1. We are currently staring over the precipice of no deal. Everyone, including many of those who argued for Brexit, understand the damage it would do, especially at the same time as the Covid economic crisis and the end of the transition period. We are facing a perfect storm.

2. It’s pretty clear now that the level playing field is the cause of the deadlock. It seems that the UK and the EU have already agreed a non-regression clause – ie that both sides won’t reduce existing standards on things like environmental protection and workers rights.
3. But the issue is what happens if EU standards diverge from ours in the years ahead and vice versa. In other words, how do you make sure that the playing field that both sides run out onto on 1 Jan remains level in the years ahead?
4. In the Political Declaration both sides signed up to robust level playing field commitments to “prevent distortions of trade and unfair competitive advantages.” That’s why both the UK and the EU should want a mechanism for ensuring that the terms of trade remain fair.
5. The other consideration is that trust was undermined by the row over the Internal Market Bill. Seeking to renege on part of a Treaty you negotiated a year ago is not a very good idea, especially when you’re trying to negotiate a new Treaty with the same partners now.
6. The areas of dispute are these. How do you identify whether different standards are in practice affecting fair competition? Who decides? And at what point in the process can one side take action against the other to ‘re-level’ the playing field?
7. The other issue is that because this arrangement will last for a very long time, both sides are trying to protect their interests and guard against something happening in future which they don’t want.
8. One way of avoiding the problem for now would be to have a review clause; ie an agreement that after say 5 yrs both sides could look at these LPF rules and the link to the degree of access that the UK has been given to the EU single market and decide whether they are working.
9. This would allow time to see whether the concerns – the UK view of sovereignty on the one hand and the EU fear that the UK will gain a competitive advantage over German, French and other countries’ firms on the other - is really something that we need to worry about.
10. Both sides need a deal - after all jumping off a cliff isn’t going to be good for anyone.
What’s needed now is a willingness on both sides to sort this out in the interests of all our futures.

More from Brexit

On this, I think it’s highly unlikely to occur in the timeframe given. For several reasons, I don’t think it’s realistic for Scotland to secede, and then join the EU, in 9 years.

For that, thanks goes to Brexit.

A thread because why not...


Two important dates: March 2016 and January 1st 2021.

Firstly, prior to the 2014 referendum, the Nationalists proposed a date of March 2016 to secede.

Secondly, today - the end completion of Brexit five-and-a-half years after Cameron’s majority in 2015.

Brexit has demonstrated many things, primarily that splitting unions is not easy. The UKs membership of the EU was 47 years and by the end it was not at the heart of the EU. The Union has existed for over 300 as a unitary state.

Dividing a unitary state, like the UK, will not be easy. Frankly, it will make Brexit look simple. Questions of debt, currency, defence, and more will need to be resolved ... something not addressed with Brexit.

Starting with debt. Scotland will end up with its proportionate share of the UKs national debt. It’s not credible to suggest otherwise. Negotiating what is proportionate won’t be easy when both sides disagree.

It’s importance will be seen shortly.
So many stories of new barriers to trade between UK and EU, but you might be thinking at some point these will run out. The government is certainly hoping so. Well they may slow down, but trade relations and regulations are not static, and changes will lead to further problems.

The likelihood of continued trade problems for a £650 bn trade relationship is why there should be a huge cross-government effort led by the Foreign Office and Department for International Trade to put in place the necessary resources to seek best results.

There isn't.

So the UK's relationship with the EU currently consists of two not particularly good deals and no consistent effort to manage current problems or prevent future ones. Joint committees are a second order problem to putting in place the right internal structures.

But that's been the consistent UK problem in relations with the EU since 2016. Lack of focus on getting the right internal structures, people, asks, strategy, too much attention on being tough and a single leader.

News just in. This doesn't necessarily mean the right structure being put into UK-EU relations. I suspect Frost's main role is to ensure no renegotiations with the EU.

Also, wonder what this says about the PM's trust in Michael Gove?

You May Also Like

Still wondering about this 🤔


save as q
The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/