Daily Archives: October 22, 2016

Brexit -Trade Off Analysis: Beyond hard, soft and no Brexit | via Bruegel

October 22, 2016 By in Boris Johnson, Brexit, Business Administration, Economics, Far Right, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Growth, Immigration, People, Politicians, Politics Tags: , , , , , , Leave a comment

In this outstanding analysis Bruegel explores the policy implications of various Brexit scenarios for the future EU–UK relationship. However, to provide effective trade-off analysis (TOA), at least three additional measures are required for consideration of alternatives scenarios of Hard, Soft, Hybrid or no Brexit.:

  1. Cost per person
  2. Probability factor in successfully reducing EU immigration
  3. Risk factor

Source: Beyond hard, soft and no Brexit | Bruegel

We already know from the Independent that Sterling’s latest sell-off followed reports that Britain could lose £66 billion of tax revenues each year if the UK takes the plunge with a ‘hard Brexit’.

Effective TOA, comparing the scenarios should be submitted to Parliament as a Green Paper, and MPs should be given a vote to define the UK government‘s negotiating limits. Also researchers and the media need to explore the implications of multi-dimensional TOA applied to Brexit.

As a strawman proposition, I suggest that Hard Brexit options will be highest in terms of economic cost and risk but the political benefit of a higher probability of reducing EU immigration will be marginal.

Thoughts?

Related articles

Analysis – Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly – George Eaton – New Statesman

October 22, 2016 By in Brexit, Business Administration, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Growth, Immigration, People, Politics Tags: , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

This is a good article from George Eaton, political editor at the New Statesman. He maintains that the political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth.

Source: Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

Financial speculators will be focused on the economic imperatives rather than the political imperatives of controlling immigration. After all Theresa May failed to deliver on immigration whilst she was at the Home Office. So far the government has been light on evidence and big on rhetoric. Expert evidence suggests that worst case Brexit outcomes could see household incomes fall between ten to twenty percent. Very few people who voted for Brexit would underwrite a 10-20% reduction in their incomes. Philip Hammond is right people did not sign up for the economic consequences.

Theresa May must know that in the final analysis economic well-being will trump immigration controls. Let’s hope that May is posturing, so that she can make concessions. There are massive trade-offs with all the Brexit options – in final analysis everybody in the UK will be poorer following the Brexit decision. But how much poorer will the British people accept, 5%, 10% or 20%?

Thoughts?

 

Continue reading →