On March 17, the Netherlands will have general elections.

Two parties - PVV & FVD - want a Nexit, a departure from the EU, in line with Brexit.

As the reality of the EU-UK trade agreement kicks in, let's take a look at what these parties

Ten days in and it seems the government's post-Brexit economic policy is to ignore reality, priority and choice, and just claim with no evidence that everything is going to be great. This, needless to say, is dangerous territory. Exhibit 1... 1/

Here's a good example of what is currently passing for UK economic policy. The theory the UK can be 'nimble' in regulations has been present since 2016. In 5 years nobody has found the detail. We presume others might have a similar idea. And trade needs regulations to align 2/

There will of course always be someone to blame. Usually the EU. Because they do indeed want to compete with the UK. This is not exactly surprising. A vague UK idea versus the bigger next door market (or indeed a big one over the pond). Who's going to win? 3/

Next, 'Global Britain' and specifically the Liz Truss speech in the Commons yesterday. To summarise, we are going to do trade deals on everything with everyone while still protecting UK industry and poor countries. Yup, more warm words and no priorities.

Useful example here. The long running EU-US trade battle over food, one claiming to be about quality, the other science. The UK solution. We'll do both! Fabulous, why did nobody think of this before? Unless they did, and found they still had to choose. Note other warm words 5/

EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has briefed Europe Ministers from EU member states that progress continues to be made in negotiations with the UK but not significantly when it comes to key sticking points: level playing field, fish, governance of deal /1

This briefing comes ahead of the EU leaders summit in Brussels end of this week, where Brexit will be discussed most likely I’m told on Friday morning. Both Michel Barnier and the PM once described this summit mid October as cut off point by which time a deal had to be agreed /2

This clearly will not be the case and each side predictably blames the other for that. Today a UK government source said: „The EU have been using the old playbook in which they thought running down the clock would work against the UK“ /3

„They have assumed that the UK would be more willing to compromise the longer the process ran, but in fact all these tactics have achieved is to get us to the middle of October with lots of work that could have been done left undone.“ /4

Both sides say they still want a deal and think it entirely possible to reach a deal this year, infact v soon, if only the OTHER side would just be „more realistic“ (ie make the big compromises) /5

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