Good to see @Marthakearney on @BBCr4today taking @pritipatel to task over the numbers of lorries in Dover - now 1,500 in Stack (M20) and Manston airfield combined - rather more than 170 that @BorisJohnson said yesterday, baffling haulage groups /1

It's OUT! My latest #Brexit Briefing for @FinancialTimes - examining @BorisJohnson
"buy now, pay later" Northern Ireland Protocol, why the EU-UK trust deficit is killing it, how that can be restored - because it needs to work. /1

@BorisJohnson The danger here is that lingering animus over the opportunistic nature Johnson's Faustian bargain - dividing his Kingdom in order to 'get #Brexit done' and win an 80-seat majority - is clouding judgement on both sides of the Channel /2

@BorisJohnson The facts of the Protocol are no less true for Johnson's constant denial of them - that there would be checks, that there really is a trade border that now prevents plants and pets from travelling freely from Bedford to Ballymena as M.Gove reminds us. But these are other facts/3

@BorisJohnson Firstly, NI remains part of UK, even if it is now has EU customs rules.

Secondly, NI remains politically divided and fragile; the Good Friday Agreement is a constant work in progress.

Thirdly, both the EU and the UK agreed to this unsatisfactory arrangement jointly. /4

@BorisJohnson Fourthly, therefore, they have a joint responsibility to make it work because

Fifthly - and most importantly — there is no alternative to it. /5

The UK refusing to give full diplomatic status the EU's mission in London is baffling at at time when @BorisJohnson is trying to connect with @JoeBiden - because it recalls what Trump administration did to the EU ambassador back in 2019. Stay with

@JoeBiden The spat has been going for a while - we reported it in May, when the #Brexit trade talks were getting testy and - I assumed - it was the UK seeking a bit of leverage as the talks progressed. But we have a deal...and still no deal on the EU

@JoeBiden Essentially the UK government wants to treat the @EUdelegationUK as a "international organisation based in London" - and not accord it full diplomatic status, as almost every other country in the world does, including the United States /3

@JoeBiden @EUdelegationUK Indeed when EU formed it's External Action Service (EEAS) the UK supported the idea that EU representatives should be full ambassadors - a fact reflected in the Treaty of Lisbon which we signed - and which reflected on fact EU had a currency, made laws etc. /4

@JoeBiden @EUdelegationUK It took some time for everyone to recognise this, but after @BarackObama came to power in 2016 even the USA did the same....then along came Donald Trump and in 2019 surreptitiously downgraded the status of the EU ambassador @D0Sullivan /4

It's OUT! The first #Brexit Briefing of 2021...which explores how unrealistic some industry expectations are about 'fixes' to the current deal, now the penny is dropping about what it means for supply chains and UK position vis-a-vis EU

So take the example this week, where the @Foodanddrinkfed raised the issue that UK-hubs for food and drink were "unworkable" since goods that came in from the EU were attracting full tariffs when the were spun back into Ireland or other EU members /2



They were backed by other EU associations - and both said they would lobby UK govt and @EU_Commission to 'fix' what they presumed was an "unintended consequence" of the deal....except that both EU officials and UK govt have basically shrugged. The deal is the deal. /3

@EU_Commission This is in no way confined to food industry - clothes and retailers are also hard-hit.

But lots of industry has wrongly bet that 'common sense' and 'self interest' would prevail once the nasty negotiations phase was out the way...but that's not the signal being sent. /4

As one EU official puts it: “You can’t expect the UK to remain the food import hub for the EU. It’s not sustainable, and makes no sense in the mid-to-longer run." And that applies to financial services, clothing, retail goods....a bureaucratic curtain has descended. /4

🚨🚨🚨🇪🇺🇬🇧🚛🚒🇪🇺🇬🇧🚨🚨🚨 serious #brexit story alert - companies now starting to see penny drop on what rules of origin does to supply chains (food for example) but Brussels seems deaf to both EU & U.K. pleading. A bellwether? 😬 Stay with me. 1/


So first the problem: its a tad complicated but basically goods that are imported into UK and then 'hubbed' onwards into Ireland or other parts of the EU are facing full EU tariffs - this is particularly bad for food stuffs, which attract high tariffs. Why is this? /2

It's a function of the Rules of Origin clauses that mean that goods have to sufficiently "originate" in the UK to qualify for zero-tariff entry to EU (and vice versa).

But to qualify, you have to do something to the goods - process them or add value - not just punt them on /3

The brilliant @AnnaJerzewska does a better job than me of explaining, but the important thing is that this is a nightmare for companies that 'hub' /distribute products through the UK - and that's both EU and UK companies /4

So both the @Foodanddrinkfed and EU groups like @CAOBISCO_EU (chocs etc) say they want the EU Commission to fix this with a derogation/waiver that takes into account proximity and interdependence of EU/UK supply chains. /5

Thread – The Buffoon in the White House (Irony)

1. A pal passed this to me the other day, and I saved it for today. The author is unknown (at least to me), but this has been posted on a number of blogs. An excellent read!

As usual is maddening how easy this is to understand and how much everyone refuses to understand it. There are two things happening here, and they aren't super hard to understand. There's the asshole administration and the asshole reporter.

The court said asshole administration revoked asshole Jim Acosta's press pass without due process. WH deemed him press, gave him a press pass, then they kicked him out without even being able to say who made the decision or on what grounds.

We want hostile, combative reporters. We **want** that. **You** want that. We want that because the press secretary of every single administration is a liar. Even the ones you like. Lying is their job. They show up to avoid answering, but give the appearance of being answerable.

It shouldn't be easy for government to just refuse to be answerable. It should be hard to dodge. Hard to kick people out. Hard to control the narrative. That shouldn't be easy for the gov't. Not even your most favoritest president.

You, the American citizen, want the truth. Reporters should be there to get it. That means asking questions doggedly, demanding answers. This is not an obscure idea. It should be obvious to anyone who's experienced having a president you didn't vote for. Super rare right?

I don't think that "Democrats were cowards and couldn't stand up to McConnell" is the correct framing. Dems clearly made a political calculation. Plenty to potentially criticize about that calculation, but it was informed by factors unrelated to generalized "fear of republicans"

What we largely know now:
-There would never have been enough GOP votes to convict
-GOP had the power to hold up *all* Senate business & that means COVID relief (Dems would have been blamed for this hold up)
-Witnesses were uncooperative & would have had to have been subpoenaed

So I think the correct framing is that Democrats made a political calculation that the benefit of adding witnesses (who would not change the outcome) was not worth the political & moral cost of holding up COVID relief, as well as important confirmations. . . .

This calculation can be criticized on its own merits, but it's categorically different than just being scared of McConnell & the GOP.

For my own part, I think an error Democrats made w/r/t witnesses was not calling cooperative police officers who had been attacked that day. Just a few personal narratives from the police would have deeply embarrassed the GOP. That's a missed opportunity, in my view.

We promised people that if we won the Senate, we would send out $2,000 survival checks. They delivered us to victory—and now we MUST deliver.

“Targeting” checks to a smaller group fails to do that. People need help like never before, and we must put money in their pockets.

“Targeting” checks isn’t just bad for people, it’s bad policy too! It’s not humane, it's not smart, it’s not effective, and it’s not even fiscally responsible. Not to mention that it doesn't meet the scale of this crisis.

Help me spread the word about 4 obvious reasons why:

1⃣The survival checks often use 2019 tax data to measure someone’s income.

Millions lost their jobs in 2020 due to COVID—that’s the whole point of this relief!—and therefore their income from 1 or 2 years ago is no longer accurate. They need help now and we must provide it.

Even if someone isn’t one of the nearly 1 million additional people losing their job EVERY single week, they likely lost hours and therefore had their overall income significantly reduced.

By “targeting,” we cut out people who are desperately in need of help.

2⃣The data from people who filed for unemployment shows that more than 20% of those earning between $50k and $70k were still food insecure.

That's up 16% from 2019—and it's why food banks have such long lines. We need to put money in their pockets so they can feed their family.