Roll Over Benefit Statement: Fill & Download for Free

Please note this answer was written in May 2019, and unlike Brexit “promises” and various silly 3-word slogans, nothing in this answer needs to be changed. That’s because, well, fact tend to remain factual and relevant.To be frank, when I started looking into Brexit last year, I had assumed it would just be a matter of analysing the positives and balancing them with the negatives. So I initially took the often-repeated “Brexit will improve your lives” claim at face value. The rest is history.But now it is good that Barney Lane's answer concurs that it’s all wishful thinking and wide-eyed optimism, which is still based on some curious stats presented as if they are true:For example, “Most of the UK’s trade is outside the EU.” That conveniently omits the fact that the UK trades “outside the EU” using EU trade agreements and EU trade arrangements. When we investigate it, we find that:The UK’s Continuity Trade Agreements: Is the roll-over complete?Brexit trade deals 'are incomplete'Brexit: UK has rolled over just £16bn out of £117bn trade dealsDoes most UK trade happen outside of the EU and trade agreements? Note this link considers only the 57% of exports and 66% of imports in 2016 with countries where we have EU trade agreements with, not under WTO rules. Therefore these figures EXCLUDE the recent Japan and Canada FTAs.Also, let’s easily debunk the often-repeated lies about the EU’s trade deals and its impact on the UK with: Can the statement "The EU’s trade deals account for only 12% of the UK’s trade" be interpreted as true? If so, how?Another famous canard: “The UK economy is geared towards service exports. It’s the world’s second largest service exporter after the US”. And somehow the EU is very poor at buying UK services. But on investigation, we find:“Europe has been a major destination for UK exports of services; this trend continued in 2017 when UK exports of services to Europe (£80,938 million) accounted for nearly half of the overall total for UK exports of services (£162,141 million).” International trade in services, UKThe unsaid point is that when the UK leaves the EU, the UK becomes just another NON-EU country competing with other NON-EU countries for business in the EU.The EU doesn’t need to buy UK meat, which will become much more expensive after Brexit, because they can buy meat from other non-EU countries. The EU doesn’t need to buy services from the UK, especially if losing freedom of movement results in higher costs and complexity for EU customers.People suggest that I am too focussed on quantification of the benefits of Brexit. That is not true. I am also focussed on the probable losses due to Brexit which nobody dares to quantify, such as the simple examples above. The maths work both ways, and for good reasons.Jingly optimism never comes into play when analysing objectively any large financial projects, at least not in any big companies I have worked for. Would you buy a new house in an unknown site just because of a pretty advert in a newspaper, or if Farage told you to do so? Brexit is not about changing the painting in the living room. It is deciding to move the family out of a proper house to live in a plastic tent in a swamp for reasons unknown except a few sound-bites and jingles.As Barney himself admits, “you’ll never find an argument that isn’t wishful thinking”. I can totally agree, if the argument is about pizza or Chinese for dinner.For large economic projects such as Brexit (and it is an economic project whatever people say), I prefer to suggest that “you’ll never find an argument that doesn’t require a burden of proof.”Because if there is a burden of proof offered for Brexit, then the following questions will answer themselves and the discussion is over:What is the logical rational reason for No-Deal Brexit?How does one measure the "success" of Brexit? It cannot be that Brexit is automatically a success just because we left the world’s largest trade bloc, our biggest customer, our largest economic partner - that would simply be ridiculous

This topic was addressed in this answer. The statement in the question is true. The real question is how much it matters. In assessing this, the following facts should be borne in mind:The EU’s trade deals account for about 12% of the UK’s exportsThe EU’s trade deals are quite narrow in scope. 38% of them do not include any servicesIf we did move from trading tariff-free, to trading with tariffs, the tariffs involved would be on average, around 3%To roll-over the key elements of existing trade deals, all that’s required is an in-principle agreement to work towards a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). We know the UK has been working on these. We know of one already in place (which was revealed by accident)43% of the UK’s exports are to countries with which the EU does not have an FTA. We know trade works. We should bear that in mind when worrying about what happens with regard to the 12% of our exports where we may conceivably lose the benefits of an FTAIs it a loss? A qualified yes. But the above facts and figures should be used to guide us as to the maximum potential size of the the loss.The rationale for having an independent trade policy is that the losses are small and the scope for gains more than offsets them. The scope for gain includes:setting our own tariffs. The EU’s tariffs are highest on the things we import the most of: vehicles, food, clothes and footwear. As an EU member, the EU’s tariffs therefore harm us about as much as they possibly couldagreeing trade deals that are wider in scope. The UK is the world’s second largest services exporter. The EU’s performance in getting services included in its trade deals has been poor. Many smaller countries such as Chile, Singapore and others, have services included in 95% of their trade deals. And they have trade deals with the UK’s most important trading partners (eg, the USA). The EU doesn’t.The scope for upside from Brexit affects the 43% of our exports for which the EU doesn’t have a trade deal. That’s 3.5 times the 12% of our exports, for which it doesFor the reasons given above, the likely downside on the 12% is smaller than the achievable upside on the 43%.

Mr Rees-Mogg is, quite simply, a liar. Be in no doubt about this.So you want the evidence? Well, here it is, all the Leave campaign promises catalogued in detail in a single document:Brexit as Explained by Leave in 2016.pdfSo for a start, Mr Rees-Mogg knows very well that voters were told by the Leave campaign that the UK will get “a free trade agreement that continued to give access to UK goods and services on the European Union”. That was “what it was all about”.People were told “the Lisbon Treaty legally obliges the EU to negotiate a free trade agreement”.People were also told, the UK “were guaranteed a trade deal”.So the message was that the UK “would have 'full access' to the Single Market but be free from the regulation”. Maintaining access to the European Markets, and increasing access to markets around the world, was really much of the argument for Leave. Implicitly, the Leave campaign promised that Brexit would be a better deal than the one Britain has at the moment and that the UK can decide the terms of trade after Brexit.And people voted accordingly. They voted for a Brexit deal.The people who did not vote Leave were then horrified (as are many Leave voters) to now find out Brexit is now all about No Deal; ie. no trade agreement with the EU.Many people are not so stupid as to not recognise that Brexit is primarily an economic project, not an exercise in ensuring that some people can continue to avoid paying their taxes. Now not only is there a strong probability of No Deal, but there are no signs that other countries around the world even want to maintain past levels of trade with the UK.Brexit: UK has rolled over just £16bn out of £117bn trade dealsRather than fibbing, Mr Rees-Mogg may do rather better if he can explain why he is so intent on Brexit even though there is still no burden of proof that Brexit is a worthwhile course for the UK? Why are the real reasons for Brexit still so opaque that nobody can even offer a paper detailing the benefits of Brexit even after over 3 years? Does that not puzzle you?Anyway, here are some suggestions for the reasons for Brexit:How tenable are the claims of Phillip Hammond that Johnson is backed by speculators who have bet billions on hard Brexit?If a no deal Brexit is forecasted to create such calamitous financial scenarios, why is Boris Johnson so hellbent on delivering it?And following are just recent examples (out of many) of government incompetence:What do you think about Savid Javid's statement about how the spending after Brexit will be funded?Why does Boris Johnson call the EU to compromise on what is a deal negotiated between himself, the ERG and the DUP?And in case you are wondering:Why is "Leave Means Leave" considered a justification for Brexit?Or does Mr Rees-Mogg think that every Leave voter voted for rodent hair, animal faeces and maggots in their food?Trade department would lobby for government to accept Trump's demands for weaker food hygiene after Brexit, Whitehall memo says