The British Govt. has to create some details of the negotiations secret because revealing them will have a perverse effect on expectations. In particular, there is a strong risk that a bargaining chip turns into a fait accompli.

The Brits do want 'hard Brexit' because they want to stem migration and do away with Human Rights for Terrorists. If the British Govt. accepts Ngaire Wood's suggestions and is open and transparent in its dealings with the EU, xenophobic sentiments are bound to increase within the country. There is likely to be a process of polarisation which permanently embitters relations with the Continent.

The British position is that the Continent would find it advantageous to implement similar measures. This is perfectly logical. That's why the EU doesn't want open and prolonged discussion of Brexit. Their own Societies might become polarised. It is better that the EU punishes Britain with 'hard brexit' because States and Bureaucracies can always kiss and make up later on. What is dangerous is a polarisation of Civil Society on issues like migration or Human Rights for Terrorists.

The UK can afford to lose 'frictionless borders'. The effect is the same as a supply shock or devaluation. There is a wealth effect but at least Civil Society is not imperilled. Long term there may be dynamic benefits. At the least, 'hard Brexit' means more subsidiarity in creating a Tiebout model in line with British preferences. At the moment, the argument for a return to the Welfare State is vitiated by the 'free rider' problem posed by migrants. Furthermore, Industrial, Regional and Manpower policy lack salience if Labour is relatively mobile wrt Capital- as must continue to be the case if there is no Supply constraint in the Labour market.



There is a persistent myth that 'transparency' and 'accountability' in Political or International Deliberations promotes better outcomes. Economic theory suggests the reverse is the case. Secrecy and lack of accountability permits horse-trading more particularly because informationally weaker agents are less constrained. There is more 'transferable utility'. One must not let in daylight on magic.



On the other hand, writing nonsensical bien pensant articles is more vital today than it has ever been. Only by shifting to a collaborative, outward-looking, and realistic negotiating strategy can we order a pizza. Billions of people don't agree. They think ordering a pizza is just a matter of picking up a phone or clicking on the internet. They are completely wrong. Recent research conducted by the Blavatnik Institute shows that the only way we can be sure of getting a pizza is if we negotiate in good faith in an outward-looking yet Socially inclusive manner which is simultaneously in concordance with the highest Ideals of Enlightenment Rationality as well as wholly Realistic and Pragmatic. Sustainable pizza ordering can never be confrontationist- issuing unilateral demands for a peperoni pizza is nothing but 'gunboat diplomacy'- rather it must be founded in a collaborative praxis that is sensitive to gender and environmental issues. We need to develop a pluralistic dialogic such that all stakeholders can evolve a truly sustainable and humanitarian modus vivendi such that, though we end up just opening a can of baked beans, still Pizza ordering becomes a paradigmatic exercise in Deliberative Democracy of a proudly Pluralist kind.