4 ms·
"When you ignore trade" is a pretty spectacular caveat for assessing the claimed economic benefits from not participating in a trade agreement. We've had sever
by notahacker 6y ago
"When you ignore trade" is a pretty spectacular caveat for assessing the claimed economic benefits from not participating in a trade agreement.
We've had several years to hear a concrete argument for what regulations need removing and what the benefits would be, and the best we got was Patrick Minford's ambitious "it's likely we would eliminate manufacturing" growth projections based on the assumption the UK removed all barriers to importing anything. Ironically the EU has made more progress in securing FTAs with our list of putative alternative trade partners...
- Retric 6y agoI wasn’t ignoring trading, I am simply saying that looking at trade in isolation isn’t the full story. People suggesting that an increase in non EU trade must be equivalent to the decrease in EU trade may be ignoring what the other side is saying. It’s possible for the increase to exist, it to be less than the loss, and for the UK to be better off. As such some people talking about the likely increase may not be implying it’s a 1:1 replacement for the drop.
- notahacker 6y agoSure, but the burden of the extraordinary claim that a particular set of reforms impossible under the EU could be more valuable than trade with the EU falls on those making it.
- Retric 6y agoSure, EU trade isn’t going to zero. So I think that comes down to a case by case argument. Generally being part of a larger market is the best option, but individual executions are clearly going to be argued about endlessly.