Not the easiest to follow, but for those interested in the big picture of trade relations between US, EU and China this exchange between @alanbeattie and @IanaDreyer is an essential read. Real debate on key issues, and good points on both sides.

"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 is traditional for this time of year, and more in hope than expectation, my top ten trade / Brexit hopes for 2021...

1 - The UK Government ditches the unnecessary secrecy and engages much more openly with business, NGOs etc about their priorities, and reflects them

2 - Parliament steps up its game on government scrutiny beyond select committee reports and starts expecting answers on why priorities have been chosen, why trade agreements with which countries, what the content should be etc

3 - UK business do their best to keep on exporting and importing, innovating and partnering, to overcome the new barriers in their way, and also to keep shouting for government to remove barriers as they arise

4 - Brexiteers show even the vaguest hint of interest in the views of those who continue to want strong ties with the EU, rather then repeating over and over again, to even the vaguest hint of criticism, "you lost suckers, get over it"

5 - Remainers, rejoiners and the like stop talking quite so much about how the 2016 referendum was stolen from them, which is becoming both history and suggests that 17 odd million people were conned

(NB not confident on the last two)

How to make sense of the increasing number of UK-EU trade disruption stories?

In short - outside of a single market product checks and people working restrictions are inevitable. And outside a customs union you will have tariffs and / or rules of origin.

Detail ---> 1/

The UK decided to leave a Customs Union. Within that Customs Union, no tariffs, just a common external tariff or preferential rates for bilateral deals or developing countries. Hence, distribution hubs in one country for all make a lot of sense. 2/

Outside a Customs Union our choice was tariffs under WTO rules or remove them subject to rules of origin with a deal. We chose the latter, but it means we can't just import from China, rebadge, and get zero tariffs from the EU. As we could until December 31. 3/

Net result of being outside of the Customs Union - it no longer makes sense for the UK to be a distribution hub for the whole of Europe. Particularly when so many neighbouring countries remain in it. No trade deal changes that. 4/

Now, product checks, of the sort causing problems for food exporters (see Scottish seafood). In the single market, we shared regulations, so a safe product in the UK was safe in France. No inspections. We chose to leave that system, as we want to change some regulations. 5/

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/

Plenty of talk this morning about how UK sovereignty is what is stopping an EU deal, that the EU want to impinge on this.

Sorry, the argument is totally bogus. It is a combination of EU hatred and cakeism dressed up in respectable clothing. 1/ n

How do we define sovereignty in trade deals? Complex question, so let's just look at this government. It believes in trade deals and membership of the WTO. These contain binding rules. Therefore for this government sovereignty and binding rules are compatible. 2/

Therefore sovereignty in terms of trade rules for this government is a relative concept either in content or partner terms. So when they say the EU proposals go too far is that because of what is proposed, or who it is proposed with? 3/

We haven't been told the detail. But with regard to the level playing field it is suggested that no country could sign up to a situation where not following the rules leads to tariffs being imposed. However we agree to this in the WTO and FTAs. So that is untrue. 4/

Fish is a slightly different matter, and it is being said that the EU proposal would deny the UK control of our waters. But definitionally that can't be true. We're showing our control through the discussion. We don't have to do a deal. 5/

1/ 2017 vs 2020 Economics

Whatever the many reasons for the coup. The aftermath has been an economic disaster. This is instructive, since Mugabe was a monumental failure in Economics.

I wish to stick to economic facts &figures. I restrict myself exclusively to GOZ & RBZ stats

2/
To be fair to Mnangagwa, as President he is fed a lot of misinformation & politically convenient gibberish by those closest to him & security clusters bent on personal enrichment than national well being.

I say this, because some of the issues are too simple to understand.

3/
Mnangagwa can never commit harakiri ( Japanese suicide by cutting one’s belly) if facts & figures were honestly presented to him. Yet we saw Mugabe commit harakiri. He died a sad death while his lieutenants are now in power. Where the lieutenants honest to Mugabe...

4/
Chinamasa was Mugabe’s finance Minister. Was he frank & honest? If so why would he benefit from Mugabe’s ouster? The same is true of Mugabe’s bureaucracy. Most benefitted from the coup. So we ask if they were honest with him during his reign?

ED suffers the same problem

5/
On Wallstreet, CEO’s are not protected from their critics & independent research. Often they rely entirely on this research & seek it out in developing their strategy.

Once, Patterson Timba kicked out an analyst from his investor briefing. Forgetting strategy is in critique

This is premature, but I want to walk you though why some of the charges coming through are incredible significant. This is one of the recently unsealed complaints.

1512(b) is a very, very strong crime. Section 1512 is about obstruction of the administration of justice. The statute is supposedly about disrupting court proceedings, but it's broader. The way it's written, Congressional Proceedings count.

The statutory maximum for a single violation of 1512(b) is 20 years in prison. That's a lot. Most related federal crimes—231 civil disorder, 2101 riots—are only 5 years on the top end.

But that's not all.

See, federal sentencing is done via a complicated formula that computes sentencing guidelines.

Sentencing guidelines are based on the statute, the elements of the criminal offense, and the defendant's criminal history. It also factors in things like if the defendant takes responsibility, and takes a plea deal, etc.

Would anyone like to admit why he cc'd himself in an email Wei Dai would see at ibiblio's host address? I have a few ideas.

was the .ae ccTLD a nod to Tim Berners-Lee/registries that issue top level country code domains? Is that why Tel Aviv is a place I commonly find OTC/Bitcoin related companies and DAC/dev protocols and operations based? Why UAE/Israel have opened commerce bilaterally in 2020?

Bitcoin is worldwide P2P software and growing into a network of the same ilk, what it can send without interference we can't even grasp yet. Even if you don't like another person, or their religious beliefs, bitcoin doesn't care. I lived through 9/11, my friends died in war.

But even I don't want Bitcoin just for the people I am more likely to have similarities too. And in working with the @_Devcoin guys for a few years now, officially since 2020 - I realized people from all spots on this globe and I share much more in common than everyday Americans.

And I haven't turned my back or spurned Americans either. I'm just saying we need to change our mindset. We want things but we won't admit it takes a whole world to pull off what it is we seek. The media is to blame for this but I also think we're at the point for grownups to act