The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

Brexit impact assessment- UK will be worse off in every scenario outside the EU.

 

 

http:// https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/the-governments-own-brexit-analysis-says-the-uk-will-be?utm_term=.ewrZr06G5#.dnkN0W9M4

 

Pretty funny watching Duncan Smith trying to discredit it

 

Apparently, they didn't model any "cake and eat it" scenarios!

Edited January 30, 2018 by Magilla

Pretty funny watching Duncan Smith trying to discredit it Laughable.

 

Duncan-Stupid should just ask his comical twin Redwood why he was advising his clients not to invest in the UK if the outlook was going to be favourable.

Duncan-Stupid should just ask his comical twin Redwood why he was advising his clients not to invest in the UK if the outlook was going to be favourable.

 

Indeed, he does seem to be in a bit of a dilemma.

 

Maybe that UK-US trade deal might not be all it's cracked up to be.

 

When Australia signed an FTA with the USA its exports to the USA fell (US exports to Australia went up) and Australia's GDP got smaller.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia%E2%80%93United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement#Outcomes

But you know full well that it is confirmation bias. The last Chancellor predicted two emergency budgets straight after the referendum and we're still waiting.

Those predictions of the Treasury pre-referendum were hinged on Cameron's stated policy pre-referendum of depositing the Article 50 instrument immediately after a Leave win.

 

Which would have been downright suicidal for the UK, when you simply witness where we are currently, 11 months after May did the deed in March '17, 9 months after the referendum result in June '16 (20 months aggregate: the UK would be out in about 4 months' time, as prepared as it is today, i.e. not whatsoever).

The truth is that NOBODY knows the macro outcome. Only a blithering idiot would make predictions and hold them as certain.

It's true that nobody knows the macro outcome, since that has yet to happen (as does Brexit).

 

But you'll have to explain why that makes professional economists and the like 'idiots', when they engage in modelling likely outcomes based on historical and factual precedents.

 

I suppose that makes every single managing type, in corporate and public structure regardless, an 'idiot' when they forecast for budgeting and resource allocation?

 

According to the government's briefing paper, national income would be 8% lower under a no deal scenario, 5% lower with a free trade agreement with the EU, and 2% lower with a soft Brexit option of single market membership, over a 15-year period.

 

Before the Brexit referendum even happened, the Treasury was predicting a 3-6% cost, and now it is saying 2-8%. Not much change, still as much uncertainty about actual outcomes, but estimates are now better delimited - with the benefit of 20 months' worth of post-referendum economic data, full clarity about the EU27 guidelines (phase 1 and phase 2), full certainty about legislative texts concerned (EU and beyond, e.g. WTO), and the record of 'negotiations' by the UK government.

 

And whatever Theresa proclaims, there isn't going to be a bespoke "deeper" agreement that improves on the most optimistic 2%/EEA-like option. The EU27 said so since before the referendum, and consistently since, wholly unsurprisingly: the EU cannot grant that level of agreement to the UK as a third party country, because that is the level at which the SM starts to get seriously undermined. It is the EU's own red line.

 

The UK is perfectly free to follow whichever of these 3 models it chooses, but them two [sM membership with the price tag and no voting rights (2% GDP cost est.), FTA (5% GDP cost est.)] are the choices the UK gets from the EU27 (besides the stated option to brush the whole sorry Brexit affair under the geopolitical carpet ).

 

Or the UK can double down and slam the door, at an 8% GDP est. risk (not certainty).

 

As with everything in life and as always: your mileage may vary, past performance is no guarantee of future performance, your makes your choices you lives you life, etc.

Economics is a sideshow for the easily fooled and distracted. Geopolitics is the main game and Brexit is still the correct decision IMO.

Geopolitics shows that the EU model is being gradually emulated around the globe. The UK chose to walk away from it, and therefore from Geopolitics.

 

And just to be clear: Singapore is as geopolitically relevant as Jersey (i.e. not). You checked socio-economic and living conditions for the not 1% there lately? I did 2 years ago, in-depth, when I was considering a headhunter's approach for a job there.

Edited January 30, 2018 by L00b

He’s not in power so does his opinion even matter.

 

At the moment, no. Corbyn and Starmer have been gradually shifting the Labour position to reflect the shifts in public opinion.

 

There's no point setting out as immediate, outright opposition now. They'll just be slagged off by those that love the simplistic soundbite for "opposing the will of the people". A stock response at every PMQ's, utimately self damaging.

 

What will count is what they say when an election is announced, and the prevailing public opinion by that time.

 

As is stands, we will still remain in the EU in all but name. This is where the ball game is.

 

Pretty much, the "bespoke deal" they're talking about today, because of the release of the impact assessments yesterday, is basically this.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Magilla

I guess I dont see the federalisation of the eu as being as likely as you do. as far as i can tell from media reporting there doesn't seem to be a clamour for it, other than a few high profile people. maybe some of our eu based contributors can provide a better assessment?

I think you should look more closely. Ever closer union has only one meaning and the treaties along the way underline and enable it. People may arrive at their own opinions but I've spent a fair amount of effort looking at this since January 2016 and the underlying strategy seems clear to me and most people including politicians of all stripes and nations are sleepwalking into it. It will end in tears if it happens.

 

Speaking of which

i really dont think equating brexit with the second world war is valid or given the jingoistic rubbish which is coming from some people helpful.

We agree on that, but don't be so quick to dismiss the lessons of the past or acknowledge that nations have a psyche (for want of a better word) that runs deep.

"Ever closer union" does not imply a federal Europe.

 

Nonetheless, David Cameron arranged that UK would be made explicitly exempt from text in treaties that refer to ever closer union:

 

“It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”

The time,effort and expense spent in trying to achieve the least worst outcome of the Brexit referendum would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious.

We are heading for all the disadvantages with no tangible benefits.

It’s excruciating watching our politicians trying to position themselves to secure their own positions in the face of public opinion.

What happened to leadership?

I think you should look more closely. Ever closer union has only one meaning and the treaties along the way underline and enable it. People may arrive at their own opinions but I've spent a fair amount of effort looking at this since January 2016 and the underlying strategy seems clear to me and most people including politicians of all stripes and nations are sleepwalking into it. It will end in tears if it happens.

 

Speaking of which

 

We agree on that, but don't be so quick to dismiss the lessons of the past or acknowledge that nations have a psyche (for want of a better word) that runs deep.

 

Nobody is sleepwalking into anything,the Visegrad countries are wide awake.

What happened to leadership?

It sold out to cheap populism and the societal curse of social media...all notions of self-interest and influence trafficking put aside