJohnson The facts of the Protocol are no less true for Johnson's constant denial of them - that there would be checks, that there really is a trade border that now prevents plants and pets from travelling freely from Bedford to Ballymena as M.Gove reminds us. But these are other facts/3

@BorisJohnson Firstly, NI remains part of UK, even if it is now has EU customs rules.

Secondly, NI remains politically divided and fragile; the Good Friday Agreement is a constant work in progress.

Thirdly, both the EU and the UK agreed to this unsatisfactory arrangement jointly. /4

@BorisJohnson Fourthly, therefore, they have a joint responsibility to make it work because

Fifthly - and most importantly — there is no alternative to it. /5

Ok, here's my first bash at how I think UK-EU fisheries will be managed in future now we have the agreement

It’s quite complicated in parts, so would appreciate any corrections…

@StevePeers @BD_Stew @AntonSpisak (& others)

1) QUOTAS: For the next 5.5 years (until end-June 2026), each side’s quotas are set out in the agreement

This amounts to a 25% value reduction for the EU gradually over this period

2) These quotas shares set a new baseline for 2026, but they will be up for negotiation from thereon

3) CATCH LEVELS: However, they will still both need to negotiate overall allowed catch levels for each year, starting in 2021

By 31 Jan, a schedule must be agreed for talks, culminating in final agreement by 10 December (this fits in with the internal EU fisheries negotiation)

4) PROVISIONAL ACCESS: If there’s no agreement by 20 December, each side will apply a provisional allowable catch level for 1 January, defined by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea based on scientific recommendations

Here is thread with few facts relevant to current drama on Brexit deal or rather more likely NO DEAL - FOR NOW!
1.) If we have to go to ‘no deal’ (/Australia deal) we will be doing what most members of World Trade Organisation (WTO - covering virtually every country in world) do.

2/ 2/3rds of trading in world is done under WTO rules. USA exports more than UK does to EU but does so under WTO rules; so does China.
2.) If tariffs have to be imposed under ‘no deal’ WTO rules, the EU will pay £12bn in tariffs a year and the U.K. £5bn (ref: Civitas) -

3/ (ref: Civitas) - because tariffs hit mostly agricultural EU goods, such as 40% on cheeses & 12% on wine;
3.) The £12bn income from tariffs will come to UK Treasury, not Brussels. Effectively these will be UK consumer taxes that could perhaps go towards reducing COVID debt?;

4/ 4.) 43% of UK exports do yes go to EU; but this is small proportion of our actual economy: only 7.5% UK GDP are goods exports to EU; 13.5% with services. Only 8% UK companies even trade with EU. (@BBCNews please show balance on this). Most of our trade is internal within UK.

5/ over 2/3rds (SNP take note!); so tariffs will effect a small proportion of UK exports (though some sectors will be hit hard;
5.) By definition, 57% of U.K. exports go to Rest of the World. Growth outside of Europe is forecast to be 90% of all growth over next 15-20 years.

Today's UK-EU trade deal reflection - what is rarely stated in discussions about the deal's shortcomings is that they reflect UK government policy choices - in particular that control of immigration and a US trade deal are a higher priority than an EU deal.

Thus, why was it not a UK government priority to secure for UK musicians the rights to tour the EU? Because that would probably have required a reciprocal right to be given to those in the EU, which we didn't want to give. Choice.

Meanwhile why did the UK government not seek or secure a reduction in food inspections for GB products going to the EU? Because that would probably have required fixing food regulations in a way that might have been an obstacle to a US trade deal.

Works the other way as well. Why did the EU refuse UK requests on mutual recognition of industrial testing? In part at least because of UK lack of commitment on maintaining the previous EU system of standards and conformity assessment which might be a problem in a US deal.

One of the strangest opinions in the London politics bubble is that the UK government isn't that bothered about a US trade deal, as it so obviously goes against the evidence. There might be domestic opposition, but this was to be Brexit Dividend Number 1.

The risks that arise from Merkel's departure this year aren't really linked to her succession, but rather the vacuum she leaves behind in Europe. For Brexit/UK watchers, this is an important transitional year for the EU - & one worth paying attention to
Thread 1/

The outcome of Ger elections in Sept is highly likely to be a Black/Green coalition. Positive for Ger & EU. All the contenders to replace Merkel are also mainstream, some just more conservative than others. See @NazMasraff & @COdendahl very good analysis & threads for more 2/

Yet despite this constructive outcome, in short & medium term, Merkel’s departure will leave a large gap in EU no leader can credibly fill. @EmmanuelMacron will try, but without Merkel or strong partnership in Berlin, his more disruptive, abrasive style won't succeed 3/

Merkel's presidency last year is a class example of her deft political skills. Landing deals with UK & China (whose real value is framework & basis for broader political co-operation they provide); on €750bn Recovery Fund & rule of law; & climate 4/

Of course there's a lot of criticism about compromises she brokered. There is some truth to them. But very often these critiques pay little serious attention to the counterfactual, for eg, of leaving Pol & Hu behind. I think the price would have been too high to pay 5/