Typically excellent piece from @dsquareddigest The exponential insight is especially neat. Think of it a little like fishing...today you can’t export oysters to the EU (because you simply aren’t allowed to), tomorrow you don’t have a fish exporting business (to the EU).

One wonders how long Lord Frost will retain his new position. The personnel decisions made by the PM are nothing if not frequent, ruthless and mercurial.

The whole affair is very curious. While I am sure that Lord Frost’s elevation owes much to his relationship with the PM and the perceived success of the Brexit negotiation, it is very curious indeed that allegedly it took a threat to resign to secure this new role.

A role which is needed (although might have been structured differently) but was to a large effect previously undertaken (with reasonable success) by Michael Gove who one might imagine may not be entirely happy with this diminishment of his responsibilities.

What might have happened to have resulted in this dramatic and to some extent destructive move (which appears to have been played out in the context of a wider struggle that saw Oliver Lewis (previously Lord Frost’s (LF) negotiation deputy)?

The original sin, of course, is the agreement to the Northern Ireland Protocol. Who knows who did what to who or thought what about what but my speculation is the PM either did not understand the consequences of the Protocol or was assured they could be successfully addressed.

1. Some thoughts about picking over the bones of the referendum loss.

TLDR - get over it, move on, and most importantly, find a better strategy.

2. From an analytical perspective, I don’t think there’s much point in constantly assessing the referendum.

3. The answer is either so simple as to be banal (bad campaign etc) or too complicated (deep rooted societal roots etc) as not to provide any simple lessons. In any case, the result was very close.

4. Rather than dwell on the past, live in the future. Influencing what happens next is much more important than focusing on historic defeat.

5. You don’t see current Brexiteers lamenting the woeful state of their plans do you?

I find it very strange that the same sort of people who look back on the financial crisis and austerity as catalysts for great change now seem to see Brexit and Covid as catalysts for great stability.

Partisanship is one helluva drug. Financial crisis = bad crisis. Brexit = good crisis. Even Covid, unequivocally a bad crisis, is characterised in parts as a good crisis (world beating vaccine etc).

A different reading (which spans Labour, Coalition and Conservative governments) is that 2008-2021 has been one continuous period of crisis punctuated by shorter periods of calm.

Crises aren’t the exception. Scottish independence and the future status of NI look ahead. They are the rule. More specifically, whether the crises are endogenous or exogenous the state has proven woefully ineffective at dealing with them.

We are meant to try to learn from this. And do our best not to apply partisan blinkers. The problems are deeply rooted. And, very obviously, Brexit isn’t the fix. It’s an attempt at a cure but in the same way as a radical therapy that solves some problems but creates others.

1. Brexit. Like Christmas with Covid or dunking your head in a bucket of ice cold water or running your toes over with a lawnmower. What fun we did not have. But here we all are. Forced to play the worst ever drunken party game.

THREAD

2. So as we while away our time, whooping it up from lockdown, wondering at the next national crisis, let us ponder this week’s existential question: how can a Brexit deal be so close and yet so far away?

3. Is it close? Is it far away? Are we doomed or saved? And even if we’re saved are we in fact doomed?

It’s all too much. Like playing zenga with no twig things or scrabble with no letters. My head is spinning. Pass me the whisky and egg my nog.

4. To generalize (why not, everyone else does) Brexit commentary tends to fall into two illustrious camps both full of the wisest of sages.

5. The first reflects upon Mr Johnson’s character and political track record, the many hard as you like pronouncements emanating from various government orifices and the most peculiar composition of the Conservative Party, to arrive at an understandably unhappy conclusion.

Thread:

Here is a wake up call for those Republicans who believe we're going to take back the House in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024:

You will never win another election in the next 50 years.
The election fraud system perfected by the Democrats and their Deep State agents planted by the Obama cabal was put in place before the 2016 mid term and it is working perfectly.

It worked in 2016 when the GOP lost the House despite Trump being at the height of his popularity and the economy roaring back to life after 8 long years of depression;

It worked in November 2020 when Biden, an elderly man suffering from dementia was declared the winner with 1.5 million more votes than the young, charismatic and energetic Democratic Party political rock star Obama ever had cast for him in both elections he won;

And it worked in 2021 in GA run-offs, after the GOP candidates who were in the lead all day, they got defeated after vote dumps that happened after the counting closed for the day in a repeat of the scenario that happened during the Presidential election.

I am bemused by those who demand that we repay the UK government’s debt. It makes me wonder, do they know what it is? And how do they think it can be repaid? And do they appreciate the consequences? A thread is coming on......bear with me, because I think you need to know this.

First, what is the UK government’s debt? I’ve immersed myself in this issue and can confidently say the Office for National Statistics’s figures are wrong, most especially because they claim that the UK government is in debt by owing money to itself. That’s not possible.

Whatever the Office for National Statistics like to claim, money you owe yourself is not debt, and so quantitative easing cancels about £800 billion of UK national debt right now. There are other mistakes in their numbers, but I’ll just stick with this one for the moment.

So, if the ONS claim the national debt is around £2.1 trillion at present, it isn’t. Allowing for the UK government owning around £800 billion of its own debt the figure reduces to maybe £1.3 trillion, give or take a bit. But that, I hasten to add, is not the end of the story.

It’s important to understand that the ONS includes some things few would think of as debt in their figures. For example, around £200 billion (£0.2 trillion) of National Savings balances are included in the national debt. Whoever knew Premium Bond holders were such a burden?

Why is Johnson's speech at the Munich conference hailed in some quarters, even by some journalists that should know better, as "a major policy speech" with "substance"? I went to read it expecting for once to be pleasantly surprised. Alas! Thread

It is full of the usual misplaced optimism not backed by any serious analysis, jingoism & digs at other EU leaders with transparent, nearly servile efforts to regain favour with the new US administration. A few examples:

The speech starts with the trademark rethorical device beloved of the UK right (whether to attack "woke' culture or pro-EU sentiments): A wildly exaggerated overblown simplistic statement that you then go on to "disprove"

So a dig aimed at Macron for saying NATO needs to adapt to changing circumstances and flattery towards America : "As you’ve seen and heard earlier, America is unreservedly back as leader of the free world and that is a fantastic thing."

Then the self- agrandissements : notice all the "I" & "Global Britain"

Here is the full document. I am going to go through it now.

Yep. This is also a point strongly made in @andrewdoyle_com's new book on Free Speech which I am halfway through and am pretty sure I will be recommending as a primer for the alarming number of people who seem confused about what free speech is & why it is good.

Well, good! Conservatives have not been great at this historically so I must give credit where it is due. I really wish this were a left-wing government taking this progressive stance.

(Areo has a piece forthcoming on why supporting FoS is inherently progressive, btw)

Yes, sadly this is true. I currently have half a dozen cases where people are being penalised for trying to express unorthodox views in the academy.

However, I should also say that one case in which I helped a student prepare for an ethical review when she had already been made aware her views were problematic (she wanted to treat people as individuals) was a resounding success & she passed it. So there is still hope.