There are a lot of Brexiters in the media this week making points about sovereignty, and about how the EU has not come to terms with the UK's independence.

I have some questions, which it might well be fruitful to ask them. 1/9

1. How do you understand the concept of sovereignty? What are the circumstances in which you might agree to make binding commitments to other independent states or trading blocs? 2/
2. What sort of commitments are you prepared to make in order to get trade deals with other states/blocs? And, to what end (why not trade on Australian-style terms with the wider world)? 3/
3. Do you accept that the EU has the right to impose its own rules as a condition for access to its market? Given the UK's involvement in the single market, and in the creation of its regulatory infrastructure, this feature should not come as a surprise. 4/
4. Do you accept that there is a need for borders (which were not needed while the UK was part of the single market) between states/blocs with different regulatory regimes? 5/
5. How are these borders going to work in January? What tariffs, checks etc are going to be required? How in particular are the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland going to be addressed? 6/
6. At the moment, Brexiter and Govt rhetoric insists that 'sovereignty' and 'unfettered trade' are mutually compatible goals. See https://t.co/vTI7qzGKel 7/
The reality is that they are not. The Govt must know this. The negotiations would not have limped on for as long as they have, had the Govt not shown willingness to agree to certain rules in return for (eg) tariff-free trade. 8/
The debate is all about the nature of the trade-offs, and the balance between rights and responsibilities.

Those who deny that trade-offs have to be made are not helping anyone. Every possible outcome will be said to be a 'betrayal'. 9/9

More from Brexit

You May Also Like

@EricTopol @NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad B.1.1.7 reveals clearly that SARS-CoV-2 is reverting to its original pre-outbreak condition, i.e. adapted to transgenic hACE2 mice (either Baric's BALB/c ones or others used at WIV labs during chimeric bat coronavirus experiments aimed at developing a pan betacoronavirus vaccine)

@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad 1. From Day 1, SARS-COV-2 was very well adapted to humans .....and transgenic hACE2 Mice


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad 2. High Probability of serial passaging in Transgenic Mice expressing hACE2 in genesis of SARS-COV-2


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad B.1.1.7 has an unusually large number of genetic changes, ... found to date in mouse-adapted SARS-CoV2 and is also seen in ferret infections.
https://t.co/9Z4oJmkcKj


@NBA @StephenKissler @yhgrad We adapted a clinical isolate of SARS-CoV-2 by serial passaging in the ... Thus, this mouse-adapted strain and associated challenge model should be ... (B) SARS-CoV-2 genomic RNA loads in mouse lung homogenates at P0 to P6.
https://t.co/I90OOCJg7o
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.