🚨🇬🇧🇪🇺🚛🍤🐟🥬📦✈️🇬🇧🇪🇺🚨
So here it is. After the euphoria, the @FinancialTimes @FTMag long read of how @BorisJohnson did his Trade deal with the EU. Tl:dr...not so much “build back better”, more “build back the borders” - stay with me/1.

Well, for example leaving EU aviation safety agency (EASA); Chemicals agency (ECHA), not getting a waiver of 'safety and security' declarations for hauliers, not seeking special arrangements for animal products...on and on it goes /4
Did Whitehall object? Yes it did - Defra and Beis and Treasury all tried at some level to temper the revolutionary fury. But mostly failed. /5

https://t.co/DE5wV3HNH6
\U0001f6a8\u2708\ufe0f\u2708\ufe0f\u2708\ufe0f\U0001f4a5\U0001f4a5\U0001f4a5\U0001f6a8
— Peter Foster (@pmdfoster) March 10, 2020
EXCORIATING OpEd from \u2066@PauleverittADS\u2069 on \u2066\u2066@grantshapps\u2069 decision not to seek assoc membership of EU air safety body EASA after #brexit - says govt is ideological and not listening. \U0001f525\U0001f525\U0001f5251/thread
https://t.co/S1Z8Ui5ar7
https://t.co/kYX7jOn8n9
Andrew Neil tells @MakeUK_ manufacturing conference that 10 Downing Street is happy to see the end of complex, cross-border supply chains after Brexit.
— Joe Mayes (@Joe_Mayes) February 25, 2020
`Those days are coming to an end', @afneil says
Says govt. sees rise of 3D printing, more domestic sourcing as the future pic.twitter.com/yAfH4IMU9a
https://t.co/1kLxFovh1U


So that 'success' defined by @BorisJohnson's own terms - landing a Canada-style deal - meant the constriction of trade. We slipped through the looking glass./11
Wow/12

https://t.co/vH7H8p44zZ

https://t.co/fNX50cPPKu

https://t.co/o88fnMkQKy
https://t.co/FPP3IgFHLH
Odd to be so proud of a Canada deal, then disown it. /18

less flexible"...but the upside seems less clear. /19

More from Peter Foster
More from Brexit
For that, thanks goes to Brexit.
A thread because why not...
On the current trajectory, I think this is likely to be the map of Europe of 2030. pic.twitter.com/65i1A8CiP8
— Ben Judah (@b_judah) January 1, 2021
Two important dates: March 2016 and January 1st 2021.
Firstly, prior to the 2014 referendum, the Nationalists proposed a date of March 2016 to secede.
Secondly, today - the end completion of Brexit five-and-a-half years after Cameron’s majority in 2015.
Brexit has demonstrated many things, primarily that splitting unions is not easy. The UKs membership of the EU was 47 years and by the end it was not at the heart of the EU. The Union has existed for over 300 as a unitary state.
Dividing a unitary state, like the UK, will not be easy. Frankly, it will make Brexit look simple. Questions of debt, currency, defence, and more will need to be resolved ... something not addressed with Brexit.
Starting with debt. Scotland will end up with its proportionate share of the UKs national debt. It’s not credible to suggest otherwise. Negotiating what is proportionate won’t be easy when both sides disagree.
It’s importance will be seen shortly.
London intends to make use of its costly SPS regulatory autonomy. As widely anticipated, first area of divergence expected to take place in the field of Crispr technology for genome editing, area where the UK has long argued for a more liberal stance.https://t.co/btRoxU3saZ
— Emily Rees (@emilyrees_eu) January 7, 2021
Let's start off with: I don't think any trade experts are surprised by this. It is why the TCA did not do much on SPS. It is why the EU did not offer much on SPS. It is why the UK did not ask much on SPS.
But it also shows that the popular slogan "after Brexit we'll have the same standards as before, so why would anything change in trade" was wrong - and worse, it was purposefully trying to stifle a necessary debate.
And this leads me to the next point: I have no issue with changing the rules, I have a massive issue with how it is done. Here's what we should discuss:
The decisive question: What are the standards the UK as a country wants. To inform this debate, we need the following information: