Thread by @DavidHenigUK

In how many ways does it need to be said that it is the UK government's choice to go for a hard Brexit with minimal regulatory alignment and maximum checks?

Also, that the UK's choice was a US trade deal over less friction with the EU? thetimes.co.uk/article/brusse…

Also the choice of the UK government to fail to understand that paperwork was the inevitable outcome of their Brexit, and not to give enough time for adjustment to business, which they are now having to compensate business for.

All exacerbated by the Prime Minister's negotiating style of talking tough in the media (supposedly threatening the other side), over promising to domestic audiences ('no PM would...') and then folding completely to get a deal (Northern Ireland, fish).

Best guess is that over time the UK government will follow all international precedent by prioritising trade relations with neighbours, but probably getting a bad deal by doing so under the veil of threats ('performative divergence' - @SamuelMarcLowe).

Incidentally those far flung trade deals with the likes of Australia and the US don't remove the checks we've just seen introduced with the US either. They are mostly tariff reduction, which as pointed out previously, offers only limited benefits.

Anyway, as before, we await from the UK government a real trade strategy (from any government, perhaps the Welsh or Scottish could step in?) which removes the bombast and gives us some tangible focus - preferably on services and non-tariff barriers with closer markets.

PS will wait the @pmdfoster thread version of this long-read, but the sheer number of UK negotiating errors is something - worse deals on fish and level playing field to prove we could get the thin deal that didn't need proving 🤦‍♂️ft.com/content/cc6b0d…