Well... Commons Brexit committee publishes the full 29 page official internal Brexit Impact study first leaked to @AlbertoNardelli and then further leaked to @skynews 
Thread: civil servants caveat the uncertainty of the research, but say it does give a “broad directional” picture on the “best available evidence”
Assessment confirms that it is difficult to assess economic impacts because Government ask is “unprecedented and ambitious” so it models a range of existing EU trade arrangements
Civil service seek to bookend likely outcomes in this chart... PM’s “Florence model” could lead to “high” Customs non tariff barriers AND some tariffs... only a “customs partnership” could lead to no non tariff barriers
...but even a “mitigated” No Deal would lead to “high” Customs non tariff barriers, high “behind border” NTBs, and “high” tariffs with the EU says the analysis
The Government assesses that “Non-Tariff barriers” are the “most material factor” - ie most damaging form of reduced EU market access... but “new trade deals” and “regulatory optimisation” could mitigate that
Massive potential impact of non tariff barriers in Retail, Defence, agriculture, food and drink, motor vehicles, Chemicals, from WTO, but also in standard FTA - expressed as equivalent to tariff (we reported this last month)
Chart showing EU sensitivity and economic size of various sectors... no surprise why PM wants to stay fully aligned to EU institutions in pharma, Chemicals... and auto too... but interesting re Fisheries
Non tariff barriers are much more important but here’s a chart on possible changes to tariffs from “EEA-like proxy” to standard FTA, to No Deal... now yesterday EU27 suggested tariff free deal, which may suggest a better than normal deal re agriculture and food & drink
Those non-EU new trade deals... offer fractional mitigation for new frictions in EU trade... US 0.3% GDP, and ASEAN, Gulf, China India, Australia and New Zealand 0.4% in total...
also modelled the Rees Mogg “unilateral tariff liberalisation” A+ 0.2%. Vs 5-10% GDP loss
also modelled the Rees Mogg “unilateral tariff liberalisation” A+ 0.2%. Vs 5-10% GDP loss
Main preliminary result... the hit to the size of the economy versus a status quo of 25% increase in GDP over 15 years... in EEA (0.6-2.6), FTA (3.1-6.6) and WTO (5-10%)
It’s all about non tariff barriers... and in this analysis no way that new free trade deals make up for the new frictions in trade with main EU market. Indeed it also assumes that all existing EU trade deals are rolled over...
Largest effect on chemicals, food and drink, clothes, manufacturing, cars and retail...
** Financial Services slide...
Even with an FTA “market access would be hampered almost to same extent as WTO”
“London’s Status as a financial centre could be severely eroded”
Even with an FTA “market access would be hampered almost to same extent as WTO”
“London’s Status as a financial centre could be severely eroded”
Regional impact, as reported on Sky News last month - north East, West Midlands and Northern Ireland...
Impacts on other countries partic Ireland and Cyprus, considerable, but nowhere near impact on U.K. own trade... also civil service now doing same for those countries, presumable to be used diplomatically
Interesting..in Budget impact slide, assumes “Swiss style” payments into EU budget, even if we sign a free trade agreement...
Clearly disputes the notion of any net “Brexit dividend”, alone (in yellow) outweighed by the fiscal impact of introduction of non tariff barriers (green)
Clearly disputes the notion of any net “Brexit dividend”, alone (in yellow) outweighed by the fiscal impact of introduction of non tariff barriers (green)
Chemicals - should be titled “why we want to stay in the EUropean Chemicals Agency”...
Professsional and Business Services -550 individual restrictionsfor lawyers, accountants, auditors, advertisers, architects, consultants etc are not removed in CETA style deal
