Here we go. The final Brexit debate begins. The final splash of petrol on the dumpster fire before the match is lit at 11pm tomorrow night.
What? Ah, it's because he carefully defined them as "tariffs and quotas" just before lying about them.
There will be massive, massive non-tariff barries.
But a trade deal that favours the interests of your counterpart while securing almost none of your own *should* be a quick process. Biting your hand off takes no time at all!
He's figured out the best way to eat up time is to keep needling the SNP.
The Tories will hang Starmer's abject capitulation around Labour's collective necks forever.
That sounds vastly too simplistic.
Thank the heavens, he's finished.
"Do we implement the treaty with the EU, or do we not? If we don't, the outcome is clear: we leave the transition period without protection"
He is doubling down on BJ's message that a vote against the deal is a vote for no-deal.
So let's implement an insular, pessimistic deal.
He stammers in avoiding the question completely, stating that voting against is a vote for no-deal.
"We fought together for months and years against no-deal. And now others in this chamber will vote for no-deal"
BJ stands up and says "there will be no tariffs and quotas". Then he mocks KS and sits back down, chortling.
Boris Johnson by contrast looks like someone already sitting by the pool sipping pina coladas.
(Yes, it's a busy news day. But this is THE last Brexit debate ever.)
"Now that the deal is in front of us, Brexit fictions are replaced by Brexit facts."
Yes. £7.5 billion a year worth, according to HMRC's estimate.
Yep. All fishermen have been shafted, but Scottish fishermen most of all.
More from Edwin Hayward 🦄 🗡
Handy guide for Dominic Raab and other Brexiteers, and for anyone keen to replace our EU trade with trade with the rest of the world on WTO terms...
You can't magic away the vast distances involved. Clue: we fly in only 1/192th of our trade compared to the amount that arrives via sea
But even if you invented a teleporter tomorrow, WTO terms are so bad, so stacked against us, that a no-deal Brexit will be a total economic disaster
And while the Brexiteers fantasise, real jobs are being lost, investments are drying up, companies are moving assets to the EU27 or redomiciling. All already happened and happening right now, not in some mythical
Of course, there are many, many myths that Brexiteers perpetuate that are total fiction. You've seen a couple of them already. The thread below busts a whole lot
You can't magic away the vast distances involved. Clue: we fly in only 1/192th of our trade compared to the amount that arrives via sea
In 2016, the UK transported 484,000,000 tons of freight by sea, but just 2,511,000 tons by air (192x less than by sea). Therefore absurd to think of simply substituting air freight for sea freight (e.g. if we have to fly in food or medicines because of post-Brexit jams at ports)
— Edwin Hayward (@uk_domain_names) October 28, 2018
But even if you invented a teleporter tomorrow, WTO terms are so bad, so stacked against us, that a no-deal Brexit will be a total economic disaster
Here's the truth about Brexit, the "punishment" some people claim the EU wants to inflict on us, the full horrific consequences of no deal, and the dangers lurking behind any deal we reach. Buckle in, it's pretty long. Better to be thorough than to leave anything out. 1/47
— Edwin Hayward (@uk_domain_names) October 14, 2018
And while the Brexiteers fantasise, real jobs are being lost, investments are drying up, companies are moving assets to the EU27 or redomiciling. All already happened and happening right now, not in some mythical
Ok, it's high time to look at the REAL effects of Brexit. As the Tories implode & Labour sits on its hands, companies are executing contingency plans, shifting jobs & assets, slashing investments, or redomiciling (accounting exercise). Happening NOW, not in a fantasy future. 1/95
— Edwin Hayward (@uk_domain_names) November 14, 2018
Of course, there are many, many myths that Brexiteers perpetuate that are total fiction. You've seen a couple of them already. The thread below busts a whole lot
Unicorn Shredder: Hard Brexit Truths
— Edwin Hayward (@uk_domain_names) November 15, 2018
- The major economic harm Brexit is already inflicting on the UK
- Reality of "no deal" & WTO terms
- EU "punishment" narrative
- Endangered industries: automotive & haulage
+ much, much more...
(Each tweet is a self-contained thread.)
More from Brexit
So. The hunt is on in Whitehall for #brexit dividends...to show some clear value in the freedoms given by Brexit.
As we report today one area being looked at is workers' rights...but it is politically difficult territory.
No cabinet decisions have been taken, but per sources, three potential areas been identified in Business Dept...
- the 48 Hour Week
- holiday pay/overtime calculations
- new EU rules on reporting hours worked...
All potentially possible post #brexit /2
The government says it has no intention of “lowering” workers’ rights....and notes that UK has actually gold-plated many EU regulations...BUT (think of government saying it won't "lower" animal welfare standards)...the devil will all be in the detail, if and when it comes /3
So the government likes to talk about ensuring workers’ rights are protected but ALSO making sure businesses has freedoms and flexibility to grow...so one man's reduction in rights is another freedom to get richer/work harder/be more prosperous. It depends how you sell it. /4
So take this 2017 story from The Sun on the cash bonanza that will be rained down on hardworking families by Brexiteers' (long standing) desire to scrap the 48-hour week. Overtime booooom..../5
https://t.co/QLqQ7rCzkv
As we report today one area being looked at is workers' rights...but it is politically difficult territory.
No cabinet decisions have been taken, but per sources, three potential areas been identified in Business Dept...
- the 48 Hour Week
- holiday pay/overtime calculations
- new EU rules on reporting hours worked...
All potentially possible post #brexit /2
The government says it has no intention of “lowering” workers’ rights....and notes that UK has actually gold-plated many EU regulations...BUT (think of government saying it won't "lower" animal welfare standards)...the devil will all be in the detail, if and when it comes /3
So the government likes to talk about ensuring workers’ rights are protected but ALSO making sure businesses has freedoms and flexibility to grow...so one man's reduction in rights is another freedom to get richer/work harder/be more prosperous. It depends how you sell it. /4
So take this 2017 story from The Sun on the cash bonanza that will be rained down on hardworking families by Brexiteers' (long standing) desire to scrap the 48-hour week. Overtime booooom..../5
https://t.co/QLqQ7rCzkv
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
