3 thoughts on “Debate – is it time to ditch the ‘Norway Option’ for good?”

  1. Posted 03/08/2018 at 21:30 | Permalink

    Is smell a rat in this mock debate. Mr Jessop argues his case so poorly and even contradicts himself in his first sentence. If an opportunity can present itself more than once, then how can it only present itself only once in a lifetime?
    I wonder if the Greenpeace fake expose has resulted in the IEA having to pretend that they have seriously differing views on Brexit just to back up the defence against accusations of Brexit bias that they have mounted. I also note that neither commentator has mentioned the biggest item in the EU budget, and the number one feature of the Customs Union, which leads into the biggest opportunity of Brexit which is to amend or even abolish farm subsidies, and perhaps replace them with a devolved system of environmental subsidies. Based purely on this pretendy debate, the IEA is in the pay of Big Farm Owners, and they are part of a neoliberal plot to hide their true loyalties.

  2. Posted 06/08/2018 at 12:02 | Permalink

    Kristian is absolutely right. In fact, one of the reasons I voted Remain in spite of my longstanding contempt for the EU was my conviction that there was no political support for the Singapore-on-Thames model which is, as Kristian argues, the obvious way to thrive in a post-Brexit world (and the threat of which is the only way to get a good deal out of the EU). As he says, the Zeitgeist is against free trade on both sides of the Atlantic, especially given the election of Trump and the other populists, which was unforeseen at the time of the referendum.
    Incidentally, Jessop’s comparison with the Eurozone is wrong – joining it would save few if any transaction costs. The argument that dealing with a floating exchange rate represents a cost is largely spurious. Hedging is free. By contrast, there is no way of avoiding the costs of dealing with nontariff barriers, regulatory regimes etc etc

  3. Posted 20/08/2018 at 18:17 | Permalink

    In what lunatic world can Brexit possibly be described as an investment?

    Economically, every form of Brexit on any time horizon leads to higher trade friction (thus cost), not only with the EU but its other trade partners as well. True, gravity weighted, our 2 highest ranking potential partners are the USA and Russia/EEU. The EU does not have FTA’s with these but the chances of the UK negotiating a better or earlier agreement with either of these is too small to be worth discussion. The G20 covers 85% of world GDP. The EU has most of the big ones covered already either in place, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Canada or in discussion such as Australia. India is difficult for a reason. It will take us decades to settle with the G20 as the UK alone.

    EEA+EFTA gives us some free trade beyond Europe and need not be a permanent resting place. It also better reflects the result than various Brexits proposd by Ward 8. There may even be wiggle room to incorporate non EU treaties administered by the ECJ, as a form of arbitration, such as Euratom or ESA.

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.