5 thoughts on “The “clean break” illusion: why a No Deal Brexit will not be the end of anything”

  1. Posted 14/04/2019 at 12:03 | Permalink

    Dear Dr Niemietz
    Thank you! So what can Brexiteers do to escape this Hotel California, apart from accepting our own Treaty of Versailles? Continue to accept free movement, and the entire aquis communautaire? But in what sense is that “leaving”? Is the EU demanding this of Canada, for example, as a pre-condition of its trade deal. If not, why make such a demand of the UK? M. Barnier supplied the answer to that in 2016. “J’aurais réussi ma mission si, à la fin, le deal est tellement dur pour les Britanniques qu’ils préféront rester dans l’Union,” reported in the French current affairs weekly Le Point as having spoken those words to EU leaders in 2016. In other words, the Commission has not, nor never intended to negotiate with us in good faith, in the sense of seeking a mutually acceptable “deal” (or more precisely, a deal to discuss a trade deal). The puzzle to me is that one in the UK has thought to consider what sort of rotten trade deal Barnier might have in mind for us. You can be sure that it would involve continued access for French fishermen to what was once our fishing waters.

    The only way that that I can envisage us being treated decently and with the respect that I think our history deserves is to leave and only then attempt to negotiate a trade deal, as Canada is doing.
    yours faithfully
    Nicholas Owen

  2. Posted 14/04/2019 at 15:05 | Permalink

    We trade with the rest of the world but do not have to accept free movement of all its citizens. It is quite ridiculous to say that we must accept free movement in order to trade with the EU. The EU is not the centre of the universe and accounts for less than 7% of global population. We also have a massive, growing, and unsustainable trade deficit with it. It sounds trite to say so, but the EU needs our trade more than we need its, and it is therefore in the EU’s own interests to facilitate trade that is as frictionless as possible, without bullying and blustering with stupid rules such as free movement. Virtually everything that we buy from the EU can be bought elsewhere at cheaper prices. There are also massive gains to be made from rebuilding our fishing industry that the EU destroyed. The only thing standing between the UK and prosperous global trade is the cabal of EU boot-lickers.

  3. Posted 14/04/2019 at 18:04 | Permalink

    May I bring your attention to Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures which defines a prohibited subsidy as “a payment to a specific entity within the jurisdiction of the granting authority”. Thus it would be perfectly legal to refund foreign importers the tariffs they have to pay to their own governments on our exports since such payments would not be within our own jurisdiction. We can therefore declare unilateral free trade for our exports not only to the EU but across the whole world, and we can pay for those refunds out of the £25bn or so of import tariff revenues the Treasury will receive.

    It would not be in our interests to negotiate any sort of free trade deal with the EU while we still have such a massive deficit with them, as that would just magnify the deficit. Only when we have eliminated that deficit would it be in our interests to do so as when we are in surplus the cost of refunds would exceed the revenues from import tariffs.

    The real damage our membership of the EU is doing to our economy is the way it has dragged our trade into deficit and locked us into stagnation. Since WW2 all the most successful economies have run balance of payments surpluses. We must make Britain a surplus nation or continue falling down the standard of living rankings where we are now 24th and falling. The only escape route is a No Deal ‘unilateral’ Brexit with export protection added.

  4. Posted 14/04/2019 at 19:58 | Permalink

    Interesting thesis. The important distinction between pre and post Brexit negotiations is the important option of walking away if a win win solution is not negotiated. The essence of a negotiated deal is that both sides acknowledge that any other solution would be non optimal oor disadvantageous. The withdrawal agreement tragically does not pass this test.

  5. Posted 14/04/2019 at 21:59 | Permalink

    Dear Mr Niemietz, About the only statement in your article that I could agree with is that there is, indeed, Brexit fatigue. A fatigue generated by 450 parliamentary remainers who refuse to acknowledge the “will of the people”. I will not discuss in detail your projected “course of events” following attempts to develop a trade agreement with the EU. Suffice it to say that the EU has a lamentable record in achieving trade agreements and those countries who do trade with the EU do very well with very minimal or no trade agreements at all!
    The important point, of which you should be aware, is that the single market is not a valuable asset. Indeed, it is the opposite. By being a member of the single market we are shooting ourselves in the foot; along with the other members of the EU. You need to make yourself familiar with the work that has been done on trade flows following the introduction of the single marke n 1991. You will find a very good illustration of this in the work of Michael Burrage (published through Civitas). Most remainers are what one might term religious or theological believers. They BELIEVE; full stop. If one is going to use the “single market” as a principal argument for staying in the EU then one has to be able to justify the value of the single market. Sadly, even the EU itself has been unable to demonstrate this.
    Please do some serious research and then revise your article.
    Yours faithfully CSB

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.