They have started in the Scottish case

Looks like a near-concession that the side letter is Padfield-compliant

Been a lot of discussion recently around services trade in the deal between the UK and EU. Having read through the agreement over the past couple of days, my impressions👇

First off, services is definitely included. Question for service providers, is will it be enough?

1/N

My overall impression is that the EU has offered among the best in class for its FTAs similar to Canada and Japan.

But this access is a far cry from access to the Single Market and how is constructed as part of a trade agreement for the EU reflects that.

2/n

Unlike for goods trade, once you've got a product through all the customs and regulatory procedures into the EU, it can be sold anywhere in the EU, or its "entered circulation".

For services trade, that isn't the case. Its still done on a member state by member state level.

3/n

This is even true in the trade agreement itself where although the provisions set out in the Services and Investment chapter sounds awfully good - lots of principles about the freedom to establish and allowing the cross-border trade in services.

It's only when...

4/n

You get to the annexes and you realise both the EU and individual member states have put entry conditions across huge areas of different services sectors both now (existing measures) & in the future. Don't worry too much about the future reservations, it's the existing ones.

5/n

🇬🇧🇪🇺 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

On March 17, the Netherlands will have general elections.

Two parties - PVV & FVD - want a Nexit, a departure from the EU, in line with Brexit.

As the reality of the EU-UK trade agreement kicks in, let's take a look at what these parties

Firstly, good to note, here is their recent polling,

PVV: 14% - 23 seats (currently 20 seats)
FVD: 2.5% - 4 seats (currently 2 seats)

A government needs 76 seats to govern.

Give or take, these parties appeal to about 20% of the electorate.

/2

FVD wants a so-called "intelligent Nexit" because - arguably - they think the UK's departure was not-so-intelligent.

"Intelligent" Nexit. Lots of nodding

But FVD doesn't want to leave the EU, they want an end to the EU.

/3

They want a "different cooperation model among sovereign states" based around free trade, conveniently assuming that the EU will automatically cease to exist once the Dutch vote 'Leave'.

And EFTA should be the basis for the new model.

/4

It's full-on 'magical thinking'.

If you want to join EFTA, sure, make the case.

But be truthful about what it means.

The FVD decides to disregard the EEA agreement, which governs trade between the EFTA-4 and the EU27, and the EU rules and regs that EFTA countries follow.

/5