Britain has not formally assessed impact of Brexit on economy: Brexit minister

[webfact]

Britain has not formally assessed impact of Brexit on economy: Brexit minister

By William James

 

Britain's Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis arrives in Downing Street, London, December 5, 2017. REUTERS/Hannah McKay

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain has not conducted formal sector-by-sector analyses of the impact that leaving the European Union will have on the economy, Brexit minister David Davis said on Wednesday, arguing they were not necessary yet.

 

The comments inflamed critics of the government's handling of the complex divorce process at a time when talks with Brussels have stalled because of a row over how to manage the Irish border after Brexit.

 

Davis has become embroiled in a long-running argument with lawmakers -- including from the ruling Conservative Party -- over what preparatory work the government has undertaken, and how much of it should be made public.

 

"There's no systematic impact assessment I'm aware of," Davis told a parliamentary committee, saying it would be more appropriate to conduct such analysis later in the negotiating process.

 

His remarks drew immediate criticism from lawmakers on the committee, who said Davis was contradicting his previous statement that the government had analyses of the sectoral impact that went into "excruciating detail".

 

"Whether it's through incompetence or insincerity, David Davis has been misleading parliament from the start," said Wera Hobhouse, a member of the Brexit committee from the Liberal Democrat party.

 

"It is unbelievable that these long-trumpeted impact assessments don't even exist, meaning the government has no idea what their Brexit plans will do to the country."

 

Opposition lawmakers have pressured the government into releasing a summary of its analysis to the committee. On Wednesday, they complained that the analysis given to them was incomplete and called for more detail.

 

But the committee scrutinising government policy on leaving the EU said they were satisfied that the government had fulfilled its obligations to publish the documents.

 

Nevertheless, pro-EU Labour lawmaker Chuka Umunna said he has written to the speaker of the House of Commons to ask if the government has misled parliament.

 

Davis and his team of ministers have previously said its sectoral analysis is not a formal impact assessment -- a technical document submitted to parliament -- and that publishing the work it has done could undermine Britain's negotiating position.

 

"We will at some stage do the best we can to quantify the effect of different negotiating outcomes as we come up to them -- bearing in mind we haven't started phase two (negotiations) yet," Davis said, referring to the second phase of talks which will focus on trade.

 

He said those assessments would look at the impact of different outcomes on sectors including financial services, manufacturing and agriculture.

 

(Reporting by William James; Editing by Elizabeth Piper and Matthew Mpoke Bigg)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-07

[Samui Bodoh]

53 minutes ago, webfact said:

"There's no systematic impact assessment I'm aware of," Davis told a parliamentary committee, saying it would be more appropriate to conduct such analysis later in the negotiating process.

 

The UK makes one of the most consequential public policy decisions of the last several hundred years and does not see the need for an impact assessment?

 

No wonder the process is massively screwed up. 

 

It is a sad, sad time for a once great country.

[FreddieRoyle]

heres hoping this thread gets my 2 favorite remainer's gems. 1)Britain saving 250 million quid a week that was previously thrown away to Brussels can not in any conceivable terms be used to benefit the NHS. and 2)having full control of our borders and who comes in, can not in any conceivable terms be used to limit mass immigration. 

 

 Sad thing is the common market, what was it first called EEC? was in concept a good idea, it was only when all this social engineering started that the wheels came off. Shame on the marxists for ruining what essentially was a good idea for trade between European nation.

[terryw]

The UK Treasury, which would have the most input on any assessments, is a den of Remoaners, so any reports will be overwhelmingly negative. 

[ilostmypassword]

43 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

heres hoping this thread gets my 2 favorite remainer's gems. 1)Britain saving 250 million quid a week that was previously thrown away to Brussels can not in any conceivable terms be used to benefit the NHS. and 2)having full control of our borders and who comes in, can not in any conceivable terms be used to limit mass immigration. 

 

 Sad thing is the common market, what was it first called EEC? was in concept a good idea, it was only when all this social engineering started that the wheels came off. Shame on the marxists for ruining what essentially was a good idea for trade between European nation.

Actually it was 350 million per week and as soon as the referendum was over, the leading Brexiters all admitted it was false that the UK would be saving that amount of money and that it would go to the NHS.

And who said having full control of its borders can't be used to limit mass immigration.  

The first point you made is in denial of what Brexiters said, and in the second you make up what leading Remainers said.

Good job!

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, FreddieRoyle said:

heres hoping this thread gets my 2 favorite remainer's gems. 1)Britain saving 250 million quid a week that was previously thrown away to Brussels can not in any conceivable terms be used to benefit the NHS. and 2)having full control of our borders and who comes in, can not in any conceivable terms be used to limit mass immigration. 

 

 Sad thing is the common market, what was it first called EEC? was in concept a good idea, it was only when all this social engineering started that the wheels came off. Shame on the marxists for ruining what essentially was a good idea for trade between European nation.

Yes, Sad. Unfortunately, it was never as good and simple as that. The Treaty of Rome was already far more political than most people realized at the time; the few people who highlighted this then were largely ignored.

Edited December 7, 2017 by nauseus

[vogie]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

The UK makes one of the most consequential public policy decisions of the last several hundred years and does not see the need for an impact assessment?

 

No wonder the process is massively screwed up. 

 

It is a sad, sad time for a once great country.

That is the whole point, we were becoming an european superstate, not a country. Do you really want to be ruled by a president we had no choice in electing.

 

[rudi49jr]

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Britain has not formally assessed impact of Brexit on economy: Brexit minister

Duh!! That has been obvious from the start. So what are you going to do now, you brainiacs?

[the guest]

The fact that the UK voted for Brexit, really demonstrates how out of touch the country is with regards to the EU. So they believed a story line from the Conservatives, which has no credibility, nor did they take the time to find out the advantages of being in the EU. 

 

UK still has a little Island mentality, and still thinks it's 'great', when in fact it should be called 'little britain'. I believe it's panicking, as they know the outcome to a 'hard' BREXIT will have serious consequences.

 

Personally, I think it would be better for the country to have a second referendum, and this time outlining the true facts, not idle dribble!

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, terryw said:

The UK Treasury, which would have the most input on any assessments, is a den of Remoaners, so any reports will be overwhelmingly negative. 

And accurate.

[Bluespunk]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Britain has not conducted formal sector-by-sector analyses of the impact that leaving the European Union will have on the economy, Brexit minister David Davis said on Wednesday, arguing they were not necessary yet.

Inept, deluded, incompetent and a laughing stock.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

The UK makes one of the most consequential public policy decisions of the last several hundred years and does not see the need for an impact assessment?

 

No wonder the process is massively screwed up. 

 

It is a sad, sad time for a once great country.

These impact assessments were already done by both parties and you would have to have been asleep to have missed them.

 

One was called "Project Fear" and the other, less effective one was called "Better Together."

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

That is the whole point, we were becoming an european superstate, not a country. Do you really want to be ruled by a president we had no choice in electing.

 

And how would that have happened if the UK vetoed it? Magic?

[nauseus]

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And how would that have happened if the UK vetoed it? Magic?

Cameron did.... Juncker got it anyway!

[emilymat]

I've followed Brexit very closely and watched most of the debates etc on BBC Parliament. I simply cannot believe the inflexibility of May and the arrogance of Davies in the way they are treating the future of this country.

 

I've avoided comment on Brexit, as experience leads me to believe that if you voted 'remain' and still believe this is/was the best way, then you are an enemy of democracy. The answer I always get is 'you can't accept the will of the country', ignoring the fact that around 48% are deemed ignorant.

 

No-one will ever persuade me that Brexit is good for the UK. I've tried to reconcile my views with the need for 'us all to pull together for the best deal' etc. etc.  The fact is, it's all about individual political careers as the vultures circle the May corpse. Nothing to do with what is best for the country.

[Orac]

It is just playing politics. Very few people seriously believe these impact assessments do not exist in some form but now David Davies has got away with covering them up by ‘taking one for the team’ in front of a committee that he already knows will let him off the hook rather than pushing for a contempt of parliament ruling.

For the record, the committee he is in front of has 21 members of which Hillary Benn is the chairperson and therefore only votes should it be a split decision. The committee consists of 10 conservative MPs and 1 DUP MP and voted 11-8 not to report him for contempt of parliament.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Retiredandhappyhere]

I am beginning to wonder how all the "remainers" who are constantly criticising the UK Government (often in very rude terms regarding their negotiating skills, will have to say when TM emerges with a reasonable trade deal acceptable to both sides? It is quite clear that such a deal is necessary for both the UK and the EU and that a compromise on all outstanding points will eventually be reached.

 

Most "remainers" appear to suggest that Theresa May should have put all her negotiating cards on the table on day one, firstly by offering at least the requested 60 Billion Euros and then by allowing the European Courts to have unprecedented jurisdiction over another sovereign country regarding EU citizens living there.  Anyone who has ever been involved in negotiations of any kind (even, for example, in buying a house), let alone any major business transaction, will understand that they involve a certain amount of give and take and no one party holds all the cards, even when they believe they do. Mrs May was perfectly correct in suggesting at the outset that, rather than accepting any poor deal the EU might condescend to offer the UK, she would be prepared to walk away.  

 

The UK had a perfect right to decide whether or not it wanted to remain in the EU, which appears to be heading ever closer towards a United States of Europe.  Britain made that decision knowing that, at least for a certain amount of time, there could well be economic consequences, but, as serious disputes taking place all over the world demonstrate, they are not always about money.  When the EU pretends that the 27 nations are "as one" they are deluding themselves, since there are several member nations with substantial numbers of voters who admire the UK for the decision it has taken and if the EU take their (particularly Macron's) "integration" plans too far, may decide to follow suit and opt to leave. 

 

To those who have suggested that Great Britain is no longer of any consequence in the world and should be renamed "Little Britain", I would remind them that it is (with only a population of 67 million) still the 5th largest world economy and will remain there or thereabouts after Brexit, despite all the false predictions of virtual bankruptcy.    

[Orac]

I am beginning to wonder how all the "remainers" who are constantly criticising the UK Government (often in very rude terms regarding their negotiating skills, will have to say when TM emerges with a reasonable trade deal acceptable to both sides? It is quite clear that such a deal is necessary for both the UK and the EU and that a compromise on all outstanding points will eventually be reached.
 
Most "remainers" appear to suggest that Theresa May should have put all her negotiating cards on the table on day one, firstly by offering at least the requested 60 Billion Euros and then by allowing the European Courts to have unprecedented jurisdiction over another sovereign country regarding EU citizens living there.  Anyone who has ever been involved in negotiations of any kind (even, for example, in buying a house), let alone any major business transaction, will understand that they involve a certain amount of give and take and no one party holds all the cards, even when they believe they do. Mrs May was perfectly correct in suggesting at the outset that, rather than accepting any poor deal the EU might condescend to offer the UK, she would be prepared to walk away.  
 
The UK had a perfect right to decide whether or not it wanted to remain in the EU, which appears to be heading ever closer towards a United States of Europe.  Britain made that decision knowing that, at least for a certain amount of time, there could well be economic consequences, but, as serious disputes taking place all over the world demonstrate, they are not always about money.  When the EU pretends that the 27 nations are "as one" they are deluding themselves, since there are several member nations with substantial numbers of voters who admire the UK for the decision it has taken and if the EU take their (particularly Macron's) "integration" plans too far, may decide to follow suit and opt to leave. 
 
To those who have suggested that Great Britain is no longer of any consequence in the world and should be renamed "Little Britain", I would remind them that it is (with only a population of 67 million) still the 5th largest world economy and will remain there or thereabouts after Brexit, despite all the false predictions of virtual bankruptcy.    

5th largest economy- you are a bit out of date with that.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/22/news/economy/uk-france-biggest-economies-in-the-world/index.html




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, emilymat said:

I've followed Brexit very closely and watched most of the debates etc on BBC Parliament. I simply cannot believe the inflexibility of May and the arrogance of Davies in the way they are treating the future of this country.

 

I've avoided comment on Brexit, as experience leads me to believe that if you voted 'remain' and still believe this is/was the best way, then you are an enemy of democracy. The answer I always get is 'you can't accept the will of the country', ignoring the fact that around 48% are deemed ignorant.

 

No-one will ever persuade me that Brexit is good for the UK. I've tried to reconcile my views with the need for 'us all to pull together for the best deal' etc. etc.  The fact is, it's all about individual political careers as the vultures circle the May corpse. Nothing to do with what is best for the country.

I particularly like the way anyone who even hints at calling for another vote [not that I have] is called an enemy of democracy.

 

Yeah, voting, the beast that stalks and destroys any democratic system...

[ilostmypassword]

30 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I particularly like the way anyone who even hints at calling for another vote [not that I have] is called an enemy of democracy.

 

Yeah, voting, the beast that stalks and destroys any democratic system...

The beast that is Nigel Farage. I like the sound of that.

[brewsterbudgen]

The fact that the UK voted for Brexit, really demonstrates how out of touch the country is with regards to the EU. So they believed a story line from the Conservatives, which has no credibility, nor did they take the time to find out the advantages of being in the EU. 
 
UK still has a little Island mentality, and still thinks it's 'great', when in fact it should be called 'little britain'. I believe it's panicking, as they know the outcome to a 'hard' BREXIT will have serious consequences.
 
Personally, I think it would be better for the country to have a second referendum, and this time outlining the true facts, not idle dribble!

I would say it's inevitable that another referendum will be held.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[12DrinkMore]

4 hours ago, vogie said:

Do you really want to be ruled by a president we had no choice in electing.

 

Nobody voted for Theresa May as Prime Minister.

 

[vogie]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

I particularly like the way anyone who even hints at calling for another vote [not that I have] is called an enemy of democracy.

 

Yeah, voting, the beast that stalks and destroys any democratic system...

And if you didn't get the 'right result' again, would it be another and another vote, how would you know how many votes is enough?

Edited December 7, 2017 by vogie

[steve187]

4 hours ago, the guest said:

Personally, I think it would be better for the country to have a second referendum, and this time outlining the true facts, not idle dribble!

who out of all the politicians know how to tell the truth,

 

anyone who believed anything that boris said, and then used that knowledge to vote out is a fool.

[Bluespunk]

11 minutes ago, vogie said:

And if you didn't get the 'right result' again, would it be another and another vote, how would you know how many votes is enough?

Me?

 

I didn't call for a vote.

 

Unlike that lovely Mr Farage who, before the initial vote, said if it is close, we will need another vote...

[vogie]

12 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Me?

 

I didn't call for a vote.

 

Unlike that lovely Mr Farage who, before the initial vote, said if it is close, we will need another vote...

I'm sure a lot of people said a lot of things before the vote, sometimes in life you have to take things that people say with a pinch of salt. I said if we voted to leave the EU and left I would eat a durian, as of yet I haven't.

 

The remain side said a lot of lies too you know, but the remainers do not keep reminding us about that, I wonder why (retorical).

Edited December 7, 2017 by vogie

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

I'm sure a lot of people said a lot of things before the vote, sometimes in life you have to take things that people say with a pinch of salt. I said if we voted to leave the EU and left I would eat a durian, as of yet I haven't.

 

The remain side said a lot of lies too you know, but the remainers do not keep reminding us about that, I wonder why (retorical).

Oh boo hoo, he fibbed too, Miss.

 

Farage was not joking.

 

He is a fundamentalist who wanted out. 

 

He won the vote, fair enough.

 

However if the people want another vote, then in a democracy you are entitled to one.

 

It's like voting for a govt, if it doesn't work out you can choose another one.

 

 

[vogie]

 

36 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

 

Farage was not joking.

 

He is a fundamentalist who wanted out. 

 

He won the vote, fair enough.

 

However if the people want another vote, then in a democracy you are entitled to one.

 

It's like voting for a govt, if it doesn't work out you can choose another one.

 

 

Can you answer a post without patronising. "Oh boo hoo, he fibbed too, Miss."

 

The people do not want another vote, the remainers want another vote, ie the minority.

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

Can you answer a post without patronising. "Oh boo hoo, he fibbed too, Miss."

 

The people do not want another vote, the remainers want another vote, ie the minority.

Your final sentence called for the fib line [which you edited out of my post when you quoted it, please don't do that].

 

If they are in a minority, why then the raging against they when they call for another vote?

 

Surely the merry brexiteers are confident of winning it.

 

The people wanting another vote are entitled to call for one.

 

It's called democracy.

Edited December 7, 2017 by Bluespunk

[vogie]

32 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Your final sentence called for the fib line [which you edited out of my post when you quoted it, please don't do that].

 

If they are in a minority, why then the raging against they when they call for another vote?

 

Surely the merry brexiteers are confident of winning it.

 

The people wanting another vote are entitled to call for one.

 

It's called democracy.

Firstly I did not intentionally edit your post, there was more to gain by leaving it in, I don't know what happened there.

 

You said 

"Surely the merry brexiteers are confident of winning it." Well I thought the brexiteers had already won it, do you honestly think that if the shoe was on the other foot the remainers would be saying to the brexiteers, go on then you can have another vote? Of course they wouldn't.