There is a sense of disbelief about the new trade problems between Great Britain and the EU / Northern Ireland. Which we need to lose. This is the new normal. And we face a difficult period of adjustment - immediate paperwork needs, and to longer term uncompetitiveness.

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/

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/

Here's a good example of what is currently passing for UK economic policy. The theory the UK can be 'nimble' in regulations has been present since 2016. In 5 years nobody has found the detail. We presume others might have a similar idea. And trade needs regulations to align 2/

There will of course always be someone to blame. Usually the EU. Because they do indeed want to compete with the UK. This is not exactly surprising. A vague UK idea versus the bigger next door market (or indeed a big one over the pond). Who's going to win? 3/

Next, 'Global Britain' and specifically the Liz Truss speech in the Commons yesterday. To summarise, we are going to do trade deals on everything with everyone while still protecting UK industry and poor countries. Yup, more warm words and no priorities.

Useful example here. The long running EU-US trade battle over food, one claiming to be about quality, the other science. The UK solution. We'll do both! Fabulous, why did nobody think of this before? Unless they did, and found they still had to choose. Note other warm words 5/

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/

The two most irritating sentences I find myself typing over and over on this website are:
1. "There are many pathways to universal healthcare"
&
2. "No, the Democratic party would not be a center right party in European countries either in social or economic terms"

& if you're going to come at me from the economic angle, plz do some research into EU center right parties. There's a lot of btwn-country variation, but these parties typically aim towards increased privatization of public systems & deregulation of industry. Dems do the opposite.

A related area is austerity. To look at recent history, examine how many EU countries chipped away at funding their extant safety nets, esp in healthcare, during the recession. What did the US do under Dems? A massive expansion of healthcare.

Now, the ACA is far from perfect and I want a much greater public role as well as the eventual minimization/near-elimination of private insurance in the system. That said, it's simply true that the U.S. expanded our healthcare system when many EU countries were cutting theirs.

You can't just compare a party in absolute economic terms across countries. This is especially the case when you have massive generational differences in building of the social safety net/welfare state.

After Michel Barnier's briefing of EU ambassadors this afternoon, here's where things stand:

2/ There is a basic deadline of Christmas Eve to get a deal. That will give the EU's legal services time to draw up a letter to send to the UK seeking provisional application of the treaty from Jan 1

3/ It's understood officials will need four days at a minimum to draft a letter seeking provisional application of the treaty (all this is on the basis that it is pretty much too late for the European Parliament to ratify the treaty on time for Jan 1)

4/ On the prospects for a deal: diplomats say they're not ruling out a deal by Christmas eve. Michel Barnier said there had been significant progress. Member states expect to convene a meeting of the Working Party (of Brexit coordinators) every day (except Christmas Day)

5/ Acc to one diplomat Barnier will publish the text once/if it's agreed, but before it's been legally scrubbed. Member states can approve the text via written procedure (sending a formal letter) as there are no Council meetings foreseen to do it in person between now and Dec 31

“Fanatical Remainers and the FBPE cult”: a thread

The populist right seems to be intensifying its efforts to portray supporters of EU membership as some sort of lunatic fringe. (Never-knowingly-impartial @afneil and billionaires’ stooge @darrengrimes_ are among (1/20-ish)

the worst offenders.) “Fanatical Remainers,” they sneer at every opportunity. “FBPE cultists! Extremists! Ideologues!”

So what is a cult? What are the hallmarks of extremism? The Oxford Dictionary defines a cult as “a system of religious veneration and devotion /2

directed towards a particular figure or object”; “a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members”; or, in its weakest sense, “a misplaced or excessive admiration /3

for a particular thing”.

According to Janja Lalich PhD, a sociologist who specialises in cults and extremist groups, a cult is “a group or movement held together by a shared commitment to a charismatic leader or ideology. It has a belief system /4

that has the answers to all of life’s questions and offers a special solution to be gained only by following the leader’s rules”.

“Cults tend to be founded by charismatic leaders … great manipulators. They know how to read people. They come along and offer a message /5

How significant were @vonderleyen's remarks to the European Parliament this morning?

One senior EU diplomat says takes note in particular of her opening words. "Frankly, I cannot tell you today if in the end there will be a deal."

2/ That this sentiment is being expressed by the European Commission President on Nov 25 with just over a month to Jan 1, is significant. In Brussels there are only two questions: will there be enough time to ratify any deal? Is @BorisJohnson prepared to take a big political step

3/ Yes, it takes two to tango, etc. But it's clear from Von der Leyen's comments that the EU is going to stand firm on the level playing field issue.

4/ “We are ready to be creative but we are not ready to put into question the integrity of the single market, the main safeguard of European prosperity and wealth" she told the EP.

5/ She repeated the demand for "robust mechanisms" to ensure competition is free and fair over time - ie, going back to the language of the Political Declaration. Also, the need "maintain common high standards now and in the future”. That's the "ratchet" or "evolution" clause

Dear fellow musicians, performers, technicians etc. Here’s a thread about how our lives are going to change re touring/working in the EU in 50 days time. Think of it as a kind of Bad News Advent calendar. Here goes 1/

First things first, you’ll need a passport with at least 6 months left on it. And you’ll need full travel/third party/health insurance, since if you get ill or have an accident every penny of your care will have to be paid for 2/

To work or do a gig you’re going to need a work visa, just like you do for the USA. But here’s the thing. Work permits & visas and the conditions attached are a matter not for the EU but for the member states themselves 3/

Yes, every member state controls who comes in and who doesn’t and what the rules will be for work and residency. It’s almost as if the Brexiters have been lying about this ALL ALONG. EU members CONTROL THEIR OWN BORDERS 4/

So you’ll need to get a work permit for every country you’re intending to work or gig in and the rules are often different, as are the rules on eg taxation of that work (eg Spain has a withholding tax, France does not) 5/