1/ As Brexit talks enter what might be their last few hours, the key hurdle to overcome is how to agree on what the EU calls 'managed divergence' and the UK has dubbed 'lightning tariffs'. Despite the doom and gloom, there are signs the sides aren't quite as far apart as appears.

2/ The EU has dropped its insistence on a 'ratchet clause' which would have formalised the principle both sides should keep up with each other's standards. It's now ready to cater for divergence in the future so long as there are strong safeguards to rebalance unfair competition.
3/ This is a shift from the EU, which previously rejected managed divergence as too messy and risky for its economies. They worried it would create constant uncertainty for them. It thus represents a fair departure from the EU's opening position on LPF.
4/ There is a difference between having a commitment to match standards hard-wired into the deal, failure to comply with which would be a breach of the agreement, and a mechanism written into the text catering for a decision to diverge and accept rebalancing measures in return.
5/ What the sides are now trying to thrash out is how unfair competition would be defined, the process for triggering rebalancing measures, and how extensive they'd be. The EU originally wanted the Commission to have the unilateral right to apply them - hence 'lightning tariffs'.
6/ That demand angered the UK, and has now been diluted by Brussels which accepts there needs to be due process based on evidence. One EU proposal is for a 'distortion test' that could be triggered by either side. They're also open to setting up an independent arbitrage system.
7/ The EU stresses this would only apply in cases of 'significant divergences' in standards - it wouldn't be used to scrutinise the minutiae of every British law. 'At a certain stage the competitive advantage might become so big you have to do something. How do you manage that?'
8/ Key for the EU is speed of response. UK is open to these ideas but is concerned about the size and scope of rebalancing measures. It wants unfair competition in specific sectors to be addressed with tariffs in those sectors. On LPF, the EU has been wedded to cross-retaliation.
9/ But cross-retaliation is for *breaches*. So could a middle-ground be found here? Some don't think it's worth sacrificing a deal over. 'Is either side going to collapse an entire trade deal over what would be a very sectoral issue, over which you could impose sectoral tariffs?'
10/ It's not impossible to see a way through that ticks UK red line on sovereignty & EU one on protecting the Single Market. That's what negotiators have been hammering away at. Risk of No Deal is still 'very high'. But if so it'll be over 'a very minimal subset of open points'.

More from Brexit

1/ A challenge in parsing Brexit news is that businesses are facing overlapping types of challenges that can be difficult to separate.

The key questions are:
1⃣ Given the model of Brexit chosen, could this have been prevented, and by whom?
2⃣ Can it get better?


2/ To put those another way:

"If you knew everything you needed to know and did everything right, is your existing business and delivery model still viable and competitive?"

The answer to that question determines if for you the problem is Brexit, or how Brexit was delivered.

3/ Some of the challenges at borders could have been prevented while still having the exact same model of Brexit (No Single Market, No Customs Union, but an FTA).

That they're appearing is an implementation failure and you can fully support Brexit but still be pissed about them.

4/ Examples include:

1) Government guidance and IT systems being ready earlier and/or easier to navigate;

2) More support for businesses, and more affordable bespoke help;

3) More time to prepare and better government communication about what preparation actually requires.

5/ This thread you've all seen from Daniel Lambert the wine merchant (primarily) deals with problems in this category.

There's no policy reason he can't export his product, but the procedures are a nightmare to navigate and he's badly under-supported.

You May Also Like

Fake chats claiming to be from the Irish African community are being disseminated by the far right in order to suggest that violence is imminent from #BLM supporters. This is straight out of the QAnon and Proud Boys playbook. Spread the word. Protest safely. #georgenkencho


There is co-ordination across the far right in Ireland now to stir both left and right in the hopes of creating a race war. Think critically! Fascists see the tragic killing of #georgenkencho, the grief of his community and pending investigation as a flashpoint for action.


Across Telegram, Twitter and Facebook disinformation is being peddled on the back of these tragic events. From false photographs to the tactics ofwhite supremacy, the far right is clumsily trying to drive hate against minority groups and figureheads.


Declan Ganley’s Burkean group and the incel wing of National Party (Gearóid Murphy, Mick O’Keeffe & Co.) as well as all the usuals are concerted in their efforts to demonstrate their white supremacist cred. The quiet parts are today being said out loud.


The best thing you can do is challenge disinformation and report posts where engagement isn’t appropriate. Many of these are blatantly racist posts designed to drive recruitment to NP and other Nationalist groups. By all means protest but stay safe.
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.