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/

Delusional. And no way to run a country. Far higher barriers to trade with the EU from Friday. And still subject to EU influence on our laws. To deny this is also to deny the ability to tackle the problems we will face.

We ended up with particularly high level playing field conditions in the EU deal because the UK didn't take the subject seriously. We got a worse deal on fish than anyone thought possible, and got nothing in return. All because of cakeism. Or patriotism as they call it.

Now we face higher trade barriers to our nearest market, which means our businesses need to be even more competitive to overcome them and succeed. Is that acknowledged?

Our neighbours, the EU, use all manner of pressures to keep neighbours in line in terms of trade. That financial services equivalence, pity if you didn't get that. Data equivalence, have 6 months free if you don't change your laws while we make you sweat...

Northern Ireland, as we repeat endlessly, Johnson cakeism of no checks? Somehow no longer mentioned after the EU got what they wanted. See also, fish, level playing field. EU priorities, EU won. Johnson cake, all gone, not eaten.

Brexit. UK-EU talks. Let's try to explain why we're in such a state, of increased risk of no deal, moving away from the fish and playing fields which are the detail but not the answer, to differing philosophies and divorce parallels that might just help... 1/

First, with apologies to those concerned, we need to go beyond those saying this is the inevitable path to deal / no-deal. Half of them will be right and I'll definitely be wrong (don't worry, I'm hedged in wine bets), but it wasn't inevitable, typical, or necessary. 2/

I'll also ignore the content of any deal, which has been clear for months, the UK compromises on level playing field, the EU on fish. Something so obvious really isn't the fundamental issue. Could, as some not noted for their perspicacity have said, be done in an afternoon. 3/

Some truth in the idea that flounces and playing the tough cop are a part of trade negotiations. But equally as we're in about the 5th pass of these, I think it has ceased to be helpful. Either side could already have cut the deal having shown their toughness. 4/

Some fundamentals then, that we've forgotten. First, the trade deal that will lead to much less free trade than before. The incentive structures, the ability to create a win-win, are inevitably going to be different to a normal deal. 5/

"Fail to prepare, prepare to fail" has gone from being an irritating statement trotted out on a training course to a description of the UK government's modus operandi. And as well as on covid restrictions we're seeing it in EU negotiations - deal or no-deal. And here's why... 1/

The UK's goal in EU negotiations is to declare victory / sovereignty. Sounds good. But the problem is that there will always be winners and losers in a big trade deal, because it covers everything and involves compromising with the other side. An immediate problem. 2/

Take fish, on which apparently talks are stuck. No deal means we regain full control of our waters. Victory! And sell the fish where? EU tariffs and checks. Not victory. So share waters? But then, defeat! Point being, if you don't explain, the result will disappoint. 3/

We don't want the EU setting our rules and regulations. So minimal sovereignty provisions. No-deal and victory! But then what about the car manufacturers no longer viable? Ok, compromise. But then no win on sovereignty, or perhaps call it "freedom clauses"... 4/

Northern Ireland, customs checks, rules of origin, security cooperation and so on... all inevitably to require compromise. But if your game was all about victory and sovereignty, then what? Not make a decision perhaps? 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/

Your regular reminder that Brexit is going badly because the UK has still to decide what the purpose of leaving the EU is

1/

#EUref came about as piece of party mgt by Cameron, rather than as culmination of considered and structured debate about UK's place in the world

2/

Yes, we talked a lot (A LOT) about 'Europe' and the EU, but primarily as a function of lots of other things

A touchstone of dissent, if you will (h/t @PaulAdamTaggart)

3/

Referendum campaigns on both sides were simply about getting people to vote their way, not efforts to set out settled plans of What Comes Next

"Vote for us and everything will be dandy" is not a plan

4/

That might have been alright if post-vote there had been a national discussion on how to proceed in an inclusive manner, but instead the political logic pointed to trying to capture the meaning of it all to serve particular agendas

All very majoritarian, as per

5/

NEW: 🚨🇪🇺🇬🇧🚛🚚🍤🐟🚢🇬🇧🇪🇺🚨 Building of Brexit border posts faces delays via...industry calling for delay to July 1 U.K. #brexit border roll out - my latest via ⁦@FinancialTimes⁩

This goes back to last year, when UK gov got £430m of bids for new Border Control Posts and only funded £194m worth - and those bids that won took a 33pc 'haircut'. Result, everyone unhappy - those that got nothing, and those that won, got not enough

The result is that ports looking to build BCPs to accommodate new border coming in from July 1 say they haven't got enough money. They want either delays to border on July 1, or flexible implementation. /3

So as @timgmorris of @UKMajorPorts group tells me: “We need urgent action from the government to show flexibility either on the July 1 deadline or what is required on that date....or accept potentially serious implications for traffic flows this summer." /4

@timgmorris @UKMajorPorts As @richard_bpa of @britishports says “There is now a real danger that customs infrastructure won’t be ready by July in some ports and we’re urging ministers to take a pragmatic approach to ensure that goods can continue moving at those locations,” /5

On March 17, the Netherlands will have general elections.

Two parties - PVV & FVD - want a Nexit, a departure from the EU, in line with Brexit.

As the reality of the EU-UK trade agreement kicks in, let's take a look at what these parties

Firstly, good to note, here is their recent polling,

PVV: 14% - 23 seats (currently 20 seats)
FVD: 2.5% - 4 seats (currently 2 seats)

A government needs 76 seats to govern.

Give or take, these parties appeal to about 20% of the electorate.

/2

FVD wants a so-called "intelligent Nexit" because - arguably - they think the UK's departure was not-so-intelligent.

"Intelligent" Nexit. Lots of nodding

But FVD doesn't want to leave the EU, they want an end to the EU.

/3

They want a "different cooperation model among sovereign states" based around free trade, conveniently assuming that the EU will automatically cease to exist once the Dutch vote 'Leave'.

And EFTA should be the basis for the new model.

/4

It's full-on 'magical thinking'.

If you want to join EFTA, sure, make the case.

But be truthful about what it means.

The FVD decides to disregard the EEA agreement, which governs trade between the EFTA-4 and the EU27, and the EU rules and regs that EFTA countries follow.

/5