Prof Valsamis Mitsilegas tells NI committee that the agreement on JHA is dynamic, as EU values UK inputs, and EU law will evolve over time, and value of system to UK will mean adaptation

Amid all the announcements today, it's easy to overlook that the OBR has updated its scenario on a no-deal Brexit. It exposes an undeniably hard reality for the Govt that claims that the UK would "prosper mightily" under no-deal next year.

(Short thread)

1. Key chart: a no-deal/WTO/Australia-style Brexit would delay the point at which econ output regains its pre-virus peak by "almost a year to the third quarter of 2023."

In the upside scenario, this cross-over point could be at the start of 2022; in the downside, in 2025. Grim.

2. Next year, a no deal Brexit would reduce real GDP by around a further 2% - as a result of immediate disruption to the border and uncertainty facing businesses. That's on top of the Covid-related contraction.

3. While there's some short-term border disruption, most of the costs come in the medium term: from lost employment; productivity losses; lower business investment.

Exactly the opposite of what the Chancellor said to @AndrewMarr9 on Sunday.

4. Underneath these numbers, output would fall *below* the Covid levels for several key sectors: Manufacturing, professional services, financial services, retail, energy.

All trade intensive sectors that have been spared the same drop in output as the non-tradables this year.

Scoop...Britain faces dearer electricity and occasional black-outs if it bans EU fishing boats from its waters after 2026. This de facto power over the UK power market is handed to the EU in the post-Brexit deal which MP’s will wave almost unread through parliament today. 1/10

The trade deal enshrines a link between continued EU access to British waters and UK frictionless access to the EU power grid and gas network. This has scarcely been noticed though it was mentioned and brushed aside by last night’s statement by the ultra-Brexiteer ERG. 2/10

The link – drawn to my attention by a senior EU source – is spelled out in dates, not words. The fisheries part of the deal grants EU boats continued access with a 25% cut in quotas over five and a half years until 30 June 2026. After that there are “annual negotiations” 3/10

The energy part of the agreement allows the UK virtually unchanged access to the continental electricity and gas markets. But that expires on exactly the same date as the fish deal - 30 June, 2026. After that (guess what?) there are “annual negotiations". 4/10

Coincidence? Not at all, my source says. The link is “more than implicit”. The energy deal “ends by default” unless both sides agree to extend it.
If the UK bans, or severely restricts, EU boats in British waters from June 30, 2026….easy access to EU energy will also end. 5/10

The fuel injected Brexiter comments on the EU's vaccine problems miss many points.

1) no-one wanted to get out of the EU or the single market to protect ourselves better against a pandemic. See Brexit Tory controlled government policy 2016-2020 regarding the NHS and pandemic preparedness.

2) we could have, and, perhaps thanks to the need to genuflect to nationalists, or out of pragmatic needs, chosen to go our own way on procurement even within the EU.

3) none of this explains why it's good to be outside the single market, restricting our trade and making us poorer.

4) the implicit celebration of the vaccine nationalist cause, seemingly [but not actually] permitted by Brexit, ignores how this game plays out, namely:

1/19

I am pretty annoyed about Starmer's statement about FoM on the Marr Show today, but I'm still not sure what the thinking behind it is. If it's just that this is not the time to talk about EU allignment, fair enough, but it could have been expressed in a more nuanced way.

2/19

Because, rest assured, there will have to be a reallignment with the EU. This will be necessitated not only by the economics but also, most likely, by unfolding events in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

3/19

I am not convinced that complete endorsement of the Tory's Brexit is required to win back the red wall seats; its not what a careful analysis of polling says and it's, frankly, treating red wall voters as idiots while pandering to their supposed idiocy (pretty patronising).

4/19

Given the well-documented harms caused to border trade, UK-based European hub distribution centres, manufacturing (e.g. BASF) and fishing that have emerged just in the first week, it's pretty obvious that THIS Brexit can't be a success.

5/19

Indeed, given that these problems have emerged in a period when cross-border trade has been at a minimum we can bet that things are going to get much worse, as the odious Gove has admitted.