Thread by @pmdfoster

So I *think* I agree with my esteemed future colleague @ChrisGiles_ on this, but I can see how he'd (we'd) all turn out to be wrong in assuming this all ends with a slow puncture rather than a blow-out /1

https://twitter.com/Gilesyb/status/1225334379624488961

@ChrisGiles_ First, the slow-puncture. @DmitryOpines has a pretty good run here at where the landing zones are on level-playing field, tariffs and fish /2

explaintrade.com/articles/2020/…

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines But the benign scenario assumptions are predicated on a repeat of the 2019 cycle, where @BorisJohnson talks tough for the home crowd and then quietly folds on a bunch of stuff no-one really understands /3

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines @BorisJohnson So the EU will, I think, find a way to soften the directness of ECJ on the state aid piece by fencing it through a governance mechanism that they believe the UK could live with - which is where the trouble might start. /4

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines @BorisJohnson Because the EU side basically think Johnsno will bottle it as he did last year.

This might be to underestimate both the impact of Johnson majority (he's got one) but also the limits of that majority - you only need 40 or so MPs to rebel on a sell out to have trouble /5

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines @BorisJohnson Because the note of caution that people like me constantly hear is that the Brexiteers/ERG do *actually* believe in the upsides of #Brexit - a fudge that is all frictional cost and no space for (hypothetical) upside is politically not doable/6

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines @BorisJohnson The assumption must be that, as @DavidHenigUK speculaties, when we get closer to exit day and the supply chain issues actually present themselves, then the Govt will soften - but this is ask 'revolutionaires' to accept a truly Pyrrhic victory before battle has even been joined /7

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines @BorisJohnson @DavidHenigUK At which point it might feel like the politically rational choice is the economically irrational one - I see @JohnGPeet toying with same issues in thread here /8

https://twitter.com/JohnGPeet/status/1225340459691773953

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines @BorisJohnson @DavidHenigUK @JohnGPeet Because when Chris writes:

"It has accepted Britain will pay an economic price for this privilege, but knows the costs will be difficult to identify even decades into the future."

The word 'cost' could be swapped out for 'benefit'.../9

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines @BorisJohnson @DavidHenigUK @JohnGPeet The govt could compromise, precisely to ensure the costs are not readily identified - no closing car factories, no queues at dover, no sudden shocks/dislocations that draw disproportionate headlines. /10

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines @BorisJohnson @DavidHenigUK @JohnGPeet But it shows serious signs of under-estimating this risk, from the way it is treating trade and logistics groups. Officials say ministers really don't see it as a big deal, and reckon any pain will have faded by 2024 when the next polling day comes around /11

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines @BorisJohnson @DavidHenigUK @JohnGPeet Or it could compromise because it knows the "benefits" of any trade deals are slow to aggregate and long in coming, so why not do a 'Get Brexit Done' deal and drive on with spending the £100bn/5 years and concentrate turning the 'purple' wall properly blue /12

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines @BorisJohnson @DavidHenigUK @JohnGPeet That's what I'd do! And it *feels* as if that's what @BorisJohnson would do, based on 2019 - SO LONG as he feels he has the political space, which (I presume) is why he's pandering so hard to the ERG types, so when he sells them out, it'll be too late (cf DUP) /13

@ChrisGiles_ @DmitryOpines @BorisJohnson @DavidHenigUK @JohnGPeet All of which is why, as I say, I *think* I agree with Mr Giles (aside from being good policy, of course) but the alternative is that the DO believe, and when confronted with Brexit's always-binary choice, DO make a leap of faith - 'gravity' be damned ENDS