Rees-Mogg: the new Cnut

Yes, Cnut.

Today, in the Daily Torygraph, the MP for Victorian values rubbished predictions by the Chancellor and the Treasury regarding the effects of no deal Brexit, claiming that instead of it costing the UK economy £90 billion a year, would see the county £80 billion better off instead.

So, how could official forecasts and Mogg's made up figures be so different?

Oh yes, Mogg's made up figures were made up, and ignored WTO rules, the very thing he also claims to be the post-Brexit UK's best safety net.

All bollocks of course, but here are some point from @DmitryOpines, who actually knows about international trade, and teaches it. But hey, experts:

Like a band you wish you could forget dropping a "Greatest Hits Album Vol. 1", Mr Rees Mogg has compiled some of the dumbest things said about No-Deal Brexit in one article.

So let's take this hack to the old town road and read, till we can't no more.

"Oh, a Cardiff University study has debunked the Treasury's analysis? Cardiff is a pretty serious university so let's just have a look..."

"... and it's Patrick Minford."

Of course it is. The Treasury is indeed negligent in not accounting for the 20 billion pound gross annual contribution Jacob Rees Mogg appears to have made up.

Also, even if you assume it was 20 billion, that would reduce the UK deficit from 43 to 23 billion. Yay?

Ah yes, the Treasury FOOLISHLY assumed the EU would do exactly what it has said it will do without realizing that entirely fictional WTO Rules make that illegal.

The EU's plans are entirely WTO compliant. In fact, in many cases, not implementing them would be a breach.

Explainer: The WTO makes targeted discrimination illegal, but the barriers are anticipated to arise from the EU's treating the trade with the UK as it does trade with any other WTO Member with whom it doesn't have an FTA.

That's not discrimination, it's an obligation.

Treasury's estimate that future FTAs would have negligible impact on GDP is ENTIRELY in line with mainstream economics. Entirely.

FTAs, while creating opportunities in some sectors and generally being good to do, are very rarely sufficiently ambitious to impact national GDP.

Regional trade agreements like the EU CU/SM or NAFTA/USMCA are different because they far more greatly facilitate collaborative production, something the UK economy currently relies on with Europe.

Reminder: By Cardiff he means "I guess manufacturing will die, yolo" Minford.

The @hmtreasury analysis models many scenarios, of which Net-Zero EEA migration is just one.

In HMT's defense, it must be hard to gauge where the Gov currently resides on the spectrum between "too many brown people" and "EU que jumpers are displacing the brown people!"

At least Mr Mogg admits there is some debate about Minford's vaunted "Liverpool Model" of the UK economy which assumes huge HR departments driven by EU regulations are what's slowing the country down.

Reminder: the UK shaped and voted for most of this regulation.

So just so we're clear...

HMT Analysis suggesting a 1.8% GDP impact from making every parcel crossing between EU and UK come with a lot more paperwork: "Ridiculous", clutch monocle.

Minford's assertion cutting EU regulations boosts GDP by 6%: 'Just common sense, really.'

Ahahahaha.

"How can services face border barriers if they don't pay tariffs?"

Ahahahaha.

Ahahahaha.

Be right back, my Australian butt is off to open an IT security firm in Hull using Ukrainian programmers and Chinese money.

No one can stop me, no tariffs on services!

uick explainer: While services aren't tariffed, their provision is heavily restricted by regulations at and behind the border.

In fact, WTO rules and FTAs do far less to ensure the free-flow of services than they do goods.

-beats head on wall-

The costs associated with borders are from the documentary requirements put in place to make inspections unnecessary.

This is like saying Heathrow Airport never has queues because only 1% of travelers are detained for questioning.

I will concede one thing.

This whole piece was incredibly simple.

/end