If only the UK free traders who used to warn us of the perils of trade barriers hasn't decided in the last five years to put purist definitions of sovereignty ahead of trade.
Ah. Not that they'll automatically take the opportunities. But almost like imposing a labour supply shock on top of supply chain strains wasn't a good idea...
Sage. Pretty obvious we're struggling short term. But the medium term economic issues are likely to be different, to do with adjustment to trade barriers. Shortages are mostly temporary (slightly less choice and higher prices may be permanent)
Job done for the EU. The political commentariat think the UK won. The trade experts who greeted the proposals with a lot of saying "hmmm" and "that seems like a lot of conditions" can be safely ignored.
We are not blind to our lack of influence. Perhaps as it should be.
Remarkably some other countries achieve their aims in international negotiations without threats and tantrums. Possibly even most countries and more of their aims.
Indeed for the UK it has been so many tantrums and so little winning. So much so that other countries will know now that it is easy to negotiate with the UK, allow the media win, achieve all the detail you want. We can call it the UK-Australia model.
Oh sheez, not the only offender, but can we make some better attempt to understand negotiations and the EU? Everything is theoretically negotiable if you have the capital. The EU doesn't suddenly offer gold, and didn't yesterday. For the oldies, RTFM.
It might be hard to believe in the UK, but numerous countries are currently negotiating with the EU on all manner of trade subjects. Few involve threats, most are going slow, all involve both sides tweaking negotiating positions regularly, most will deliver something.
In briefing-world Brexit Northern Ireland is on the verge of collapse due to the imposition of the European Court of Justice, and the EU has just put forward remarkable proposals to sweep away nearly all checks under the protocol.
Fine. Except neither of these things is true.
Great Britain to Northern Ireland goods movements are largely continuing, though there's no doubt with greater costs and paperwork for which business has suggested fixes. Unionist anger at a protocol they opposed is real, though also inflamed by the UK government.
The EU has responded with limited proposals to meet the problems identified by Northern Ireland business, while claiming unconvincingly that these will sweep away enormous amounts of checks, and that Member States are strongly resisting any flexibility.
Sure, move fast and break things. But if those things are of interest to other countries, which many are given we trade, then its either the rule of law or law of the jungle in which the biggest / fastest etc win. The latter might sound fun until we're on the wrong side of it.
And have a go at international lawyers or thinktankers or whoever you want. But ultimately since Brexit no UK government has shown an interest in listening to the many people who really understand international trade or law, in the UK or elsewhere. Perhaps listen more, yell less?
Theories of change as well, the UK government has gone for the small revolutionary cadre approach to Brexit, where only the ideologically pure need apply, as opposed to the building of a broad team which is more normally considered best practice (but maybe wrongly).
Important to be clear that the UK risks de-skilling as a result of our policy choices - that those formerly working in higher productivity export sectors will end up working in lower skilled lower productivity domestic areas. We chose trade barriers.
Government's definition of free trade = lower tariffs is appropriate only to around 1980. For the last 40 years free trade has been more about movement of people and regulatory alignment, on both of which we are now comparatively protectionist.