Forum Topic

So it seems that, late on Christmas Eve (when Parliament, most businesses and most markets are closed), we have got to the "least worst outcome" on Brexit.The predictions are that this deal will damage the UK econonomy by "only" 4% loss of GDP, as against 6% loss (year on year) in a no-deal scenario (so the deal is only 66% as bad a "no deal").  Contrast this with the 2.4% - 2.5% GDP growth we were enjoying before the referendum, this means that over the next 5 years we can expect to be about 28% poorer that we would otherwise have been (which I suppose is at least better than the projected 35% poorer in the event of a no deal).That's before we even start to bring Covid into the equation.And I very much doubt that this decline will be suffered equally across everyone the country.  It is likely to fall more heavily on the lower skilled and poorer members of society.  And even if it did fall equally - a family with a comfortable income may be able to weather a 30% drop in real income, whereas for those families already struggling, this will be devasating.We have already seen a 25% drop in the value of the pound against the Euro since before the referendum, down from mid 1.40s to now stablising at around 1.11.  This means that the costs of imports from the EU (including food) have increased by a third.Now I, like thousands of other business people and advisers, will have to hope that the anticipated 2,000 page agreement will be published in the next day or so, so that we can work out what the UK's commercial and financial arrangement will be with the EU in a week's time.  Not much time to prepare for that brave new world.Still - could have been worse.

T P Howell ● 2134d

The Spectator is pretty upbeat on it. Here’s an example:“ Leaving aside the diehard, swivel-eyed campaigners on both sides of the debate – and we have probably heard enough from them for any sane country over the last four years – the economic impact of leaving the European Union was always finely balanced. Extra trade friction would mean we would lose some exports to the EU, but since they were falling anyway – and we had a huge trade deficit with the rest of Europe – that hardly amounted to much. Against that, we would save on contributions to its Budget, but given the vast scale of state spending it was not that big a deal. Net-net EU membership was never that crucial to the British economy.There was one big prize, however. Over the last two decades it has become clear that the EU is not so much an over-mighty regulator as a really bad one. Mainly because it is bureaucratic and un-democractic, and often under the sway of the lobbyists who spend billions in Brussels every year, it has become more and more intent on clamping down on every form of innovation. That could be seen most clearly in the internet and app economy. It became increasingly hard to believe that Europe’s dire performance against the American and now Chinese giants had nothing to do with the way the industry was crippled by its regulators. But it crept into every area of the economy, from finance, to legal and professional services, to intellectual property. If it was new, innovative and entrepreneurial, the EU either banned it, broke it up, or burdened it with so many costs it was impossible for new companies to get going or to scale up when they did.”

Russell Pearson ● 2134d

Brexiteers  sometimes give the impression that they have sole ownership over democracy etc and always hint that people who wished to remain are somehow less patriotic.Dignity- we have behaved appallingly during this process threatening gunboats last week and finally settling for a deal that is much worse than the one Johnson resigned over. Our reputation internationally is in shreds. We have been completely disingenuous.Liberty - we had control over our borders, we have fewer rights now than everyone else in the EU, our EU deal was great - we weren’t in the Euro or Schengen etcDemocracy - yes we voted to leave the EU. We’ve left. People have been promised things will immediately improve. No sense  of that yet. And this from a country that ennobles friends of the government into its second chamber like Russian oligarchs, loutish cricket players, and IRA apologists into its second chamber.4% may not sound a lot but it is significant and it will impact mostly on poorer people with significant hikes in prices. And it’s already cost the country £200 billion.So, we are actually poorer for less. But at least Rees Mogg has avoided the European Tax initiative and will be able to hide away his money abroad. So that’s ok thenOn our road, which is probably pretty representative of W4, most of the children all play together, many go to the same schools - the parents all very aware that now the children are no longer equal in the eyes of the law. Those entitled to EU passports will have many more rights than those only entitled to a UK passport. I get no sense from the government or Brexiteers in general, that they have any understanding that the 48% who voted to remain are deeply saddened because rights have been taken away from us and our children. We get triumphalism, jingoistic nonsense, you lost getoveritism, and you can always go and live somewhere else.

Stewart Jones ● 2132d

Is reform possible for them? The Lisbon Treaty:“ 1. Proposal for treaty change can come from any national government, the European Parliament, or the European Commission, and may relate to any aspect of the treaties (including proposals designed to increase Union competence).2. Proposal is addressed to the Council (presumably for early debate on the nature of the proposal), which then submits the proposal to the European Council and notifies national parliaments.3. European Council must consult the European Parliament and the European Commission.4. European Council then votes whether to examine the proposal; a simple majority in favour issufficient to proceed to the next stage.5. Two options are available at this point:a. President of the European Council is automatically mandated to convene a Convention to examine the draft proposal and adopt by consensus a recommendation to a future IGC, butb. European Council may vote by a simple majority, after having obtained the consent of the European Parliament, not to convene a Convention – in this case the European Council defines the mandate of the IGC.6. Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) is called by the President of the Council (at this stage the rotating presidency takes over from the European Council, as the intergovernmental conference is the domain of the member states only, not the EU institutions per se).7. Ratification at national level begins; proposal enters into force if it is ratified by all member states according to their own domestic ratification procedures.” http://aei.pitt.edu/15131/1/PB_215_o%27Broin_on_Lisbon.pdf

Russell Pearson ● 2129d