Afternoon summary
- Lord Bridges, the former Brexit minister, has delivering a withering assessment of the government’s handling of Brexit, saying that Theresa May’s failure to decide what she wants means the deal that ends up being agreed in October could be “meaningless waffle”. (See 4.08pm.) He was speaking near the start of the two-day second reading debate for the EU withdrawal bill. More than 50 peers have now spoken. Another 130-odd are due to speak before the debate concludes tomorrow night, when the second reading is expected to be approved without a division.
- MSPs have passed a law to ensure women make up at least half the board members for all public authorities. As the Press Association reports, the Scottish parliament voted by 88 to 28 in favour of the gender representation on public boards (Scotland) bill, with opposition from the Conservatives. The legislation sets the benchmark of having females make up a minimum of 50% of non-executive members by 2022. It will apply to colleges, universities and some public bodies including health boards, enterprise agencies, the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
Strugeon says government should publish Brexit impact report in full
Here is the full statement from Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, on the leaked Brexit impact report. She said:
The UK government’s own analysis makes clear that leaving the EU will, in all circumstances, harm the economy of every nation and region in the UK - and underlines the case that remaining in the single market and customs union is the best way to minimise that economic harm.
When the Scottish government published our own impartial analysis a few weeks ago, showing an extreme Brexit could cost each person in Scotland £2,300 a year, the Tories accused us of scaremongering - now we find out that behind the scenes they agreed with us.
The prime minister must now agree to publish this analysis in full, and any other analyses which they are concealing from the people of these islands.
Time is running out and the chaos in Downing Street must end. Theresa May must face down the hard Brexiteers around her - and put jobs and living standards front and centre of the Brexit negotiations by remaining in the single market and customs union.
Rees-Mogg hints he could compromise over Brexit transition if there is clarity over 'end point'
And while we’re on the subject of Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory MP and chair of the European Research Group, the Conservative group pushing for a hard Brexit, has described Philip Hammond, the chancellor, as “a semi-detached member of the cabinet”. Speaking on his ConservativeHome “Moggcast” podcast, he said:
The chancellor seems to me to have become a semi-detached member of the cabinet, opposing policy from within it and not following the norms of collective responsibility.
More surprisingly, Rees-Mogg also hinted that he might might be able to water down his objections to the proposed terms of the Brexit transition. Last week he told David Davis at the Commons Brexit committee that if the transition involved the UK having to accept EU laws (as the EU says it will), the UK would end up as a “vassal state”. At the end of last week, appearing on the BBC’s Brexitcast post (here, with the relevant clip starting at 12.45 minutes in) he also made it clear that he strongly objected to the idea of EU law taking primacy during the transition. But on Moggcast he said that, if he knew where the transition was going to end up, he might find it easier to compromise over the transition.
If we know where we are going at the end of it, there are many things that Eurosceptics such as me could accept in a genuine implementation with a clear end point that are very troubling if we don’t know the end point.
In the House of Lords debate Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Lib Dem leader, accused the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who has called for the Lords to be flooded with new peers if it tries to block Brexit, of acting like a Robespierre. Campbell said:
Those who want us to leave the European Union have already got their own committee of public safety. Mr William Rees-Mogg bids to be Robespierre, and he has threatened this House ... [Correcting himself] Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg. One Rees-Mogg is very much like another. He’s threatened us. Well, my answer to threats from Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg is this.
I’m not here to thwart the will of the House of Commons. Like the Noble Lord who’s just spoken, I spent 28 years at the other end of the building asserting the primacy of the Commons, and I will not depart from that simply because I’ve been sent here.
But I know what my duty is, and it is to bring to the attention of the other House the manifest defects which exist in this legislation.
We may not make them any wiser, but if we do it properly with this bill, we will make them better informed. Heavens knows, they need it.
Lord Butler of Brockwell, the former cabinet secretary, told peers in the Lords debate that the first line of the EU withdrawal bill, which repeals the European Communities Act, “strikes a dagger to my soul”. He explained why:
I have been conscious of the benefit which our country has derived from membership of what has now become the European Union.
Having said that I do think I understand why the 52% voted as they did. The rush towards a federal union is a mistake and may lead to disaster.
Nevertheless, my view is that there is one thing worse than being a member of the EU and that is not being a member of it.
The prospect that the United Kingdom, motivated by what in my view is an illusory quest for independence in a world which becomes more interdependent day by day, is one that is painful. It becomes the more so when the UK appears to be carried along on a tide of narrow nationalism which has brought so much trouble to Europe and the world.
However, I shall not vote against second reading of the bill nor shall I support any attempt to delay it.
But Butler did say he was in favour of a second referendum on Brexit. He said he did not think this bill was “the appropriate vehicle” by which to demand a second referendum. But he went on:
I shall, however, support any amendments which may be necessary to ensure that a further referendum will be among the options when Parliament is given a meaningful vote at the conclusion of the negotiations.
The opening of the House of Lords debate on the EU withdrawal bill is now on Hansard. The online report will be updated during the evening. Generally speeches go up about three hours after they have been delivered.
Back in the Lords committee Carney tells peers that the fall in the value of the pound after Brexit will continue to have an impact on inflation. Inflation has already gone up as as result, but the process is not over, he says. There is more to come.
Robert Peston’s post on his Facebook page on the government’s Brexit impact analysis is well worth reading in full. But here’s an excerpt.
The point is that the analysis shows UK growth and prosperity would be significantly greater if UK rules and regulations for business were closely aligned to those of the EU, and never diverged to any significant extent - because this would be expected to deliver cheaper and less cumbersome access for UK goods and services to the EU’s giant single market.
In other words, the civil service economists are underwriting the political position of Hammond, Amber Rudd and Greg Clark that it is worth sacrificing a degree of national control over rules and regs for the sake of becoming a bit less poor or a bit more rich (depending on what else is transpiring in an economic sense).
Or to put it another way, the Whitehall “experts” - so derided by Gove in the run-up to the referendum - are getting their own back on Gove and Johnson by providing supposed empirical proof that the Leavers’ passion to take back total control over making laws that affect business and commerce would be to throw mountains of £50 notes on to a religious fire.
The government economists’ case for remaining “converged” with the EU is so clear and overwhelming, I am informed, that ministers tell me they are utterly bemused by how Johnson and Gove will dismiss it - as they surely will.
Norman Lamont, the Conservative former chancellor, asks if there are some areas were diverging from EU rules could benefit the UK.
Carney says he is reluctant to comment on a negotiation that has not yet formally begun. But he says there are some areas where the UK has opposed EU proposals covering financial services.
As an example, he cites the bonus cap. The UK has a system that allows it to claw back previously paid bonuses. But pay cannot be clawed back. And the EU’s bonus cap has led to bankers getting smaller bonuses and higher pay, which cannot be clawed back. That is something the UK could change, he says.
Here are some lines from Mark Carney’s evidence to the Lords economic affairs committee so far. These are from the BBC’s Kamal Ahmed.
Mark Carney @bankofengland says business investment is 4% below where it would have been without referendum decision. Global growth high, monetary conditions easy, balance sheets strong
— Kamal Ahmed (@bbckamal) January 30, 2018
Mark Carney says with greater certainty will see greater business investment by 2019 @bankofengland
— Kamal Ahmed (@bbckamal) January 30, 2018
Carney says @bankofengland is considering stronger global economic environment and greater 2019 certainty ahead of its next Inflation Report Feb 8. Many will take that as suggesting an UK growth upgrade.
— Kamal Ahmed (@bbckamal) January 30, 2018
Carney says that a "disorderly Brexit" is unlikely @bankofengland
— Kamal Ahmed (@bbckamal) January 30, 2018
May's dithering could lead to Brexit deal being 'meaningless waffle', says former Brexit minister
Here are some proper excerpts for Lord Bridges of Headley’s speech. It is probably the highlight of the Lords debate so far.
- Bridges, a former Brexit minister, criticised ministers for failing to answer “basic” questions about what it wants from Brexit. He said:
What is the country we wish to build once we have left the European Union? Only once we have answered this question can we properly and fully answer the second question - what agreement do we want to strike with the European Union? What do we value more, parliamentary sovereignty and control, or market access and trade?
Four months on, and there are still no clear answers to these basic, critical questions. All we hear, day after day, are conflicting, confusing voices. If this continues, and ministers cannot agree among themselves on the future relationship the Government wants, how can this prime minister possibly negotiate a clear, precise heads of terms for the future relationship with the EU?
- He said he was worried that all that would be agreed by October on the future trade relationship would be “meaningless waffle”. That would amount to “a gang plank into thin air”, he said.
My fear is that we will get meaningless waffle in a political declaration in October. The implementation period will not be a bridge to a clear destination. It will be a gang plank into thin air.
The “political declaration” due in October is the bit that will describe the framework for a future trade relationship. David Davis, the Brexit secretary, says it will contain the substance of a UK-EU trade deal, but EU says the actual trade deal will only come after Brexit and it has implied that the political declaration on the future trade relationship will be very general.
- Bridges said the UK could end up having access to the EU, but without any say over EU legislation and regulation.
The EU will have the initiative in the second stage of the negotiations and we shall find ourselves forced to accept a deal that gives us access to EU markets, but without UK politicians having a meaningful say over swathes of legislation and regulation.
“Some may say this outcome would not be the end of the world. Some may say it’s inevitable.
My point today is this. At this pivotal moment in our history, we cannot, we must not, indulge in that very British habit of just muddling through. With under 300 working days until we leave the European Union, we need to know the government’s answers to these simple questions.
- He said ministers had to be honest with the public and make choices.
The government must be honest with themselves and the public about the choices we face. And then the Prime Minister and her cabinet must make those choices. As has been said, to govern is to choose, and as we face the biggest challenge this country has faced since the Second World War, keeping every option open is no longer an option.
Updated
Government Brexit policy could be 'gang plank into thin air', says former Brexit minister
Turning back to the Lords debate for a moment, Lord Bridges, who was a Brexit minister until he resigned after the general election, has launched a withering attack on the government’s handling of Brexit. He said it could amount to “a gang plank into thin air”.
These are from the BBC’s Esther Webber, the Telegraph’s Jack Maidment and the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn.
Former Brexit minister Lord Bridges says the Brexit years "are like dog years - each one feels like seven"
— Esther Webber (@estwebber) January 30, 2018
Lord Bridges going for it: Last four months have brought "no clear answers to critical questions" and we are looking at "a gang plank into thin air"
— Esther Webber (@estwebber) January 30, 2018
Lord Bridges says on Brexit "all we hear are conflicting confusing voices" and if this goes on "how can the PM negotiate clear heads of terms?"
— Esther Webber (@estwebber) January 30, 2018
Tory former Brexit minister Lord Bridges gives the Government both barrels.
— Jack Maidment (@jrmaidment) January 30, 2018
Says he is fearful "we will get meaningless waffle in a political declaration in October" and transition period "will not be a bridge to a clear destination, it will be a gang plank into thin air".
Best Lords speech yet: a withering attack from ex-DexEU minister Lord Bridges on Cabinet's Brexit dithering: "We cannot indulge in that very British habit of just muddling through. The Prime Minister must make choices. Keeping every option open is no longer an option".
— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) January 30, 2018
The Tory peer Michael Forsyth asks Carney about Andrew Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England, saying last year that economists’ failure to predict the collapse of Lehman Brothers as a Michael Fish moment. Carney says Haldane did not quite say that. Forsyth says he is quoting from the Guardian. Carney says even the finest papers sometimes get it wrong, and that having spoken to Haldane, he knows the point he was trying to make.
Mark Carney questioned by peers about Brexit and forecasting
It is non-stop today. Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, has just starteding giving evidence to the Lords economic affairs committee.
The committee has sent out a note about the four topics they want to cover. In the light of what Steve Baker told MPs at lunchtime, conveniently one of the topics is forecasting. The committee is interested in answers to this question.
Why were the Bank’s projections for the economy in August 2016, particularly for business and housing investment and imports and exports, substantially different from the reality?
Another topic is Brexit. The committee wants to ask:
How confident are you that the UK and EU will be able to reach a deal on financial services?
If there is no deal on passporting, is there sufficient time to authorise all the European firms trading in the UK in time and how important is a transition period to that process?
The Labour council leader behind a controversial housing scheme opposed by Jeremy Corbyn and the party’s national executive committee has announced she will stand down at the local elections.
Claire Kober said she would leave the decision on whether to proceed with the public-private scheme to her successor, after Labour’s national executive committee unanimously voted to ask Haringey to drop the project.
Speaking to the Evening Standard, she hit out at “sexism, bullying, undemocratic behaviour and outright personal attacks” from some within her local party who opposed the Haringey scheme, saying they had left her “disappointed and disillusioned.”
Kober also said it was “perverse” and “discourteous” of Labour’s ruling body to have tried to interfere in a local decision.
In a letter to Andrew Gwynne, Labour’s shadow local government secretary, she said it had been “unbecoming of the national executive of a government in waiting to discuss a policy based simply on the account of those opposed to it”.
“The principle of autonomous local government is a cornerstone of our democracy and one I had hoped that the national executive of my party would share. Sadly this appears not to be the case. Directing a Labour group in this way is not only legally dubious but also democratically unsound,” she said.
Labour took the unprecedented decision last week to ask Haringey to reconsider the plans to go into partnership with developer Lendlease to build 6,400 new homes in the borough. The scheme, known as the Haringey Development Vehicle (HDV), was approved in July by the council, which has promised to replace existing council houses and rehouse current tenants.
But its critics say the HDV would bulldoze existing council estates without effective guarantees that existing tenants would be able to return, and puts billions of pounds of public assets partially into private hands.
The scheme has been extremely divisive in the local party, leading to the deselection of several Labour councillors who supported the project. Two local MPs, David Lammy and Catherine West, have also expressed concerns about the scheme.
However, some within Labour were also outraged by the NEC’s decision to intervene in local politics. At the weekend, leaders of over 70 councils, including Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle and many London boroughs, said the actions of the NEC were “dangerous and alarming”, “uncomradely and disrespectful” and “an affront to the basic principles of democracy”.
Updated
Whitehall union says Steve Baker's forecasting jibe an insult to civil servants
The Brexit minister Steve Baker has been accused of insulting civil servants with his comments about forecasting. (See 2.47pm.) This is from Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA, which represents senior civil servants.
Steve Baker’s comments in Parliament are supposed to represent the considered view of the government. His remarks today not only insult the dedicated professionals working in his department and across the civil service, but they epitomise the current state of affairs in government.
How can civil servants in his department, who are working harder than ever before, have confidence in a minister who stands at the despatch box and openly questions their professionalism? The real question, however, is how can a minister prepared to undermine the government he serves retain the confidence of the prime minister?
Some 47 MPs from various parties have signed an open letter to David Davis, the Brexit secretary, calling for the publication of the leaked Brexit impact report. The letter has been organised by Open Britain, which is campaigning for a soft Brexit, and the signatories include the Conservatives Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry and Antoinette Sandbach.
The letter also includes 10 questions about the report. Here they are.
1 - Why does the analysis not consider the impact of a ‘bespoke trade deal’, given the government claims this is the most likely outcome? Has an analysis of such an outcome been carried out separately?
2 - Has the Treasury shared the analysis with No 10, and has the prime minister read it?
3 - Has the analysis been “inform[ing] our negotiating position”, as Philip Hammond claimed on 5 December 2017?
4 - Given that all the outcomes considered by your department would deliver a worse situation than we currently enjoy, and that the prime minister has accepted that any ‘bespoke’ deal would necessarily mean worse access to the single market than a Norway-style relationship, do you now accept that we will not have the ‘exact same benefits’ after we leave?
5 - Given that the modelling includes a sectoral analysis, why did the Brexit secretary say on 6 December that no analysis has been carried out by his department of the impact for different sectors of different Brexit outcomes, but that “we will, at some stage”?
6 - Why was this analysis not mentioned by a single DExEU minister during the debate over the sectoral impact assessments in autumn 2017?
7 - The analysis reportedly concludes that under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts. If this turns out to be the best deal that can be negotiated, would the government reconsider its position on the single market?
8 - The analysis reportedly concludes that a trade deal with the US would increase GDP by about 0.2%, while other deals non-EU countries would add, in total, a further 0.1% to 0.4% to GDP over the long term. Do you agree that trade deals will not come close to compensating for leaving the single market and customs union?
9 - In March 2017, you dismissed the Treasury’s pre-referendum forecast that ‘no deal’ would mean GDP would be 7.5% lower by 2030 as being not “robust”. Your department’s new analysis says it would in fact be 8% lower by 2033. Do you think this is “robust”
10 - A government source cited by Buzzfeed described the analysis as “an early draft”. Has a more recent draft been produced?
Mandelson says second Brexit referendum 'may become unavoidable'
Here are some highlights so far from the Lords debate on the EU withdrawal bill.
Lord Mandelson, the Labour former business secretary and former European commissioner, said that in 2016 he thought the government had to implement the results of the referendum but that now he was not so sure.
I no longer believe this to be axiomatic. The government cannot behave as if it has a blank cheque to take Britain out of the EU in just about any vandalistic way it chooses.
He said the government should go for EEA membership, “as Norway did when its people decided against EU membership in the 1990s.” And he said a second referendum might be needed.
So a referendum on a new question about the future relationship may become unavoidable - although this is not something on which we should be voting at this stage.
Lord Rooker, the former Labour MP, said he would like there to be a second referendum. He also said how much he admired Lord Heseltine, the Conservative. Rooker told peers:
I want it to go back to the Commons amended in a variety of areas, not least giving the people the choice to leave or remain based on the evidence of facts, not lies from a soapbox. The key is that the bill is amended in the interests of the whole nation, not a political tribe.
The leadership of my tribe does not have clean hands on this issue, because it has been tribe before country. The big political tribes are not the same as they were before June 23 2016. Within each tribe there is a flock that has more in common with each other than with the tribe they are part of.
I recently sat in this chamber listening to one of the most powerful and thoughtful speeches I have ever heard on industrial policy, thinking to myself as I closed my eyes the deadly thought that if Lord Heseltine was leader of a tribe, I could join it. But he’s not, so I remain where I am, for the moment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a former Ukip leader, said the UK should withhold cash for the EU “if they don’t behave themselves”. He said:
[The government’s] worst mistake is under-estimating the strength of our hand in Brexit’s four main issues - mutual residence, trade, security and cash - which should be taken in that order and not the other way around. The government have allowed the Eurocrats to take these issues back to front.
Steve Baker's Commons statement on leaked Brexit analysis - Summary
Here are the main points from the urgent question on the leaked Brexit analysis.
- Steve Baker, the Brexit minister, said the government would publish a Brexit impact assessment before MPs vote on the final deal. He said:
I can confirm that, when we bring forward the vote on the final deal that we agree with the EU, we will ensure this house is presented with the apt analysis the government has done so this House can make and informed decision.
But he said that, if the government were to publish an analysis now, “while the negotiations continue”, that would not be in the national interest.
- He said economic forecasts were “always wrong”. Asked by the Tory MP William Wragg if he could name a single civil service forecast that has been accurate, Baker replied:
No, I’m not able to name an accurate forecast, and I think that they are always wrong, and wrong for good reasons.
In his response to Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, Baker also said that the economic forecasts at the time of the referendum were also wrong, “not least because there is uncertainty around any forecast, particularly in the long run, especially in the context of a major strategic choice.”
- He said that the report leaked to BuzzFeed was flawed because it was a “preliminary analysis”. He said he only saw it this morning and David Davis, the Brexit secretary, only saw it last night. It only looked at “off the shelf” Brexit outcomes and did not try to model the government’s “desired outcome”, a bespoke trade deal, he said. He said it did not “properly take account of the opportunities of leaving the EU”.
- He dismissed complaints from MPs saying the report showed Brexit would be bad for the economy by pointing out that, under all the scenarios in the report, the economy was forecast to grow.
- He said the report was leaked to BuzzFeed in an attempt to undermine Brexit. He said:
The article is a selective interpretation of a preliminary analysis. It is an attempt to undermine our exit from the European Union.
- He accused Labour of wanting to overturn the referendum result. Responding to Starmer, he said:
I can understand why [Starmer] and those behind him want the reports in the press to be accurate - fundamentally they don’t wish to leave the European Union. For them and for him good news is a disaster and bad news is a welcome confirmation of their world view.
They care passionately about remaining in the European Union and they want to overturn the result. But their strategy is becoming clear - demoralisation, delay and revocation. That is not what our parties stood for at the last election. Our parties were clear that we would respect the result of the referendum.
- Opposition MPs said Baker should publish the report now. For example, Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Commons Brexit committee, said “a lack of transparency is not in the national interest”. The Conservative Antoinette Sandbach also called for the report to be published, saying:
Quite frankly minister I take exception to being told that it is not in the national interest for me to see a report that allows me to best represent my constituents.
Updated
Labour’s Matt Western says Jaguar Land Rover has blamed Brexit for falling growth.
Baker says Jaguar Land Rover does not sell as many cars as he would like. He says the government will conclude trade deals to help it.
Tom Pursglove, a Tory, says the “naysayers” talking up this report are those who predicted disaster after the Brexit vote. Brexit will not be all plain sailing, he says. But he says the public want the government to just get on with it.
Baker agrees.
Baker says he would advocate a “healthy scepticism” towards the use of mathematical economics for forecasting.
Labour’s Barry Sheerman says his constituents were misled by the lies on the Brexit bus. The report seen by BuzzFeed shows that Yorkshire will suffer, he says.
Here is the line in the BuzzFeed report he is referring to.
Every UK region would also be affected negatively in all the modelled scenarios, with the North East, the West Midlands, and Northern Ireland (before even considering the possibility of a hard border) facing the biggest falls in economic performance.
Baker does not accept this. He says the economy grows under all the scenarios looked at in this report.
The DUP’s Sammy Wilson says these long-term economic forecasts are about as useful as newspaper horoscopes.
Baker says Wilson reminds him that JK Galbraith, the great economist, once said the only purpose of economic forecasting was to make astrology look respectable.
Labour’s Alison McGovern says Baker should not question Labour’s patriotism. She says the government should asks the Office for Budget Responsibility to do an analysis by the time of the spring statement.
Baker says he did not use the word patriotism. But he repeats the point about Labour not accepting the result of the referendum.
Owen Bennett’s HuffPost highlights some inconsistencies in the arguments Baker has been using.
Baker says the incomplete Brexit studies which should be ignored forecast growth which shouldn’t be ignored but it is a forecast so under the Baker Doctrine it should be ignored. Simples.
— Owen Bennett (@owenjbennett) January 30, 2018
Heidi Allen, a Conservative, says the government allowed MPs to see the sectoral analysis reports in private. Why can’t MPs see this latest report under the same terms?
Baker says this report is different. He says a report will be published in due course.
Labour’s Luciana Berger asks for an assurance that Brexit will not wreck car manufacturing on Merseyside.
Baker says growth is forecast under all scenarios. But he says the government is aware of the special needs of manufacturers with complex supply chains.
Here is ITV’s political editor Robert Peston on Baker’s response to the UQ.
It beggars belief that @SteveBakerHW critique of government’s own forecasts that Brexit will make us poorer is that civil servant economists have not modeled the PM’s nebulous “cake-and-eat-it” trade deal with EU which the EU 27 regard as less plausible than the tooth fairy
— Robert Peston (@Peston) January 30, 2018
Here is Paul Blomfeld, a shadow Brexit minister, on Baker’s response to the UQ.
Extraordinary to listen to Minister @SteveBakerHW rubbishing the analysis of his own Government. In denial and in chaos.
— Paul Blomfield (@PaulBlomfieldMP) January 30, 2018
Baker says he considers himself an “old English liberal”. He is not an economic nationalist, he says.
Here is the start of the Press Association story about Steve Baker’s response to the UQ.
A minister accused Labour of adopting a Brexit strategy of “demoralisation, delay and revocation” as he attempted to play down a leaked analysis.
Brexit minister Steve Baker hit out at the opposition after the government was forced to reply to an urgent question in the Commons.
Shouts of “Where is he?” could be heard from opposition MPs as Baker answered instead of Brexit Secretary David Davis.
Baker said MPs will be presented with “appropriate analysis” carried out by the Government when it comes to voting on the final deal agreed with the EU.
But he added the government cannot be expected to publish such information publicly before it has been completed, adding: “That would misrepresent our views.”
Baker, referring to the Buzzfeed News website report on the leaked document, said: “The article is a selective interpretation of a preliminary analysis. It is an attempt to undermine our exit from the European Union.”
Baker said the government is undertaking a wide range of analysis on Brexit, with the next stage, summarised in a draft paper brought together for ministers this month, “not yet anywhere near being approved by ministers”.
He went on: “Even the ministerial team in my department has only just been consulted on this paper in recent days and we’ve made it clear it requires significant further work.
“In fact, I only saw this report myself this morning.”
Baker said the analysis reported by Buzzfeed is “not a forecast for our preferred outcome of the negotiations”, adding it “does not yet properly take account of the opportunities of leaving the EU”.
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer replied: “Not good enough.”
He urged the government to release the information showing the impact of Brexit, accusing the government of “piling absurdity upon absurdity”.
Starmer said: “We have been here before. It took a great deal of time last year and the use of a humble address to force the government to release documents relating to Brexit.
“[Davis] has a chance today to avoid a repeat of that exercise if he commits to publishing that new analysis in full. Will he do so?”
Here is Tom Brake, the Lib Dem Brexit spokesman, on Baker’s statement.
Minister Baker's treating MPs like chumps. He knows, we know, the leaked report confirms it, #Brexit will harm British jobs and families. Time the Govt and Jeremy Corbyn agreed to a vote on the deal so people can choose whether to leave and damage our prospects or stay in #FBPE
— Tom Brake (@thomasbrake) January 30, 2018
Labour’s Chuka Umunna says the analysis shows that the least worst option, staying in the customs union, has been taken off the table.
Baker says, if you look on the Sun’s website, there is video there of Umunna saying during the EU referendum that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market.
He says staying in the single market would be unacceptable. It would amount to the “political purgatory of perpetual rule-taking from the EU”, he says.
Baker says government forecasts are always wrong
William Wragg, a Conservative, asks Baker to name a single accurate government forecast.
Baker says he cannot do that. They are always wrong, for good reasons, he says.
Updated
The SNP’s Joanna Cherry asks why it is so difficult for the government to set out what it wants.
Baker says Theresa May has set that out in the Lancaster House speech.
Labour’s Ben Bradshaw asks why the government has explored the impact of three possible outcome, but not the one it wants, “the fantasy have-cake-and-eat-it one”.
Baker says the analysis is still evolving.
Updated
Antoinette Sandbach, a Conservative, says she takes exception to being told it is not in the national interest for her to see a report that would help her to take decisions.
Baker says MPs will see the analysis before the final vote.
He says the EU is not publishing all its economic analyis.
Actually, the European commission has published an analysis of the impact of Brexit. You can read it here (pdf). It was published in March 2017. Here is an excerpt.
For the UK the losses average between 1.31% and 4.21 % of GDP for the optimistic and pessimistic scenarios respectively, or 0.13% to 0.41% of GDP annually. Among the different models it is also notable that the losses for the UK are higher than average in the case of two models (OECD and UK Treasury) that capture negative impacts on foreign direct investment (FDI), which is redirected in some degree away from the UK into the EU 27. In their pessimistic scenarios the losses cumulate to about 7.5% of GDP, or 0.75% annually, which are highly significant amounts in macroeconomic terms.
Here is the Labour MP David Lammy on Baker’s response to the UQ.
Brexit Minister Steve Baker tells Parliament one minute that we shouldn't take the Brexit impact studies seriously and then the next minute says "in all of those scenarios there's economic growth". Which is it @DExEUgov?
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) January 30, 2018
Chris Leslie, the Labour MP, says the refusal to publish the report is “deeply irresponsible and dishonest”. It is a cover-up, he says.
Baker says Leslie does not accept the results of the referendum.
Hilary Benn, the Labour chair of the Commons Brexit committee, says David Davis told the committee last year that the government had not conducted a sectoral Brexit impact analysis. Yet the report leaked to BuzzFeed does look at the impact on different sectors of the economy. How can Baker explain this discrepancy?
Here is an extract from the BuzzFeed report.
Almost every sector of the economy included in the analysis would be negatively impacted in all three scenarios, with chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, and cars and retail the hardest hit. The analysis found that only the agriculture sector under the WTO scenario would not be adversely affected.
Baker says the analysis has been evolving over time. He says David Davis only saw the report leaked to BuzzFeed last night. That explains the discrepancy, he says.
To kick off this morning’s cabinet meeting, Theresa May talked her ministers through the government report about the potential economic damage of various Brexit scenarios leaked to Buzzfeed, we were told. This is what May’s spokesman said:
At the beginning of cabinet the prime minister noted media coverage of a report purporting to show the economic impact of Britain leaving the EU.
The PM said this was initial work, not approved by ministers, which only considers off-the-shelf scenarios. No analysis was made of the bespoke arrangement we seek as a matter of government policy, as set out in the Florence speech.
There was no wider talk of the report among ministers. Having explained all this, the spokesman then spent much of the rest of the briefing parrying questions on the leaked document he’d just discussed, saying he could not discuss leaked documents.
One interesting element of this was that the spokesman was unable to confirm that Downing Street believes the bespoke Brexit deal the government is seeking will, unlike the other scenarios, prove economically beneficial.
Otherwise, we learned, cabinet discussed measured to combat domestic abuse and violence, and corporate governance in the wake of the Carillion collapse.
Ken Clarke, the Conservative pro-European, says Baker is refusing to publish the report to protect the government from political embarrassment.
Here is the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn on Baker’s statement.
Brexit blue on blue - DD v Robbins: Steve Baker uses Despatch Box to thoroughly demolish the veracity of impact assessment... compiled by Oli Robbins' Cabinet Office unit.
— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) January 30, 2018
Baker says Labour wants to stay in the EU
Sir Keir Starmer starts his response with the words: Not good enough.
He says the government denied having produced a Brexit impact analyis.
It should be published now, he says.
Responding to Starmer, Baker says the report leaked to BuzzFeed is not what is formally known as an economic impact assessment.
He says the goverment should not publish something that would undermine the negotiations.
He says Starmer welcomed the report because he does not want to to leave the EU. Labour welcomes any news apparently showing Brexit has been bad for the economy, he claims. But Labour end up being disappointed because they don’t get the bad news they want.
Baker says leak was 'attempt to undermine our exit from the EU'
Steve Baker says it would be wrong to publish the impact analysis now, before it has been concluded.
He says what BuzzFeed reports was a “selective interpretation” of a preliminary analysis.
It does not take into account the government’s preferred option, he says.
He says the leak to BuzzFeed was an “attempt to undermine our exit from the EU”.
He only saw it this morning, he says.
Updated
MPs told they will get Brexit impact analysis before they vote on final Brexit deal
Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit statement, asks for a statement about the impact analysis.
Steve Baker, the Brexit minister, is replying. He says the government will publish an economic analysis when MPs vote on the final deal.
- MPs will get a Brexit impact analysis before they vote on final Brexit deal, Steve Baker says.
The Tory MP Stephen Hammond is also calling for the UK to join Efta. (See 12.24pm.)
Just spoke on @daily_politics about the Government's leaked Brexit analysis. It proves we should be seeking Efta membership, which is the least damaging option. The Government should publish this analysis without delay
— Stephen Hammond MP (@S_Hammond) January 30, 2018
Lord Newby, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords, told peers in his speech that the government had achieved “virtually nothing” on Brexit over the last year. He said:
It is now a year since your lordships House began its debate on the bill triggering Article 50 and 10 months since the article was triggered.
It is generally agreed that both the withdrawal agreement and the agreement on our future relations with the EU have to be concluded before the end of the year and so we are approximately half way through the entire period available for our exit negotiations. What has been achieved so far?
My Lords, virtually nothing.
The government has formally agreed on the future rights of EU citizens living in the UK, but this was something which from day one it said was going to do. It has agreed on a divorce bill – but again the prime minister had long been clear the government was going to do so, even if some members of her cabinet were not.
And on the status of Northern Ireland it has agreed a form of words which, far from settling the matter, are interpreted in a completely different way in Ireland from the gloss put on them here in London, as I discovered in a range of discussions I had in Dublin last week.
On our future relationship with the EU, beyond bland and meaningless platitudes, we have nothing.
On the Daily Politics Bernard Jenkin, a Tory Brexiter, has joined those MPs (see 10.53am) calling for the publication of the Brexit impact report. He said publication would allow people to see and assess the methodology used in the analysis.
Osborne's Evening Standard says UK should join Efta after Brexit
George Osborne’s Evening Standard is calling for the UK to join Efta (the European free trade association) after Brexit - aka, the Norway option or the Swiss option to be more precise. In a punchy editorial, the paper says the leaked Brexit impact report shows that the government know how much damage its Brext policy will cause.
Here’s an excerpt.
Governments do harmful things all the time by accident or out of ignorance — but to do so willingly, consciously and without telling the public the truth is different.
Every time we hear the prime minister tell us that her plan is to build a strong economy, we know that she is being advised that the plan will cost Britain dear.
Every time we hear ministers tell us any loss from Brexit will be fixed by free trade deals, we now know that the analysis shows this is untrue.
Every time we hear the concerns about the impact of Brexit on the economy dismissed as “Project Fear”, we now know that recent and credible concerns flow from analysis prepared by a department headed by a leading Brexiteer ...
Here’s a simple first step. We can stay in the European Free Trade Association — as a growing number of Tory MPs now advocate.
We will minimise the economic damage. We will solve the Irish border problem. We will keep our sovereignty. And the Conservatives can start to take the fight to Corbyn.
Let’s see the Whitehall memo on the advantages of that.
(The editorial says “stay in” Efta, but the UK is not actually a member at the moment. But it is in the EEA, the European Economic Area, like all EU countries and three of the four Efta countries: Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The fourth Efta country is Switzerland.)
Updated
In her speech to the Lords Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, said it was important for peers to adopt a questioning approach to the bill. She said:
I want to re-emphasis a point I have made before. The process of Brexit is too important and complex to be left to those who have no doubt. Because only doubt brings questioning. And it is only through questioning that we examine an issue enough to get the detail right.
She also accused the government of avoiding difficult decisions on Brexit.
Too often, the government appears to put off tough decisions. For example, as we’ve heard in our questions, the financial services sector is crying out for the government to publish a future partnership paper, to provide some certainty to allow for future planning. Yet, none has been forthcoming and ministerial responses are complacent at best.
With 19 months passed since the referendum, it is unacceptable that the government has not yet got a grip of the issues facing Northern Ireland, our crown dependencies and our overseas territories. We have not yet seen a credible way of solving the Northern Ireland border issue given the prime minister’s flawed ideological position against a customs union.
We still don’t know the government’s plans for the future of Gibraltar and even yesterday noble lords, the minister sidestepped the question of a potential Spanish veto on its inclusion in the new UK-EU relationship. Even now the cabinet still hasn’t had that essential discussion on our future trade relationship with the EU.
The full text of Smith’s speech is here.
And here is a Labour party briefing note explaining what changes to the bill Labour will be pushing for while the bill is in the Lords.
My colleague Gaby Hinsliff has written a First thoughts article for Guardian Opinion saying the leaked impact assessment should encourage Labour to take a firmer stand against Brexit.
And here is some reaction to the leaked Brexit impact report from MPs.
From Labour’s David Lammy
This is a farce. The Government should immediately publish all these reports, un-redacted and in full. If the Government continues to keep the public in the dark about Brexit, Parliament should take back control and force a vote to force the Government to publish them this week. https://t.co/HGhtZDSpSl
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) January 30, 2018
From Labour’s Chuka Umunna
The people deserve to know what the government think will happen as a result of its decisions, especially on an issue as important as Brexit. They must release the full impact report. @Emmabarnett @bbc5live pic.twitter.com/hsbTqqxEhH
— Chuka Umunna (@ChukaUmunna) January 30, 2018
From the Conservative John Redwood
The latest leaked reports about slower future growth have all the reliability of those Treasury forecasts of a recession in the winter of 2016-17 which proved to be so wrong.
— John Redwood (@johnredwood) January 30, 2018
From the SNP’s Stewart McDonald
More than a little embarrassing for Ruth Davidson and her Scottish Conservatives that they rubbished SNP Government analysis on Brexit only a few weeks ago only to have the Conservative Government's leaked analysis confirm it pretty much number by number.
— Stewart McDonald MP (@StewartMcDonald) January 30, 2018
From the SNP’s Joanna Cherry
This comes as no surprise but what’s really disgraceful is that I & other MPs & the House of Commons have repeatedly been told by Ministers of the Crown that economic impact assessments do not exist. We won’t let this lie #BrexitShambles https://t.co/Bpz4pQUfUL
— Joanna Cherry QC MP (@joannaccherry) January 30, 2018
Here is Paul Mason, the journalist and vocal Labour supporter, on the leaked Brexit impact report.
Key implication for Labour from @BuzzFeedNews leak: if growth down 2% even under EEA that cannot be offset by attacking labour standards...
— Paul Mason (@paulmasonnews) January 30, 2018
If Labour chancellor were handed this document on day after election it would provide prima facie rationale for ripping up Tory Brexit deal
— Paul Mason (@paulmasonnews) January 30, 2018
My colleague Dan Roberts has a good analysis of the leaked Brexit impact report.
The Commons urgent question on the leaked Brexit impact analysis will come at 12.30pm.
Here is the Telegraph’s Peter Foster on the leaked Brexit impact analysis.
One more thought on the #Brexit Economy analysis leaked to Buzzfeed.
— Peter Foster (@pmdfoster) January 30, 2018
This was NOT from Treasury Or Team Hammond.
This was DexEU analysis. A department captained by @DavidDavisMP - an arch Brexiteer.
It comes from one of their own. As a warning to their own: tread softly.
Lord Adonis, the Labour peer, is speaking now. He gets to go second in the debate because he has tabled an amendment to the second reading motion. It says:
The order paper describes the amendment saying:
Lord Adonis to move, as an amendment to the motion that the bill be now read a second time, at end to insert “but that this House regrets that the bill makes no provision for the opinion of the people to be secured on the terms on which Her Majesty’s Government proposes that the United Kingdom withdraw from the European Union.”
In the Lords peers do not normally divide on a bill at second reading; it normally goes through on the nod. It is not clear yet whether or not will definitely push his amendment to a vote tomorrow night at the end of the second reading bill, but if he does do so, he will not get the support of the Labour front bench and he is expected to lose.
In his speech he says the public should get the final say on Brexit.
UPDATE: We understand that Adonis will not be pushing his amendment to a vote tomorrow night.
Updated
Here his Lord Hunt, a Labour frontbencher peer, responding to Evans’ speech. (See 11.16am.) He is not impressed.
Tory Leader, Bns Evans treating Euro Withdrawal Bill as a technical Bill which also seeks she said to correct EU law of 40 years. No vision and certainly no clue as to our future relationship with the EU. Deeply dispiriting
— Philip Hunt (@LordPhilofBrum) January 30, 2018
Natalie Evans, the leader of the Lords, and a leave voter in the referendum, is opening the debate. She says the EU withdrawal bill is “vital to a smooth and orderly exit” from the EU. She says passing the bill should not be able revisiting the arguments of the referendum. And the bill is not about making policy change, she says.
On the devolution aspects of the bill, she says it will not take powers away from the devolved administrations. The government expects them to get more powers after Brexit, she says.
She says the government will soon publish its “framework analysis” showing how EU laws interacts with legislative competences that are devolved. She says there will only be a small number of areas where the UK government will want to keep powers so as to maintain a UK framework.
Peers start debating EU withdrawal bill
Peers are about to start the two-day second reading debate for the EU withdrawal bill. Some 188 peers have put their names down to speak - a record for a second reading in the Lords.
You can watch a live feed here.
In the Lords, unlike in the Commons, they publish a list of the order in which peers will speak. You can read the speaking list here.
I will be covering the highlights, but I won’t be trying to cover the debate in full.
Speaker grants Commons urgent questions on Brexit impact analysis
The speaker, John Bercow, has granted an urgent question on the leaked Brexit analysis, Sky’s Beth Rigby reports.
NEW; Kier Starmer’s UQ granted. Baker will respond for govt. Going to be a very rowdy afternoon in HoC. Tory civil war moves up a gear? (Is that possible?)
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) January 30, 2018
An historic first takes place today in a break between the talks aimed at restoring power sharing to Northern Ireland - the Democratic Unionists will hold their first ever meeting with gay rights campaigners.
The Love Equality coalition will meet the DUP over the party’s opposition to gay marriage equality in the region.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where LGBT couples cannot have their unions recognised in law. Over the past few years the DUP has used a mechanism normally designed to protect minorities in the now frozen Stormont Assembly to veto moves to introduce gay marriage into the province.
Love Equality is pressing for a reform of the so-called petition of concern, which the DUP has deployed to shoot down legislation in the Assembly that would legalise LGBT marriage.
Former local health minister Edwin Boots will lead the DUP’s delegation to meet a group of gay rights campaigners, Amnesty International, trade unionists and student activists who represent Love Equality. The meeting later today will be the first time the DUP has met the gay marriage equality campaigners.
Love Equality want any deal that brings back power sharing among the parties in Belfast to include a commitment to bring about marriage equality.
It will be interesting to see how this meeting will go down in the DUP grassroots particularly in its influential and powerful Evangelical Christian wing, which is traditionally hostile to gay rights issues.
Tory MPs call for Brexit impact report to be published
The Conservative Stephen Hammond told BBC New a few minutes ago that the government should now publish its Brexit impact report. He said:
I think if it has been leaked, [the government] should now publish it. It may have wanted to keep it confidential, but now it is out there and it’s been leaked, the best thing the government could do this afternoon is to announce that they are going to publish it.
Hammond is a pro-European who was one of the Tories who rebelled over the EU withdrawal bill before Christmas, so his comment is not very surprising. But Nigel Evans, a Tory Brexiter, also told the BBC that the report should be published. He said:
Cleary it has been leaked by someone who thinks it bolsters the softest possible Brexit.
I agree with Stephen Hammond. You might as well publish the report., and also the methodology of the report.
Evans also mocked the conclusions of the report, pointing out that the Treasury published an economic forecast before the EU referendum with two scenarios (“one grim, one very grim”) for the impact of Brexit that have failed to materialise.
Evans has a point about the Treasury report in 2016, but it is worth pointing out that George Osborne published two Brexit impact assessments: a long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives (pdf), published in April; and an analysis of the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU (pdf), published in May, nearer the vote, when Osborne was getting a bit more desperate.
The latter report has not aged well and, as Evans pointed out, even its less grim scenario was predicting unemployment up 5000,000 and growth 3.6% lower than otherwise in 2017-18. (To be fair, the forecast assumed no mitigating policy response, when in fact the Bank of England did cut interest rates and boost quantitative easing in response to the leave vote.)
But the first report is still seen as having more credibility. The UK has not left the EU yet, so no one knows what impact Brexit will actually have on the economy, but those April 2016 forecasts are broadly in line with what most expert economists expect to happen long term.
Here is Rupert Harrison, George Osborne’s former chief of staff, on the leaked forecasts. He has posted this tweet in response to a BuzzFeed tweet summarising what the leaked report says.
As any economist will tell you its basically impossible to come up with any other conclusion based on standard trade impacts. To the extent there are any valid arguments for Brexit they are almost all non-economic https://t.co/qqXEzoH0PF
— Rupert Harrison (@rbrharrison) January 30, 2018
And this (repeating a very good line first used by someone else in 2016 - possibly the FT’s Chris Giles.)
I can't forecast what you will weigh in 10 years time but I can predict that if you eat a lot of burgers and don't do any exercise you will weigh more than if you eat healthily and go to the gym
— Rupert Harrison (@rbrharrison) January 30, 2018
Updated
Here is George Osborne, the former chancellor, on the leaked Brexit impact report.
Well well https://t.co/CwWbdJ0kec
— George Osborne (@George_Osborne) January 29, 2018
Sky’s Beth Rigby compares the forecasts in the leaked document with the forecasts in the Treasury report Osborne published in April 2016. Overall the conclusions are similar, but the latest forecasts are slightly less negative than they were two years ago.
#Brexit latest economic analysis versus 2016 Treasury forecasts: WTO 2018 analysis 7.5% lower (v 8% 2016); FTA 5% lower (v 6.2% 2016); Norway style single market deal 2% lower (v 3.8% 2016). h/t @AlbertoNardelli
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) January 30, 2018
Fox says, without a majority, Tory Brexiters will have to 'live with disappointment'
In an interview with the Sun today Liam Fox, the international trade secretary and one of the cabinet’s leading Brexiters, said Tory Eurosceptics, such as those calling for the resignation of Philip Hammond, the chancellor, over the weekend, will have to learnt to “live with disappointment”. He told the paper:
It doesn’t help us for people to be involved in this sort of briefing they were over the weekend against individual colleagues because nothing that would happen would change the parliamentary arithmetic.
We don’t have a working majority, other than with the support of the Democratic Unionists and we need to accept the reality of that. I know that there are always disappointed individuals but they’re going to have to live with disappointment.
The Sun interprets this as Fox saying that Tory Brexiters will have to accept that they will not get the hard Brexit they want. The BBC this morning said Fox’s allies have been clarifying what he meant, and that the “disappointment” he was referring to was not getting the resignation of Hammond, but the Sun’s take on Fox’s words does seem very plausible. Not having a majority would not stop Theresa May sacking Hammond, but it probably would stop her legislating for a very hard Brexit.
Plaid Cymru is also calling for the Brexit impact report to be published. Liz Saville Roberts, its leader at Westminster, said:
These leaked assessments should have been made public from the beginning. They show why the two Westminster parties are wrong to pursue a hard Brexit and why maintaining our economic links with Europe is so important for people’s standard of living.
Labour says government's economic Brexit impact report must be published
Labour is calling for the government’s Brexit impact report to be published in full. Matthew Pennycook, the shadow Brexit minister, has just issued this statement.
Labour has made clear since the referendum that Tory ministers cannot withhold vital information from parliament and the public about the impact of different Brexit scenarios on jobs and the economy.
Ministers should publish this information immediately and allow for a full debate in parliament about its implications.
Theresa May 'needs to go - the quicker the better', says Tory donor Charlie Mullins
Theresa May remains under threat of a leadership challenge. Today the Times (paywall) says Conservative party donors have joined those calling for her to go. Its splash story says:
Discontent with Theresa May among the Conservatives’ financial backers boiled over at a fundraising event last Thursday, according to a donor. An account of the event — where about a quarter of the 50 donors present were said to have demanded her resignation — has been circulating among Brexit-supporting Tory MPs.
The Sunday Telegraph: Mandarins 'forcing May into Brexit betrayal' #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/Lb7eKeFBZY
— Helena Lee (@BBCHelenaLee) January 27, 2018
On the Today programme this morning Charlie Mullins, who founded Pimlico Plumbers and who has given tens of thousands to the party in the past, said May’s time was up. He told the programme:
I think it’s obvious now there is no future for her. She needs to go. And as I’m being honest, the quicker the better. We have all lost confidence in her and it is bad for business for her to linger on in there. We all know she is going to go. She may as well just book the removal lorry and move on.
Mullins’ intervention won’t come as a surprise to Number 10. He has called for her resignation before.
Sturgeon says leaked report backs up findings of Scottish government's Brexit impact analysis
Here is Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, on the BuzzFeed leak.
When @scotgov published analysis two weeks ago showing the cost of Brexit, some Tories accused us of scaremongering. Thanks to this leak, we now know the UK government is sitting on analysis which comes to precisely the same conclusions. https://t.co/kDkwp5Bg3Y
— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) January 29, 2018
Here is a summary of what the Scottish government’s Brexit impact report said. It concluded that Scotland’s GDP would be 8.5% lower by 2030 than it would be if it stayed in the EU if Brexit resulted in the UK trading with Europe on WTO terms, 6.1% lower with a free trade agreement, but only 2.7% lower if the UK stayed in the single market.
Tory Brexiters dismiss leaked government report saying UK will be poorer when it leaves EU
As George Osborne discovered during the EU referendum campaign, establishment economic forecasts have only limited impact on public opinion. When he was chancellor the Treasury published a report arguing that all three likely economic models that would apply after Brexit would reduce UK growth. But voters turned out to be as expertsceptic as Michael Gove and they voted leave anyway.
Now BuzzFeed has seen a fresh government analysis of the economic impact of Brexit, “EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing”, and it is saying much the same as the Osborne one. You can read Alberto Nardelli’s scoop here and here’s an excerpt.
Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts, according to the analysis.
The “no deal” scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8% over that period. The softest Brexit option of continued single-market access through membership of the European Economic Area would, in the longer term, still lower growth by 2%.
These calculations do not take into account any short-term hits to the economy from Brexit, such as the cost of adjusting the economy to new customs arrangements.
Interestingly, the government has not just brushed this aside with the usual “we don’t comment on leaks” response. Sources have confirmed that the document seen by BuzzFeed was genuine, but it is described as an early draft, and one that does not model the bespoke “deep and special relationship” with the EU that Theresa May hopes to negotiate (even though the EU says such an option is not on offer).
Even though economic assessments like this don’t have a decisive impact on public opinion, they are not insignificant. Voters may be able to ignore them, but ministers and MPs, who are under some obligation to make policy on the basis of evidence, can’t dismiss them entirely.
Tory Brexiters have been rubbishing the leaked findings. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative MP who chairs the European Research Group, said the conclusions were “highly speculative”. And Iain Duncan Smith, the former party leader and former work and pensions secretary, told the Today programme:
I think the timing in this is highly suspicious in the sense that suddenly in the midst of all this conversation about the European Union we have a leaked document. But,I would observe that almost every single forecast coming from government, and most of the international organisations, has been completely wrong. I think we should take this with a pinch of salt.
But Duncan Smith also argued that other analyses have given a more positive forecast for what will happen to the UK economy after Brexit. It is not always clear whether the Brexiter response to negative forecasts about the economic impact of Brexit is: 1) this forecast is wrong, but others are right; 2) all forecasts are speculative, or wrong, so they should be ignored; or 3) even if Brexit does damage the economy, so what, because some things are more important than GDP. Often you hear a mix of all three, as no doubt we will today.
Here is the Guardian’s overnight story about the leak.
Here is the agenda for the day. As usual, Brexit dominates.
8.30am: Theresa May chairs a political cabinet, followed by a normal cabinet at 9.30am.
9.15am: The Insolvency Service and the chair of trustees for the Carillion Pension scheme are among those giving evidence on the collapse of Carillion to a joint meeting of the Commons business and work and pensions committees.
9.30am: Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary, Lord Adonis and Lisa Nandy MP speak about the future of Labour at a Resolution Foundation event.
11am: Peers begin the two-day second reading debate on the EU withdrawal bill.
2.30pm: David Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.
3.30pm: Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, gives evidence to the Lords economic affairs committee.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter
Updated
