5 thoughts on “The Treasury’s new Brexit paper: rubbish in, rubbish out”

  1. Posted 24/05/2016 at 12:55 | Permalink

    ‘Provided one trusts that the UK’s democratic processes will over time produce good policies’. Perhaps an even more implausible assumption than some of the Treasury’s?
    Whatever one thinks personally of Brexit as a choice, it seems pretty clear that the public is being swayed by the huge resources being mobilised by Remain. And this has little to do with the inherent strength of the arguments.

  2. Posted 24/05/2016 at 16:11 | Permalink

    I seem to remember that the leader of the Remain campaign, Stuart Rose, said some time ago that in the first five years after Brexit nothing much would happen. That hardly seems consistent with the Treasury’s latest prognostication of doom and gloom. Assuming after a decision to leave the EU, the Article 50 button isn’t pressed for (say) twelve months, together with the two-year negotiating period written in to the Treaty of Lisbon, that would give us three years from 24th June 2016 to try to sort things out. But even if one thinks the economic consequences of Brexit are likely to be significant (I don’t), surely the decision on how to vote in the Referendum should be based on long-term considerations? And as far as that goes, the reality is that nobody has any idea whether the UK’s rate of economic growth in 2030 will be higher, lower, or about the same if we leave the EU (compared with remaining in). I have found the most readable projection to be that of PwC for the CBI, which suggests that if we remain in the EU, by 2030 GDP per capita will have grown by 29%; if we Brexit, with some kind of Free Trade agreement, by 28%; and if we Brexit and go the WTO route, by 25%. As someone whose most recent book was entitled ‘Margins of Error in Accounting’, to me those three guesses seem pretty close together

  3. Posted 25/05/2016 at 10:00 | Permalink

    Thank you, I have now made my mind up to leave.

    A good clear article, well done.

  4. Posted 29/05/2016 at 09:15 | Permalink

    Good blog and great to see Prof. Myddelton posting, some 30 years after I had the honour to attend his lucid lectures.at Cranfield SoM.

    As one that naturally feels that all Government is too big, I just cannot see the logic for another level added on top of current UK institutions, especially one constructed along the Continental model.

    I decided to go and work in France in the mid ’80s and stayed for 15 years, before returning to the UK. I lived under the enterprise stifling nanny State regime(s) there, where directly or indirectly, 1 in 3 of the active population are employed by the State. As a small business owner, I was subject to Orwellian treatment on all things State: France is a socialist country even when their Conservatives are in power, a place where to all intents and purposes a Company Director is guilty before proven innocent and Employee rights are all. It is only successful corporate desperation that leads to taking the risk to employ someone and pay the NICS equivalent at 49%. The perpetual unemployment rate in France around 10% and that pre-dates the Euro,

    The Treasury has behaved in a most unprofessional way under Gideon’s distorted guiding hand since 2010, supporting his conservative social agenda and mismanagement of the economy in the finest Continental fashion. Pasty tax anyone?

    More worrying is the descent along The Road to Serfdom that we have seen at Cameron’s hands, aided and abetted by Osborne. These rascals are going to get themselves booted out at the next election, in fine British fashion, whichever way the Referendum vote goes. I plan to vote Brexit to make sure that we don’t find them as EU Commissioner’s in 2021 and that they are obliged to join the dole queue. If only…

  5. Posted 30/05/2016 at 10:09 | Permalink

    A very useful article and it is nice to see ‘democratic process’ mentioned. For me, far and away the most disappointing aspect of the campaign so far is the absence of any real debate about our freedoms and how disenfranchised the people of this country have become over recent decades. Put very simply, I don’t believe in the long run that one can forge a strong, thriving economy that serves all citizens of a country without first under-pinning it with a thriving democracy, where politicians are answerable to their local constituents and are as readily booted out as they are elected. So all this debate about economics is fine up to a point, but it is not the issue and it is not why I have been in favour of withdrawal for most of my adult life.

Comments are closed.