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

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.
This very short article by Jeremy Cliffe is the best thing I have ever read on Brexit and the EU. It pivots on the contrast between Delors’ and Thatcher’s authentically provincial Christian visions and suggests the battle in Britain between the two is not over.


Thatcher: Protestant believer in the totally free market and absolutely sovereign centralised nation state. Delors: Catholic believer in third way personalism, corporatism and federalism. Individualism versus relational love. Heterodoxy versus Orthodoxy.

The article useful gives the lie to the idea that the Catholic vision of the EU has altogether vanished even though it is weakened. Delors wanted a social dimension to the free market and single currency and yet lexiteers laughably insist the EU is more neoliberal than the U.K.!

Subsidiary federalism is a doctrine of democracy and human fraternity. State sovereignty is a doctrine of naked power. It is a face of Antichrist. Leviathan.

Those combined that democracy can only be inside a single state fail to power just how much of private law and evermore so is necessarily international. Thus if political institutions don’t extend over borders there can be no democracy.

You May Also Like