,
5 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
I'd add one crucial point to @DmitryOpines's thread.
Leaving the EU with no deal eventually, is not very good for the UK, but you could make a case for it.
Leaving it overnight ("crashing out") is far, far worse.
1/4
Leaving the EU with no deal eventually, is not very good for the UK, but you could make a case for it.
Leaving it overnight ("crashing out") is far, far worse.
1/4
That's something @ShankerASingham misses out completely in his letter to the @ft
Yes, lots of countries trade well with the EU “on WTO terms”. If, like them, the UK had never been in the Single Market, it would do well on WTO terms too.
2/4
Yes, lots of countries trade well with the EU “on WTO terms”. If, like them, the UK had never been in the Single Market, it would do well on WTO terms too.
2/4
Just one example: this clip is from a longer @BBCNewsnight report on the medicines a dialysis patient needs. Given enough time to make new arrangements (months), she would be guaranteed medicines & ability to travel.
No deal on March 29? No hope.
3/4
No deal on March 29? No hope.
3/4
Multiply that by all the other adjustments, across the board, plus the 24-30 months HMRC says it needs to set up proper customs systems, and it's clear to see the difference between "crashing out", and "ending up with no deal over the long term"
4/4
4/4
P.S. I've now seen the full list of signatories to that letter👇🏽
An illustrious list. Even more surprising that none of them thought to mention the adjustment cost, either overnight or over the longer term.
(Their main point was to talk up the WTO. No problem with that, though)
An illustrious list. Even more surprising that none of them thought to mention the adjustment cost, either overnight or over the longer term.
(Their main point was to talk up the WTO. No problem with that, though)
