A call to Brexiteers to fill the void on the economic effects of Brexit.

I think that we Brexiteers can be very grateful to Michael Gove for his sparky performance on Sky TV. Apart from having to defend the rather silly figure work of the UK paying £350 million per week to the EU, which we all know to be misleading, he was hung out to dry on his lack of supporting evidence for his assertion that the UK could prosper outside the Single Market.

As the Vote Leave campaign have decided to go for the `nuclear option’ of freeing themselves from the clutches of the Single Market and not embracing the Norway option /EEA route (probably because of the worries about the attendant problems of free movement of people) they must somehow build a firm foundation for this view. At the moment there is a generally held view that evidence for a good outcome is lacking, one which John Major hammered home on the Marr Show on Sunday.

Luckily, there is a group of well-known economists which calls itself Economists for Brexit and which shares Vote Leave`s view. The group has produced a pamphlet which is available on the internet.

This body of erudition can be found here and the summary of their views in the leaflet is that Brexit will result in a better economic outcome than remaining in the EU. Economic forecasts (based on proven financial modelling by Patrick Minford) show that on leaving the EU:

  • Output grows 2%
  • Competitiveness rises 5%
  • Real disposable wages up 1.5%
  • Exchange rate falls 6%
  • Inflation and interest rates rise to 2-3% range
  • Current account improves to -1.5% of GDP
  • Unemployment reduced by 0.2% (75,000 on benefit count)

It also points out that:-

  • The UK does not need to do a trade deal to trade. It already trades extensively with many countries across the globe under the rules of the WTO and can continue to do so with EU countries in the future (in the same way that the US, Japan and China does). Leaving the EU will decrease prices and boost GDP.
  • The City of London will retain its role as the world’s leading financial centre outside of the EU.
  • The UK is a net contributor to the EU budget and those funds could be utilised far more efficiently elsewhere.

To quote from their pamphlet, which is downloadable, they state that: “The Economists for Brexit is a group of eight independent, leading economists who are convinced of the strong economic case for leaving the EU. To date, debate on the economic merits of whether the UK should remain in the EU has become overwhelmed by the Government’s Project Fear campaign. Each of the eight economists have become exasperated by the scaremongering and often economic illiteracy of this campaign.

At the same time, the group believes that whilst there are a substantial number of economic arguments to support Brexit, they are yet to be made in public. The purpose of this group is to explain the very clear economic arguments in favour of Brexit, offering voters – who are crying out for clarity on the economics of Brexit facts based on proven economic models, as opposed to speculation.

It is a useful and insightful view on the way forward if we break loose from both the EU and the EEA and do our own thing. There is even a short but detailed post-Brexit forecast to be found towards the end of the report by Patrick Minford.

Whilst one can understand that were the Leave campaign to link itself to such a document it is then open to the opposition mercilessly to analyse it, tear it apart and use portions of it against them. However, here is a body of professional opinion which is robustly positive for the economic outlook after Brexit and which has some realistic opinions on the excessive burdens which are placed on business by the regulatory zeal of the EU.

The Leave campaign must now ‘up its game’ and use the supporting information which is out there to form a compelling case for life after Brexit. It should also make more use of the information which points to the very real dangers of remaining in a failing, ove- regulated customs union which contains a host of countries whose economies are in a precarious state.

 

Photo by HowardLake

This is a man with a plan, but is is legally binding?

When a politician says that he wishes to make something `absolutely clear’ you can rest assured that there is something in his subsequent statement that is of an ambiguous nature or worse still something which is at complete variance with what he is stating.

Well, last week David Cameron stood up in a hushed House of Commons and uttered those hallowed words ,”Let me be absolutely clear about the legal status of these changes that are on offer ….these changes will be binding in international law and will be deposited at the UN …in key areas treaty change is envisaged…”

The changes which were apparently `on offer’ were those which had been hatched between Cameron and Donald Tusk, on a number of topics which the Prime Minister and he had decided should be laid before the British public as proof that EU and Britain had reached a civilised accommodation of each other’s hopes and aspirations for new beginning.

To be fair to Cameron, he did use the future tense when stating that these changes would be legally binding but he totally failed to lay out the procedure whereby they would become binding and which particular key areas would need treaty change .The clear implication being that some would not need anything other than a quick agreement by some higher authority.

Tusk in his letter had written that “most of the substance of the proposal takes the form of a legally binding decision of the Heads of State or Government,”i.e. the European Council.

The House had of course been given sight of the Tusk letter and knew in advance what it said so it perhaps surprising that no one cross examined Cameron on the precise detail of the next steps in the saga.

Dominic Grieve added to the discussion by saying that the House should be aware of the “legally binding nature of the document that he (Cameron) will bring back if it is accepted by the European Council”

No ifs and buts there then, says Mr Grieve. Once it is agreed by the European Council it is law!

The only problem is that the European Council (Heads of State et al) is not part of the legislative body so it can`t make laws so whatever Cameron brings back will be just a statement of intent, no more no less.

On the other side of the coin, some realism has been introduced by our old friend Martin Schulz who has warned of the fact that the MEPs will need to agree to the proposed changes otherwise there could be “roadblocks “to these changes. The fact is that they can stop them.

So there we have it. On the face of it we now have complete confusion over what we, the general public, have been led to believe by the different parties to this discussion.

Are we looking at a quick legal settlement via an agreement of the European Council (which we know they are not entitled to do) or the more convoluted process whereby we have the prospect of treaty change via the normal processes which involve a meetings, conventions and conferences a vote by the EU Parliament? All of this will take time.

There is also the possibility of the use of the simplified procedure which is available under Article 48 TEU for revising treaties. If the European Council is seized of the matter and considers the proposed changes to the treaties to be of a minor nature (well frankly whatever Cameron says, this is all they are) and they are in agreement with those changes they can consult with the Commission, the EU Parliament and then move on to the ratification process will have to be unanimous.

That is what I suspect may happen and nothing will be set in stone until the proper legal processes are complete. They are unlikely to be completed if we have a referendum in June and therefore the British public may be asked to consider its vote in the absence of any legally enforceable changes to our terms of membership in spite of all the hot air in Parliament.