Project fear - a media friendly term which at one stroke, mocked the expertise of those at many of the coal faces of Brexit and dismissed it with a sneer. Yet, just 9 days in, it looks very much like project fear predictions were true and should have been heeded.

Thread

Project fear was not a myth. It was the truth.

Shame on the politicians & media who, because they wanted to stick two fingers up to the EU and filled with hubris & exceptionalism, dismissed the valid concerns of industries & experts, whose jobs involve the kind of detail this government so happily glosses over on every issue.

Oh, how could I forget this. Also forewarned as being part of the Tory plan behind Brexit, now we see they aren’t even pretending it wasn’t their aim all along.

Remember Gove assuring us that once we had left the EU we would INCREASE agriculture and animal welfare standards?

Yep, it was yet more “keep ‘em sweet until it’s signed” bollocks

https://t.co/T26mrTdUd0

More from Brexit

Nick Gutteridge
@nickgutteridge

1/ What are the ‘new’ demands the UK says the EU has made in the Brexit talks and are they actually new? There are 3 specific areas of contention that have emerged, one each on state aid rules, the Level Playing Field/Governance, and fish. None of them should be a total surprise.

2/ First, on state aid. The UK says the EU wants the Commission and European Investment Bank to be given carve-outs from the subsidy control provisions in the deal. It says this would create an unfair imbalance, because there would be no similar exemption for British authorities.

3/ This is particularly relevant in light of the bloc's €750bn Coronavirus recovery fund. It has already been delayed by an internal political row, and the EU is keen to ensure that isn't exacerbated by legal disputes with the UK next year. Brussels denies this is anything new.

4/ The Commission is an ex ante regulator, meaning it is called in to pre-authorise state aid spending by EU countries. The EU wants the UK to set up its own independent regulator to approve subsidies in the same way. If it does so, many of the state aid problems will fall away.

5/ LPF/Governance. This is about the 'ratchet clause' which the EU has relabelled as 'equivalence' of standards. It addresses what happens if one side raises its standards on say environmental or labour rules in the future and the other doesn't, creating a competitive imbalance.

DK *deep waist bows+ap...
@justadandak

1/7 My thoughts on what could happen within a decade after #Brexit with the formation of the #UnitedCelticNation as a new country:

2/7 After the #Brexit transition period ends on 31 Dec 2020, the Scottish Parliament will announce a new independent referendum (under a Section 30 order which the PM has to agree to - he won't - they will change their laws to enable them not to need his approval).

3/7 This new Scottish independent referendum will happen within the first 6/9 months of 2021 and result in the decision to leave the UK.

4/7 An application to rejoin the EU will happen immediately after the Scottish referendum result and within months the EU will accept Scotland back in (justified as 'the will of the people' plus how recent their exit was).

5/7 Within 3-5 years of #Brexit, Wales will also hold its own referendum on independence (fuelled by the decline in economy plus the example set by Scotland) and will also be successful. EU membership will also be sought and gained with an accelerated timescale within a year.

Shane Brennan
@ColdChainShane

As @michaelgove admitted yesterday we are expecting significant disruption in our #trade flows with the EU in coming days. The fact he is willing to say this confirms what most of us feel, that problems are building. This thread is a summary of what I have learnt in the past week

DISCLAIMER I run a trade body and spent the week in my back bedroom on the phone to members, reading the media and on zoom calls. I’m not on the ground and I am not in the operation rooms. So my info is second hand and partial. No one has a complete view. IT IS HIDEOUSLY COMPLEX

The first obvious problem is the number of different actors involved. On the commercial side - within 1 exporter there are multiple depts. There is also the buying company and the logistics company. They all have to sync. 1 load of goods involves multiple commercial actors.

On the government side its even more complex. In UK there are dozens of departments and agencies involved, and the same if not more in every member state of the EU. there are hundreds of thousands of decision makers involved.

They all have the same rule book though - YES true but its 1200 pages long and it's 15 days old - also - here's the thing with red tape, it's open to interpretation. (It's why lawyers tend to drive nice cars) and so being BORDER READY means different things to different actors.

Peter Foster
@pmdfoster

🚨🇬🇧🇪🇺🚛🍤🐟🥬📦✈️🇬🇧🇪🇺🚨
So here it is. After the euphoria, the @FinancialTimes @FTMag long read of how @BorisJohnson did his Trade deal with the EU. Tl:dr...not so much “build back better”, more “build back the borders” - stay with me/1.

@FTMag @BorisJohnson The really under-appreciated part of this story is the extent to which the Johnson government, having won its 80 seat majority promising to "Get Brexit Done" then explicitly and actively chose the hardest possible version of #brexit in defiance of commercial interests /2

@FTMag @BorisJohnson Our story begins in January last year when David Frost commenced what Whitehall insiders call a "Star Chamber" process to strip away anything that might be considered more than a "Canada-style" deal - regardless of the fact that UK doesn't trade with EU like Canada! /3

@FTMag @BorisJohnson So what did that mean in practice?

Well, for example leaving EU aviation safety agency (EASA); Chemicals agency (ECHA), not getting a waiver of 'safety and security' declarations for hauliers, not seeking special arrangements for animal products...on and on it goes /4

@FTMag @BorisJohnson Didn't industry object? Well yes it did - but those who yelled too hard found themselves shut out of the door.

Did Whitehall object? Yes it did - Defra and Beis and Treasury all tried at some level to temper the revolutionary fury. But mostly failed. /5

Peter Foster
@pmdfoster

So. The hunt is on in Whitehall for #brexit dividends...to show some clear value in the freedoms given by Brexit.

As we report today one area being looked at is workers' rights...but it is politically difficult territory.

No cabinet decisions have been taken, but per sources, three potential areas been identified in Business Dept...

- the 48 Hour Week
- holiday pay/overtime calculations
- new EU rules on reporting hours worked...

All potentially possible post #brexit /2

The government says it has no intention of “lowering” workers’ rights....and notes that UK has actually gold-plated many EU regulations...BUT (think of government saying it won't "lower" animal welfare standards)...the devil will all be in the detail, if and when it comes /3

So the government likes to talk about ensuring workers’ rights are protected but ALSO making sure businesses has freedoms and flexibility to grow...so one man's reduction in rights is another freedom to get richer/work harder/be more prosperous. It depends how you sell it. /4

So take this 2017 story from The Sun on the cash bonanza that will be rained down on hardworking families by Brexiteers' (long standing) desire to scrap the 48-hour week. Overtime booooom..../5

https://t.co/QLqQ7rCzkv

Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018

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?