On Thursday I mentioned an article by the idiot Shanker Singham playing down the extra costs of UK-EU trade and suggesting the £7 billion figure (itself the lowest estimate covering UK costs only) could actually be much lower. You have to admire him for continuing his support for Brexit in the face of the near constant correction of virtually all of his written and spoken work. It takes some bull headed idiocy to carry on when experts keep telling you that you are wrong. But that is what has happened again.
Anna Jerzewska, an associate fellow at the UK Trade Policy Observatory, tweeted a long thread taking down his article, assertion by assertion.
Opening with a quote from Machiavelli's Prince really tells you all you need to know about this article but still...
— Dr Anna Jerzewska (@AnnaJerzewska) July 17, 2020
He had suggested a series of 'simplifications' and ways to reduce cross border trade (none of which covered the obvious one of remaining in the EU) including becoming an AEO - authorised economic operator. But as Ms Jerzewska points out AEOs still have to prepare and submit customs declarations or pay someone else to do it, there is absolutely no saving to be made.
More than that none of the "simplifications" are going to be ready by January if ever.
And on the extra costs being transferred from the taxpayer to business, she makes the same point as I did:
"As for the "cost of the EU membership being borne by the UK taxpayer" and the UK companies being "responsible for the cost of customs going forward" argument - remind me what do companies tend to do when they have an increase in costs that affects their margins?"
Singham is again arguing for "technology" to help solve the problem and reduce the burdens but as Ms Jerzewska points out, "We had an entire Alternative Arrangements Commission, which the author of this paper [Singham himself] was involved in, dedicated to using simplifications and technology from around the world and making this a world-class border - and what happened? We're back to the basis: Standard declarations and CDS. If there was something worth pursuing in that report - doesn't seem it's gone very far. Even the current 6m simplifications and the previous TSP [transitional simplified procedure] are just a version of existing procedures (and still require customs declarations)"
She says the costs could be lower - but not by use of automation. It will be because of lower trade and more small and medium sized companies ceasing to trade at all.
What she does not say, although she could have done, is that Singham and his Brexit supporting mates would have been far better arguing for the transaction costs of our trade with the rest of the world being reduced rather than Brexit. He is always talking about the "opportunities" of Brexit as he did in his article. Listen to this:
"There are also significant opportunities for the UK in establishing a 'new' border, leapfrogging old and antiquated processes and technologies and delivering the best border in the world by 2025 which is the UK’s laudable ambition"
The weird position he is in is arguing for more friction where there was none at all before, instead of reducing friction where it was the highest - in our ROW trade. Insane isn't it?
One only has to go to the new government website (HERE) to get an idea of the vast amount of extra bureaucracy that we have opened ourselves up to, to realise what a quagmire we are entering.
All of the real world impacts of Brexit - the ones that men like Singham said would never happen and were just scaremongering - are now coming into view. The new infrastructure, the costs of doing business across the Irish sea, the perils of a trade deal with the USA and I hope by this time next year many more leave voters will have started to see they were misled in 2016.
Once that begins to happen, our return to the EU will be just a matter of time.
