Brexit

[admin]

The government may not be publishing an economic impact assessment of Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal ahead of tomorrow’s vote (see 11.50am), but MPs who cannot wait for the official verdict could do a lot worse than read this report on the topic published at the weekend (pdf). It was published by the UK in a Changing Europe, an academic research network, and it is based on economic modelling of Theresa May’s deal, Johnson’s deal, and a WTO Brexit (ie, no deal).The report says UK trade would be lower under all three options than it would be if the UK stayed in the EU, with Johnson’s plan being considerably more damaging than May’s. Looking ahead 10 years, it estimates that Johnson’s plan would cost Britons £800 per head. Here is an extract from the report:

Relative to staying in the EU, income per capita in the UK would be 2.5% lower under Mr Johnson’s proposals, compared to 1.7% under Mrs May’s deal and 3.3% in the WTO scenario. We draw the following conclusions:

• All three scenarios would reduce UK living standards compared to staying in the EU.
  
• The decline in income per capita under Mr Johnson’s proposals is 50% greater than for Mrs May’s deal, but smaller than under a WTO exit. The costs of Mr Johnson’s proposals are roughly equidistant between those of Mrs May’s deal and a WTO exit.

These figures do not take into account the impact on productivity. The report says trade integration can raise productivity, and that when the impact on productivity of post-Brexit trade barriers is also included, the impact of all three options is even worse.

 Brexit: Labour to back rebel Tory bid to force Johnson to demand extension – live news | Politics | The Guardian

• Including productivity effects Johnson's Brexit reduces income per head by 6.4% over ten years..