INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

In or out?

...on serious topics that don't fit anywhere else at present.
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2961 Postby Alan H » January 26th, 2018, 12:40 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Ian Dunt's Friday email:
Today's skirmishes are the first shots of 2018's internal Tory war on Brexit.

The fighting began yesterday, when Philip Hammond stressed that any changes with Europe after Brexit would take place "very modestly", thereby keeping the two economies "interconnected and aligned".

This provoked a predictable backbench backlash. Jacob Rees-Mogg, who acts more and more like he is in a leadership contest, said "I profoundly disagree with the chancellor" and damned ministers for being "cowed by the EU". Former minister Andrew Percy told the chancellor to "put a sock in it" while his colleague Owen Paterson said "it would be good if all Cabinet ministers stuck to government policy".

Downing Street - petrified, as ever, by anything which spooks the headbangers - started briefing against Hammond, stressing that leaving the single market and customs union "could not be described as very modest changes".

But far from moving away from government policy, Hammond is merely reiterating the first phase agreement the UK signed a month ago, in which it promised to accept "full alignment" with the EU to prevent a border in Ireland. Ministers tried to put a brave face on it, but this doesn't just mean having the same rules as the EU now. It means we have to keep them that way in future. If anything, Hammond overstates the extent to which Britain can move away from the EU system.

The consequences of moving away from Europe are very severe. Britain would close itself off from its largest market and recreate a border in Ireland.

The choice ahead of the UK is simple: full trade and little control, or full control and little trade. Neither are palatable. Once the reality of that choice becomes clear, people will split down the middle. The unspoken, internal divisions in the Tory party between the headbanger Brexiters and pragmatic Brexiters will be harder to suffocate with cake-and-eat-it platitudes.

Meanwhile, a second front was opening up in the Tory psychodrama civil war - this time on transition.

As Hammond battened down the hatches against friendly fire, David Davis was preparing a speech on his plans for what happens in the two years after March 2019. The Brexit secretary had himself experienced a savaging at the hands of Rees-Mogg during a Brexit committee hearing earlier in the week, in which the backbencher told him Britain would be a "vassal state" during transition - taking on all EU rules and yet not having any role in formulating them.

To counter that impression, Davis is emphasising that Britain can negotiate and perhaps even sign its own trade deals during this period - even if it can only implement them later.

He's trying to put a brave face on things, but the reality is that Britain is going to roll over on everything. Europe has been clear that only one thing has been on offer. It was the original offer and it is the only one available now. There will be no other offers. Britain is going to keep everything exactly as it is, except that it will lose any power to influence the rules - either via the election of MEPs or through voting rights in EU agencies.

Davis' lame efforts to pretend that Britain will be able to negotiate new trade deals in this time are just an attempt to focus on the positives, even where they have no substance to them. Sources in Brussels have always been perfectly happy to let the UK negotiate trade deals during transition because they know this freedom is largely theoretical.

The UK doesn't have the negotiating capacity to conduct dual track talks - one set with the EU and another with everyone else. Even if it did, two years would not be enough time. And other countries would not want or be able to agree a deal with the UK until they understood what its final relationship with the EU was.

Imagine that during transition Liam Fox tried to talk to the US about a deal. The quid-pro-quo of a UK-US trade deal would be that the US opens itself up to penetration by UK financial services in exchange for the UK opening itself up to US manufacturing and agriculture. Even this is unlikely to be achievable, but lets pretend for a moment it can be done.

Britain can only open itself up to US agriculture if it has disconnected itself formally from the EU, because there are different standards on their products. All that chlorine-soaked chicken and hormone-injected beef is not going to be allowed into the European market. The UK can either detach from the EU and take those goods or stay attached to the EU and not take them. But whichever option it decides, it needs to know what its relationship with the EU is before it can decide anything with the US.

Far from being a potent trading powerhouse, Britain is actually having to go to the the EU cap-in-hand to help it roll over its existing third party trade deals with other countries. These range from full-fat free trade deals with countries like South Korea and Canada to smaller semi-skimmed trade arrangements with countries like the US and China, as well as other agreements on issues like energy, security and data protection.

Once upon a time, Fox bragged he could have all these deals sorted by the time the UK left in March 2019. He was told at the time this was not possible. Now that he has wasted a year flying around the world to no observable purpose, his department has effectively admitted his critics were right. UK negotiators are going to have ask the EU to help it roll-over those deals during transition.

There will be complaints by these third parties, but by presenting a united front - as they have done at the WTO on the vexed issue of tariff quotas - the EU and the UK stand a better chance of staring them down.

Again, we're seeing the brute reality of the Brexit dynamic laid bare: far from sailing across the world winning stunning trade victories, Britain is having to ask the EU to help clean up the mess it has made. Glory has turned to humility.

The same process is clear across the debate - on the terms of transition and on the development of the future relationship. The cake is not being had and eaten, it is being picked up and thrown at the wall.

The real choices entailed by Brexit are finally being recognised: a diminished Britain, choosing between trade and control. And with no delusions to sink into, the Tory party is increasingly free to go to war with itself.


I wish the CONservatives would just hurry up and get on with it and destroy themselves. They've been trying to for 40 years and failing even at that.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6082
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2962 Postby animist » January 26th, 2018, 12:59 pm

Nick wrote:Moving on from the rather tiresome cut-and-paste, a new perspective, a theoretical question: if it were shown that Britain would be better off if we became the 51st State in the Union, would you support it? What reasons would you give to support your argument? (Note to candidate: the questioner is NOT asking whether Britain would be better off!)
depends on what you mean by "better off", obviously. If you mean economically better off but subject to Trump, then no. I don't see the EU as akin to Trump - why, the pathetic twats in the EU don't have even any armed forces! They need to get rid of this stupid country to improve their integration project - which bothers me re the much more relevant issues which are in their minds as they prepare for the serious negotiations with Brainless Britain in March. I think that the EU negotiators may well have decided that Britain is a net liability, and that therefore they will not be as anxious as Brexiters like to suppose about coming up with "the best possible deal for Britain!" to quote our great leader

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2963 Postby Alan H » January 26th, 2018, 1:12 pm

Exclusive: EU’s negotiating guidelines for the Brexit transition
The transition on offer is every bit as annoying to Jacob Rees-Mogg and fellow Brexiteers as he was signalling at the Brexit Select Committee yesterday. There is only a limited right for Britain to even make an appearance at meetings where the U.K. will have no voting rights.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2964 Postby Alan H » January 26th, 2018, 1:19 pm

Tom Brake: ‘I’ve seen ministers’ homework - a child could have done it’
In my 20 years as an MP, I cannot recall any government or parliament embarking on a course of action with such a profound bearing on our economy, security, diplomacy and stature in the world, with so little knowledge or understanding of its ramifications.

This is, however, the stark reality of how we are, even at this late stage, approaching Brexit.

The government claims to have done its due diligence with their so-called sectoral analyses – no one talks any more of the fabled ‘impact reports’. But these flimsy documents fall a long way short of delivering the “excruciating detail” that was promised not so long ago by David Davis.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2965 Postby Alan H » January 26th, 2018, 2:46 pm

Jeremy Hunt Tries To Calm Tory Civil War Over Europe – As Bank Of England Says Brexit Vote Cost UK ‘Tens Of Billions’
Jeremy Hunt has rallied behind Theresa May in a bid to halt a fresh Tory civil war over Europe - as the Bank of England Governor admitted the Brexit vote had cost the UK “tens of billions” in growth.

Amid growing speculation of a leadership challenge, the Health Secretary denied the Prime Minister had been “timid” and tried to play down claims that Chancellor Philip Hammond was plotting a soft Brexit.

Furious Tory backbenchers, Downing Street sources and Cabinet ministers all hit out after Hammond suggested on Thursday that Britain and the EU would move only “very modestly” apart after the UK quits the bloc in March 2019.

Brexit Secretary David Davis is set on Friday to insist in a major speech that the UK will still be able to sign free trade deals with non-EU countries even during a two-year transition period after Brexit.


And Hunt told Radio 4’s Today programme that May was still determined to deliver on the wishes of the 17 million people who voted Leave.

“Anyone who uses the word timid about this Prime Minister is absolutely wrong,” he said.

“This is the Prime Minister who gave us absolute clarity after the Brexit vote that we were going to get back control of our laws, our borders and our money - the most profound strategic decision that any Prime Minister needs to make.”
:hilarity: :laughter: :pointlaugh: :hilarity: :laughter: :pointlaugh:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6082
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2966 Postby animist » January 26th, 2018, 4:19 pm

Nick wrote:
I will try again to get you to answer a simple question. In what way will Britain's leaving the EU benefit its member countries?
Not in the short term, but if it stops the headlong march into ever deeper waters, then it will be good for them.
big and empty "if"
Nick wrote:
They seem to want us to stay, don't they?
Who's "they"? Their peoples, or their governments?
in the first place, their governments, but maybe most of the inhabitants too. They could elect Leave-type leaders but do not. I know what you are now going to say, as you said it before: that the rest of the EU has not held referendums on membership. True, but so what? Most of the countries have more representative electoral systems than we do, one thing. Second thing, I imagine many of the 27's inhabitants are watching the Brexit fiasco with amusement - not much of an incentive so far for a Frexit or whatever, is it? Third thing, you are seemingly now keen on referendums and insistent that their result be carried out to the letter (in fact beyond the letter). So why not have a referendum on restoring capital punishment? Would you go along with a Yes vote if that were the result?
Nick wrote:
how can that possibly be so? We have been in the EU for pushing half a century, and have survived pretty well.
Principally by rejecting the movement towards a European super-state.
We do not have to be part of the super-state, as we are not part of the eurozone. How many times do I have to say this?
Nick wrote:
You must surely be aware - or are you? - of the dangers of chaos at the ports if Britain crashes out of the Customs Union as well as the Single Market.
We will be leaving, certainly, but ways will be found to cope. As Wellington said, news is never as good or as bad as when first reported.
Silly reply, and I doubt that the populus will approve of such insouciance if there are holdups and rotting food. The government is doing nothing about the problem
Nick wrote:I'm sure there will be a particularly Irish solution! What it will be, I don't know, but they copw with 2 currencies, different tax rates, different rules already.
but what you mention don't really cover the problems such as smuggling do they? Again, you sound so mightily complacent about concrete problems yet perturbed about distant and rather vague ones. Anyway, why add more problems to those we already have?
Nick wrote:Because I believe the long-term rights and wrongs of the EU are more important than short-term considerations. Appeasement may work in the short-term, but isn't necessarily the right call, is it?
but short-term problems, if real, are important, and it is absolutely nothing to do with appeasement. If Brexit is the disaster that it may well be (and the harder the break with the EU, the more the risks) then Britain will be back to square one in trying to rejoin the EU
Nick wrote:Given the above correction, I don't think this point applies. :)
yes it does. Why do you ignore the forecasts of most reputable economists to the effect that Brexit will make Britain worse off?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2967 Postby Alan H » January 26th, 2018, 5:52 pm

How Britain's views have changed – full Brexit poll results
Guardian/ICM survey of more than 5,000 Britons shows a nation increasingly divided by age, region and party
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2968 Postby Alan H » January 27th, 2018, 10:42 am

The quiet before the Phase Two storm
But the days when the Tory Party was the party of business seem as remote as when the Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer. Symbolism is, indeed, now the Brexiters’ stock in trade. Rather than propose any remotely workable plan for Brexit they obsess about the colour of passports or, this week, the crucial issue of whether Big Ben will ring out the bells of freedom on Brexit day. That’s all so much easier than boring things like Rules of Origin, or what Most Favoured Nation actually means (hint: the clue, for once, isn’t in the name). It’s a deep irony that many of those who most ferociously denounce ‘identity politics’ are currently its most enthusiastic proponents.
Finally, although there is little light relief to be found in Britain’s Brexit tribulations, there was one moment of amusement this week. David Cameron was recorded saying that Brexit was “not a disaster” but was a “mistake”. It is easy to see why he would not want to own to it being a disaster, of course, given his dismal role in creating it (and to see that had he said otherwise, he would have been lambasted for ‘talking the country down’). But it is truly bizarre to see the glee with which Brexiters greeted this news, as if “it’s not a disaster, just a mistake” was a ringing endorsement of Brexit. Perhaps they should have put it in the side of a bus.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6082
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2969 Postby animist » January 27th, 2018, 11:19 am

interesting that he says it is impossible for Britain to stay in the Customs Union while leaving the EU - I must admit I have been assuming that this is possible in principle. But the CU may be different from the Single Market in this respect. I doubt that there will be another referendum, partly because of the time factor, and Kenneth Armstrong says this. But also, as the recent poll shows in the Guardian article you posted, Alan, things have scarcely changed over the two years, and the narrow Remain lead could just indicate the sort of bias which led to the surprise referendum result. What would be the purpose of producing another narrow result either way?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2970 Postby Alan H » January 27th, 2018, 11:32 am

animist wrote:
interesting that he says it is impossible for Britain to stay in the Customs Union while leaving the EU - I must admit I have been assuming that this is possible in principle. But the CU may be different from the Single Market in this respect. I doubt that there will be another referendum, partly because of the time factor, and Kenneth Armstrong says this. But also, as the recent poll shows in the Guardian article you posted, Alan, things have scarcely changed over the two years, and the narrow Remain lead could just indicate the sort of bias which led to the surprise referendum result. What would be the purpose of producing another narrow result either way?
It's interesting... those survey figures are complex as are people's reasons for voting the way they say they will. I suspect many would say they would vote leave again simply because they think that's what the majority wanted the first time and think that should be honoured, regardless of events since. If they could be convinced that a new vote was separate and was on the basis if what we know now, I suspect it will be different. I do not trust, however, Dacre and Murdoch to help in that respect.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2971 Postby Alan H » January 27th, 2018, 6:44 pm

Theresa May suggests UK health services could be part of US trade deal
Theresa May has left the door open for the greater involvement of US corporations in British healthcare as she arrives in America to lay the groundwork for a future trade deal.

Ms May would only say that she was committed to a health service that is free at the point of delivery, but made no comment on whether the NHS would be off the table in any future talks.

Trade and the UK’s economic relationship with the US will be one of the key pillars of the Prime Minister’s visit to Philadelphia and Washington DC.
Asked whether health services might form a part of a potential deal, she said: “We're at the start of the process of talking about a trade deal. We're both very clear that we want a trade deal.

“It will be in the interests of the UK from my point of view, that's what I'm going to be taking in, into the trade discussions that take place in due course.

“Obviously he will have the interests of the US. I believe we can come to an agreement that is in the interests of both.”
May really is the master of the empty phrase, isn't she?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6082
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2972 Postby animist » January 28th, 2018, 12:04 am

Alan H wrote:Theresa May suggests UK health services could be part of US trade dealMay really is the master of the empty phrase, isn't she?
it all means nothing at present, though if the Tories start messing with the NHS to please Trumpie, they and Brexit will be marmalised

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2973 Postby Alan H » January 28th, 2018, 1:41 pm

screenshot-tweetdeck.twitter.com-2018-01-28-13-41-02-864.png
screenshot-tweetdeck.twitter.com-2018-01-28-13-41-02-864.png (226.7 KiB) Viewed 158 times
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2974 Postby Alan H » January 29th, 2018, 12:50 pm

EU withdrawal bill needs major rewrites, Lords committee says
The EU withdrawal bill is fundamentally flawed and needs to be rewritten in several ways, peers have said, as the House of Lords prepares to debate the legislation this week.

The Lords constitution committee said that the bill as it currently stands risked “undermining legal certainty” and should be substantially changed, even though it has already been voted through the House of Commons.

The bill will be subject to fierce debate when it reaches the Lords on Tuesday and Wednesday, with remain-supporting peers expected to vote for a motion of regret that the public is not getting another say over Brexit.

Ahead of that battle, the committee recommended major changes that could be debated at a later stage of the bill’s passage through the second chamber.


Sovereignty or supremacy? Lords Constitution Committee reports on EU (Withdrawal) Bill
Conclusion

Despite its critique of clauses 2-5, the Committee’s recommended amendments are framed constructively. The Committee recognises the Government’s key aims and seeks to propose ways in which these might be pursued in a clearer way, reducing the risk of legal confusion in the definition, effects and constitutional status of retained EU law.

The key recommendation that retained direct EU law be treated as having the status of an Act of Parliament enacted on exit day would, in the words of the Committee, ‘greatly simplify’ retained EU law’s constitutional position ‘by ascribing to it a status consistent with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. It would also complete the task of excising EU law from domestic law by making clear that retained direct EU law is, after exit day, domestic rather than EU law, subject only to the doctrines and principles of the UK constitution and not in any way contingent for its status upon the externally-derived constitutional doctrines of the EU.’ Since one of the Government’s goals is to reassert Parliament’s supremacy in the wake of the UK’s exit from the EU, it would appear that the recommendations set out in the report offer a means of doing so in a way that is more coherent in both conceptual and practical terms than the current provisions of the Bill.

None of this is about ‘blocking Brexit’. Rather, it is about enabling the UK’s departure from the European Union to take place in a legally coherent way that will maximise legal certainty, secure (where appropriate) legal continuity, and ensure that the Bill operates in a way that is consistent with well-established domestic constitutional principles.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2975 Postby Alan H » January 29th, 2018, 4:08 pm

Tory ex-ministers deny charging fee for Brexit-related advice is wrong
Three former Conservative cabinet ministers have denied any wrongdoing after being caught on camera offering to receive money in exchange for advising a fictitious Chinese company about the UK government’s approach to Brexit.

An investigation by Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Sunday Times secretly recorded Lord Lansley, and senior Tory MPs Andrew Mitchell and Peter Lilley, in meetings at a Mayfair hotel they believed were with a Chinese firm.

In the documentary, to be aired on Sunday night, Lansley, a former health secretary, says he will provide “intelligence” to the Chinese company, and would charge €5,000 (£4,400) a day.

He also suggests the firm employs him through his wife’s firm, Low, apparently to avoid scrutiny.

“If you have a contract with Low then basically I come with Low. So if you had a contract separately with me it would have to appear separately on the transparency register as a contract with you. But if it’s with Low then its covered by the Low contract,” he says.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2976 Postby Alan H » January 29th, 2018, 11:08 pm

Anyone see this coming? The Government's Own Brexit Analysis Says The UK Will Be Worse Off In Every Scenario Outside The EU
The government's new analysis of the impact of Brexit says the UK would be worse off outside the European Union under every scenario modelled, BuzzFeed News can reveal.

The assessment, which is titled “EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing” and dated January 2018, looked at three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios based on existing EU arrangements.

Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts, according to the analysis.

The "no deal" scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%.

These calculations do not take into account any short-term hits to the economy from Brexit, such as the cost of adjusting the economy to new customs arrangements.

The assessment seen by BuzzFeed News is being kept tightly guarded inside government. It was prepared by officials across Whitehall for the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU), and is reportedly being presented to key ministers in one-to-one meetings this week ahead of discussion at the Brexit cabinet subcommittee next week.

Asked why the prime minister was not making the analysis public, a DExEU source told BuzzFeed News: "Because it's embarrassing."

Even though the analysis assumes that the UK will agree a trade deal with the US, roll over dozens of the EU’s current trade agreements, and consider loosening regulations after Brexit, there is no scenario that does not leave the country worse off.

Officials believe the methodology for the new assessment is better than that used for similar analyses before the referendum.

The January 2018 analysis looked only at existing EU arrangements, which means bespoke arrangements have yet to be modelled. Prime Minister Theresa May has repeatedly said she is seeking a "deep and special partnership with the EU".

The other main findings of the analysis include:

• Almost every sector of the economy included in the analysis would be negatively impacted in all three scenarios, with chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, and cars and retail the hardest hit. The analysis found that only the agriculture sector under the WTO scenario would not be adversely affected.

• Every UK region would also be affected negatively in all the modelled scenarios, with the North East, the West Midlands, and Northern Ireland (before even considering the possibility of a hard border) facing the biggest falls in economic performance.

• There is a risk that London’s status as a financial centre could be severely eroded, with the possibilities available under an FTA not much different to those in the WTO option.

• On the plus side, the analysis assumes in all scenarios that a trade deal with the US will be concluded, and that it would benefit GDP by about 0.2% in the long term. Trade deals with other non-EU countries and blocs, such as China, India, Australia, the Gulf countries, and the nations of Southeast Asia would add, in total, a further 0.1% to 0.4% to GDP over the long term.

The government has found itself in repeated difficulty over the existence – or lack – of Brexit impact studies. Last year, the Brexit secretary David Davis suggested that dozens had been carried out “in excruciating detail”, but after a Commons vote forced the publication of these assessments, he told MPs he had been misunderstood and they did not exist after all. DExEU published a series of broad "sectoral analyses" instead.

The biggest negative impact comes from the UK’s decision to leave both the EU’s customs union and the single market – the issue at the heart of the Conservative Party’s ongoing internal strife over Brexit.

Leaving these arrangements creates what the analysis calls “non-tariff barriers” to trade, such as loss of market access in certain sectors and new customs and border checks and practices.

Some of these can be minimised if Britain were to remain in the single market via the EEA, and the impact can also be partly offset through domestic policy or trade deals with the US and others, but the losses cannot be eliminated altogether once the UK is outside the customs union.

This new analysis suggests that there could be opportunity for the UK in agreeing trade deals with non-EU countries and deregulating in areas such as the environment, product standards, and employment law.

However, the analysis also casts doubt on the idea that these benefits would be enough to mitigate the losses to the economy caused by leaving the single market and customs union. Moving away from the existing set of rules and standards would also make it harder to trade with the EU in the future, and would be politically controversial domestically.

This specific debate risks deepening the conflict inside the Tory party between those, such as chancellor Philip Hammond, who want to remain more closely aligned to the EU for years, and the hardline Brexiteers, led by backbencher Jacob Rees-Mogg.

A government spokesperson told BuzzFeed News: “We have already set out that the government is undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis in support of our EU exit negotiations and preparations.

"We have been clear that we are not prepared to provide a running commentary on any aspect of this ongoing internal work and that ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiation position.”

A government source said: “As part of its preparations for leaving the European Union, officials from across Whitehall are undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis.

"An early draft of this next stage of analysis has looked at different off-the-shelf arrangements that currently exist as well as other external estimates. It does not, however, set out or measure the details of our desired outcome – a new deep and special partnership with the EU – or predict the conclusions of the negotiations.

"It also contains a significant number of caveats and is hugely dependant on a wide range of assumptions which demonstrate that significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis and draw out conclusions.”
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2977 Postby Alan H » January 29th, 2018, 11:24 pm

So, who's for the country being 2%, 5% or 8% worse off?

But remember that a chlorinated chicken deal with Trump will reduce the damage by a whopping 0.2% with other deals gaining a further 0.4% max...
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6082
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: In or out?

#2978 Postby animist » January 30th, 2018, 11:19 am

I've posted this into the Guido site, which likes to pooh-pooh any negative forecast about Brexit on the ground that some of forecasts about the immediate effects of the Leave vote were exaggerated

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2979 Postby Alan H » January 30th, 2018, 3:04 pm

This Minister Reckons Publishing The Leaked Brexit Analysis Wouldn’t Be In The National Interest
A government minister has played down the significance of a leaked Brexit analysis that says the UK would be worse off outside the European Union under every scenario modelled – and said it would not be in the "national interest" to publish it.

Steve Baker, a minister at the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU), came under pressure from MPs on all sides to release the assessment exclusively revealed by BuzzFeed News last night.

But he said the analysis had not yet been completed and was "not yet anywhere near being approved by ministers". He told the House of Commons: "The government cannot be expected to publish that analysis while the negotiations continue, which would surely harm the national interest."

Baker also claimed that BuzzFeed News’ article was "a selective interpretation of a preliminary analysis" and "an attempt to undermine our exit from the European Union".

And he urged MPs to embrace Britain leaving the EU "in a spirit of buoyancy and hope".


"spirit of buoyancy and hope" :hilarity: :laughter: :pointlaugh: :laughter: :hilarity: :laughter: :hilarity:
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2980 Postby Alan H » January 30th, 2018, 4:16 pm

Letter to Department for Exiting the European Union to publish the findings of the analysis it has carried out of the impact of different Brexit outcomes for the UK economy
Today, BuzzFeed News reported the main conclusions of a government paper entitled ‘EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing’. At least ten key questions arise from these revelations:

Why does the analysis not consider the impact of a ‘bespoke trade deal’, given the Government claims this is the most likely outcome? Has an analysis of such an outcome been carried out separately?
Has the Treasury shared the analysis with No 10, and has the Prime Minister read it?
Has the analysis been “inform[ing] our negotiating position”, as Philip Hammond claimed on 5 December 2017?[1]
Given that all the outcomes considered by your department would deliver a worse situation than we currently enjoy, and that the Prime Minister has accepted that any ‘bespoke’ deal would necessarily mean worse access to the Single Market than a Norway-style relationship, do you now accept that we will not have the ‘exact same benefits’ after we leave?
Given that the modelling includes a sectoral analysis, why did the Brexit Secretary say on 6 December that no analysis has been carried out by his department of the impact for different sectors of different Brexit outcomes, but that “we will, at some stage”?[2]
Why was this analysis not mentioned by a single DExEU minister during the debate over the sectoral impact assessments in autumn 2017?
The analysis reportedly concludes that under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts. If this turns out to be the best deal that can be negotiated, would the Government reconsider its position on the Single Market?
The analysis reportedly concludes that a trade deal with the US would increase GDP by about 0.2%, while other deals non-EU countries would add, in total, a further 0.1% to 0.4% to GDP over the long term. Do you agree that trade deals will not come close to compensating for leaving the Single Market and Customs Union?
In March 2017, you dismissed the Treasury’s pre-referendum forecast that ‘no deal’ would mean GDP would be 7.5% lower by 2030 as being not “robust”.[3] Your department’s new analysis says it would in fact be 8% lower by 2033. Do you think this is “robust”?
A government source cited by Buzzfeed described the analysis as “an early draft”. Has a more recent draft been produced?


It is not acceptable for ministers to withhold this analysis from the public. People have a right to know what the impact of Brexit will be for them and for their families. It is utterly unacceptable for our constituents to have to rely on leaks and newspaper reports to develop an understanding of how Brexit will affect them and their children’s futures.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 22441
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: In or out?

#2981 Postby Alan H » January 31st, 2018, 8:23 am

Labour Tries to Force Release of U.K. Brexit Economic Study
The difference is that in November, the government argued that the analysis was high quality, only to be embarrassed when it appeared. This time, the government is arguing that the report shouldn’t be released because it’s unreliable.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?


Return to “Miscellaneous Discussions...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest