The"new" @iealondon report can basically be condensed into 4 points: technology wil solve it 2) we have the same standards as now so no new barriers 3) the potential gains from FTAs are MASSIVE 4) the potential gains from deregulation are MASSIVE 1/
The first point is not totally unreasonable. They note the cost of customs will drop in the future as new technology is brought in. You could reduce the cost over time but it is optimistic and it will not be zero. Even current estimates capture only a part of the cost of admin 2/
On NTBs @SamuelMarcLowe and @DavidHenigUK et al. are probably blue in the face dealing with (2). From a modelling perspective most studies assume that only a fraction of NTBs applied to US or ROW (in an FTA 1/3 in PwC, 45% for Rabobank 1/4 for CEP) apply to the UK in any case 3/
The reason for that is the UK maintains the same standards as the paper notes and it's closer in distance. NTBs would apply from the get go due to becoming a third country. They would also appear over time due to divergence. Those are the assumptions most studies make. 4/
Of course these studies could be overestimating the cost of NTBs but they have done so on a reasonable basis through a variety of imperfect techniques, some of which look at survey data, others look at qualitative assessments from the World Bank others use a gravity model 5/
In the iea world the UK is going to diverge massively and they fail to note this would have a further cost - possibly beyond what's assumed in most studies. In any case the assumption that no NTBs would apply for no deal rests on an implausible WTO argument others have debunked 6
Then when you get to the iea assumption on the potential gains from FTAs they just say the Government have overestimated them by underappreciating the removal of NTBs. If you look at the assumed gains from TTIP where 50% of NTBs were actionable you get another "rounding error" 7/
Same goes for assumptions about the gains from deregulation. Open Europe have tried to model this and using the gross figure of impact assessments they find some significant gains can be had from removing renewable energy targets and working time directive. Good luck with that 8/
Overall the narrative that the assumptions of most studies are all conspiratorially chosen to minimise gains and maximise losses doesn't hold water when you look at the basis for those assumptions. The Institute will be doing exactly that in a forth-coming paper on "Brexenomics"
