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:

The important difference between AstraZeneca's relationship with the UK and with the EU, and the reason it has fallen behind schedule on 50m vaccine doses promised to the EU, is that the UK agreed the deal with AZ a full three months before the EU did - which gave...

AZ an extra three months to sort out manufacturing and supply problems relating to the UK contract (there were plenty of problems). Here is the important timeline. In May AZ reached agreement with Oxford and the UK government to make and supply the vaccine. In fact Oxford...

had already started work on the supply chain. The following month AZ reached a preliminary agreement with Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy, a group known as the Inclusive Vaccine Alliance, based on the agreement with the UK. The announcement was 13 June. BUT the EU...

insisted that the Inclusive Vaccine Alliance could not formalise the deal. The European Commission insisted it should take over the contract negotiations on behalf of the whole EU. So were another two months of talks and the contract was not signed till the end of August...

What is frustrating for AZ is that the extra talks with the European Commission led to no material changes to the contract, but wasted time on making arrangements to make the vaccine with partner sites. The yield at these partner sites has been lower than expected. The problem...

FELIXSTOWE, England (Reuters) -

In just one month of post-Brexit trading, British logistics expert Jon Swallow has seen exports dive, prices rise and customers so desperate that he is practically offering a counselling service.

Swallow is one of thousands of freight forwarders and customs brokers based around Britain’s biggest ports who have described the overnight introduction of a full customs border as akin to the country placing economic sanctions on itself.

Britain’s New Year’s Eve departure from the European Union’s orbit after 47 years of membership means exporters must now provide customs and safety declarations, health checks and rules of origin details to trade with its biggest partner.

We are now at a disadvantage to people trading within the EU,” Swallow, a co-director of Jordon Freight, told Reuters in his office next to the vast cranes that tower over Felixstowe docks, Britain’s biggest container port, on the south east coast of England.

“We’re a very fast-paced business, but now we’re just like walking through mud. There’s just paperwork everywhere.”
Those companies that trade goods between Britain and the bloc are paying a price, particularly small firms.

Ok, here's my first bash at how I think UK-EU fisheries will be managed in future now we have the agreement

It’s quite complicated in parts, so would appreciate any corrections…

@StevePeers @BD_Stew @AntonSpisak (& others)

1) QUOTAS: For the next 5.5 years (until end-June 2026), each side’s quotas are set out in the agreement

This amounts to a 25% value reduction for the EU gradually over this period

2) These quotas shares set a new baseline for 2026, but they will be up for negotiation from thereon

3) CATCH LEVELS: However, they will still both need to negotiate overall allowed catch levels for each year, starting in 2021

By 31 Jan, a schedule must be agreed for talks, culminating in final agreement by 10 December (this fits in with the internal EU fisheries negotiation)

4) PROVISIONAL ACCESS: If there’s no agreement by 20 December, each side will apply a provisional allowable catch level for 1 January, defined by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea based on scientific recommendations

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:

Today's UK-EU trade deal reflection - what is rarely stated in discussions about the deal's shortcomings is that they reflect UK government policy choices - in particular that control of immigration and a US trade deal are a higher priority than an EU deal.

Thus, why was it not a UK government priority to secure for UK musicians the rights to tour the EU? Because that would probably have required a reciprocal right to be given to those in the EU, which we didn't want to give. Choice.

Meanwhile why did the UK government not seek or secure a reduction in food inspections for GB products going to the EU? Because that would probably have required fixing food regulations in a way that might have been an obstacle to a US trade deal.

Works the other way as well. Why did the EU refuse UK requests on mutual recognition of industrial testing? In part at least because of UK lack of commitment on maintaining the previous EU system of standards and conformity assessment which might be a problem in a US deal.

One of the strangest opinions in the London politics bubble is that the UK government isn't that bothered about a US trade deal, as it so obviously goes against the evidence. There might be domestic opposition, but this was to be Brexit Dividend Number 1.