I’m feeling really sad today thinking about what we’ve lost over the last 5 years. But this is mixed with proud knowledge I, and many around me, did all we could to avert this disaster unfolding. This is a short thread to give a shout out to some of them 1/

Amid all the announcements today, it's easy to overlook that the OBR has updated its scenario on a no-deal Brexit. It exposes an undeniably hard reality for the Govt that claims that the UK would "prosper mightily" under no-deal next year.

(Short thread)

1. Key chart: a no-deal/WTO/Australia-style Brexit would delay the point at which econ output regains its pre-virus peak by "almost a year to the third quarter of 2023."

In the upside scenario, this cross-over point could be at the start of 2022; in the downside, in 2025. Grim.

2. Next year, a no deal Brexit would reduce real GDP by around a further 2% - as a result of immediate disruption to the border and uncertainty facing businesses. That's on top of the Covid-related contraction.

3. While there's some short-term border disruption, most of the costs come in the medium term: from lost employment; productivity losses; lower business investment.

Exactly the opposite of what the Chancellor said to @AndrewMarr9 on Sunday.

4. Underneath these numbers, output would fall *below* the Covid levels for several key sectors: Manufacturing, professional services, financial services, retail, energy.

All trade intensive sectors that have been spared the same drop in output as the non-tradables this year.

One of the root causes of the Govt's Brexit difficulties is that it has overpromised.

We can, it is said, reclaim our sovereignty, with the freedom to make our own rules, and, at the same time, retain many of the advantages of EU membership. 1/14

The reality is that we cannot.

Unless we agree to certain standards and rules (and there is scope to argue about which rules), there will be borders, and checks, and tariffs. 2/

There will always be a relationship between rights (eg tariff free access to EU/UK markets) and responsibilities (eg abiding by level-playing field commitments). 3/

A 'good' outcome for the UK, in the Govt's view, would involve access gains (eg fewer border checks) without corresponding obligations (or with weak, or difficult-to-enforce obligations). 4/

The chances of this sort of 'good' outcome are low. The EU looks likely, in the face of the threats in the Internal Market Bill and now the Finance Bill, to insist on rigorous governance provisions. [Also, such provisions are the foundation of the single market.] 5/

🚨🇬🇧🇪🇺🚛🍤🐟🥬📦✈️🇬🇧🇪🇺🚨
So here it is. After the euphoria, the @FinancialTimes @FTMag long read of how @BorisJohnson did his Trade deal with the EU. Tl:dr...not so much “build back better”, more “build back the borders” - stay with me/1.

@FTMag @BorisJohnson The really under-appreciated part of this story is the extent to which the Johnson government, having won its 80 seat majority promising to "Get Brexit Done" then explicitly and actively chose the hardest possible version of #brexit in defiance of commercial interests /2

@FTMag @BorisJohnson Our story begins in January last year when David Frost commenced what Whitehall insiders call a "Star Chamber" process to strip away anything that might be considered more than a "Canada-style" deal - regardless of the fact that UK doesn't trade with EU like Canada! /3

@FTMag @BorisJohnson So what did that mean in practice?

Well, for example leaving EU aviation safety agency (EASA); Chemicals agency (ECHA), not getting a waiver of 'safety and security' declarations for hauliers, not seeking special arrangements for animal products...on and on it goes /4

@FTMag @BorisJohnson Didn't industry object? Well yes it did - but those who yelled too hard found themselves shut out of the door.

Did Whitehall object? Yes it did - Defra and Beis and Treasury all tried at some level to temper the revolutionary fury. But mostly failed. /5