A year ago we left the EU, but the real impact of leaving will only be felt from tomorrow.

1/13

Although the ‘deal’ includes tariff free access to the single market and customs union – it still destroys friction free access to the EU markets, which will destroy many UK businesses and cost many UK jobs.

2/13
It of course fails to address the UK’s services industry – which represents 80% of trade with the EU.

3/13
But there are also other factors – lorry drivers will need to be paid more to wait in queues. Or they won’t come.

4/13
So there will be supply failures for product from the EU – impacting everything from supermarket shelves to car and aerospace manufacturing industries.

5/13
There are not the resources to certify food exports – eg vets for lamb. So expect farming businesses to suffer or go bankrupt.

6/13
We have avoided the catastrophe of no deal and are set to slowly negotiate better and more sensible access, without doubt paying dues if/as required.

7/13
We have lost much – freedom to study, work, live, and retire in the EU – being some of the biggest losses.

8/13
And we lost the fight for a second referendum – every attempt to stop the Brexit con was blocked by the deliberate and self-serving actions of politicians.

9/13
So we are now in a state where the majority support for EU membership has never been greater. Yet we are out.

10/13
It was never about the “will of the people”. It was about the self-serving interests of power-hungry politicians. They won. The UK lost. Badly.

11/13
The anxiety of what Brexit will do is over. Now we will just sadly watch the reality unfold.

12/13
Keep safe. Keep well. And wishing everyone the best, regardless, for 2021.

13/13

More from Brexit

Two excellent questions at the end of a very sensible thread summarising the post-Brexit UK FP debate. My own take at attempting to offer an answer - ahead of the IR is as follow:


1. The two versions have a converging point: a tilt to the Indo-pacific doesn’t preclude a role as a convening power on global issues;
2. On the contrary, it underwrites the credibility for leadership on global issues, by seeking to strike two points:

A. Engaging with a part of the world in which world order and global issues are central to security, prosperity, and - not least - values;
B. Propelling the UK towards a more diversified set of economic, political, and security ties;

3. The tilt towards the Indo-Pacific whilst structurally based on a realist perception of the world, it is also deeply multilateral. Central to it is the notion of a Britain that is a convening power.
4. It is as a result a notion that stands on the ability to renew diplomacy;

5. It puts in relation to this a premium on under-utilised formats such as FPDA, 5Eyes, and indeed the Commonwealth - especially South Pacific islands;
6. It equally puts a premium on exploring new bilateral and multilateral formats. On former, Japan, Australia. On latter, Quad;

You May Also Like