THE secret Brexit papers that were never supposed to be seen by the public, detailing the impact on the UK’s economy of leaving the EU, have been released.
Much of what was in the papers, including the nine per cent hit to Scotland’s growth in the event of a hard Brexit, had already been leaked, with Buzzfeed and Sky News printing huge chunks earlier this year.
But yesterday, Parliament’s Brexit committee published just about all of the analysis.
It paints a grim picture with its models of all post-Brexit scenarios – a Norway-type European Economic Area (EEA) model; a free trade agreement; or trade using World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules alone – showing damage to the economy.
The WTO scenario, where the UK fails to agree a free trade deal with Europe, would see GDP decline by a cumulative 7.7 per cent, while staying in the customs union and single market in an EEA deal would see it fall by 1.6 per cent.
The committee’s chairman, Labour MP Hilary Benn, said: “The results of this analysis, undertaken by the Government with the aim of quantifying the potential impact of leaving the EU on the British economy, are already largely in the public domain in one form or another.
“However, allowing this information to be considered in its full context, rather than selectively quoted, will help properly inform public debate about how the figures were arrived at and what the economic effects of Brexit might be.
“The analysis suggests there will be an adverse effect on the economy of the UK and all its regions, and that the degree of impact will depend on the outcome achieved in the negotiations.”
Brexit Secretary David Davis had asked the committee to redact the report, but the MPs mostly ignored that plea, just omitting a single annex.
SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who sits on the committee, tweeted: “Proud to have helped secure release of UK Govt #Brexit #impactassessments. Even factoring in so called gains of #Brexit the impact on the economy is damaging on each of 3 available options just as @theSNP @scotgov predicted in #ScotlandsPlaceInEurope.”
Jacob Rees-Mogg, chairman of the backbench European Research Group, dismissed the work. He said the research had been “so widely leaked and ridiculed for its approach that it is of little consequence”.
The document starts off with a warning about economic forecasts, saying they are “highly uncertain” and cannot factor in unknowns, but it insists the work aims to the “best possible evidence and analysis”.
The paper also suggests UK ministers are going to have to choose between selling out farmers or selling out fishermen.
In their exploration of the standard free trade agreement, the officials assume that there will be tariffs on food and agricultural goods.
They estimate the average tariff on agricultural products exported by the UK to the EU would be 26.1 per cent, and 12.7 per cent for processed food and drink.
Earlier this week, draft EU nego- tiating guidelines promised tariff-free trade in goods “covering all sectors” so long as Britain strikes a deal on fishing rights.
Any post-Brexit gains are also estimated to be tiny, with officials estimating a US trade deal would only help the economy by 0.2 per cent.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here