Going to have to disagree with my learned friend here. If anyone moved on level playing field it was the UK, on the principle of a ratchet, or tariffs for divergence which was still being denied midweek. Changing the way in this might be achieved (many options) is insignificant.

Breathless accounts of brilliant negotiating are oddly unaccompanied by statements of UK wins.

Twice the PM has signed up to deals he previously said no PM could sign up for. The level of self-deception in turning these into triumphs is off the scale.

A wise man has suggested that Johnson's self delusions are good for the UK in the way he folds under EU pressure but denies it - that this actually delivers the best result.

But it doesn't do much for the country's politcal debate to have such delusions at the heart of the most important economic relationship. And they don't have such delusions in Belfast.

Perhaps it is the way of UK politics that no leader can be seen to be pro-EU, that the UK must be seen to be bigger than the EU, even though the UK is obviously smaller and needs the EU for trade.

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.

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/

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/

From @jack:

Starting now, we are changing the way we do things at Twitter. Even though we have been following policies we created, that we thought were good and necessary, it just hasn’t had the desired effect of promoting good discourse. Effective immediately, we are changing.

The basic principle that now guides us is that instead of trying to manipulate discourse, we are opening it up, and making ourselves more transparent and accountable, and resisting attempts at censorship of us or our users.

Further, we have been fundamentally operating under the false premise that we, our our news and fact-checking partners, are smarter or better at understanding information than you, our users, are. This is a vain fiction, and we will drop this pretense.

We have long known that we are not just another social media site, but the place where citizens, governments, and organizations communicate with each other, for essential purposes. We have a great responsibility to the public to be open. So, we change to improve.

First: we will no longer proactively delete any content, except for: private information harming a person other than who posted it (e.g. doxxing, revenge porn, etc.), and any content we are legally required to remove.

Thread Pt 3 Who is Prometheus?

1. In Greek mythology, Prometheus, is a Titan of fire. Prometheus is a culture hero & trickster figure who is credited with the creation of humanity from clay, and who defies the gods by stealing fire and giving it to humanity as civilization.

A statement about Stephanie Hayden.

In January I became aware that Ms Hayden (who monitors this account despite being blocked) had made a series of defamatory allegations about myself and my wife.

The allegations were made on Twitter, via Hayden’s account, and were widely retweeted.

The allegations were that as a result of her making a police complaint, (1) the police were seeking to urgently speak to me.

Furthermore (2) that police has spoken to me on 26/12/20 and offered some kind of “robust” advice about my conduct on and off line.

Finally (3) that police attended my home address in November, where my wife mislead them as to my whereabouts.

Hayden commented about this at length on Twitter, said that both and I am my wife had lied, and that I had even given a false address in Hampshire.

I said at the time all the allegations were false.

The police “complaint” was nothing more than Hayden making yet another vexatious complaint to the police, as Hayden routinely does.

The police did not speak to me on 26/12/20, as alleged, or at all.

LEEDS LEADS CLIMATE BREAKDOWN

8 hours and 1000 flawed arguments and biased procedures later, Leeds City Plans Panel voted 9-5 for airport expansion and the false promises of economic growth.
For “what Leeds needs is a premier-league football club and a premier-league airport”
🧵

1/ There was a lot of "I do care about climate change, BUT" – followed by a lot of blah blah. Blah blah economic growth. Blah blah connectivity. Blah blah competitiveness. Blah blah Manchester. Blah blah Westminster. Blah blah offsetting. Blah blah electric planes. Blah blah blah

2/ Also a lot of "I do have sympathy for residents suffering from planes flying over their roofs at night, BUT” - followed by more blah blah.
One councillor kindly offered his advice: “the way to less noise is more planes”. Right, Sherlock. Want to try that in your backyard?🤦‍♂️

3/ The true sympathies were revealed at the end. The Panel's priority was not the well-being of those living under the flight path, nor the lives and livelihoods of threatened by climate breakdown. Their priority was a bigger, noisier airport, with a terminal in bronze-champagne.

4/ First declaring your sympathy for people’s suffering and then supporting a development that directly aggravates their suffering, is a proper kick in the face for those suffering the consequences. Like first declaring a climate emergency and then aggravating climate breakdown.

With Myanmar, it seems that some are raising questions about the efficacy of sanctions and concerns about unintended consequences. It’s time for a “Myth and Realities” guide. THREAD. #WhatsHappeningInMyanmar

Myth: Human rights groups are calling for blanket sanctions on Myanmar.
 
Reality: This is false. Most human rights groups are calling for targeted measures directed solely at the military of Myanmar and companies it owns and which give revenue directly to it.

We are talking about the conglomerates and corporations that control the country’s natural resources, including the concessions for extractive sectors (oil and gas, timber, and mining of gemstones, jade, and valuable metals).

We’re calling on governments to focus on revenues and block transactions or seize government or state assets only where there is credible information that the military or its leaders are looting or acquiring state revenues or redirecting it to them.

Myth: Even if tailored narrowly, targeted sanctions will have major negative impacts on the people of Myanmar.
 
Reality: There are all kinds of ways to prevent unintended consequences on the broader Myanmar economy.