,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
It is time to recall why exactly this proposal is not just foolish, but dangerous for the country - but to also include some nuance in this discussion (thread)
First up the nuance. As an adviser you merely advise: it is your job to give the best advice available. So if you think the policy your political masters pursue is bad economics, it is your job to say so. If they want to go ahead anyway - it’s their decision.
Your job then becomes to give the best advice available on how to construct this policy. If it is economically harmful, this includes advice on how to limit the harm.
When all main-stream economic analyses state that Brexit will harm trade, to throw out those who say this means you are throwing out everyone who follows main-stream economics. You’ll be left with new-age gurus, preachers and people who read in coffee cups.
Sadly, this is a road already taken - in a first round of ideological firing people like Ivan Rogers were sidelined and we were left with people who did not quite understand the EU in the negotiations. Not good.
If our next stop is to throw out those who adhere to mainstream economics. Well - who will we be left with?
That does NOT mean we cannot or should not pursue Brexit. And it does not mean you cannot fire advisers at all. As I said: advisers say “I think this route is mistaken” you say “but that’s our direction”. And they have to (and do) accept that.
