I’m feeling really sad today thinking about what we’ve lost over the last 5 years. But this is mixed with proud knowledge I, and many around me, did all we could to avert this disaster unfolding. This is a short thread to give a shout out to some of them 1/

"The tangible benefits of #Brexit." A thread.

For the EU, the tangible benefits of Brexit have been immense. Not just in the way it has galvanised support for the EU across the bloc, but in the way that the UK has made itself...

/1

...the least competitive advanced economy in the world. Don't forget -- we're no longer a trading partner of the EU, but its main trading rival, and considering both their population and economy is 7x bigger than ours, we don't stand a chance.

/2

(Remember Boris Johnson's famous mutterings about business...? Something that could only have been said by a man born into fabulous wealth and privilege...)

/3

But the big win for the EU has been in the sheer, gob-smacking, eye-watering amount of assets that have been stripped from the UK and moved to banks and financial institutions in Dublin, Paris, Frankfurt etc.

$1.6 trillion as of October this year.

That is an INSANE amount.

/4

I'll try to put it into perspective: $1.6 trillion is over half our entire GDP. It's 1/64th of the WORLD'S entire GDP. If you stacked it up in $100 bills, it would reach FOUR TIMES the height of the International Space Station.

/5

Many Brits live under the false impression that the UK has a Special Relationship with the US. In reality, it's far more transactional, especially for the Americans. This delusion is especially dangerous as post-Brexit UK seeks a new place in the world

While the two do have a very close relationship on security and defence built on post-war efforts, it would be foolhardy to expect any US president to place much emphasis on the UK's economic interests over any other third country

The problem Boris Johnson has is that a close relationship with the White House is more important than any time since the war, given the UK's new status outside the EU. What a headache, then, that the US is having an election with 2 v different candidates

On one hand: Trump likes Brexit, dislikes the EU and might see benefit in disrupting the EU by teaming up with the UK in a way that helps the UK economically. However, Trump is wildly unpopular in the UK and Boris does not want to be seen as his best mate

On the other: Brits are generally more pro-Democrat & more pro-America when a Dem is in the White House. However, Biden clearly does not support the UK's Brexit position, especially when it comes to Northern Ireland.

🚨🚨🚨🇪🇺🇬🇧🚛🚒🇪🇺🇬🇧🚨🚨🚨 serious #brexit story alert - companies now starting to see penny drop on what rules of origin does to supply chains (food for example) but Brussels seems deaf to both EU & U.K. pleading. A bellwether? 😬 Stay with me. 1/


So first the problem: its a tad complicated but basically goods that are imported into UK and then 'hubbed' onwards into Ireland or other parts of the EU are facing full EU tariffs - this is particularly bad for food stuffs, which attract high tariffs. Why is this? /2

It's a function of the Rules of Origin clauses that mean that goods have to sufficiently "originate" in the UK to qualify for zero-tariff entry to EU (and vice versa).

But to qualify, you have to do something to the goods - process them or add value - not just punt them on /3

The brilliant @AnnaJerzewska does a better job than me of explaining, but the important thing is that this is a nightmare for companies that 'hub' /distribute products through the UK - and that's both EU and UK companies /4

So both the @Foodanddrinkfed and EU groups like @CAOBISCO_EU (chocs etc) say they want the EU Commission to fix this with a derogation/waiver that takes into account proximity and interdependence of EU/UK supply chains. /5

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,