The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced this morning that he has commissioned independent economic analysis of the impact of different Brexit scenarios on Londoners' jobs and prosperity. The studies — to be published next month — come amid growing confusion over the Government's own economic analysis of Brexit.
As Sadiq Khan's press release said:
The Mayor has commissioned analysis from independent economic experts Cambridge Econometrics into the impact that different Brexit scenarios will have on nine different sectors of the economy in London and across the UK.
These include financial and professional services, the construction and the hospitality sectors, and science and technology.
The analysis will specifically look at the Brexit impact for key indicators such as economic output and employment for London and the UK. It will also pay attention to the fact that many people working in other towns and cities across Britain are employed by companies that anchor themselves in London in order to do business globally.
In total, five scenarios will be modelled that illustrate the range of possible outcomes of the UK's future relationship with the EU. These are:
- A ‘status quo' scenario where the UK remains part of both of the single market and customs union.
- A soft Brexit scenario where the UK remains part of the single market, but not the customs union.
- Another soft Brexit scenario where the UK remains part of the customs union, but not the single market.
- A hard Brexit scenario in which trade between the UK and the EU falls under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules with a two-year transition period from March 2019; and
- The same hard Brexit scenario but without a two-year transition period.
It added:
The Mayor intends to publish the analysis in full in January, and will use it as the basis for a plan to put to Government to mitigate the worst impacts of Brexit on London's economy.
I am pleased for two reasons. First, this clearly needs to be done. Second, as a non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics I am proud we have won the work. As Ben Gardiner, Director of Cambridge Econometrics, said:
We are pleased to have been commissioned to undertake the Brexit impact analysis. We firmly believe that modelling exercises such as ours serve a useful purpose by providing a structure to aid thinking and debate, providing some degree of clarity on what is otherwise a very complex issue.
Quite so.
I should add, I have no involvement in the supply of the services.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
We don’t have Government sponsored impact assessments for Brexit, for the same reason we do not have the Government negotiating ‘plan’ with the EU. It is not because we must keep our ‘hand’ a secret from the ‘other side’ (the EU); but becuase the ‘other side’ is not the EU, but the British people. The Government ‘plan’ is to remove Britian from the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union by any means they may use, without telling the British people anything about the consequences or costs. They do not wish to ‘spook the horses’, and any reference to the real world effects of Brexit on the British people is too politically to risky, too dangerous, too alarming to contemplate.
Other explanations for the lack of Government impact assessments (whether they ever existed, or are now in the shredder), may best be described as ‘flannel’.
Theresa May has said that the so-called ‘breakthrough’; “required give and take on both sides”. What precisely did the EU (or anybody else) have to give Theresa May?
As far as I can see all she has done is adjust the concessions made to Ireland (and the EU) on the border, to make the same concession to Northern Ireland, in spite of the fact that the two propositions are, on the face of it, incommensurable. But that is not Ireland’s problem, Northern Ireland’s problem or the EU’s problem; because the British have underaken to guarantee they can square the circle.
On the face of it, and for the first time – nothing has changed.
Sorry, Richard – Mea Culpa: my ‘typos’ are becoming as persistent as yours (!)
Wow!
Having consulted my crystal ball I predict following:
The review will predict an increasingly negative impact the further we move away from the status quo
David Davis and co will refuse to accept the validity of the work “All forecasts are wrong!” etc
Sadiq Khan will challenge the government to publish their own assessments
David Davis and co say they will weaken our (non existent) negotiating hand.
Anyone want to bet me a tenner that this happens?
Let’s see
My word – someone is going to be busy over Christmas!!!
But I think that is a superb intervention. Superb. I cannot wait to see the results.
It sticks a big finger up at David Davis for a start!
I’d love to see his face when he reads about this.
That’s if he reads at all of course!!!
The House of Lords have published an assessment -bless their ermine socks
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/07/no-deal-brexit-would-be-worst-outcome-possible-for-uk-lords-warn
I predict it will be a thumbs up for option 2 : – A soft Brexit scenario where the UK remains part of the single market, but not the customs union.
Which is to be expected as at applies to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein which are all better off than their nearest EU neighbours.
What won’t be explained is why these countries are constantly belittled by Remainers as if they are idiots. David Cameron, Labour MEPs and the Liberal Democrats were quite explicit about this before the referendum.
At least somebody is doing something.
Independent economics experts?
Bit like that famous explanation of the Holy Roman Empire.
Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.
Does Khan know how loudly people will laugh when they realise you are connected to Cambridge Econocharletans?
If you are going to tell a joke, it is best not to fluff your lines. I write as an authority on typos.
Ahh so that’s why the GOVT didn’t bother with any kind of assessments, after all why bother with experts anyway. Much better to fumble through like the clueless bunch of incompetents they are eh?
Desp
I read elsewhere that you were carrying out this assignment and it’s a pity that this isn’t the case.
Khan has a reputation in certain quarters for opportunism and double dealing and some of his past associations are questionable so it would have bolstered the authority of this work to have emanated from a widely recognised source like yourself.
The company is widely recognised
Well perhaps it is but I don’t think they enjoy the same high profile as you and Khan.
You may quite understandably find the London mayor and his antecedents a little distasteful but it could be beneficial to him to be aligned to a mainstream economics thinker like yourself and, dare one say, bring about a rapprochement for you with the shadow treasury team (in terms of philosophy of course rather than partisan allegiance).