Typically excellent piece from @dsquareddigest The exponential insight is especially neat. Think of it a little like fishing...today you can’t export oysters to the EU (because you simply aren’t allowed to), tomorrow you don’t have a fish exporting business (to the EU).
London's status as a financial centre isn't as secure as some might think | Dan Davies https://t.co/q9SU7ra4oF
— The Guardian (@guardian) February 13, 2021
I refer you to Brexit. But kidding aside, the balance between economic optimality and, to coin a phrase, taking back control is not at all straightforward.
I refer you to the financial crisis.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Well. Maybe. London has a v substantial scale / incumbency advantage. But ofc (as Dan points out) that does not mean that those new opportunities will necessarily arise in London.
More from Yet Another Columnist
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.
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.
Brexit reality bites: The new dawn of trade friction via @RTENews https://t.co/p6VdlhZUAN
— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) January 9, 2021
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.
More from Government
The Government is making the same mistakes as it did in the first wave. Except with knowledge.
A thread.
The Government's strategy at the beginning of the pandemic was to 'cocoon' the vulnerable (e.g. those in care homes). This was a 'herd immunity' strategy. This interview is from
This strategy failed. It is impossible to 'cocoon' the vulnerable, as Covid is passed from younger people to older, more vulnerable people.
We can see this playing out through heatmaps. e.g. these heatmaps from the second
The Government then decided to change its strategy to 'preventing a second wave that overwhelms the NHS'. This was announced on 8 June in Parliament.
This is not the same as 'preventing a second wave'.
https://t.co/DPWiJbCKRm
The Academy of Medical Scientists published a report on 14 July 'Preparing for a Challenging Winter' commissioned by the Chief Scientific Adviser that set out what needed to be done in order to prevent a catastrophe over the winter
A thread.
The Government's strategy at the beginning of the pandemic was to 'cocoon' the vulnerable (e.g. those in care homes). This was a 'herd immunity' strategy. This interview is from
Government #coronavirus science advisor Dr David Halpern tells me of plans to \u2018cocoon\u2019 vulnerable groups. pic.twitter.com/dhECJNbmnI
— Mark Easton (@BBCMarkEaston) March 11, 2020
This strategy failed. It is impossible to 'cocoon' the vulnerable, as Covid is passed from younger people to older, more vulnerable people.
We can see this playing out through heatmaps. e.g. these heatmaps from the second
Here are the heatmaps for Covid detected cases, positivity, hospitalizations, and ICU admissions. This is for the week to 3 January 2021.
— Dr Duncan Robertson (@Dr_D_Robertson) January 7, 2021
I have marked a line on 21 September, when SAGE recommended a circuit breaker, so you can see how the situation has deteriorated since then. pic.twitter.com/SEEVgUVK4j
The Government then decided to change its strategy to 'preventing a second wave that overwhelms the NHS'. This was announced on 8 June in Parliament.
This is not the same as 'preventing a second wave'.
https://t.co/DPWiJbCKRm
The Academy of Medical Scientists published a report on 14 July 'Preparing for a Challenging Winter' commissioned by the Chief Scientific Adviser that set out what needed to be done in order to prevent a catastrophe over the winter
One thing civil servants learn is to write things down. Here is @acadmedsci's 14 July report commissioned by @uksciencechief. For the record.
— Dr Duncan Robertson (@Dr_D_Robertson) September 17, 2020
Abbott is pushing a lie to protect incompetence. There is no Federal oversight of the Texas Grid, ergo fewer regulations (sound familiar) - so point one: state legislature needs reform. 2/
2. Point 2: there were clear signs the grid would get overloaded under extreme cold conditions. Why? Due to a vacuum of regulations mandating winterization of turbines and power generators. This from sources, in Texas!
3. Point 3: Of the power shortfall that hit Texas, over 80% was due to problems at coal and gas fired plants. Power generators were just not winterized. Decisions to do so have been ignored since the 1990s.
4. Point 4: these are winterized wind turbines in Denmark. The ocean is frozen. The turbines are generating.
5. #Texas| the main issue is: catastrophic governance at the State level (no Federal oversight of the Texas grid) failing to allocate funding to winterise the Natural Gas, Coal and Wind Turbine elements that contribute to the grid. (~ 80/20
Texas Gov. Abbott blames solar and wind for the blackouts in his state and says "this shows how the Green New Deal would be a deadly deal for the United States of America" pic.twitter.com/YfVwa3YRZQ
— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) February 17, 2021
2. Point 2: there were clear signs the grid would get overloaded under extreme cold conditions. Why? Due to a vacuum of regulations mandating winterization of turbines and power generators. This from sources, in Texas!
3. Point 3: Of the power shortfall that hit Texas, over 80% was due to problems at coal and gas fired plants. Power generators were just not winterized. Decisions to do so have been ignored since the 1990s.
4. Point 4: these are winterized wind turbines in Denmark. The ocean is frozen. The turbines are generating.
Same thing in Denmark. It's cold enough here that the ocean is frozen and yet look at those reliable windmills just chugging along. pic.twitter.com/1NTljk7hk9
— Elizabeth Gummere (@BethGummere) February 17, 2021
5. #Texas| the main issue is: catastrophic governance at the State level (no Federal oversight of the Texas grid) failing to allocate funding to winterise the Natural Gas, Coal and Wind Turbine elements that contribute to the grid. (~ 80/20
