Brexit

[admin]

Boris Johnson’s government is refusing to reveal what the economic cost will be of his new Brexit deal with the EU, before asking members of Parliament to vote for it. Previous government analysis suggests that a deal along the lines of that negotiated by Johnson would reduce economic growth by 6.7%, cut wages and cost average households thousands of pounds worse off.. However, speaking to reporters in Washington on Thursday, UK Chancellor Sajid Javid said that the government sees “no need [to release] a new impact assessment”.

 Boris Johnson refuses to reveal how badly his Brexit deal will hurt the UK economy

As it happens, there is such an impact study, and it isn't kind, no wonder they are not keen to talk about it:

Johnson’s own government’s analysis suggested that a deal along the lines of that agreed on Thursday will reduce annual economic growth by 6.7% compared to staying in the EU. Analysis of Johnson’s proposed deal this week by one independent think tank found an almost identical hit to the economy of 6.4%. This is due largely to new barriers to trade created by the arrangement, including the costs of new customs arrangements. That’s a major hit to the UK economy which will make average households thousands of pounds poorer than they would have been had we remained in the EU..

 Boris Johnson's own official government figures shows his Brexit deal will make British people much poorer

Perhaps also no wonder that public opinion seems to have shifted quite a bit since the referendum three years ago:

Just one-in-five British people would choose to leave the EU with Boris Johnson’s deal as their preferred Brexit outcome. Cancelling Brexit altogether remains the most popular outcome among British voters. Just 14% would prefer to leave the EU without a deal. UK Members of Parliament are due to vote on whether to accept Johnson’s Brexit deal this Saturday.

 British people would rather stop Brexit than leave the EU with Boris Johnson's deal

[admin]

Less than a year ago, Boris Johnson told the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) that “no British government could or should” put a customs border in the Irish Sea; he appointed himself minister for the union upon assuming the premiership; Tory hardcore Brexiteers solemnly pledged not to abandon their unionist brethren. Look how casually their erstwhile allies were tossed overboard: the truth is, they never really cared. What they really wanted – and what Boris Johnson’s hard Brexit deal gives them – is a chance to shred workers’ rights and social protections.

This is no conspiracy theory: it is the expressed intention of the Tory politicians championing it. Seven years ago, a group of Tory MPs published a book entitled Britannia Unchained that argued that Britain “rewards laziness”, that British workers were “the worst idlers in the world”, and that “too many people in Britain prefer a lie-in to hard work”. Businesses were deterred from hiring people, they claimed, because of employment laws that made them fear “taking a risk and hiring new staff”. The solution? Repealing those laws – or what should more accurately be described as rights. Three of the book’s authors are now in the cabinet: Priti Patel, Dominic Raab and Liz Truss.

 Boris Johnson’s Brexit dream is to shred workers’ rights and social protections | Owen Jones | Opinion | The Guardian

[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.. 
  

[admin]

Hardline Brexit-backing Tory MPs will vote for Boris Johnson’s deal because it paves the way for crashing out of the EU with no agreement next year, one has revealed. John Baron was accused of “letting the cat out of the bag” after describing the strategy as the reason why the new deal is “a fundamental improvement” on Theresa May’s doomed text. The risk of a no-deal Brexit would only be delayed, not removed, because of Boris Johnson’s insistence that the transition period will must end in December 2020 – little more than a year away. Experts believe there is little chance of negotiating a permanent deal with the EU by then – which would mean the UK losing its trading and security ties with the bloc. Peter Ricketts, a former top diplomat and head of the foreign office, said: “A revealing piece of candour from Mr Baron.

 Brexit: Hardline Tories to back Boris Johnson's agreement to pave way for no-deal exit next year, one reveals | The Independent

And here is Tory grandee Michael Hesseltine:

Since 2016 the prospectus of the Leavers has changed beyond all recognition. Today, there is no more talk of an extra £350m for the NHS, of new trade deals and regained sovereignty, only increasingly dubious reassurances that somehow, everything will be alright. We will have staggered out of the most successful international partnership in history and into an uncertain future, with nothing more than warm words from Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg to convince us that we are not making a terrible mistake. The future prospects of our economy, our place in the world and the unity of the United Kingdom are jeopardised by an ideological and political vanity project.

 If you care about the country, you'll march with me for a Final Say | The Independent

[admin]

Not for the first time, by far the best speech came from the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer. Mainly because he is about the only person in the Commons who really understands this stuff. And cares about it. He tore through the hypocrisies and deceits in the bill and laid bare the almost inevitability of crashing out with no deal in December 2020 as agreeing a new trade deal in little more than six months was nigh on impossible.

 Boris Johnson's Super Saturday bubble bursts | Opinion | The Guardian

• This is perhaps the real aim but at a minimum it's a reason why Johnson has kept the ERG on board, despite ditching the DUP and reneging on long held convictions that there would not be a border in the Irish sea..
  
• As if the present Brexit isn't hard enough, amazing..
  

[admin]

The British people have changed their mind about Brexit. Beginning in the summer of 2017, and accelerating in the summer of 2018 by an ever wider margin, British people have told pollsters that they voted wrong in the Brexit referendum of June 2016. Over that same period, however, Britain’s Conservative Party has become more and more committed to Brexit. Sixty-three percent of Conservative Party supporters would rather see Scotland secede from the United Kingdom than abandon the Brexit project. Sixty-one percent of Conservatives would accept significant damage to the British economy to achieve Brexit. Fifty-nine percent would let Northern Ireland go. Fifty-four percent would rather see the Conservative Party itself destroyed than yield on Brexit.

 Can Brexit Survive a Second Referendum? - The Atlantic

• Amazing statistics about the Conservative Party, Brexit fanatics, but why?
  

[admin]

Boris Johnson's Brexit deal will leave the UK £70bn worse off a year than if it had remained in the EU, a study by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) has found. It concluded that growth would be 3.5% lower in 10 years' time under the deal. The independent forecaster's outlook is one of the first assessments of how the economy will fare under the new deal. But the Treasury said it is plans on a 'more ambitious' agreement with the EU than 'NIESR is basing its findings on'. A spokesman said: "We are aiming to negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union, which is more ambitious than the standard free trade deal that NIESR has based its findings on." NIESR said approval of the Prime Minister's deal "would reduce the risk of a disorderly outcome, but eliminate the possibility of a closer trading relationship with the EU". Despite the agreement between the EU and the UK removing uncertainty, customs and regulatory barriers would "hinder goods and services trade with the continent leaving all regions of the United Kingdom worse off than they would be if the UK stayed in the EU," NIESR said.

 Brexit deal means ‘£70bn hit a year to UK by 2029' - BBC News

While the British have not disclosed the plan, EU sources have outlined the main details. Northern Ireland would be legally part of the UK customs area, but practically in the EU customs union, following European rules on tariffs and quotas. It would be simultaneously in and out – a model quickly called Schrödinger’s customs union, in mock homage to the physicist’s theoretical cat that was simultaneously dead and alive.

 ‘Pathway’ to Brexit deal hits usual obstacles on the Irish border | Politics | The Guardian

[admin]

Brexit Party MEPs have been criticised for voting against a European Parliament resolution backing stronger EU action to counter election meddling and disinformation from Russia. The party's representatives, including Nigel Farage, rejected the proposal which called for "monitoring of the impact of foreign interference across Europe" and put forward a plans to "address the threats of external intervention in our European elections". The motion called for the EU East StratCom Task Force - which focuses on disinformation from Europe's eastern neighbours – to be upgraded to a permanent mission. It also asked the European Commission to shine a light on "the question of foreign funding of European political parties and foundations" by external actors. The Brexit Party said that claims of Russian interference in elections were "baseless propaganda and scare stories used to shut down debate". But other MEPs criticised the party's vote and said disinformation was being "weaponised by hostile foreign actors".

 Nigel Farage and Brexit party vote against EU resolution to stop Russian election meddling | The Independent

[admin]

British companies risk trade barriers to the European Union if a future government seeks to abandon EU standards on workers’ rights and environmental protection, Michel Barnier has signalled. In an interview with the Guardian and seven other European newspapers, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator said any British government would face a “proportional” response if it sought to roll back core social, environmental and consumer standards. The EU and UK have agreed to negotiate a free-trade agreement as part of Boris Johnson’s revamped Brexit deal, but Barnier stressed that tariff and quota-free access to the EU were linked to maintaining regulatory standards. “Access to our markets will be proportional to the commitments taken to the common rules,” he said. “The agreement we are ready to discuss is zero tariffs, zero quotas, zero dumping.”

 Michel Barnier tells UK: ignore EU regulatory standards at your peril | Politics | The Guardian

There is no “security upside” to Brexit and the best the government can hope to do is minimise its negative impact, the former head of MI5 has said. Lord Jonathan Evans, who was director-general of the Security Service from 2007 to 2013, said it was “absolutely vital” to remain ties with Europol and European Union (EU) countries. “I find it very hard to see any security upside from Brexit. It seems to me that our task is to minimise the downside," he told a debate held by the Policy Exchange think-tank in London. Lord Evans, who sits as a crossbench peer, said Britain’s “security interests remain international and globalised, because that’s where the threats come from”.

 Brexit is bad for UK's national security, former head of MI5 says | The Independent

[admin]

A list of rules has been sent to Jacob Rees-Mogg’s staff asking them to stop using words such as “hopefully” and demanding that they use only imperial measurements and give all non-titled males the suffix Esq. Aides to the new leader of the House of Commons sent out the list shortly after Rees-Mogg’s appointment to the role by the new prime minister on Wednesday night. Among the words and phrases considered unacceptable were: “very”, “due to” and “ongoing”, as well as “equal”, “yourself” and “unacceptable”. Rees-Mogg’s aides also barred the use of “lot”, “got” and “I am pleased to learn”.

He is an Old Etonian, like the prime minister he serves, and, like the prime minister he serves, has cultivated a reputation for formality and upper-class eccentricity, gaining the nickname the “honourable member for the 18th century”. When standing for the Conservatives for the Central Fife seat in 1997, he took his nanny and his mother’s Mercedes out canvassing. Rees-Mogg has also used his position of influence to argue against abortion, even in cases of rape, and same-sex marriage. He has been one of the most prominent backers of a hard Brexit and, last year, it was revealed that a City firm he co-founded had set up an investment fund in Ireland and was warning prospective clients about the financial dangers of a hard Brexit.

 The comma touch: Jacob Rees-Mogg's aides send language rules to staff | Politics | The Guardian