Mr Carney's fantasy world.

Right from the start the Remainers have tried to paint a picture that leaving the EU without a deal with the EU would be bad.  They are of course talking in straight economic terms though you could find economists and business on both sides of that particular argument.   

I can only compare his analogy as going into a car show room and being told that the car on offer is £x.  After negotiations he would, using the methodology he has used, come away paying more than the offer price on the windscreen.  It really was that bad.  Even respected economists who support Remain could be seen cringing.   

Will the UK be worse off in the long term leaving without a deal with the EU?  Possibly.  But in the long term, probably not.   

Will the UK be worse off in the short term leaving without a deal with the EU?  Possibly, but not by much. Certainly not the fantasy Mr Carney portrays. 

Only the extremists on the Leave and Remain camps claim that it will be heaven if they get their way and the other place if they don’t.   

The hard reality is, leaving the EU without a deal with the EU simply transfers us immediately over to WTO.  So we will have a deal with the EU immediately.  Just not the one they want.  

Now given 60% of our trade already is done under WTO and experiences no problems in Just In Time supply chain logistics, why would that be any different when dealing with the EU under the same rules as we do with the rest of the world?    

Well, of course it wouldn’t be, or rather shouldn’t be.  That is unless the EU wants to end up in court for breaching WTO agreements.   

So why did Mr Carney even use the example of there being no trade with both the EU and the rest of the world as one of the possible positions?  Or who told him to say that?

 Ask him, not me.

Wise words for the nation.

"The whole nation and all political parties are divided on the Common Market question.  We must respect the sincerity of those who take a different view from our own. We should all accept the verdict of the British people whatever it is, and I shall certainly do so."  Tony Benn, 1975.   

Perhaps his son should remember what his dad said.

Wrong trousers?

Well, more like Wrong Assumptions for this comedy of errors.  So please indulge me for a moment if I take you back to the Treasury’s record of getting it right.  Or wrong.    

Remember the real gloom felt during the referendum campaign?  Remember the forecast:  ….“Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU, new Treasury analysis launched today by the Prime Minister and Chancellor shows.”?   

What has happened in these last two and a half years?  None of that.  Indeed, quite the reverse.  The economy grew, unemployment fell, investment went through the roof.  So not the best of track records.   

So on the latest bad news coming out of HM Treasury, it does need to be taken with a  pinch of salt.  A large one.   

And that is what economist Andrew Lilico did as he pointed out that in its new analysis, the Treasury makes three remarkable assumptions.    

1.  Assumes there is no economic gain at all from controlling our own policy compared with the EU doing it.   

2.   Assumes there is no gain from “Future domestic policy choices.”    

3.  Assumes GDP gains from new trade deals with non-EU countries are only 10% of what the EU estimated those gains would be.    

Any first year university would receive a D minus for such clearly ludicrous assumptions.  No credible economist assumes there are zero economic gains to be made from liberating companies from EU red tape and exposing them to new market opportunities. 

Just as the ECJ is a political court so the Treasury is fast becoming seen as a political tool not a serious economic body.     

And politicians and Civil Servants wonder why there is so much mistrust around.    

So before you accept the word of the Bank of England or indeed of any other forecaster, irrespective if they are for Remain or Leave, ask yourself, "are they being honest with their data".   

The Treasury and the Bank have got almost every big call in relation to leaving the EU wrong up till now.  So why should we have any more trust in them today?   

Can you think of a reason?

The attack dogs are out.

You know Mrs May is on manoeuvres when the attack dogs come out.  Yesterday it was on the economy.  All her faithful entourage wailed gloom and doom.    The BBC.  The Bank of England. They all talked about the worst case scenario as if that was what would happen.  as we saw in yesterdays blog, it won't.  But you can see why she goes into attack mode.  Everything they have worked towards could be undone if it was proved to be wrong.  We might actually leave the EU.   Horror of horrors! 

The problem is, they use only one set of data.  Very conveniently it is the set of data they use that fits the narrative they want.   

Former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab summed it up well in the quote he gave to yesterday’s Telegraph:   

"There is an economic credibility gap with all these Treasury-led forecasts, based on their track record of failure, the questionable assumptions they rely on, and the inherent challenge of making reliable long-term forecasts. Politically, it looks like a rehash of Project Fear. 

People expect to be inspired, not scared witless into deferring to the government. Whenever Whitehall make forecasts for leaving the EU on WTO terms, it's always the same. 

They rely on the most pessimistic assumptions, and airbrush out the opportunities of leaving with full regulatory control and the ability to strike free trade deals around the world."      

They’re not telling lies.  But they are not telling the truth either.  They are, as is the BBC, certainly being somewhat disingenuous.  

And it is the same with Civil Servants who should know better.   

Take the recent ‘Cross-Whitehall report’ estimated that exiting the customs union would cost the UK economy by between 1.6 per cent and 7.7 per cent of GDP (£32 – £154 billion) over the next fifteen years.   

These figures include effects of likely free trade agreements (FTA) with non-EU countries, migration, and deregulation. In reality, the UK would actually gain something like 7% per cent of GDP (£140 billion), taking into account all these factors.    

This blunder amounting to nearly 15 per cent of GDP (£300 billion) has been exposed in a new report by experts from Economists for Free Trade.   The mistakes the civil servants have made with regard to the costs of leaving the customs union account for almost 11 per cent of GDP – or £220 billion.    

And you wonder why people are saying this is an establishment stitch up.

Not smart.

Looks a bit stark, according to the BBC headlines.

Leaving looks like a bumpy ride.  At least that’s what you would think reading the headline of the article.  But have a closer look at what this is based on.  In other words, what is a 'disorderly Brexit'?

To be fair to the Bank of England they are saying it's all based on assumptions.  But just read the assumptions and you quickly realise something is not right. 

The key ones are:

1.  The UK reverts to World Trade Organisation rules.  Well under leaving without a deal with the EU we would have an immediate deal with the rest of the world, including the EU, through WTO.  So far so good.  No serious economic impact given 60% of our trade is already on WTO.

2.  No new trade deals are implemented by 2022.  Maybe there will be maybe there won’t be.  But one thing is sure, businesses will be wanting the "will be" scenario.  Only a spiteful EU could get in the way.  So it’s really pretty daft to assume there will not be deals.  So again, perhaps a hiccup.  But seriously, businesses love to trade.

3.  The UK loses all access to existing trade agreements between the EU and third countries.  Now, this is where it really does stretch the bounds of probability.  Are they suggesting that all the current trade deals we have with non EU countries will stop?  Well that’s what they have based this on.  And there is actually nothing to stop the UK trading with the EU under WTO from day one.  Indeed, it would be illegal for the EU to not permit it.  So don't worry, you will still be able to get your Mercedes or Audi.

4.  Severe disruption at borders because of customs checks.  Really?  Why?  Today goods arrive and are cleared into the UK form all over the world in seconds under WTO.  All the paperwork is done days, even weeks before it arrives in the UK, and vise versa.  So why should what already happens stop happening? It won't.

5.  Migration reverses from 150,000 a year to falling by 100,000 a year.  Well, who knows.  But in the big scheme of things it’s a pretty small problem compared to losing all our trade under point 3.

Really, the BBC should stop treating us as idiots.

Don't forget......

You can keep up to date with A view from the doorstep by simply putting your email in the little white box to the right.  Go on, do it now!

Then check your in box (and your spam box) and click the link to confirm it is actually you who subscribed.

Enjoy.

Disaster awaits. That's what Remainers said last time too.

Can you remember?  

It’s not that long ago we were told that:  “A vote to Leave will push our economy into a recession. Within two years the size of our economy – our GDP – would be at least 3% smaller as a result of leaving the EU – and it could be as much as 6% smaller."     

And "A direct consequence of a vote to Leave the EU would be significant job losses across the UK. Within two years, at least half a million jobs would be lost… And that’s the lower end of the estimates – across Britain as many as 820,000 jobs could be lost."

Looking back we realise it was all nonsense.  Of course, the economy was not pushed into a recession.  Indeed, the opposite has occurred.   

But what is so depressing about  this new round of scare stories from Remainers like Mrs May is they are not even making the effort to come up with different things to scare us with.  It’s just rehashing the old stories. 

Ms Loophole?

The European Court of Justice is, as you will know, considering a case that even Solomon in all his wisdom would have found tricky.   

If the judges go the way the SNP wish them to, the UK will not have to secure the approval of each of the EU Members states to revoke Article 50.  That would mean any Member State could play a game of let’s trigger Article 50 and try and get some concessions, an angle the top brass in the EU have conceded could destroy the whole European Project (as we now must call it).   

But if the judges side with the existing interpretation, that all EU states must give approval, then the UK parliament cannot just on its own decided that Article 50 is dead.  Tricky.  

One thing is clear from this, no matter how the court swings, they are taking a political decision and by doing so they are in effect, simply another arm of the Commission.   

And no matter the outcome of the deliberation of the judges, one thing is certain.  It is in this very room that ultimately the ECJ will decide, with no course or right of appeal, whether the UK can leave the EU.  This is the ending point in Mrs Mays Agreement.   It's there in black and white.  She can't deny it.  Well, actually, in Questions to the Prime Minister today in answer to Mr Corbyn she did.   She also did so again to Anne-Marie Trevelyan MP (Berwick-upon-Tweed, Conservative.)

So the ECJ, the judicial arm of the European Community, can stop us leaving if they think that we have not fulfilled everything they have demanded of us.  Just reflect on that.  

All Mrs Mays assertions about us leaving rely on one thing.  The ECJ allowing us to. 

And perhaps we should also reflect on the amount of legal processes those who support the UK staying in what is now a European State, complete with its own court that can overturn any UK legislation, have gone through to stop the vote of the majority being implemented. 

It all reminds me of “Mr Loophole”, the well-known lawyer who finds ways through many legal challenges for the wealthy and famous.  Joanna Cherry QC MP seems to be using every legal method to undermine and stop the result of the peoples vote.  Perhaps we should start calling her Ms Loophole.   

Will Ms Cherry be so happy for such behaviour if it comes down to judges being asked to decided whether Scotland can leave the UK?  Answers on a postcard…..

Building to intimidate.

When I was in Barcelona recently I did what all visitors to the capital and largest city of Catalonia do, I visited a number of the works of Gaudi including the Basílica i Temple Expiatoride la Sagrada Família to give it its Sunday title.  

Seeing it was simply a joy.  Breathtaking.  It is big.  Yes, but it doesn’t make you feel small.  Quite the reverse, you almost feel part of the building.  The natural light, the shapes, the astonishing ability of Gaudi to make you feel at home.   

I contrast and compare that with a picture I saw on the news last night of the home of the European Court of Justice in Luxemburg. I’ve never seen a picture of it before, in spite of having referred to it on many an occasion.  It too is big.  But in a different way.  Its scale seems to deliberately be set to make you feel small, subservient, and even afraid.  Even the judges clad in their red robes looked positively insignificant in this vast chamber.  It makes you feel small and intimidated.    

Perhaps that is its purpose, unlike Gaudi’s la Sagrada Família which makes you feel alive and part of something.

Mrs Mays Brexit pitch?

Looks and sounds like it!

Fact for the day. There is no cliff edge.

"Leaving with No Deal would be a disaster".  How often have we heard that phrase.  But it's simply not true.  

The moment we leave we will have a deal on World Trade Organisation rules.  Yip, and in case you didn't know, it is on WTO rules on which the UK already operates 60 per cent (and climbing) of her trade with the rest of the world, and on which 90 per cent of all world trade is conducted.  So businesses are well versed in WTO.  And it doesn't cause the slightest of problems at our ports.

So those who say we can't leave without a deal or it would be a disaster are actually literally talking nonsense.  There is a deal, just not a restrictive EU one.

Not only that, under international law, without any agreement in place with the EU, the UK will be able to trade with the EU immediately on WTO rules when we leave.   

So "crashing" out of the EU seems a rather attractive win / win prospect. 

There’s almost nothing true in Theresa May’s Brexit letter to the nation.

Well, that’s a pretty blunt headline on MSN.  But sadly it is true.  Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the Agreement and the political declaration will sadly come to the conclusion that Mrs May is either deliberately seeking to mislead the nation or she has lost the place.  I honestly don't know which it is.

The context is the 800-word message sent to the nation as she headed to the EC headquarters to have a time of handshakes and smiles.  In it she asserts the result of the EU referendum in 2016 would be honoured.  

The question was very simple. Do you want to stay in or leave the EU?  The consequences of voting leave was spelt out clearly by Remainers before the peoples vote (aka the Referendum). If we voted leave we would be leaving everything.  The people listened.  The people spoke.

So in order to believe Mrs May, it would have to be demonstrated that we were no longer subject to the rules of the EU which we have voted to leave.  Which I assume must have been what Mrs May was referring to when she stated that the UK would “take back control” of laws and money.

Those on the leave side are well used to these sort of misleading statements.  So I guess it wasn’t a surprise to read the following:  “I don't say this lightly, but almost nothing in this desperate letter is true.”   

What did surprise me was who said it.  Nicola Sturgeon. 

A tale of words.

“Brexit means Brexit”.  

Became “No deal is better than a bad deal”.    

Became “It’s my Brexit or no deal”.    

Became “It’s my deal or no Brexit”.   

My, how Napoleon, the leader of the pigs in George Orwell's Animal Farm, would have blushed in awe and admiration at Mrs Mays supreme craftiness.

The border.

A lot of people have said a lot of things about the border between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom.  Turns out a lot of them where porky pies. There will be no infrastructure on the UK side, even if there is no deal in place with the EU.   

So if Jon Thompson, the head of UK customs says that, Leo Varadkar the Taoiseach of the Republic says that, why are Remainers keeping up this false narrative that the border is a problem?

Is signing an agreement that will have the UK subject to a foreign power in perpetuity a criminal offence?

We all know that no UK parliament can bind its successor.  There would be no point in having elections if they could.     

So why, in Article 20 of the Agreement, does Mrs May want to push through that very same UK parliament an agreement that would bring about exactly that scenario?   As has been stressed before, this is an agreement that Mrs May and the EU want to be recognised under international law.   

If it is recognised under international law then a future UK parliament cannot undo it without the agreement of all the parties involved in the agreement.  So no parliament in the future can ever, without the agreement of the EU, resile from the agreement.   We would be stuck.

This will be a first.  International treaties and trade treaties always have get out clauses for obvious reasons.  Even the EU’s own trade agreements with non-member countries, which is what we voted to become, don’t contain such draconian clauses.  This treatment is reserved for the UK because we had the temerity to vote to leave.

As Martin Howe, QC, says in a paper today “(there will be) no unilateral exit clause. The Protocol can only be stopped from coming into force if the EU agrees with the UK to replace it before the end of the transition period with a trade agreement.  If the Protocol comes into force, the UK cannot exit from it without a “joint” decision (meaning the EU has a veto) in the ‘joint committee’ (article 20 of the Protocol). This absence of a clause allowing withdrawal on notice is unprecedented in trade treaties including the under international law, future governments and Parliaments would be locked in and bound by the treaty concluded by this government.”  

If any MP of any party votes for this they clearly are in the wrong job as they will be binding their successor in perpetuity.  And that is against our own rules in the UK.  

But, one final question. 

Why is Mrs May deliberately seeking to overrule our own systems of laws and force us to be wedded to the EU for ever?  Is she not, in effect, seeking to overthrow the UK state by having it permanently under the rule of another foreign power?   

Who’s side is she on?  Who’s side has she ever been on?

It's all there in the document. We're not leaving EU jurisdiction.

So, Mrs May says we are ending EU jurisdiction?  Aye, right!  We’re doing no such thing.   

And the draft agreement she produced last week proves it.   Just take, for example, Article 4.  That’s the bit that effectively declares how the whole agreement is to be interpreted in any judicial sense:   “The provision of this Agreement and the provisions of [European] Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States.”   

Just read it slowly again.  Yip, EU law remains superior to UK law at any time and in any area the EU wants.  And in the event of any dispute?  Yip, the adjudicator would be the EU itself.  

So our elected representatives in Westminster, or Holyrood or wherever, must follow the EU’s Parliament.  If we don’t, well there is final arbitration.  Not the UK Supreme Court of course, but the judicial arm of the European Community, the European Court of Justice.   

And if you were wondering, is there not a little wriggle room, I’m afraid not.  Paragraph 3 tells Britain to interpret and apply law “in accordance with” EU law.  Which is repeated in Paragraph 4.  The UK must interpret all law “in conformity” with the ECJ’s jurisprudence through the transition period.     

Given the EUs track record we can be sure of one thing.  The so called implementation period will be used to drive a dagger into the UK.  And we will have no say in it.  Yes, beleive it or not, Mrs May did commit us to this in spite of not being able to influence such decisions.  Does may you wonder which side Mrs May has been on all along.    

Ah, you are just being negative, reading it all the wrong way, you tell me.  Really?   Lest you be in any doubt of the indefinite superiority of the ECJ – this is in paragraph 5:   “In the interpretation and application of this Agreement, the United Kingdom’s judicial and administrative authorities shall have due regard to relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down after the end of the transition period.”  

I think the key word there is “after”. Yes, the document says we will not be free even after we have finally left.  You can spin it all you want, but that's thewords used.

But it is on this contentious thing about when can we leave finally I conclude.  And do we need the EU to give us permission to do so.   

I think the best place to find that answer is in the document itself.  The ECJ is the final judge of when the UK can end its transition period.    Flip through to Article 164.  This provides for a “Joint Committee” to be co-chaired by the EU and the UK.    If this Joint Committee couldn’t agree, then it could defer to an “arbitration panel” (Article 171).  This is presumably what May has spun as an “independent panel”.    If the “arbitration panel” fails to agree whatever the EU expects it to agree, the ECJ will decide (Article 174).  And in this respect, Article 168 confirms that no party will have recourse to any other party than specified in the agreement. The ECJ will have the final rulling.

In other words, it’s true, the ECJ, the legal arm of the EU, can stop us leaving. It’s there in ink.   

One great tactic of leaders found in history is confuse the people.  Clearly that’s what May is banking on.    

The other great tactic is keep trotting out the same line of your story, even though it's porky pies, on the basis that if you say it often enough, people will begin to believe you.  George Orwell would be proud of Mrs May!    

Or as Bruce Newsome, Ph.D. is a lecturer in International Relations at the University of California Berkeley remarked earlier this week in relation to us leaving the EU, “Lies are easier to sell if you keep everything complicated. It’s the only thing she and the EU are expert at.”