Going to have to disagree with my learned friend here. If anyone moved on level playing field it was the UK, on the principle of a ratchet, or tariffs for divergence which was still being denied midweek. Changing the way in this might be achieved (many options) is insignificant.

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.

Plenty of talk this morning about how UK sovereignty is what is stopping an EU deal, that the EU want to impinge on this.

Sorry, the argument is totally bogus. It is a combination of EU hatred and cakeism dressed up in respectable clothing. 1/ n

How do we define sovereignty in trade deals? Complex question, so let's just look at this government. It believes in trade deals and membership of the WTO. These contain binding rules. Therefore for this government sovereignty and binding rules are compatible. 2/

Therefore sovereignty in terms of trade rules for this government is a relative concept either in content or partner terms. So when they say the EU proposals go too far is that because of what is proposed, or who it is proposed with? 3/

We haven't been told the detail. But with regard to the level playing field it is suggested that no country could sign up to a situation where not following the rules leads to tariffs being imposed. However we agree to this in the WTO and FTAs. So that is untrue. 4/

Fish is a slightly different matter, and it is being said that the EU proposal would deny the UK control of our waters. But definitionally that can't be true. We're showing our control through the discussion. We don't have to do a deal. 5/

Delusional. And no way to run a country. Far higher barriers to trade with the EU from Friday. And still subject to EU influence on our laws. To deny this is also to deny the ability to tackle the problems we will face.

We ended up with particularly high level playing field conditions in the EU deal because the UK didn't take the subject seriously. We got a worse deal on fish than anyone thought possible, and got nothing in return. All because of cakeism. Or patriotism as they call it.

Now we face higher trade barriers to our nearest market, which means our businesses need to be even more competitive to overcome them and succeed. Is that acknowledged?

Our neighbours, the EU, use all manner of pressures to keep neighbours in line in terms of trade. That financial services equivalence, pity if you didn't get that. Data equivalence, have 6 months free if you don't change your laws while we make you sweat...

Northern Ireland, as we repeat endlessly, Johnson cakeism of no checks? Somehow no longer mentioned after the EU got what they wanted. See also, fish, level playing field. EU priorities, EU won. Johnson cake, all gone, not eaten.

Brexit. UK-EU talks. Let's try to explain why we're in such a state, of increased risk of no deal, moving away from the fish and playing fields which are the detail but not the answer, to differing philosophies and divorce parallels that might just help... 1/

First, with apologies to those concerned, we need to go beyond those saying this is the inevitable path to deal / no-deal. Half of them will be right and I'll definitely be wrong (don't worry, I'm hedged in wine bets), but it wasn't inevitable, typical, or necessary. 2/

I'll also ignore the content of any deal, which has been clear for months, the UK compromises on level playing field, the EU on fish. Something so obvious really isn't the fundamental issue. Could, as some not noted for their perspicacity have said, be done in an afternoon. 3/

Some truth in the idea that flounces and playing the tough cop are a part of trade negotiations. But equally as we're in about the 5th pass of these, I think it has ceased to be helpful. Either side could already have cut the deal having shown their toughness. 4/

Some fundamentals then, that we've forgotten. First, the trade deal that will lead to much less free trade than before. The incentive structures, the ability to create a win-win, are inevitably going to be different to a normal deal. 5/

@FionaPearman @ScottMorrisonMP Morrison is our statue of unempathic neoliberalism - erected by evangelical and corporate Australia to celebrate their victory over compassion, equality and secular humanism. 

Hopefully it gets pulled down like the statues of dubious heroes of oppression from an earlier age.

@ScottMorrisonMP The two-party-preferred system in 
Australia politics isn’t working for people, and it sure isn’t working for the planet.

@ScottMorrisonMP My collapse of faith in our democracies isn’t an accident. It’s one of the central victories of the neoliberal project, delivered through two generations of privatisation, outsourcing and deregulation, underfunding of government services (locked in by tax cuts),...

@ScottMorrisonMP restricting freedom of information, targeting whistleblowers and raiding the media who report on them, delegitimising and gagging public interest advocacy, and criminalising protest.

@ScottMorrisonMP Politics in Australia today relies hugely on the fact that most people don’t know most of what’s going on so as to get away with stuff that couldn’t be done under real scrutiny we have seen a clear example of this with the National Coronvirus Cabinet.

@RyanKemper10 @ScottAdamsSays @TherealzCRS Meaning to do this anyway. Strap in.

My main concern with masks is their ability to force filter droplet (with a predictable 6 foot arc) into aerosol, which has an 18-20 foot trajectory, remains aloft for gravity. It remains aloft for hours, and doesn’t respond predictably 1/🧵

The Creative Process in 43 Hayao Miyazaki Screengrabs

(Context: https://t.co/nqjmAtLAND)

To the person who thinks that they might be autistic. - a thread. /1

I imagine you have gone your entire life wondering why you are different, why you can't seem to understand things the way that others can and why everything just seems so hard. I'm proud of you for getting this far. /2

Part of you might be thinking:
"But if I was autistic, surely it would've been noticed when I was a kid? So maybe I'm making this up."
So many autistic people aren't diagnosed until they are adults, if diagnosed at all. You would not be the first and you won't be the last. /3

"My family and friends don't think that I could be autistic."
People's understandings of autism tend to be based off of the media, which doesn't show every possible presentation of autism, or based off of someone they know, and all autistic people present differently. /4

People's perceptions of autism can also be based off stereotypes, for example, "autistic people can't make eye contact, so you can't be autistic." While this is true for some, it isn't for all, so you can begin to see how one presentation of autism can't possibly fit everyone. /5

Daily Bookmarks to GAVNet 02/16/2021