Just bringing together my various bits and pieces on the UK-EU. The first reactions - a significant agreement...

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/

As promised, a little story. Of how the EU ask of the UK on the level playing field is indeed new, how that came about, and why we should have been able to deal with this a lot better. And how, indirectly, David Frost is one of the reasons. Beware, contains analysis... 1/

Let us go back 5 years to the height of Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) discussions. As you may recall, by 2015 TTIP was about as popular in the EU as allegedly the EU is these days in the red wall. What, thought the EU and Member States, could be done? 2/

TTIP will be more popular, declared more than one insider, if we show there are tough labour and environment protections against undercutting by the nefarious and probably untrustworthy US. That, optimistically they said, will get NGOs on side. 3/

But there was a problem with EU level playing field provisions in 2015. The unit of DG Trade responsible absolutely did not believe anything should be enforceable. Pages of loose commitments, fine. Add more! But apparently enforcement was best done through a good chat. 4/

Now such soft-touch EU enforcement of level playing fields was probably designed particularly for developing countries, where sanctions were seen as unfairly penalising struggling business and individuals for the actions of a terrible government. Not the US. 5/

Breathless accounts of brilliant negotiating are oddly unaccompanied by statements of UK wins.

Twice the PM has signed up to deals he previously said no PM could sign up for. The level of self-deception in turning these into triumphs is off the scale.

A wise man has suggested that Johnson's self delusions are good for the UK in the way he folds under EU pressure but denies it - that this actually delivers the best result.

But it doesn't do much for the country's politcal debate to have such delusions at the heart of the most important economic relationship. And they don't have such delusions in Belfast.

Perhaps it is the way of UK politics that no leader can be seen to be pro-EU, that the UK must be seen to be bigger than the EU, even though the UK is obviously smaller and needs the EU for trade.

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/

The nub of the issue is the extra costs for most exports, whether this is paperwork or meeting different regulatory requirements. A fixed cost per exported load inevitably adds a higher percentage cost to small than larger business... and they may lack expertise. 2/

You'll note that in the EU, with virtually no paperwork or differing regulations, the costs of exports are similar for smaller and large companies - though even there there is a big company bias, because who can afford to lobby for friendly regulations? 3/

The same unfortunately typically applies to trade deals. If you are Nissan and threaten to leave the country without the right deal you have more clout than a small cheesemaker. As we see. But is it just the EU that is over-bureaucratic? Sadly not... 4/

One of the best UK business groups on trade policy @BritAmBusiness (and yes you can quote me @EmanueAdam) has a new report out on a UK-US trade deal and SMEs. It shows opportunities. But unfortunately problems unlikely to be solved. 5/

I see alot of friends here are getting angry at various Starmer comments on Brexit.
I get its an emotional time, but with respect, alot of people arent thinking rationally right now.

No Starmer hasn't gone full Brexit - we need to look a bit more soberly at things.

A thread.

2/

The anger at whether Labour votes for the deal is one of the biggest, dullest non-issues of the day.

Its Johnson's deal - as he insists on telling us at every moment.
The ERG back it.
Labour's vote makes no difference either way.
I'd prefer Abstain - but I dont really care.

3/

Agonising over this is pointless.
A case can be made for all 3 options.

But ultimately its Johnson deal, the Conservatives deal and Labour MPs voting for it won't change that.
Nobody is going to come back & say it was Labour that brought this deal in 2 years time.
Let it go.

4/

A few people have been upset by comments Starmer wont seek to radically change UKs relationship with EU.

2 days before a deal comes in is not the day to say you will radically change it.

So what is Starmer thinking?

Consider...not 2024 - but

5/

Its very easy for English people to forget that 2 crucial things coming in 2021 will combine to constrain any UK govt policy on EU - regardless of what Westminister thinks:

1. Scottish elections
2. Northern Irish Census

As the transition period ends, the #BrexitDeal applies from tomorrow. But there's also a parallel significant legal change - most of the rest of the withdrawal agreement starts to apply. A thread on the legal issues in the rest of that agreement.

The citizens' rights provisions of the withdrawal agreement (on EU citizens who moved to the UK, and UK citizens who moved to the EU, before the end of the transition period) start to apply.

Annotation and detailed analysis of those provisions here:

After today, UK citizens newly moving to the EU, or EU citizens newly moving to the UK, are in principle governed by national law (partly harmonised by the EU, on the EU side).

However, the #BrexitDeal contains some provisions on visas for service providers.

The #BrexitDeal also refers to the matching unilateral decisions of the EU and UK to waive a visa requirement for short tourist visits. Analysis of the EU law on that issue here:

UK citizens resident in the EU on the basis of the withdrawal agreement (or who move to EU in future) should be covered by the EU law on long-term resident non-EU citizens, which provides for a limited form of mobility between Member States. Analysis here:

I am in the market for positive, optimistic articles about Brexit - it may not be how I’m feeling but I’m sure I’ve missed things + want to avoid confirmation bias so I’m opening my mind, + this seemed like a good place to

Elliott argues that ‘the UK has deep, structural economic problems’ - true, but correlation is not causation: we look in vain for an argument that these problems are caused by EU membership and/or that membership is preventing them being tackled

The argument would be stronger if Elliott could show that other countries in the EU faced similar structural problems, but he doesn’t + I don’t think he could - the EU manages to incorporate a wide range of economic models, + regional inequalities vary hugely between EU countries

He does not attempt to acknowledge + explain the boom in inward investment in UK manufacturing in the last few decades, one of the few economic positives for ‘left behind areas’, though that may have been hard without referring to single market membership + European supply chains

‘Brexit means that those farmers who want their fruit harvested will now have to...pay higher wages or invest in new machinery.’ Maybe they will (but I’m not convinced) but this would have unintended consequences eg higher prices for healthy food