Brexit vote has cost UK economy £40bn per year; much more than the divorce bill
If you think Brexit hasn’t truly hit the UK economy, think again. The Bank of England estimates that uncertainty stemming directly from the Brexit referendum has cost the British economy £40bn ($51.5bn) per year, according to Gertjan Vlieghe, who is part of the central bank’s key monetary policy committee. In a speech on Thursday, Vlieghe outlined that the Bank of England calculated the UK economy took a 2% hit since the Brexit vote compared to where it otherwise would have been. “That amounts to around £40bn per year, or £800m per week of lost income for the country as a whole,” he said.
I would suggest that any Brexit uncertainty can be fully laid at the door of this incompetent shambles of a government as opposed to Brexit itself.
I'm right in the middle on this issue. There is a perfect storm of ineffective government, equally ineffective opposition, genuine problems that will be caused by Brexit, and a whole host of irrelevant stuff that people will claim was caused by Brexit, when it wasn't.
We need to move past rerunning the referendum. The people were given a vote, and the Government promised to abide by that vote. We need to leave in as orderly a fashion as possible.
Will there be problems? Of course there will. But we will survive.
Agree we will survive Phil, but ‘survival’ wasn’t the mantra of those banging the drum to vote Leave, they said we would thrive and be better off. I find that hard to believe.
Brexit vote has cost UK economy £40bn per year; much more than the divorce bill
If you think Brexit hasn’t truly hit the UK economy, think again. The Bank of England estimates that uncertainty stemming directly from the Brexit referendum has cost the British economy £40bn ($51.5bn) per year, according to Gertjan Vlieghe, who is part of the central bank’s key monetary policy committee. In a speech on Thursday, Vlieghe outlined that the Bank of England calculated the UK economy took a 2% hit since the Brexit vote compared to where it otherwise would have been. “That amounts to around £40bn per year, or £800m per week of lost income for the country as a whole,” he said.
I would suggest that any Brexit uncertainty can be fully laid at the door of this incompetent shambles of a government as opposed to Brexit itself.
I'm right in the middle on this issue. There is a perfect storm of ineffective government, equally ineffective opposition, genuine problems that will be caused by Brexit, and a whole host of irrelevant stuff that people will claim was caused by Brexit, when it wasn't.
We need to move past rerunning the referendum. The people were given a vote, and the Government promised to abide by that vote. We need to leave in as orderly a fashion as possible.
Will there be problems? Of course there will. But we will survive.
Agree we will survive Phil, but ‘survival’ wasn’t the mantra of those banging the drum to vote Leave, they said we would thrive and be better off. I find that hard to believe.
We don't know that wont be the case , as we haven't yet left.
12 angry ministers could quit Theresa May's cabinet if she won't delay Brexit
Twelve angry ministers could quit Theresa May’s cabinet if she refuses to delay Brexit , it has been claimed. Former attorney general Dominic Grieve claimed resignations on this scale could bring down the Government within the next few weeks. But Brexiteer Commons leader Andrea Leadsom insisted Mrs May’s 45-vote defeat last night was “more of a hiccup than the disaster that is being reported.” And she blamed the defeat on the Labour party “playing politics”, rather than the 71 members of her own party who abstained or voted against their Prime Minister’s plan. And she suggested Mrs May could survive six ministers quitting her cabinet, saying: “Resignations from government do happen.”
Brexit, weakness and antisemitism: This is why voters are turning against Jeremy Corbyn's Labour
Jeremy Corbyn’s attitude to Brexit and his failure to deal with antisemitism in the party are both turning people against Labour, research has suggested. Theo Bertram, a former advisor to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, pointed to poll figures by YouGov to show how Labour needs to improve if it is to gain support. As part of a series of tweets, Mr Bertram shared results of YouGov poll that asked people who used to have a favourable view of Jeremy Corbyn but no longer did what had made them change their mind. Reasons included several areas relating to Brexit, as well as antisemitism, links to terrorist organisations and other criticisms of Mr Corbyn’s character.
It said that when asked by why they no longer support Mr Corbyn, nearly half (43%) said Brexit in some way. Antisemitism within the Labour party had prompted 8% of respondents to change their view of the Labour leader, YouGov found.
YouGov said its most recent survey found the Labour leader’s favourability fell to 22%, to a new all-time low net score of -45
Saw this posted elsewhere, thought it relevant., feel free to pick it apart.
LONG INFURIATED POST ALERT:
Right, let's tackle this WTO thing, because it's **** me off.
1/ If we end up solely on WTO rules, then we need a hard border in Ireland. That risks peace, stability, and the Union. Plus we don't have any time to build the infrastructure required. Like, nowhere NEAR enough time. And there aren't any "alternative arrangements", I promise. They don't exist. There isn't a single border in the world that has any. And that means a hard border.
2/ If we rely on WTO rules for trade, then we need to apply tariffs to imports. And expect that other countries will apply tariffs to our exports. That makes things more expensive for us to buy, and makes our businesses less able to compete. Not really sure how this is a win.
3/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we lose all leverage for negotiating future trade deals. What on earth would we offer them?? We've already given them free access to our market.
4/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we destroy our own producers - why would you carry on trying to run a farm produce business when the market is flooded with much cheaper products from abroad?
5/ If we decide to only reduce tariffs on products from the EU, then the Most Favoured Nation clause (WTO rules) kicks in - this says that you can't offer more favourable terms to one bloc, and not everyone else. So - no tariffs from the EU, means no tariffs from anyone. See points 3 and 4.
6/ If you were looking forward to getting your bendy bananas back, then tough ****; this rule didn't come from the EU (no matter what Boris told you), it came from the WTO - specifically, the Codex Alimentarius. So, no change there. Except now bananas are extortionately expensive, because, well, tariffs.
7/ If you're relying on the idea that there's an obscure WTO rule that says we can just carry on trading with the EU on the same terms we have now for 10 years, then tough **** again - this isn't correct. The "rule" is Article XXIV of the GATT, and is specifically an allowance for deviating from the MFN (see 5) because you and another bloc are working towards implementing your bilateral trade deal. It requires an end point - a fully thrashed out trade agreement. It is specifically NOT a clause that comes into play when you decide to drop out of a trading arrangement.
8/ If one of the benefits of "going WTO" is that we can make our own rules, then I can understand that. We could decide, unilaterally, that it's too expensive for us to produce electronics with an earthing wire, so we're not going to insist on that anymore. Cool. But then we can't sell our products to our closest trading neighbours. We want to sell stuff to the EU, we need to follow their rules. Except now we don't get a say in what they are.
9/ Having a "world trade deal" sounds quite attractive - quite romantic. The idea of Britain going out on her own, bravely forging links with faraway lands - it's quite appealing. Except trade doesn't work like that. There's a gravity towards your closest neighbours - proximity is important. I'm more likely to sell something to France than I am to Australia - I can get it there quicker, for example, and for a much lower cost. There is no nation on earth - none - that have prioritised trading with distant countries instead of those geographically closest. We're about to be the first - which will involve a pretty brutal lesson in the realities of logistics.
10/ If we go WTO, then we need to check goods coming into our internal market - including those from the EU. We don't have the infrastructure to do this. Nor do we have the staff. Nor the time. Plus - and this is deeply ironic - once we leave the EU, the pool of people from which we can recruit to do this essential work becomes much, much smaller. Do we have enough vets to perform the necessary checks on livestock coming into the country, for example? No. Where do we normally recruit them from? The EU. Ah, ****.
11/ A No Deal exit was never on the cards during the campaign. It is simply all that is left, once logic and reality strip away all the lies that we were told about Brexit. No, German car manufacturers haven't been knocking on Merkel's door demanding a trade deal with the UK. No, the EU doesn't need us more than we need them. No, we don't hold all the cards. None of that was true. It was never going to be true. But rather than facing up to reality, the rhetoric has just become more and more extreme. If you're dealt a bad hand in a game of poker - if the river turns against you - you don't HAVE to go all in. There are other options. You don't need to claim that was what you intended to do all along.
All of this - all of the above. That's what Donald Tusk was talking about. People who either ignored the above, or didn't even bother to find out about it - but sold us Brexit anyway. The people who - even now - print banners that say "LET'S GO WTO!" as if it's the easiest thing in the world, and without consequence.
Can be answered in one sentence ....Total speculation at the moment that we will end up in a WTO ONLY Brexit situation.
No it is a fact. Any trade done outside of a trade deal will be on WTO rules. A no deal Brexit means all our trade will be on WTO. A deal would mean trading on WTO everyone other than the EU. In either case the 5 deals that we have done would be exceptions.
Saw this posted elsewhere, thought it relevant., feel free to pick it apart.
LONG INFURIATED POST ALERT:
Right, let's tackle this WTO thing, because it's **** me off.
1/ If we end up solely on WTO rules, then we need a hard border in Ireland. That risks peace, stability, and the Union. Plus we don't have any time to build the infrastructure required. Like, nowhere NEAR enough time. And there aren't any "alternative arrangements", I promise. They don't exist. There isn't a single border in the world that has any. And that means a hard border.
2/ If we rely on WTO rules for trade, then we need to apply tariffs to imports. And expect that other countries will apply tariffs to our exports. That makes things more expensive for us to buy, and makes our businesses less able to compete. Not really sure how this is a win.
3/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we lose all leverage for negotiating future trade deals. What on earth would we offer them?? We've already given them free access to our market.
4/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we destroy our own producers - why would you carry on trying to run a farm produce business when the market is flooded with much cheaper products from abroad?
5/ If we decide to only reduce tariffs on products from the EU, then the Most Favoured Nation clause (WTO rules) kicks in - this says that you can't offer more favourable terms to one bloc, and not everyone else. So - no tariffs from the EU, means no tariffs from anyone. See points 3 and 4.
6/ If you were looking forward to getting your bendy bananas back, then tough ****; this rule didn't come from the EU (no matter what Boris told you), it came from the WTO - specifically, the Codex Alimentarius. So, no change there. Except now bananas are extortionately expensive, because, well, tariffs.
7/ If you're relying on the idea that there's an obscure WTO rule that says we can just carry on trading with the EU on the same terms we have now for 10 years, then tough **** again - this isn't correct. The "rule" is Article XXIV of the GATT, and is specifically an allowance for deviating from the MFN (see 5) because you and another bloc are working towards implementing your bilateral trade deal. It requires an end point - a fully thrashed out trade agreement. It is specifically NOT a clause that comes into play when you decide to drop out of a trading arrangement.
8/ If one of the benefits of "going WTO" is that we can make our own rules, then I can understand that. We could decide, unilaterally, that it's too expensive for us to produce electronics with an earthing wire, so we're not going to insist on that anymore. Cool. But then we can't sell our products to our closest trading neighbours. We want to sell stuff to the EU, we need to follow their rules. Except now we don't get a say in what they are.
9/ Having a "world trade deal" sounds quite attractive - quite romantic. The idea of Britain going out on her own, bravely forging links with faraway lands - it's quite appealing. Except trade doesn't work like that. There's a gravity towards your closest neighbours - proximity is important. I'm more likely to sell something to France than I am to Australia - I can get it there quicker, for example, and for a much lower cost. There is no nation on earth - none - that have prioritised trading with distant countries instead of those geographically closest. We're about to be the first - which will involve a pretty brutal lesson in the realities of logistics.
10/ If we go WTO, then we need to check goods coming into our internal market - including those from the EU. We don't have the infrastructure to do this. Nor do we have the staff. Nor the time. Plus - and this is deeply ironic - once we leave the EU, the pool of people from which we can recruit to do this essential work becomes much, much smaller. Do we have enough vets to perform the necessary checks on livestock coming into the country, for example? No. Where do we normally recruit them from? The EU. Ah, ****.
11/ A No Deal exit was never on the cards during the campaign. It is simply all that is left, once logic and reality strip away all the lies that we were told about Brexit. No, German car manufacturers haven't been knocking on Merkel's door demanding a trade deal with the UK. No, the EU doesn't need us more than we need them. No, we don't hold all the cards. None of that was true. It was never going to be true. But rather than facing up to reality, the rhetoric has just become more and more extreme. If you're dealt a bad hand in a game of poker - if the river turns against you - you don't HAVE to go all in. There are other options. You don't need to claim that was what you intended to do all along.
All of this - all of the above. That's what Donald Tusk was talking about. People who either ignored the above, or didn't even bother to find out about it - but sold us Brexit anyway. The people who - even now - print banners that say "LET'S GO WTO!" as if it's the easiest thing in the world, and without consequence.
Forty-nine days to go.
Just forty-nine.
Sigh.
I have previously made a number of these points, not as well, and not all grouped together. Our politicians are not worth a light.
Can be answered in one sentence ....Total speculation at the moment that we will end up in a WTO ONLY Brexit situation.
No it is a fact. Any trade done outside of a trade deal will be on WTO rules. A no deal Brexit means all our trade will be on WTO. A deal would mean trading on WTO everyone other than the EU. In either case the 5 deals that we have done would be exceptions.
You will have obviously missed my capitalised words above ..." WTO ONLY " The UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms. So to say that we have to solely trade under WTO is disingenuous. And there will be no doubt more than 5 deals which will be exceptions.
Can be answered in one sentence ....Total speculation at the moment that we will end up in a WTO ONLY Brexit situation.
No it is a fact. Any trade done outside of a trade deal will be on WTO rules. A no deal Brexit means all our trade will be on WTO. A deal would mean trading on WTO everyone other than the EU. In either case the 5 deals that we have done would be exceptions.
You will have obviously missed my capitalised words above ..." WTO ONLY " The UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms. So to say that we have to solely trade under WTO is disingenuous.
In the case of no deal we will not have access to EU trade, or the EU trade deals, and all our trade will be on WTO. If we get a deal then we will just be on WTO with everyone else.
Can be answered in one sentence ....Total speculation at the moment that we will end up in a WTO ONLY Brexit situation.
No it is a fact. Any trade done outside of a trade deal will be on WTO rules. A no deal Brexit means all our trade will be on WTO. A deal would mean trading on WTO everyone other than the EU. In either case the 5 deals that we have done would be exceptions.
You will have obviously missed my capitalised words above ..." WTO ONLY " The UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms. So to say that we have to solely trade under WTO is disingenuous.
In the case of no deal we will not have access to EU trade, or the EU trade deals, and all our trade will be on WTO. If we get a deal then we will just be on WTO with everyone else.
You have already said the 5 deals we have struck would be exceptions . Am I not making my point clear ?
Of 135 non-EU members of the World Trade Organisation, 58 currently trade with the EU under negotiated trade terms. The rest (77) trade under WTO terms
Can be answered in one sentence ....Total speculation at the moment that we will end up in a WTO ONLY Brexit situation.
No it is a fact. Any trade done outside of a trade deal will be on WTO rules. A no deal Brexit means all our trade will be on WTO. A deal would mean trading on WTO everyone other than the EU. In either case the 5 deals that we have done would be exceptions.
You will have obviously missed my capitalised words above ..." WTO ONLY " The UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms. So to say that we have to solely trade under WTO is disingenuous.
In the case of no deal we will not have access to EU trade, or the EU trade deals, and all our trade will be on WTO. If we get a deal then we will just be on WTO with everyone else.
You have already said the 5 deals we have struck would be exceptions . Am I not making my point clear ?
Can be answered in one sentence ....Total speculation at the moment that we will end up in a WTO ONLY Brexit situation.
No it is a fact. Any trade done outside of a trade deal will be on WTO rules. A no deal Brexit means all our trade will be on WTO. A deal would mean trading on WTO everyone other than the EU. In either case the 5 deals that we have done would be exceptions.
You will have obviously missed my capitalised words above ..." WTO ONLY " The UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms. So to say that we have to solely trade under WTO is disingenuous.
In the case of no deal we will not have access to EU trade, or the EU trade deals, and all our trade will be on WTO. If we get a deal then we will just be on WTO with everyone else.
You have already said the 5 deals we have struck would be exceptions . Am I not making my point clear ?
That makes it a whole lot better
My point is , and you can't argue this isn't true ...that there will be other deals like the 5 , which will mean that whatever the outcome , we will NOT have to trade only on WTO terms.
Of 135 non-EU members of the World Trade Organisation, 58 currently trade with the EU under negotiated trade terms. The rest (77) trade under WTO terms
I will make the Liam Fox point again.
If WTO was so good, then why would anyone do a trade deal?
Yet the Brexiteers on the one hand, swear by WTO, yet wont wear a Customs Union, because being a member of one would not allow us to do trade deals.
Can be answered in one sentence ....Total speculation at the moment that we will end up in a WTO ONLY Brexit situation.
No it is a fact. Any trade done outside of a trade deal will be on WTO rules. A no deal Brexit means all our trade will be on WTO. A deal would mean trading on WTO everyone other than the EU. In either case the 5 deals that we have done would be exceptions.
You will have obviously missed my capitalised words above ..." WTO ONLY " The UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms. So to say that we have to solely trade under WTO is disingenuous.
In the case of no deal we will not have access to EU trade, or the EU trade deals, and all our trade will be on WTO. If we get a deal then we will just be on WTO with everyone else.
You have already said the 5 deals we have struck would be exceptions . Am I not making my point clear ?
That makes it a whole lot better
My point is , and you can't argue this isn't true ...that there will be other deals like the 5 , which will mean that whatever the outcome , we will NOT have to trade only on WTO terms.
Can you please confirm , what I've said above is correct .
Comments
The Man of the People strikes again.
No words needed.
Twelve angry ministers could quit Theresa May’s cabinet if she refuses to delay Brexit , it has been claimed.
Former attorney general Dominic Grieve claimed resignations on this scale could bring down the Government within the next few weeks.
But Brexiteer Commons leader Andrea Leadsom insisted Mrs May’s 45-vote defeat last night was “more of a hiccup than the disaster that is being reported.”
And she blamed the defeat on the Labour party “playing politics”, rather than the 71 members of her own party who abstained or voted against their Prime Minister’s plan.
And she suggested Mrs May could survive six ministers quitting her cabinet, saying: “Resignations from government do happen.”
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/12-angry-ministers-could-quit-theresa-mays-cabinet-if-she-wont-delay-brexit/ar-BBTCtnf?ocid=spartandhp
Jeremy Corbyn’s attitude to Brexit and his failure to deal with antisemitism in the party are both turning people against Labour, research has suggested.
Theo Bertram, a former advisor to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, pointed to poll figures by YouGov to show how Labour needs to improve if it is to gain support.
As part of a series of tweets, Mr Bertram shared results of YouGov poll that asked people who used to have a favourable view of Jeremy Corbyn but no longer did what had made them change their mind.
Reasons included several areas relating to Brexit, as well as antisemitism, links to terrorist organisations and other criticisms of Mr Corbyn’s character.
It said that when asked by why they no longer support Mr Corbyn, nearly half (43%) said Brexit in some way.
Antisemitism within the Labour party had prompted 8% of respondents to change their view of the Labour leader, YouGov found.
YouGov said its most recent survey found the Labour leader’s favourability fell to 22%, to a new all-time low net score of -45
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/brexit-weakness-antisemitism-voters-turning-jeremy-corbyns-labour-123339834.html
LONG INFURIATED POST ALERT:
Right, let's tackle this WTO thing, because it's **** me off.
1/ If we end up solely on WTO rules, then we need a hard border in Ireland. That risks peace, stability, and the Union. Plus we don't have any time to build the infrastructure required. Like, nowhere NEAR enough time. And there aren't any "alternative arrangements", I promise. They don't exist. There isn't a single border in the world that has any. And that means a hard border.
2/ If we rely on WTO rules for trade, then we need to apply tariffs to imports. And expect that other countries will apply tariffs to our exports. That makes things more expensive for us to buy, and makes our businesses less able to compete. Not really sure how this is a win.
3/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we lose all leverage for negotiating future trade deals. What on earth would we offer them?? We've already given them free access to our market.
4/ If we decide we're not going to apply tariffs to imports at all, then we destroy our own producers - why would you carry on trying to run a farm produce business when the market is flooded with much cheaper products from abroad?
5/ If we decide to only reduce tariffs on products from the EU, then the Most Favoured Nation clause (WTO rules) kicks in - this says that you can't offer more favourable terms to one bloc, and not everyone else. So - no tariffs from the EU, means no tariffs from anyone. See points 3 and 4.
6/ If you were looking forward to getting your bendy bananas back, then tough ****; this rule didn't come from the EU (no matter what Boris told you), it came from the WTO - specifically, the Codex Alimentarius. So, no change there. Except now bananas are extortionately expensive, because, well, tariffs.
7/ If you're relying on the idea that there's an obscure WTO rule that says we can just carry on trading with the EU on the same terms we have now for 10 years, then tough **** again - this isn't correct. The "rule" is Article XXIV of the GATT, and is specifically an allowance for deviating from the MFN (see 5) because you and another bloc are working towards implementing your bilateral trade deal. It requires an end point - a fully thrashed out trade agreement. It is specifically NOT a clause that comes into play when you decide to drop out of a trading arrangement.
8/ If one of the benefits of "going WTO" is that we can make our own rules, then I can understand that. We could decide, unilaterally, that it's too expensive for us to produce electronics with an earthing wire, so we're not going to insist on that anymore. Cool. But then we can't sell our products to our closest trading neighbours. We want to sell stuff to the EU, we need to follow their rules. Except now we don't get a say in what they are.
9/ Having a "world trade deal" sounds quite attractive - quite romantic. The idea of Britain going out on her own, bravely forging links with faraway lands - it's quite appealing. Except trade doesn't work like that. There's a gravity towards your closest neighbours - proximity is important. I'm more likely to sell something to France than I am to Australia - I can get it there quicker, for example, and for a much lower cost. There is no nation on earth - none - that have prioritised trading with distant countries instead of those geographically closest. We're about to be the first - which will involve a pretty brutal lesson in the realities of logistics.
10/ If we go WTO, then we need to check goods coming into our internal market - including those from the EU. We don't have the infrastructure to do this. Nor do we have the staff. Nor the time. Plus - and this is deeply ironic - once we leave the EU, the pool of people from which we can recruit to do this essential work becomes much, much smaller. Do we have enough vets to perform the necessary checks on livestock coming into the country, for example? No. Where do we normally recruit them from? The EU. Ah, ****.
11/ A No Deal exit was never on the cards during the campaign. It is simply all that is left, once logic and reality strip away all the lies that we were told about Brexit. No, German car manufacturers haven't been knocking on Merkel's door demanding a trade deal with the UK. No, the EU doesn't need us more than we need them. No, we don't hold all the cards. None of that was true. It was never going to be true. But rather than facing up to reality, the rhetoric has just become more and more extreme. If you're dealt a bad hand in a game of poker - if the river turns against you - you don't HAVE to go all in. There are other options. You don't need to claim that was what you intended to do all along.
All of this - all of the above. That's what Donald Tusk was talking about. People who either ignored the above, or didn't even bother to find out about it - but sold us Brexit anyway. The people who - even now - print banners that say "LET'S GO WTO!" as if it's the easiest thing in the world, and without consequence.
Forty-nine days to go.
Just forty-nine.
Sigh.
Any trade done outside of a trade deal will be on WTO rules.
A no deal Brexit means all our trade will be on WTO.
A deal would mean trading on WTO everyone other than the EU.
In either case the 5 deals that we have done would be exceptions.
Our politicians are not worth a light.
The UK trades with 24 countries and territories under WTO rules alone. With 68 others it has, as part of the EU, free trade agreements, either fully or partly in place, which all enable trade on better terms.
So to say that we have to solely trade under WTO is disingenuous. And there will be no doubt more than 5 deals which will be exceptions.
If we get a deal then we will just be on WTO with everyone else.
If WTO was so good, then why would anyone do a trade deal?
Yet the Brexiteers on the one hand, swear by WTO, yet wont wear a Customs Union, because being a member of one would not allow us to do trade deals.