With 10 days to go, there are three main outcomes of the #Brexit talks:
1) no deal
2) the two sides are still talking but run out of time - qu if can find other ways to buy more time
3) a deal is reached which the UK ratifies & EU provisionally applies

In some ways, option one is the most simple

If the two sides walk away then we dont need to see the govt recalling UK parliament & the european parliament also doesn't need to vote
But no deal isnt a sustainable endstate - lots of reasons the UK will need to work with EU in the future

While I dont think UK will be straight back to the negotiating table - esp if PM unwilling to compromise in current circumstances - there will still be unresolved issues
Option two is probably the most challenging - where both sides think there is a deal to be done but the clock just runs out...

They may want to buy more time for talks but as @GeorginaEWright has pointed out, it is really much more complicated than that: https://t.co/a9r2vzVjQ6
Which means that for many, option 3 (a deal) is really the best outcome

Although @aliceolilly has pointed out recall has been complicated by covid rules: https://t.co/kPaA7vXT32

There is still - just about - enough time for the UK parliament to pass implementing legislation
If not, it is possible that the govt implements some aspects of the treaty through SI (eg tariff changes) and deals with the rest in the new year - would undermine usual convention but is possible

More on UK process here: https://t.co/bHExrSh8xb
The european parliament's sunday night deadline has passed - if a deal had been reached by the EP would have voted on it before the end of the year

But, although politically difficult, the Council can still chose to provisionally apply the treaty: https://t.co/MNnTkxnry4
While MEPs may be unhappy with this approach, the alternative would be a huge amount of disruption for EU individuals & businesses for a short period of time - a decision that could be difficult for MS to justify
But worth remembering that huge changes are coming deal or no deal (more from @Joe_Marshall0 here: https://t.co/FyooxnPWK1) & the later it gets, the more difficult it is for businesses to put the necessary prep in place

As we discussed two weeks ago: https://t.co/COcWhsEA7E
It feels pretty astonishing to be ten days from the end of the transition period with so much uncertainty about what rules will govern trade with our nearest neighbour

It is looking increasingly difficult for the govt to justify its decision not to extend the transition period
Given where we are, the PM urgently needs to decide whether a compromise with the EU is worth it to get a deal

And if he decides it isn't, rather than talking about the UK 'prospering mightily', he needs to honestly communicate the realities of a no deal Brexit

More from Brexit

It is time to talk Brexit and standards again. (thread)


Let's start off with: I don't think any trade experts are surprised by this. It is why the TCA did not do much on SPS. It is why the EU did not offer much on SPS. It is why the UK did not ask much on SPS.

But it also shows that the popular slogan "after Brexit we'll have the same standards as before, so why would anything change in trade" was wrong - and worse, it was purposefully trying to stifle a necessary debate.

And this leads me to the next point: I have no issue with changing the rules, I have a massive issue with how it is done. Here's what we should discuss:

The decisive question: What are the standards the UK as a country wants. To inform this debate, we need the following information:

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?