Handy guide for Dominic Raab and other Brexiteers, and for anyone keen to replace our EU trade with trade with the rest of the world on WTO terms...

A few thoughts in advance of seeing the Brexit deal, assuming it's not scuppered at the last.

1. It will save industries, in the short term. For all the problems it *won't* solve, there is at least that. Tariffs would have finished off some sectors like switching off a light.

2. Expect a lot of confusion (through ignorance, and deliberate obfuscation by certain segments of the media) between free trade and frictionless trade. Trade that is free can still come with plenty of friction. Those extra £billions in customs paperwork won't go away.

3. There may be a standstill or implementation period. If there is, that will be helpful because it will let us get further down the road of vaccinating against the coronavirus, and resolving one crisis before plunging into the rest.

4. Any standstill will trigger a huge wave of "you told us scary things would happen, but they didn't." If you're counting along, it will be the 3rd such wave. First was during the negotiations while we were still EU members. Second during transition when EU rules still applied.

5. Those are just words. But the damage to the economy is real. So a standstill remains preferable, though teeth may have to remain gritted a while longer as a result.

6. Expect a few positive surprises. (Not compared to EU membership, but to what would otherwise have been.)

Ok, it's high time to look at the REAL effects of Brexit. As the Tories implode & Labour sits on its hands, companies are executing contingency plans, shifting jobs & assets, slashing investments, or redomiciling (accounting exercise). Happening NOW, not in a fantasy future. 1/95

Barden Corporation is closing down its Plymouth factory after 51 years, putting 400 jobs at risk, as its parent company Schaeffler shifts production to various sites outside the UK due to Brexit.

8 health providers have warned of medicine shortages in the event of a no-deal Brexit: "we do not believe that the current medicine supply plans will suffice, and we will have widespread shortages if we do not respond urgently."

Pfizer - $100 million on Brexit prep: "Pfizer’s preparations are well advanced to make the changes necessary to meet EU legal requirements after the U.K. is no longer a member state, especially in the regulatory, manufacturing and supply chain areas."

The Government has spent £4.2 billion pounds on Brexit preparations (£2.2 billion in previous Budgets, plus an additional £2 billion in the most recent Budget.)

THREAD: Here are the essential points from the EU's time-limited, limited effect no-deal Brexit mitigation offer.

(Most concessions are unilateral measures it will implement. Some require UK cooperation - not clear what happens if we refuse to do

Air travel
"Unless there is a contingency measure in place on air transport at the end of the transition period, air traffic between the EU and the United Kingdom will be interrupted."

The EU is proposing 6 months of reciprocal concessions to keep (most) planes flying.

However, they're not offering any concessions on airline ownership requirements, so BA for one may come unstuck here (depending on how its restructured shareholding is going). Its message: you already had plenty of time to prepare, including a grace period.

Road transport

A) Haulage
With no agreement, hauliers would have to use ECMT permits to provide any freight transport between the UK and the EU. But there aren't nearly enough of those to go around. So they're giving a basic grace period of 6 months, as long as we reciprocate.

B) Bus services
"Furthermore, in the absence of an agreement on a future partnership between the EU and the United Kingdom by 1 January 2021, regular bus services to and from the United
Kingdom would have to be interrupted"

Here too, offer is 6 months of continued connectivity.

UK Government just released 70 pages of case studies today, showing how the borders will operate after 1 January 2021.

They're essentially hardcore porn for red tape fetishists.

Doomed, we are. Doomed.

(e.g. exporting fish; exporting mechanical goods)
https://t.co/zWpkdGJeim

This is exactly what should have been presented years ago so that firms could prepare.

Or, arguably, before the Brexit referendum. Just the 70 pages of case studies released TODAY could have tipped the result the other way. Not everyone is blinded by sovrinty & hating forrins.

Going back to the examples...

The person in France buying (say) UK mechanical goods will take one look at the procedures involved, and Google an alternative supplier inside the EU instead.

As for the fish, they could probably swim to their intended destination faster of their own accord than following the new process, if only they had water in between to traverse.

The purchasers will smell them coming a mile away.

Auto parts. I am practically weeping at my keyboard.

Here we go. The final Brexit debate begins. The final splash of petrol on the dumpster fire before the match is lit at 11pm tomorrow night.

Boris Johnson deliberately mocks the SNP by calling them the Scottish Nationalist Party, despite being admonished by the Speaker. There speaks a man who doesn't give an itty bitty toss.

Boris Johnson: "Just as we've avoided trade barriers"

What? Ah, it's because he carefully defined them as "tariffs and quotas" just before lying about them.

There will be massive, massive non-tariff barries.

He's dodging the question about fishing and Northern Ireland, wriggling like one of those eels the EU won't be buying any more.

Boris Johnson is bigging up the speed with which the UK managed to reach a trade deal.

But a trade deal that favours the interests of your counterpart while securing almost none of your own *should* be a quick process. Biting your hand off takes no time at all!

NEW - on @skynews shortly:
Reliable source tells me Withdrawal Deal text contains

- No unilateral exit from backstop

- Large annexe on level playing field

.... after reporting this on @SkyNews I get a call from a different senior source that this is “spot on” and further that the Attorney General Geoffrey Cox has not pulled his punches in confirming in legal advice there is “no unilateral exit” from backstop ...

... furthermore I’m told (and this chimes with excellent Times splash this morning re Weyand) that the future partnership then takes its starting point as the activated backstop - ie UK-wide customs union-style arrangement and level playing field.

Understand that a ministerial briefing on the draft Withdrawal Agreement meant to drum up support from some trade organisations due tonight has now been postponed

Again, at such a key moment in UK and at such high political levels, evidence of deep misunderstanding of EU: The PM is under pressure in some quarters to delay #Brexit vote to allow her first to “improve” deal in Brussels BUT EU is determined not to budge at this stage

2) All EU leaders watching tomorrow’s vote. Of course they want to avoid a no deal #Brexit BUT they feel the deal - so painfully negotiated between EU and UK - is too fresh to re-open. Clarifications, yes but fundamental renegotiations, no.

3) The EU’s international reputation as a tough deal-maker is at stake here too. If Brussels now suddenly “gives in” to U.K. on EU red lines (eg backstop) then that would weaken the EU’s reputation in future trade negotiations with other non EU countries

4) Also on backstop the EU is unlikely to cave in to favour a relationship with a leaving member state (UK) against the explicit wishes and ignoring the deep concerns of a continuing member: Ireland.

5) Both the EU and the PM signed up to a guarantee to protect the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. If either the U.K. or EU can leave the backstop unilaterally then this clearly is no longer a guarantee.

1. @SidneyPowell1, @LLinWood and any others who are digging into 2020 election fraud, you might want to look at Ryan Macias. He's the former acting director of the Federal Election Assistance Commission. He tested and certified Dominion systems, then profited from their failure.

1/9 Impeachment fun fact: sitting Congressman #AlceeHastings, participating in current #impeachment, was himself impeached. He was fed judge convicted on 8 articles related to bribery/lying under oath. 4-years later, he was in #Congress. Following is from

2/9 “In 1981, a fed grand jury indicted Judge Hastings along with his friend William Borders, a D.C. lawyer. Hastings was charged with conspiracy/obstruction of justice for soliciting a $150,000 bribe in return for reducing the sentences of two mob-connected felons.” #corruption

3/9 “A year after Borders was convicted, the result of an FBI sting, Hastings's case came before the criminal court. Despite Borders’ conviction, and the fact that Hastings had indeed reduced the sentences of the two felons, he was acquitted...and returned to his judicial post.”

4/9 “Subsequently, suspicions arose that Hastings had lied and falsified evidence during the trial in order to obtain an acquittal. A special committee of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals began a new probe into the Hastings case.”

5/9 “The resulting three-year investigation ended with the panel concluding that Hastings did indeed commit perjury, tamper with evidence, and conspire to gain financially by accepting bribes. The panel recommended further action to the U.S. Judicial Conference...”

✔️ We have begun. It's Day 4 of the Trump Impeachment Trial 2.0. The defense is putting on their case. The first lawyer is Van Der Veen.

1/

Already this is wackadoodle. Seems like the defense is trying to tell us not to believe what we saw. This lawyer has the audacity to say that the people assembled at Trump's speech were peaceful patriots

2/

This lawyer is claiming that Trump's speech on the ellipse on January 6th was was a policy speech about "turning out strong in the next primaries" and how this was about working on voting law reform.

A mere civics lesson.

3/

The lawyer is lying. The Clinton campaign never "declared that the election was stolen by Russia."

Also, this Trump lawyer is trying to claim that democrats objecting to some of the electoral votes is equivalent to Trump's incitement of violence.

4/

As we expected, Trump's lawyers are not going to address the merits. Instead this is what-about-ism

5/