"Jeremy Corbyn spoke as recently as January about how it was “protectionist against developing countries”""

That's patently untrue. When you talked at length on the issue of leaving, Daniel, you never, ever talked about the idea that it would benefit developing countries. That was more honest.
The EU has a preferential trade regime with every one of the 48 LDC (Least Developed Countries). Their goods come in largely tariff-free, with expedited customs procedures and they can even use preferential rules of origin, including cumulation. That's why the LDC trade with the EU is so much higher than with the US or any other country than China. And I'll happily agree that China is doing a better job developing the LDC than the EU, if you admit that the EU is doing a better job than any other developed economy, and that China has strategic objectives beyond development, unlike the EU.

"First, like a lot of Remainers, they genuinely believe that the only real issue for Leavers was immigration, and so have drawn their red line there rather than on economics. "
Umm, actually that is exactly what the government has decided. And Dan, dear boy, I know you always said it wasn't about immigration, and I kinda believe that you really think it wasn't. But at the very latest, you should have known with the unveiling of "Breaking Point" that you were on the side of the xenophobes and the anti-globalists. Maybe you would have been one of those that just wanted the trains to run on time, but the point is that you knew very well the company you were keeping. I've seen your denials, and I don't think you believe them yourself.

"When we do more trade with non-EU than EU markets, how can the gains and losses be so lopsided? "

Dan, this is when I start believing that you really are just a regular politician. You should know darn well why. The UK is the preferred starting point for exports from the end of EU supply chains out into the world. Why? Because so many global corporations are set up there, and because of English. It's that simple. Oversimplifying to the point of being rude: the UK is the shop window for the EU.This is a great position to be in. But it goes completely out of the window (pardon the pun) when the UK leaves, as that involves real costs. Even if the UK would stay in the single market.

"The idea that we could be more ambitious, providing for full reciprocity in services and professional qualifications, wasn’t considered."

Right, because the US has never offered it, and it would be economic suicide for the UK to offer it. Within the EU, the UK specialised in exporting services (but really not that much, aside from the relatively small financial services sector). The US has the same spot in its trade web. In a direct competition, there's simply no question who would win. The UK providing services to the US that other US companies already provide? Seriously, Dan?

"But we – we liberal Leavers – don’t own it."

That is true. liberal Leavers were a tiny minority, even within Leave. You knew that better than anyone, Dan. There is no way that you didn't know that. Your job was to make Leave acceptable to some, and convince millions that staying home on referendum day was reasonable. You know this to be true, but you wanted it anyway. So don't start whinging now, please. It's not your baby, but you were the one performing the C-section. You own it, whether you like it or not.

Again, it's a minority view, shared only be a handful of economists.

I hate it when that happens XD.

It's a minority view globally, within Ireland and even within the UK.

Yes, and this is something that will be a particularly rough wake-up call if the government does not prepare for it. There has been a complete focus on FTA and tariffs. That's why you get idiotic comments like "the EU does not have a trade deal with China or the US" from politicians that should know better. The EU has dozens of TFA (trade facilitation agreements) with China and the US. That's why a car exported from the US to the EU faces an average barrier of "only" 27% (10% tariff and 17% non-tariff costs), and why chemicals exported from the EU to the US "only" face a 20% non-tariff barrier.

The UK will also lose access to the TFA. This could be a huge shock to the trade with non-EU countries like the US and China.

Norway has to provide rules of origin documentation. The Norwegian government estimates that adds between 5% and 15% to the cost of a product. This is due to the administrative overhead. It's roughly in line with a UK government estimate for RoO documentation costs (which was 12%, averaged over UK exports, iirc).

Even though Norway is in the EEA, it is not in the EU, so barriers to trade remain. They are not part of CAP and CFP, so agricultural and fish products are even subject to quota.

I said 14% of the cost, not the value. Not sure what you are confused about.

The WTO touted this deal as better than removing all remaining tariffs. Considering WTO member trade is 16 trillion USD per year (roughly), and trade-weighted average tariffs are 3%, this means that the WTO deal removes at least 500 billion USD in costs. Probably more considering they think it will lead to an increase of 1 trillion USD in global trade.

The EU would have to explain to Ireland why it's not in the agreement, so this doesn't work. Also, contrary to the British side, the EU side has an MEP liaison that is responsible for flagging up things like that. So no, the EU would not be able to drop it silently, and even if they say they will go along with it, May will have to explain why she insisted that it be dropped.

I? Are you posting under two accounts? That's a bit confusing but ok.

My point is that it's important to realize that the think tank specializes in minority views. They're a political version of the climate change deniers. Not all that different from the Minford "Economists for Brexit" group, which also gathered the few economists that believed there was a possible upside to Brexit. Incidentally, they also say that unless their recipe is followed to the letter, Brexit will hurt a lot. Their prescription is full globalisation, i.e. completely go neoliberal.

Non-tariff barriers are not usually removed by FTA. For instance, significant NTB will remain between the EU and Canada after CETA comes in with full effect. To remove all NTB, you have to create a single market ...

The recent WTO deal removes on average 14% of the cost of international trade by reducing non-tariff barriers. That's more than you'ld gain if you could remove all tariffs.

It's all well and good to dream, but at some point reality has to play a role in the planning, or it's all just going to come crashing down. I suggest it's time to wake up.

They're getting part of the City to come to Dublin, so it might work out nicely.