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.

https://t.co/LoHYR31LtA
5/ The Scottish fishers on the other hand, may be up against a policy wall that no amount of improved implementation or preparation can scale.

It is simply very difficult to consistently get fresh seafood across a goods border as quickly as required.
6/ Now to be sure, there are implementation challenges here as well.

This thread by a cold chain expert lays out some of the preparation shortfalls. But even if every truck had every form correct, and a good French agent, there'd be no guarantees.

https://t.co/peM3bjNd0G
7/ Overlaying both these challenge types is the question of ongoing competitiveness.

Navigating the new bureaucracy costs money, and while some of that is a one time learning cost, most isn't.

Having a supplier that must navigate bureaucracy also adds risk.
8/ Competitiveness loss is permanent and a consequence of a policy decision (hard Brexit), not an implementation failure.

UK Gov hopes to mitigate that competitiveness loss by tweaking its domestic regulatory settings to enable improved productivity.

Not clear how yet.
9/ In coming months, we're going to learn more about which business models rode the wave well, which were let down by implementation, which by policy, and which by both.

In the meantime, separating what hard Brexit is inherently from how it was delivered will remain difficult.
10/ P.S: The reason this question should not be academic to those of you who support eventual readmission of the UK into the EU (or at least SM/CU) is that if you get it wrong, and focus on issues resulting from implementation, your argument will disappear once they are resolved.

More from Brexit

They have started in the Scottish case

Looks like a near-concession that the side letter is Padfield-compliant
A quote from this excellent piece, neatly summarising a core impact of Brexit.

The Commission’s view, according to several sources, is that Brexit means existing distribution networks and supply chains are now defunct and will have to be replaced by other systems.


Of course, this was never written on the side of a bus. And never acknowledged by government. Everything was meant to be broadly fine apart from the inevitable teething problems.

It was, however, visible from space to balanced observers. You did not have to be a trade specialist to understand that replacing the Single Market with a third country trade arrangement meant the end of many if not all of the complex arrangements optimised for the former.

In the absence of substantive mitigations, the Brexit winners are those who subscribe to some woolly notion of ‘sovereignty’ and those who did not like freedom of movement. The losers are everyone else.

But, of course, that’s not good enough. For understandable reasons Brexit was sold as a benefit not a cost. The trading benefits of freedom would far outweigh the costs. Divergence would benefit all.

You May Also Like

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.