1/ What are the ‘new’ demands the UK says the EU has made in the Brexit talks and are they actually new? There are 3 specific areas of contention that have emerged, one each on state aid rules, the Level Playing Field/Governance, and fish. None of them should be a total surprise.

2/ First, on state aid. The UK says the EU wants the Commission and European Investment Bank to be given carve-outs from the subsidy control provisions in the deal. It says this would create an unfair imbalance, because there would be no similar exemption for British authorities.
3/ This is particularly relevant in light of the bloc's €750bn Coronavirus recovery fund. It has already been delayed by an internal political row, and the EU is keen to ensure that isn't exacerbated by legal disputes with the UK next year. Brussels denies this is anything new.
4/ The Commission is an ex ante regulator, meaning it is called in to pre-authorise state aid spending by EU countries. The EU wants the UK to set up its own independent regulator to approve subsidies in the same way. If it does so, many of the state aid problems will fall away.
5/ LPF/Governance. This is about the 'ratchet clause' which the EU has relabelled as 'equivalence' of standards. It addresses what happens if one side raises its standards on say environmental or labour rules in the future and the other doesn't, creating a competitive imbalance.
6/ The EU has asked to be able to take rebalancing measures (i.e tariffs on UK goods) in such a scenario. The real controversy over this is that it wants the Commission to have the power to unilaterally judge what constitutes 'uncompetitive' behaviour to ensure a swift response.
7/ This is widely seen as a French priority. Indeed, in an interview this morning Europe Minister Clement Beaune said: 'For our part, we are ready to put in place a system in which a divergence of standards would be allowed, but beyond which corrective measures would be taken.'
8/ The UK sees this as a roundabout way of enforcing alignment. And some EU countries are uneasy about the idea unilateral action could be taken against Britain without some form of independent legal adjudication. There is an expectation this demand won't make the final deal.
9/ Indeed, the real action in the talks is said to be around agreeing a legal framework on non-regression from current shared standards. The EU side is disappointed that the UK has so far dragged its feet on this commitment, which was included in its original negotiating aims.
10/ Finally, fish. The UK says the EU is asking for 10 years of 'unfettered' access to British waters. A few weeks ago Brussels floated the idea of a review clause, which after a decade would see shares of quotas re-evaluated in light of the balance of the wider trade deal.
11/ This is essentially just the re-emergence of that idea. The UK has offered a three-year transition period to cushion the blow to European fishermen, but Brussels is holding out for 10 years. The expectation in the end is that both sides will meet in the middle on this one.
12/ So, why the big row now? The optimists on the EU side say it's all a straw man to create the cover for a deal by mid-week. The pessimists warn the divergences are very real and there's a 'tough road ahead'. The UK insists it's serious and the EU must budge from these demands.

More from Brexit

A quote from this excellent piece, neatly summarising a core impact of Brexit.

The Commission’s view, according to several sources, is that Brexit means existing distribution networks and supply chains are now defunct and will have to be replaced by other systems.


Of course, this was never written on the side of a bus. And never acknowledged by government. Everything was meant to be broadly fine apart from the inevitable teething problems.

It was, however, visible from space to balanced observers. You did not have to be a trade specialist to understand that replacing the Single Market with a third country trade arrangement meant the end of many if not all of the complex arrangements optimised for the former.

In the absence of substantive mitigations, the Brexit winners are those who subscribe to some woolly notion of ‘sovereignty’ and those who did not like freedom of movement. The losers are everyone else.

But, of course, that’s not good enough. For understandable reasons Brexit was sold as a benefit not a cost. The trading benefits of freedom would far outweigh the costs. Divergence would benefit all.

You May Also Like

So the cryptocurrency industry has basically two products, one which is relatively benign and doesn't have product market fit, and one which is malignant and does. The industry has a weird superposition of understanding this fact and (strategically?) not understanding it.


The benign product is sovereign programmable money, which is historically a niche interest of folks with a relatively clustered set of beliefs about the state, the literary merit of Snow Crash, and the utility of gold to the modern economy.

This product has narrow appeal and, accordingly, is worth about as much as everything else on a 486 sitting in someone's basement is worth.

The other product is investment scams, which have approximately the best product market fit of anything produced by humans. In no age, in no country, in no city, at no level of sophistication do people consistently say "Actually I would prefer not to get money for nothing."

This product needs the exchanges like they need oxygen, because the value of it is directly tied to having payment rails to move real currency into the ecosystem and some jurisdictional and regulatory legerdemain to stay one step ahead of the banhammer.