There's a tragic irony to Johnson's love of Churchill.
More from Uk
Better late than never. Here we go. What does this deal mean for borders, border formalities, customs & trade facilitation?
Long one. TL:DR very little at the moment but has potential
/1
Borders
When compared to no deal the deal changes very little in terms of border procedures. All formalities and checks will still be required.
Reminder - we're not starting from 0 here – both our container ports and our ro-ro ports are already congested
/2
On top of that, all the issues related to border readiness: lack of capacity and space, IT systems not ready, shortages of customs agents, treader readiness – have not been solved.
The deal doesn’t help with that.
/3
Here is where we are:
☑️The UK will phase-in border formalities over 6 months (customs and SPS)
☑️The EU will introduce full formalities in 3 days (customs + SPS)
☑️Irish Sea border also fully operational in 3 days with some short-term SPS easements
/4
Pre-notifications (safety & security declarations) not initially required on the UK side, needed for imports into the EU.
So what's in the deal?
/5
Long one. TL:DR very little at the moment but has potential
/1
Lots of stuff on technical barriers and customs cooperation. See @AnnaJerzewska for more on the latter. pic.twitter.com/3sC5xHD3Z8
— Steve Peers (@StevePeers) December 26, 2020
Borders
When compared to no deal the deal changes very little in terms of border procedures. All formalities and checks will still be required.
Reminder - we're not starting from 0 here – both our container ports and our ro-ro ports are already congested
/2
On top of that, all the issues related to border readiness: lack of capacity and space, IT systems not ready, shortages of customs agents, treader readiness – have not been solved.
The deal doesn’t help with that.
/3

Here is where we are:
☑️The UK will phase-in border formalities over 6 months (customs and SPS)
☑️The EU will introduce full formalities in 3 days (customs + SPS)
☑️Irish Sea border also fully operational in 3 days with some short-term SPS easements
/4
Pre-notifications (safety & security declarations) not initially required on the UK side, needed for imports into the EU.
So what's in the deal?
/5
Just finished reading an article by Iain MacWhirter that is so full of demonstrable falsehoods & logical fallacies that it requires a firm response: So seeing as I’ve done one nuclear thread this week already, I might as well do another... 🧵☢️🏴🇺🇳
Iain is able to correctly identify that the submission that @SNP_SITW group made to the UK #IntegratedReview - and therefore wasn’t policy about an independent Scotland - but that’s where his grip on reality ends.
We called for unilateral disarmament, as I pointed out on Monday: https://t.co/DwHt9knqHh
Iain chooses to elide the fact that our submission was clearly not about policy in an independent Scotland, and therefore seeks to portray our request to the UK Government to be serious about its own commitments to multilateral arms control treaties — like the NPT — as SNP policy
Despite revealing that he knows a thing or two about internal SNP procedures, he then goes on to conflate two unconnected things — our submission, and a putative conference motion that the democratically-elected conferences committee (not the Leadership) decided not to accept
Iain is able to correctly identify that the submission that @SNP_SITW group made to the UK #IntegratedReview - and therefore wasn’t policy about an independent Scotland - but that’s where his grip on reality ends.
We called for unilateral disarmament, as I pointed out on Monday: https://t.co/DwHt9knqHh
Firstly, the easy part: our submission states @theSNP position clearly and unequivocally. It looks pretty unilateral to me \U0001f9d0 https://t.co/03btr7UBVh
— Martin Docherty-Hughes \U0001f3f4\U000e0067\U000e0062\U000e0073\U000e0063\U000e0074\U000e007f\U0001f3f3\ufe0f\u200d\U0001f308 (@MartinJDocherty) November 23, 2020
Iain chooses to elide the fact that our submission was clearly not about policy in an independent Scotland, and therefore seeks to portray our request to the UK Government to be serious about its own commitments to multilateral arms control treaties — like the NPT — as SNP policy
Despite revealing that he knows a thing or two about internal SNP procedures, he then goes on to conflate two unconnected things — our submission, and a putative conference motion that the democratically-elected conferences committee (not the Leadership) decided not to accept
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?