I really can’t see how, after the last four and half years, the breakup of the UK can be avoided. What a historical irony that a Brexit intended to make Britain ‘great again’ actually brings about the demise of ‘Great’ Britain.

1/ Quick thread. At the end of the third week of Brexit being "done", I can only say that I'm exhausted.

Immediate pressures on companies who have been trading goods have been on grappling with all of the new customs and regulatory requirements.

2/ It's clear that agrifood businesses have been the hardest hit due to the SPS checks and other requirements.

But for others, the shift from a distributor model to importer/exporter has been a challenge. This hasn't been helped by certain IT system not working as planned.

3/ So are these "teething problems"? Companies are grappling with the new systems & formalities.

Some are, but many others aren't.

Worth noting that freight volumes are still below average. But stockpiles are running low, coming weeks are going to be interesting.

4/ Two issues that are immediately facing many businesses that won't be addressed by sorting this teething period.

First, many businesses are facing the largest shift in their cost base in a generation.

5/ This comes from the cost of dealing with the customs procedures, upgrading IT systems to manage the new requirements, setting up European operating centres to comply with regulatory requirements, new immigration costs, the list goes on.

Fish thread.
Having read the Brexit deal, I believe B. Johnson misled the nation on Thurs when he said Britain could catch “all the fish that it wants ” in UK waters in 5 years’ time. The clear presumption in the text is that EU fleets will have similar access after 2026.1/12

The UK fish industry will have to pay a high price in EU import tariffs if that access is withdrawn. Overall… the deal falls far short of the exaggerated “sea of opportunity” promises made to UK fishermen. 2/12

The headline quota compromise - reducing EU catches in the UK 200 mile zone by 25% over five and a half years – is balanced enough. But different fishers will study the small-print with delight OR anger. Some EU quotas will be cut more than others. 3/12

Fisheries, we were told, would be a big Brexit winner. No it won’t. On this deal, the UK industry will certainly lose more from Brexit (no more frictionless access to the EU market) than it gains (incremental, extra quotas over the next 5 years). 4/12

First…the length of the deal. The 5 and 1/2 years of cuts in EU quotas/increases in UK quotas, are laid out in annexes to the main treaty. The last column says “2026 onwards” In other words, the presumption is there will be no further cuts in EU quotas after that date. 5/12

I am in the market for positive, optimistic articles about Brexit - it may not be how I’m feeling but I’m sure I’ve missed things + want to avoid confirmation bias so I’m opening my mind, + this seemed like a good place to

Elliott argues that ‘the UK has deep, structural economic problems’ - true, but correlation is not causation: we look in vain for an argument that these problems are caused by EU membership and/or that membership is preventing them being tackled

The argument would be stronger if Elliott could show that other countries in the EU faced similar structural problems, but he doesn’t + I don’t think he could - the EU manages to incorporate a wide range of economic models, + regional inequalities vary hugely between EU countries

He does not attempt to acknowledge + explain the boom in inward investment in UK manufacturing in the last few decades, one of the few economic positives for ‘left behind areas’, though that may have been hard without referring to single market membership + European supply chains

‘Brexit means that those farmers who want their fruit harvested will now have to...pay higher wages or invest in new machinery.’ Maybe they will (but I’m not convinced) but this would have unintended consequences eg higher prices for healthy food

When we had a [Brexit] deal, I thought, we're saved all the rigmarole and hassle, it'll work sweet as a nut, but it hasn't happened," says Mr Flannigan. Instead, he says, it feels like the clock's been turned back 30 years
People really don't have a "sweet as a nut" clue do they?

Yes "30 years" and worse ..because you are now outside the Single Market & "worse" outside the Customs Union too . You're now trading under conditions more like Belarussia into EU without the customs & logistical capacity to handle the volumes. Your business will most likely fail

This was always so ..regardless of the "deal" esp with "87% of Berwick Shellfish's £1.7m sales go to France, Spain and Germany"
Next....
"The real test for me is the next two to three weeks, as inventory is depleted and orders increase," says Mr Munro.

"He thinks there's a window of opportunity now, for the authorities to fine tune the system before volumes are ramped up" .. "fine tune" Oh FFS...!! wake up.

The BBC report a litany of businesses not understanding the "deal" was always going to mean being outside the SM/CU

"Mr Dormer fears the "massive amount of aggravation" could mean business partners on the continent start to look elsewhere.".....errrr ...yes.

Note how though the report leads with a suggestion of EU "pettiness"

Today's UK-EU trade deal reflection - what is rarely stated in discussions about the deal's shortcomings is that they reflect UK government policy choices - in particular that control of immigration and a US trade deal are a higher priority than an EU deal.

Thus, why was it not a UK government priority to secure for UK musicians the rights to tour the EU? Because that would probably have required a reciprocal right to be given to those in the EU, which we didn't want to give. Choice.

Meanwhile why did the UK government not seek or secure a reduction in food inspections for GB products going to the EU? Because that would probably have required fixing food regulations in a way that might have been an obstacle to a US trade deal.

Works the other way as well. Why did the EU refuse UK requests on mutual recognition of industrial testing? In part at least because of UK lack of commitment on maintaining the previous EU system of standards and conformity assessment which might be a problem in a US deal.

One of the strangest opinions in the London politics bubble is that the UK government isn't that bothered about a US trade deal, as it so obviously goes against the evidence. There might be domestic opposition, but this was to be Brexit Dividend Number 1.