New: the European Parliament's announcement that it will not ratify any treaty before the end of December unless the deal is concluded by midnight on Sunday comes amid signals that, despite progress, a deal won't be concluded until early next week.

The DUP's Ian Paisley MP tells the NI Affaris Committee that the NI Protocol shd be "removed" and that Article 16 of the Protocol should be invoked. Describes it as an "unmitigated disaster... Those who advocated for the Protocol have some responsibility for that.

"The protocol is now an impediment to trade. We told you so."

Article 16 of the NI Protocol: "If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the EU or the UK may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.

"Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the
functioning of this Protocol."

Mr Paisley then berates @Freight_NI for not demanding that Article 16 be invoked. Mr Leheny asks him what the alternative is. Mr Paisley says removing the Protocol is the alternative.

Amid the hail of accusations that the EU wanted to put a hard border on the island of Ireland last Friday, it's worth pointing out what the ill-fated resort to Article 16 was about:

2/ Under the Commission's trade mechanism, any Covid vaccines leaving the EU for third countries would need export authorisations, ie to ensure vaccines were not being exported which were actually part of an avanced purchase agreement between member states + pharma companies

3/ Any movements of exports from one member state to another would NOT have required such an export authorisation

4/ Because of the NI Protocol, Northern Ireland would typically have availed of NOT having to had export authorisations for any vaccines being sent there from Belgium (or wherever)

5/ However, someone in the Commission spotted the fact that, also under the Protocol, there was unfettered movement of goods between NI and GB

Where are we at as of 1450 CET?

Talks continuing, could go on for a while longer. One informed source is suggesting that because the fish deal was agreed at the high political level (btn @vonderleyen and @BorisJohnson) it was left to officials to translate it into real numbers

2/ Some reflections from an EU diplomat briefed on the rest of the deal, which appears to be in place:

3/ "There is nothing particularly surprising. It is consistent with what we've been hearing all along. The UK red lines are respected. Our concerns are also respected. Of course we have to see the fine print, but in general there is a robust level playing field."

4/ The LPF mechanism is said to be a "complicated structure" which works both ways.

5/ "It doesn't mean that because you have these structures you necessarily have to use them. The mood at the moment is, do you want to diverge [from EU standards] for the sake of diverging? In reality, most likely, pragmatism will prevail."

Ireland's foreign min @SimonCoveney says there will be no breakthru at the #euco this wk, that EU fishermen will not be "sold out" in order to secure a future relationship deal, and that if there is a deal it will not be ratified unless the UK "remove" Internal Mkt Bill clauses

2/ Speaking at the General Affairs Council Mr Coveney said: “We value fishermen, we value their contribution across the EU and cerainly EU fishermen are not going to be sold out in an effort to get an agreement on a future relationship with the UK on trade.”

3/ He said that while there had been some progress on the level playing field area, there had been “little or no” movement on fisheries. Both sides, he said, had legitimate concerns on the issue.

4/ Mr Coveney had bilateral meetings with both @MichelBarnier and @MarosSefcovic

5/ “There was a very clear message that if we do manage to negotiate a deal on a future relationship agreement that involves many different areas, before that deal can be ratified or finalised, the domestic legislation that the UK has introduced...

The chart-topping band of @ChrisGiles_ @jimbrunsden (me on drums) have a piece up about the Brexit level playing field stand-off. But here's the thing: the opacity surrounding these (as so many) trade talks is making things much worse. Quick 🧵

One of the things that struck me talking to experts about this was a lot of hedging about "this is what I think the EU means" and "this is what the UK appears to believe". There's lots of jargon (non-regression, ratchet, equivalence etc) capable of multiple meanings. (2/n)

And even if the negotiators have been clear with each other about what they mean, they certainly aren't being transparent with their domestic constituencies: the EU member states and Westminster MPs aren't being given full details about exactly what's being proposed. (3/n)

There's an unhelpful culture of secrecy around almost all trade talks. Few texts are released along the way. The standard reason is so not to give away negotiating positions to the other side. This is, to use a technical WTO term, obvious bollocks. (4/n)

If you're not telling the other side what you're proposing, you aren't negotiating, are you? Duh. The function of secrecy is actually to hide from the public what's going on. But how are you supposed to build domestic consensus around a proposal no-one can see? (5/n)

1/ Lots of good analysis out there on why the EU-China CAI is a bad decision in the context of Xinjiang, transatlantic partnerships, etc. But I also think that even the trade/econ benefits of the CAI look quite limited. Thread:

2/ It highlights, as a win, that China’s preservation of existing liberalizations. That’s positive, but not really a big problem; the bigger issue is stagnation, where reform pledges have failed to materialize after years/decades of promises. Great example is in the FDI openings,

3/ which are highlighted to include cloud, auto, fin services etc—all areas of EU/MNC interest. Thing is, these openings aren’t new. China has begun opening auto/finance since 2018/19, while the 50% cap on cloud services has remained unchanged since 2015 (or before if we consider

4/ WTO ascension commitments vs the 2015 Telecom Catalogue, but that’s for another day). So these are existing openings that are repackaged as “wins.” More critical issue beyond FDI caps is around licensing issuance, which still big problem. Arguably some more significance in

5/ R&D and health? Not an expert, but the FDI conditions (eg hospitals only in certain cities) are limiting, while R&D could be complicated by data/info controls. It’s also unclear how existing tech transfer prohibitions exceed existing protections in the foreign investment law,

Over the past 15 days I have not only been running my company as normal but I have been faced with largest threat to its future since it began in 1992. This is #Brexit & here is my thread on just how bad things are getting. 1/26

Six months ago my business started to prepare for Brexit. We obtained the following licences and accreditations JUST to maintain the status quo. EORI number, RORO badge for Chief, GBRC number, GBWK number, we already had ARWS and DAN accounts. 2/26

All of this took nearly five months a lot of form filling but on the 9th December this was all in place. So I would say whilst we knew Brexit would be a car crash we did not know it was going to be a multiple pile up in the fog with fatalities. 3/26

On January 4th I returned to work being wise enough to have stockpiled just enough so that if we had a bumpy ride in January we would have enough stock to last until February. 4/26

I should add this took a considerable amount of cash flow and management to do this during a lockdown/ pandemic combined with Xmas sales. But we managed. 5/26

Just read @MarinaHyde's recent piece. The list of fuck ups is endless, I can't honestly begin to say how sad my own country and government have made me. From the covid deaths, bungled exams and lack of ppe (remember that?) To brexit and fishing rights. My colleague voted for ...

...brexit 'for the fisherman', I would how they feel about it now? An ex-colleague of mine, life long Labour voter, said she wouldn't vote for Corbyn "because he is scruffy" and said, of the early Corona stages, "at least Corby's not in power". I wonder if she still thinks that?.

I bet he wouldn't have spaffed £22Bn up the wall of a failed test and trace system. It has become more and more clear that this regime is only interested in turning a profit. From the failed track and trace system through free school meals to the contracts for cunts, where Tories

give their mates contracts even though they have literally no experience of procuring the goods required, like Hancock's pal getting the test tube contract, which, by the way, were useless, splitting at the bottom when you tried to seal them so that they spilled their contents.

They then have their mouthpieces like Julia H-B and Toby Young. Young's father must be spinning so fast in his grave he could become part of Elon Musk's Boring Company. They spit contempt at desperate researchers and doctors who are trying to save lives. So now we have a higher..

The fuel injected Brexiter comments on the EU's vaccine problems miss many points.

1) no-one wanted to get out of the EU or the single market to protect ourselves better against a pandemic. See Brexit Tory controlled government policy 2016-2020 regarding the NHS and pandemic preparedness.

2) we could have, and, perhaps thanks to the need to genuflect to nationalists, or out of pragmatic needs, chosen to go our own way on procurement even within the EU.

3) none of this explains why it's good to be outside the single market, restricting our trade and making us poorer.

4) the implicit celebration of the vaccine nationalist cause, seemingly [but not actually] permitted by Brexit, ignores how this game plays out, namely: