A few thoughts in advance of seeing the Brexit deal, assuming it's not scuppered at the last.
1. It will save industries, in the short term. For all the problems it *won't* solve, there is at least that. Tariffs would have finished off some sectors like switching off a light.
6. Expect a few positive surprises. (Not compared to EU membership, but to what would otherwise have been.)
8. How have services fared? They're what keep our trade deficit from being a larger trade deficit. They can't get stuck at ports, but they can suffer from changes.
- There are dozens of new direct ferry services between Ireland and the Continent, all introduced in the last 12 months or so. These include the 2 largest Ro-Ro ships in the world. So less via the landbridge.
More from Edwin Hayward 🦄 🗡
You can't magic away the vast distances involved. Clue: we fly in only 1/192th of our trade compared to the amount that arrives via sea
In 2016, the UK transported 484,000,000 tons of freight by sea, but just 2,511,000 tons by air (192x less than by sea). Therefore absurd to think of simply substituting air freight for sea freight (e.g. if we have to fly in food or medicines because of post-Brexit jams at ports)
— Edwin Hayward (@uk_domain_names) October 28, 2018
But even if you invented a teleporter tomorrow, WTO terms are so bad, so stacked against us, that a no-deal Brexit will be a total economic disaster
Here's the truth about Brexit, the "punishment" some people claim the EU wants to inflict on us, the full horrific consequences of no deal, and the dangers lurking behind any deal we reach. Buckle in, it's pretty long. Better to be thorough than to leave anything out. 1/47
— Edwin Hayward (@uk_domain_names) October 14, 2018
And while the Brexiteers fantasise, real jobs are being lost, investments are drying up, companies are moving assets to the EU27 or redomiciling. All already happened and happening right now, not in some mythical
Ok, it's high time to look at the REAL effects of Brexit. As the Tories implode & Labour sits on its hands, companies are executing contingency plans, shifting jobs & assets, slashing investments, or redomiciling (accounting exercise). Happening NOW, not in a fantasy future. 1/95
— Edwin Hayward (@uk_domain_names) November 14, 2018
Of course, there are many, many myths that Brexiteers perpetuate that are total fiction. You've seen a couple of them already. The thread below busts a whole lot
Unicorn Shredder: Hard Brexit Truths
— Edwin Hayward (@uk_domain_names) November 15, 2018
- The major economic harm Brexit is already inflicting on the UK
- Reality of "no deal" & WTO terms
- EU "punishment" narrative
- Endangered industries: automotive & haulage
+ much, much more...
(Each tweet is a self-contained thread.)
More from Brexit
The rupture between Margaret Thatcher and Jacques Delors lives on in Brexit https://t.co/r3YiyPoSFB
— john milbank (@johnmilbank3) January 9, 2021
Thatcher: Protestant believer in the totally free market and absolutely sovereign centralised nation state. Delors: Catholic believer in third way personalism, corporatism and federalism. Individualism versus relational love. Heterodoxy versus Orthodoxy.
The article useful gives the lie to the idea that the Catholic vision of the EU has altogether vanished even though it is weakened. Delors wanted a social dimension to the free market and single currency and yet lexiteers laughably insist the EU is more neoliberal than the U.K.!
Subsidiary federalism is a doctrine of democracy and human fraternity. State sovereignty is a doctrine of naked power. It is a face of Antichrist. Leviathan.
Those combined that democracy can only be inside a single state fail to power just how much of private law and evermore so is necessarily international. Thus if political institutions don’t extend over borders there can be no democracy.
You May Also Like
As a dean of a major academic institution, I could not have said this. But I will now. Requiring such statements in applications for appointments and promotions is an affront to academic freedom, and diminishes the true value of diversity, equity of inclusion by trivializing it. https://t.co/NfcI5VLODi
— Jeffrey Flier (@jflier) November 10, 2018
We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.
Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)
It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.
Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".