Is it slightly unfair to think that a leading expert on trade deals might have been able to forecast what the UK's deal with the EU would look like? That a country divided does not have a strong international bargaining position? theguardian.com/politics/2018/… (I have a brief walk-on)
This by the way in also the main problem with the idea of the no-deal deal now doing the rounds - there is no change to the relative bargaining position between the UK and EU, indeed it is probably worse for the UK in the case of no-deal, because...
50% of UK trade is with the EU (and more with wider Europe) and at least 50% of the population (give or take) want a close economic relationship with Europe. In this situation walking away then asking for better deals lacks credibility
Realistically the choice is between this deal, an alternate that relaxes our red line on freedom of movement, or remaining in the EU. From a trade policy point of view there are things you can do in each scenario, but trade shouldn't be the determinant
The deregulatory trading vision offered by the IEA not only couldn't solve the Ireland border question, it also failed to convince on its own terms, that it isn't just a cover for swapping EU for US regulations. Which makes no geographical or economic sense
