Professor David Blake is a Professor of Economics at Cass Business School and a member of Economists for Free Trade along with that other economic nutjob, Patrick Minford. He believes in Brexit like a religious fanatic. Just the sort of man Brexit Central need to radicalise the rest of the faithful and he obliges with a completely deluded piece HERE. For a Professor of economics it's very poor stuff.
He proposes that we should walk away from any talks and make unilateral 'offers' to the EU, adopting what he calls a policy of 'non-cooperation'.
"The message needs to be clear, simple, with no compromises. Theresa May said in her resignation speech outside No. 10 that the next Prime Minister must compromise. Well just look where that got her. Time’s up for doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Only a credible non-cooperative strategy that cannot be blocked by either the EU or Parliament will get us out of the EU by 31st October. And that strategy needs to be executed with ruthless conviction and commitment by the new Prime Minister".
As soon as this 'clear, simple,' 'no compromise' message is delivered with 'ruthless conviction' Professor Blake will realise we have no clothes. The markets will nose dive and the PM will have to take drastic action - like revoking Article 50.
The Irish backstop is dismissed simply by telling readers that Ireland and the EU have already said they won't put up a hard border - something which Varadkar might have said but the EU haven't. In fact they say a hard border will definitely be needed in the event of a no-deal Brexit. But his comments about the backstop reveal some of his thinking about Brexit:
"So long as the backstop is in operation, the UK would have to meet ‘level playing field conditions’ that prevented the UK competing against the EU".
Like many Brexiteers he wants to 'compete' by tilting the playing field in our favour. This will never be allowed to happen. If it did there will be no trade deal.
It's true we can't compete on goods at the moment, Blake obviously does not know why so he proposes a race to the bottom on environmental standards and employment rights. For the Irish border, he goes on:
"Solutions exist to protect the integrity of both the UK and EU internal markets without any physical infrastructure on the [Irish] border or any need for new technology. The Smart Border 2.0 report commissioned by the European Union Parliament from customs expert Lars Karlsson confirms this – as does the more recent report of the Alternative Arrangements Commission".
Smart borders 2.0 talks about 'gates' so is hardly without physical infrastructure. The AAC is also wishful thinking as I posted about HERE.
He says we have a £100 billion deficit in goods with the EU and the 'customer is king' as if we can simply make demands. This reminds me of the old saying, if you owe the bank £100 you've got a problem. If you owe the bank £100 billion, the bank's got a problem. The situation is similar between us and the the EU. Some of the goods we buy are parts needed for goods we manufacture or assemble. Some is foodstuffs, around 30% of what we eat comes from EU countries, more in spring and early summer. OK we can probably find other sources - eventually - and maybe some will be cheaper. The problem is in sourcing it in three months or even less.
Where do you find 30% of the food for 66 million people overnight? Tesco?
As for the service industry which makes up 80%+ of our economy and where we enjoy a surplus with the EU, nothing at all. He doesn't mention it.
He is also confused about who pays tariffs:
"...the EU will be worse off given that they sell us mostly high-tariff goods like cars and agricultural products. We would pay tariffs to the EU of around £5 billion and they would pay tariffs of £13 billion. In addition, we would save the £11 billion net contribution to the EU".
He has obviously never been in business in spite of working at The Cass Business School. The tariffs might be remitted to the government by the EU exporter or the UK importer but it's the UK customer who will be charged for it. The tariff is simply added to the invoice. It might make the goods more expensive and some market share might be lost but nobody absorbs a 10% tariff (on cars for example) when they only make 5% profit. It wouldn't make sense to do it. They would simply stop selling to us if this was the case.
Leaving on October 31st is no problem for the professor:
"There are enough ‘mini deals’ in place – covering visa-free travel, aircraft landing, rail and shipping agreements, road haulage licences, student exchanges, defence and security etc – for the citizens and businesses of both the UK and EU to continue visiting and trading with each other".
The EU have set out some mitigations but they are not long term, some only last until Christmas, a couple of months. And they are only there to suit the interests of the EU, not us.
All of the myriad problems are the fault of anybody who might stand in the way of Brexit with the temerity to point them out. Blake says:
"We understood the decision we made. We understood why we made it. No amount of scaremongering by the majority of MPs who oppose this decision or their friends in the civil service and CBI etc will change this".
As for parliament, it must be crushed. The people are so sovereign but can't be asked to vote again.
"So if MPs are still determined to block the deal that the next PM sets or try to insist that the deal is put to a ‘confirmatory vote’ – weasel words for a second referendum to try and get Brexit reversed – then they also need to be blocked. They need to be made to understand that it is the people who are sovereign not MPs. And the people are here for ever, they are not".
Note the 'to try and get Brexit reversed'. If that really was the will of the people, as I believe it is, how could he object to it?
And forget all that stuff about prospering after Brexit. No strolling through the bright sunlit uplands to a life of ease, we are going to be up to our chests in floods overlooked by Satan himself:
"But it requires the UK side to make it absolutely clear that we are leaving on Halloween, come hell or high water. This too is credible and again does not require EU consent".
In other words we are going to seriously self-harm, damage our industries and agriculture with devastating short term consequences and a slow decline over the long-term - because it must be done.
He proposes that we should walk away from any talks and make unilateral 'offers' to the EU, adopting what he calls a policy of 'non-cooperation'.
"The message needs to be clear, simple, with no compromises. Theresa May said in her resignation speech outside No. 10 that the next Prime Minister must compromise. Well just look where that got her. Time’s up for doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Only a credible non-cooperative strategy that cannot be blocked by either the EU or Parliament will get us out of the EU by 31st October. And that strategy needs to be executed with ruthless conviction and commitment by the new Prime Minister".
As soon as this 'clear, simple,' 'no compromise' message is delivered with 'ruthless conviction' Professor Blake will realise we have no clothes. The markets will nose dive and the PM will have to take drastic action - like revoking Article 50.
The Irish backstop is dismissed simply by telling readers that Ireland and the EU have already said they won't put up a hard border - something which Varadkar might have said but the EU haven't. In fact they say a hard border will definitely be needed in the event of a no-deal Brexit. But his comments about the backstop reveal some of his thinking about Brexit:
"So long as the backstop is in operation, the UK would have to meet ‘level playing field conditions’ that prevented the UK competing against the EU".
Like many Brexiteers he wants to 'compete' by tilting the playing field in our favour. This will never be allowed to happen. If it did there will be no trade deal.
It's true we can't compete on goods at the moment, Blake obviously does not know why so he proposes a race to the bottom on environmental standards and employment rights. For the Irish border, he goes on:
"Solutions exist to protect the integrity of both the UK and EU internal markets without any physical infrastructure on the [Irish] border or any need for new technology. The Smart Border 2.0 report commissioned by the European Union Parliament from customs expert Lars Karlsson confirms this – as does the more recent report of the Alternative Arrangements Commission".
Smart borders 2.0 talks about 'gates' so is hardly without physical infrastructure. The AAC is also wishful thinking as I posted about HERE.
He says we have a £100 billion deficit in goods with the EU and the 'customer is king' as if we can simply make demands. This reminds me of the old saying, if you owe the bank £100 you've got a problem. If you owe the bank £100 billion, the bank's got a problem. The situation is similar between us and the the EU. Some of the goods we buy are parts needed for goods we manufacture or assemble. Some is foodstuffs, around 30% of what we eat comes from EU countries, more in spring and early summer. OK we can probably find other sources - eventually - and maybe some will be cheaper. The problem is in sourcing it in three months or even less.
Where do you find 30% of the food for 66 million people overnight? Tesco?
As for the service industry which makes up 80%+ of our economy and where we enjoy a surplus with the EU, nothing at all. He doesn't mention it.
He is also confused about who pays tariffs:
"...the EU will be worse off given that they sell us mostly high-tariff goods like cars and agricultural products. We would pay tariffs to the EU of around £5 billion and they would pay tariffs of £13 billion. In addition, we would save the £11 billion net contribution to the EU".
He has obviously never been in business in spite of working at The Cass Business School. The tariffs might be remitted to the government by the EU exporter or the UK importer but it's the UK customer who will be charged for it. The tariff is simply added to the invoice. It might make the goods more expensive and some market share might be lost but nobody absorbs a 10% tariff (on cars for example) when they only make 5% profit. It wouldn't make sense to do it. They would simply stop selling to us if this was the case.
Leaving on October 31st is no problem for the professor:
"There are enough ‘mini deals’ in place – covering visa-free travel, aircraft landing, rail and shipping agreements, road haulage licences, student exchanges, defence and security etc – for the citizens and businesses of both the UK and EU to continue visiting and trading with each other".
The EU have set out some mitigations but they are not long term, some only last until Christmas, a couple of months. And they are only there to suit the interests of the EU, not us.
All of the myriad problems are the fault of anybody who might stand in the way of Brexit with the temerity to point them out. Blake says:
"We understood the decision we made. We understood why we made it. No amount of scaremongering by the majority of MPs who oppose this decision or their friends in the civil service and CBI etc will change this".
As for parliament, it must be crushed. The people are so sovereign but can't be asked to vote again.
"So if MPs are still determined to block the deal that the next PM sets or try to insist that the deal is put to a ‘confirmatory vote’ – weasel words for a second referendum to try and get Brexit reversed – then they also need to be blocked. They need to be made to understand that it is the people who are sovereign not MPs. And the people are here for ever, they are not".
Note the 'to try and get Brexit reversed'. If that really was the will of the people, as I believe it is, how could he object to it?
And forget all that stuff about prospering after Brexit. No strolling through the bright sunlit uplands to a life of ease, we are going to be up to our chests in floods overlooked by Satan himself:
"But it requires the UK side to make it absolutely clear that we are leaving on Halloween, come hell or high water. This too is credible and again does not require EU consent".
In other words we are going to seriously self-harm, damage our industries and agriculture with devastating short term consequences and a slow decline over the long-term - because it must be done.
I wonder if the Professor has ever been to Raqqa?
