I am in the market for positive, optimistic articles about Brexit - it may not be how I’m feeling but I’m sure I’ve missed things + want to avoid confirmation bias so I’m opening my mind, + this seemed like a good place to

Elliott argues that ‘the UK has deep, structural economic problems’ - true, but correlation is not causation: we look in vain for an argument that these problems are caused by EU membership and/or that membership is preventing them being tackled
The argument would be stronger if Elliott could show that other countries in the EU faced similar structural problems, but he doesn’t + I don’t think he could - the EU manages to incorporate a wide range of economic models, + regional inequalities vary hugely between EU countries
He does not attempt to acknowledge + explain the boom in inward investment in UK manufacturing in the last few decades, one of the few economic positives for ‘left behind areas’, though that may have been hard without referring to single market membership + European supply chains
‘Brexit means that those farmers who want their fruit harvested will now have to...pay higher wages or invest in new machinery.’ Maybe they will (but I’m not convinced) but this would have unintended consequences eg higher prices for healthy food
And even if so Elliott doesn’t explain how it will drive the wider productivity revolution we need (agriculture is under 1% of the economy), nor how labour-intensive/publicly funded service sectors (most obviously social care) could adapt
‘The City will continue to thrive’ we are assured. Good. We are then reminded why we shouldn’t have joined the single currency, which we didn’t
Some criticisms of the EU’s approach to Covid-19, which are irrelevant (since to all intents and purposes the UK was still in the EU last year + managed to enact a distinct + not wholly successful approach)
‘The four freedoms of the single market – no barriers to the movement of goods, services, people and capital – are actually the four pillars of neoliberalism’ hints at an economic vision based on a relatively closed economy, but there is no further explanation
‘Leaving the EU means UK governments no longer have anywhere to hide’ this implies UK Governments will suddenly become more democratic, accountable + effective, which I hope is true but the evidence of 2020 doesn’t give much cause for optimism
‘They have economic levers they can pull...and they will come under pressure to use them’ which implies there are easy solutions to the economic problems we face which UK Governments will be able + willing to put into place now we are outside the EU, again I’m not optimistic
What reasons are there to think that? what are the things we can do now we couldn’t do before? and what reason is there to think that outside the EU the UK Government will suddenly refocus? Elliott provides no hint of an answer
‘This, though, assumes that Britain will have rightwing governments in perpetuity’ Elliott does not even acknowledge the high risk post-Brexit of Scottish independence which does risk the rump UK generally having right wing Governments
‘It used to be the left who welcomed change and the right that wanted things to remain the same’ this is often untrue (see Thatcher) but in any case change is not good by definition, + Elliott doesn’t make the case that this is a change that the left should welcome
I didn’t expect to have my mind changed by Elliott but I hoped he would make me think ‘ah I can see there’s some things to be positive about’, but he didn’t
I’m left frustrated because he simply ignores the things that many of us are worried about - the economic costs and risks to inward investment of being outside the single market, with few benefits in practice, as well as the cultural baggage the right brings to Brexit
If he acknowledged those concerns + explained some positives to counter them, some specifics of things that could be better now, I would have found the article interesting and thought-provoking. As it is, I’m afraid just found it vague and unconvincing /ends

More from Brexit

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.
Been waiting for 👇 🚨

Important story on what a “tariff-free” deal means in practice and why it’s not enough for two economies as closely integrated.

Tariffs are removed on goods that meet rules of origin. This is a complex and nuanced area of customs.

/1


Important to remember that trade deals (FTAs) weren't designed with such a high degree of economic integration in mind.

So some of the standard RoO provisions will seem incredibly restrictive under the UK-EU deal.

/2

Minimal operations or insufficient processing is a standard part of an FTA. Most, if not all FTAs, include a provision on minimal processing – processing not considered sufficient to confer originating status even if rules of origin have been met.

/3

It is standard procedure not to apply cumulation when goods have only been subject to minimal processing.

To be able to cumulate origin and consider the final product of UK origin, the processing carried out in the UK needs to exceed minimal operations.

/4

The level of integration between the UK and the EU means that this will have significant consequences for a number of industries.

For example, in supply chains where goods are brought into the UK from the EU and reassembled, sorted or repackaged and re-exported to ROI.

/5

You May Also Like

I think a plausible explanation is that whatever Corbyn says or does, his critics will denounce - no matter how much hypocrisy it necessitates.


Corbyn opposes the exploitation of foreign sweatshop-workers - Labour MPs complain he's like Nigel

He speaks up in defence of migrants - Labour MPs whinge that he's not listening to the public's very real concerns about immigration:

He's wrong to prioritise Labour Party members over the public:

He's wrong to prioritise the public over Labour Party
I hate when I learn something new (to me) & stunning about the Jeff Epstein network (h/t MoodyKnowsNada.)

Where to begin?

So our new Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's stepfather, Samuel Pisar, was "longtime lawyer and confidant of...Robert Maxwell," Ghislaine Maxwell's Dad.


"Pisar was one of the last people to speak to Maxwell, by phone, probably an hour before the chairman of Mirror Group Newspapers fell off his luxury yacht the Lady Ghislaine on 5 November, 1991."
https://t.co/DAEgchNyTP


OK, so that's just a coincidence. Moving on, Anthony Blinken "attended the prestigious Dalton School in New York City"...wait, what? https://t.co/DnE6AvHmJg

Dalton School...Dalton School...rings a

Oh that's right.

The dad of the U.S. Attorney General under both George W. Bush & Donald Trump, William Barr, was headmaster of the Dalton School.

Donald Barr was also quite a


I'm not going to even mention that Blinken's stepdad Sam Pisar's name was in Epstein's "black book."

Lots of names in that book. I mean, for example, Cuomo, Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew, Bill Cosby, Woody Allen - all in that book, and their reputations are spotless.