Show paragraph

In Game theory, there is a literature on the 'deadline effect'. Varoufakis is a game theorist. However, w.r.t Brexit, there is no deadline. Article 50 can be delayed at will or unilaterally revoked. Varoufakis says- 'If negotiations have not produced a divorce agreement within the prescribed period – March 29, 2019, in Britain’s case – the member state suddenly finds itself outside the EU, facing disproportionate hardships overnight.' This statement is blatantly false.

The European Court of Justice’s advocate general has clarified that the UK can revoke Article 50 at will. The EU is not holding a gun to Britain's head.

Varoufakis's entire argument is misconceived. He is pretending there is a draconian deadline and that this is having a baleful effect. Actually, there is no deadline and everybody- except Varoufakis knows this already.

This is not to say that a deadline would have 'undermined meaningful negotiations'. The British know this very well. As Varoufakis himself says, Article 50 was drafted by a Britisher.

The fact is protracted negotiations prolong Uncertainty which is negatively correlated with Economic activity. It is very much in Britain's interest to reduce uncertainty.

Varoufakis claims that the EC has an 'incentive to run down the clock'. This means they won't make 'significant compromises' even at the eleventh hour. Varoufakis doesn't seem to understand what the idiom 'run out the clock' actually means- viz to prevent the other side making any advance so as win on the basis of an existing lead.

Why would the EC want to 'make significant eleventh hour concessions'? Britain can always delay or nullify that 'eleventh hour' whereas the EC has no similar power. Thus 'the eleventh hour' is the worst time to make concessions because the EC looks weak and Britain looks strong since it is Britain which dictates when the 'eleventh hour' strikes.

Whatever pain Brexit causes, it will affect Britain much more than any other country. Thus countervailing pressure would be greatest in Britain. European leaders can afford to treat the fall out as exogenous. Thus the bargaining game is not symmetrical.



A 'People's Debate' is worthless because people only know their own preferences re. migration vs economic security. They don't know if demos accurately represent preference intensity because nutters will get excited about anything.



It is not the case that nothing has been clarified in the last two years. On the contrary, the EU proffer is clear and unambiguous and unlikely to change. Thus the alternatives are Remain & no deal Brexit because Remain dominates every feasible Deal.



The political class may not want another Referendum because of the risk of splits in both main parties. In that case, No Deal can be delayed but not avoided.



Varoufakis says that no-Deal will lead to substantial disruption and that'German business, along with the French and Dutch governments, would be up in arms against such a turn, and demand that the European Commission use its powers indefinitely to suspend any disruption in Europe’s ports and airports while meaningful negotiations begin for the first time since 2016.'

This is sheer fantasy. Disruption in Europe's ports and airports can be mitigated but not suspended. It is not the case that the Commission can wave a magic wand or override a previous agreement. For prudential reasons, European businesses would, like their British counterparts, concentrate on lobbying for special treatment rather than some wholesale revision of an equitable sort.



Democracy is not vindicated when it does stupid stuff. Recall, the Greeks once voted for Varoufakis. It may not be a perfect system but it does give stupid people a chance to screw up their countries and then write silly books about how this proves they are actually real smart.