New: the U.K. is claiming victory over the EU in the Brexit talks. Let's take a closer look... 1/

.@EuroGuido has shared a `scorecard' of the negotiations, claiming Britain `won' 43% of the issues in the talks. EU won 17%, 40% were mutual compromise. Bear in mind, this is the British negotiating team marking its own work.. 2/ https://t.co/R4OitKqy3F
The key q is *how important* are the issues. Just tallying them up doesn't say much. If you won lots of small, low-impact areas, but lost in big areas important to your economy, that's what matters 3/
And at first glance, there are some important things missing for the UK. 1) No mutual recognition of conformity assessment. This means companies will have to pay to certify their products in both the UK and EU. Double regulation = double the cost 4/
We discussed the cost of bureaucracy duplication due to Brexit here 5/ https://t.co/VkBrwDZfM5
Also - no automatic recognition of professional qualifications. This is big for the services industry - 80% of UK economy - and means if you're an architect, accountant or consultant, it'll be harder for you to sell your services in the EU 6/
Financial services - ~7% of UK economy - is deemed an EU win. UK wanted something ambitious, covering new areas and with provisions on regulatory cooperation. But the end result is what we normally see in EU FTAs 7/
And some of the claimed `wins' don't accurately reflect the opening negotiating positions. The UK claims bilateral cumulation on rules of origin is a win - but its opening ask was actually more ambitious, it wanted diagonal cumulation 8/
To get up to speed on rules of origin and Brexit (it's critical to understanding how trade will work from 2021), we covered the issues here 9/ https://t.co/MS0jJu9EV2
The U.K. seems to have got what it wanted in removing any role for the ECJ, and it won't have to dynamically align with EU laws. So, good on the sovereignty account - but we still need to see the full text. Watch this space.. ends/ https://t.co/VWZRQ3hM6I

More from Brexit

This very short article by Jeremy Cliffe is the best thing I have ever read on Brexit and the EU. It pivots on the contrast between Delors’ and Thatcher’s authentically provincial Christian visions and suggests the battle in Britain between the two is not over.


Thatcher: Protestant believer in the totally free market and absolutely sovereign centralised nation state. Delors: Catholic believer in third way personalism, corporatism and federalism. Individualism versus relational love. Heterodoxy versus Orthodoxy.

The article useful gives the lie to the idea that the Catholic vision of the EU has altogether vanished even though it is weakened. Delors wanted a social dimension to the free market and single currency and yet lexiteers laughably insist the EU is more neoliberal than the U.K.!

Subsidiary federalism is a doctrine of democracy and human fraternity. State sovereignty is a doctrine of naked power. It is a face of Antichrist. Leviathan.

Those combined that democracy can only be inside a single state fail to power just how much of private law and evermore so is necessarily international. Thus if political institutions don’t extend over borders there can be no democracy.

You May Also Like

(1) Kushner is worth $324 million.
(2) Since 2016, Kushner has connived, with Saudi help, to force the Qataris (literally at a ship's gunpoint) to "loan" him $900 million.
(3) This is consistent with the Steele dossier.
(4) Kushner is unlikely to ever have to pay the "loan" back.


2/ So as you read about his tax practices, you should take from it that it's practices of this sort that ensure that he's able to extort money from foreign governments while Trump is POTUS without ever having to pay the money back. It also explains why he's in the Saudis' pocket.

3/ It's why the Saudis *say* he's in their pocket. It's why emoluments and federal bribery statutes matter. It's why Kushner was talking to the Saudi Crown Prince the day before the murdered Washington Post journalist was taken. It's why the Trump administration now does nothing.
I like this heuristic, and have a few which are similar in intent to it:


Hiring efficiency:

How long does it take, measured from initial expression of interest through offer of employment signed, for a typical candidate cold inbounding to the company?

What is the *theoretical minimum* for *any* candidate?

How long does it take, as a developer newly hired at the company:

* To get a fully credentialed machine issued to you
* To get a fully functional development environment on that machine which could push code to production immediately
* To solo ship one material quanta of work

How long does it take, from first idea floated to "It's on the Internet", to create a piece of marketing collateral.

(For bonus points: break down by ambitiousness / form factor.)

How many people have to say yes to do something which is clearly worth doing which costs $5,000 / $15,000 / $250,000 and has never been done before.