Follow @Brexit on Twitter, join our Facebook group and sign up to our Brexit Bulletin. Theresa May’s government backed down and said it will allow lawmakers to see an assessment of the likely impact of Brexit on the British economy, after realizing it was likely to lose a vote. May told reporters on the plane to China on Tuesday that it would be wrong to release the analysis, which was leaked to Buzzfeed. On landing, she learned that the opposition Labour Party was planning to force a vote on Wednesday calling for lawmakers to be allowed to see the work. With even one of her own ministers calling for its release, May backed down. Announcing the reversal, Brexit Minister Robin Walker said Wednesday that the government will provide the study to Parliament’s Exiting the European Union Committee and other lawmakers “on a strictly confidential basis,” with a reading room provided. He repeated the government line that the analysis is as yet incomplete and contains “a large number of caveats.” “It does not yet reflect the government’s policy approaches and does not represent an accurate reflection of the expected outcome of the negotiations,” Walker told Parliament. “It would not be right to describe these as government numbers since they have not had formal government approval or signoff.” Damaging ImpactAccording to Buzzfeed, the report said that each of the three scenarios modeled, from no trade deal with the EU to membership of the European Economic Area, would bludgeon growth. The hardest Brexit would leave the economy 8 percent smaller than otherwise in 15 years time, and the softest would still slow growth by 2 percent. May’s office said the reason the study isn’t complete is that it has no analysis of the goverment’s preferred outcome from the Brexit negotiations. But Conservative lawmaker Anna Soubry told Parliament that this was because “they haven’t worked out what they want.” Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow said the analysis should be released “as a matter of urgency.” Nicky Morgan, chair of the Treasury Committee, said it should be made public. “The document can hardly undermine the government’s negotiating position if it does not consider the government’s desired outcome,” she said in an emailed statement. “On the contrary, transparency about the consequences of the ‘off-the-shelf’ options that have been modeled will stimulate public debate, strengthen the government’s negotiating hand and improve the final deal that is reached between the U.K. and the EU.” In TroubleThe leak of the analysis has landed two ministers in trouble. Steve Baker had a meeting with his staff on Wednesday morning to discuss his argument to Parliament the previous day that the reports weren’t worthwhile because government civil servants were so bad at making predictions. “I am not able to name an accurate forecast, and I think that they are always wrong,” Baker told lawmakers Tuesday, when asked specifically about civil service predictions. These comments were attacked by the civil service labor union, and on Wednesday Baker tweeted that he’d had a “brilliant jolly conversation” with his officials on the value of forecasting. “Happily, they know I still love them and my critique is of economic method, not individuals,” he said. Meanwhile Justice Minister Philip Lee has been told off by party managers for comments he made on Twitter on Tuesday evening. “The next phase of Brexit has to be all about the evidence,” he wrote. “We can’t just dismiss this and move on. If there is evidence to the contrary, we need to see and consider that too.” Lee said he supported May’s “mission to make the best” of the “tough cards” she had been dealt. But he said it was “time for evidence, not dogma, to show the way.” May’s office said Baker hadn’t been disciplined for his comments. Read again UK's May Backs Down Over Brexit Economic Impact Studies : http://ift.tt/2nrYIzq
0 Comments
Alex Barker and Jim Brunsden in Brussels The EU is threatening sanctions to stop Britain undercutting the continent’s economy after Brexit, including “tax blacklists” and penalties against state-subsidised companies, according to a leaked strategy paper. The measures, outlined in a presentation to EU27 member states last week, show the bloc wants unprecedented safeguards after the UK leaves to preserve a “level playing field” and counter the “clear risks” of Britain slashing taxes or relaxing regulation. Brussels describes the UK economy as too big and too close to treat like a normal trade partner and wants to define new ways to enforce restrictions on taxation, state aid, environmental standards and employment rights. The negotiators said any deal on future relations had to “cater to the specificities” of the UK-EU relations — implying the “depth and breadth” of relations justifies tighter controls than those expected of the US, Japan or Canada. Noting such strict curbs do not feature in standard trade deals, the EU paper argues innovative mechanisms will be needed to keep the UK in check, either through conditions in a trade agreement or separate retaliatory measures. “International rules do not adequately address the [potential] distortive effects of subsidies on investment, trade and competition,” the paper states. “The EU-UK agreement will have to include robust provisions on state aid to ensure a level playing field.” While British negotiators expected the EU to take a hard stance against “unfair” competition, the breadth of concerns and the high expectations raised will be alarming for London. Curbs on tax and employment rules in particular are likely to anger Brexiters, who are relishing the opportunity to break free from the EU’s regulatory orbit.
British officials point out that the EU would need to provide “special” levels of trade access to justify such “special” restraints on Britain’s competitiveness. The slides, seen by the Financial Times, say the UK is “likely to use tax to gain competitiveness” and note it is already a low-tax economy with a “large number of offshore entities”. It candidly acknowledges the bloc has “very limited legal/political restrictions to prevent this”. Outlining their “proposed approach” to ensure tax standards are upheld, the EU negotiators call for “binding requirements” on information sharing, anti-tax avoidance measures and transparency. Should Britain shirk such agreements, the paper warns, “the EU has its unilateral listing process for unco-operative tax jurisdictions”. The tax blacklist is on a “menu of options” for punishing regulatory dumping by the UK, a range of measures from “financial sanctions” and injunctions against companies to “cross retaliation” that suspends UK trading rights. On employment and environmental standards, the EU negotiators highlight the risk of Britain “undermining Europe as an area of high social protection”. Examples given include Britain potentially relaxing emissions curbs on power stations or worker rights in chemical plants. It specifically notes a “potential €4.7bn gain for UK industry per annum in reduced direct costs” by ditching EU emissions limits. Given these dangers, the EU champions a “tailored approach” to future relations, including “non-regression clauses” that ensure EU standards are not diluted after Brexit. EU leaders across the continent have publicly emphasised the importance of a level playing field, making it one of the most politically sensitive aspects of trade negotiations with London. Some senior EU diplomats, however, worry that the political expectations go beyond what it is possible to enforce or agree. “This is our big weakness,” said one. Theresa May, the British prime minister, last year warned the EU against a “punitive” Brexit deal, saying Britain would fight back by setting “the competitive tax rates and the policies that would attract the world’s best companies and biggest investors”. Read again EU seeks powers to stop post-Brexit bonfire of regulation : http://ift.tt/2GwUkYOIrish Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Coveney has said the UK should seek the "closest possible" alignment with the European Union's customs rules after Brexit. Mr Coveney was speaking at Chatham House in London on Wednesday. He said the British government should "reflect carefully" on which Brexit options would secure prosperity. Mr Coveney also proposed a new mechanism to improve co-operation between London and Dublin. "We should examine seriously the possibility of bringing both governments together annually, in London or Dublin in alternate years, to discuss issues of mutual co-operation or concern," he said. "This annual summit of all senior ministers would allow for cooperation across a broad range of issues of shared interest - everything from energy to the environment, and from transport to technology and employment. "It could also be prepared for in the preceding weeks and months by teams of officials from the relevant departments or ministries." In a separate development on Wednesday, the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) chief constable said the "biggest practical vulnerability" regarding Brexit is the potential removal of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW). The EAW operates EU-wide and replaced separate extradition arrangements between the EU member states. George Hamilton was appearing before a House of Lords committee on Wednesday. The Lords committee met at Stormont. Mr Hamilton said the PSNI needs an alternative arrangement with the Republic of Ireland and other countries where there are no parallel or pre-existing extradition arrangements. It is part of an inquiry into future British Irish relations after Brexit. "Probably the biggest practical vulnerability for us is the removal of the European Arrest Warrant," Mr Hamilton said "From our perspective, we need an alternative arrangement with the Republic of Ireland and, actually, with other countries where there aren't pre-existing or parallel extradition arrangements." The chief constable said he did not feel "we are in a better place" in regards to what will happen post-Brexit than when he provided a written submission to the committee 18 months ago. "We do think it is legitimate for the police to identify operational consequences and therefore mechanisms that need to be put in place to replace the current EU-sponsored arrangements," he said. "We have been treading carefully to not appear and, in effect not to move into, what is a political debate, but we also feel a certain concern and lack of assurance, actually, that we're saying the same things now that we said 18 months ago." Read again Brexit: Simon Coveney says UK should 'reflect' on its options : http://ift.tt/2Esu6WBCaroline Binham in London Banks across the EU are to be tested to make sure they can withstand potential doomsday Brexit consequences, including a severe recession that would leave the bloc’s economy 8.3 per cent smaller than it otherwise would have been. In what it billed as its toughest stress tests to date — even though there is no pass or fail — the European Banking Authority on Wednesday unveiled the scenarios against which 48 of the largest banks across the 28-member bloc will be tested, with results to be published by early November. The worst scenario involves a severe recession which would leave EU GDP 8.3 per cent lower by 2020 than it would have been compared to the latest European Central Bank forecasts; a 27.7 per cent slump in residential property prices by 2020; and a 3.3 percentage point rise in unemployment. In 2019, the year when Britain is due to leave the EU, the EBA’s model implies a contraction of 2.2 per cent followed by a weak recovery with growth of 0.7 per cent in 2020. Supporters of Brexit have tended to argue that a “no-deal” Brexit could prove as damaging for the EU as for the UK because cutting the bloc off from the City of London could undermine financial stability on the continent. While scenarios in stress tests do not constitute forecasts, they are used to make sure banks can withstand doomsday shocks without recourse to the taxpayer bailouts seen during the financial crisis. These are the first worst-case scenarios around Brexit modelled by an EU financial regulator to be made public. While the Bank of England has been vocal that Brexit could pose a risk to financial stability for the EU as much as for the UK, European authorities have said little about the risks they are modelling for around Brexit. “The adverse scenario encompasses a wide range of macroeconomic risks that could be associated with Brexit. Elements of the baseline scenario already reflect the average of a range of possible outcomes from the United Kingdom’s trading relationship with the European Union,” the EBA said in accompanying documents. The shortfall in economic growth assumed in the EBA’s stress test — 8.3 per cent over two years — is large compared to most predictions of the impact of Brexit on economic output across the other 27 EU members. An analysis by the European Commission — based on other institutions’ forecasts — last year suggested that on average EU countries’ growth would be 0.01 to 0.05 percentage points lower per year over the next decade as a result of Brexit. The impact of Brexit is expected to have a much larger impact on economic output for the UK than for the other 27 EU member states. The UK government’s latest analysis, which was leaked on Monday, suggested that — even assuming a “no-deal” Brexit in which the UK had to rely on trading with the EU under WTO rules — UK GDP would be 8 per cent lower after 15 years than if the UK were to remain in the EU. Earlier this month, Philip Lane, governor of Ireland’s central bank and a member of the ECB’s governing council, warned that a hard Brexit with no transition period could cause an economic shock and imperil financial stability across the bloc. The EBA’s doomsday scenario was calculated with input from the ECB and the European Systemic Risk Board. The baseline for its stress tests is the ECB’s forecast in December, which predicted the EU economy would grow by 1.9 per cent in 2019 and 1.8 per cent in 2020. Even without a pass or fail — the EBA claims the tests are designed more to inform supervisors in their dialogue with banks — the rigour of the EBA’s stress tests have been questioned, particularly in comparison with those run in the UK and United States. Despite the tests purporting to provide a meaningful comparison between banks in different jurisdictions, Deutsche Bank got special treatment in the last set in 2016, the Financial Times revealed. The ECB, the supervisor of the largest eurozone banks, allowed Deutsche to include an acquisition that had not completed by the official cut-off point used for balance sheets in the tests. The EBA does not have the power to reject deviations sanctioned by banks’ direct supervisors. This year’s tests — the last before the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 — are the first to incorporate new accounting changes dubbed IFRS 9, which force banks to make provisions for expected losses in the future. The hope is to avoid problems that occurred during the crisis, when banks could not book losses until they happened, even though they could see them coming. Banks complained that incorporating IFRS 9 would take them more time, and so the EBA agreed to move its traditional summer publication of results to early November. The EBA is currently based in London but will have to move its headquarters to Paris after Brexit. Read again EU banking authority to test banks for 8.3% post-Brexit slump : http://ift.tt/2GvUIqB[unable to retrieve full-text content] Jim Brunsden in Brussels EU Brexit negotiators have set out a tough line on financial services, ruling out an ambitious trade deal for the lucrative sector and arguing that Europe would benefit from a smaller City of London, according to confidential discussions among the other 27 EU member states. In a rebuff to the UK, which is seeking to put financial services at the heart of a trade deal with the bloc, an internal EU27 meeting this week concluded that future arrangements should be based on “equivalence” — the limited and revocable access given to third-country institutions — rather than a wide-ranging new pact. At present, such provisions give financial groups from countries such as the US conditional access to the single market for some services. “There was a strong commission message that there would be no special deal,” said an EU diplomat briefed on the discussions — a first attempt to thrash out the bloc’s position on the issue before negotiations with Britain start in March. “The UK is being told from the beginning what the situation is.” Ensuring that financial services are not badly hit by Brexit is a top priority for the UK, since the sector is Britain’s biggest source of exports and tax revenue. Theresa May’s government has also argued that if the City is damaged it would adversely affect financial stability and EU groups’ cost of financing, while contributing to the fragmentation of the sector. But participants said that in the EU27 meeting the European Commission played down the risks of cutting off the City to EU businesses, saying the financial sector was mobile enough to adapt. They added that the commission maintained a smaller City could benefit financial stability and the development of capital markets in the EU27. The discussion focused on future relations after a transition period that Brussels intends to end by December 31 2020. The commission negotiator also told the meeting that giving the City extensive market access could leave the EU more vulnerable in a crisis. Brussels’ fear is that, in a financial emergency, UK regulators would prioritise continuity in firms’ UK operations over their activities in the EU27. This could lead to outflows of capital and liquidity or the withdrawal of vital services at a critical moment. While no country contradicted the approach of the commission, which is conducting the negotiations with the UK, the discussion highlighted differences between member states. Germany, Sweden and Luxembourg cited the benefits of continuing co-operation with the UK, while France argued the costs of a hard break would be limited and easy to contain. Like the commission, Paris said there was a need to prevent the UK undercutting the bloc’s financial rules and urged Brussels to encourage London-based companies to trigger relocation plans. According to one person briefed on its thinking, the commission will send out notices warning a wide range of different financial firms to be prepared for Brexit and the lapse of the UK’s rights as an EU member. These include banks and payment service providers, insurers, asset managers and brokerages, as well as auditors and credit-ratings agencies. Brussels has already prepared itself for Brexit by toughening its criteria for granting equivalence to systemically important non-EU financial centres, and the commission negotiator told the meeting that intensive talks would be needed with the UK on financial stability arrangements. The commission official also said the ball was in the UK’s court to set out ideas for how trade in financial services might operate after Brexit. Read again EU rejects Brexit trade deal for UK financial services sector : http://ift.tt/2GzdP2Q[unable to retrieve full-text content] Nearly two years after Britons voted in favor of the U.K. leaving the European Union, some are calling for a second Brexit referendum. This time, however, the question isn’t whether the U.K. should leave the bloc, but how. Concern over what kind of final deal the U.K. will get out of its negotiations with the EU has fueled the recent interest in a second referendum. A survey published Friday by the Guardian and British pollster ICM found that 47 percent of British voters surveyed support having a say on the terms of a final Brexit deal. When one omits the respondents who said they were undecided, support jumps to 58 percent. And the support comes from voters on both sides of the Brexit debate: The poll estimates that one quarter of “leave” voters also favor having a second referendum on the final deal. The debate over the type of final deal the U.K. should seek is almost as fraught as the one over whether it should leave the bloc at all. Some, like London Mayor Sadiq Khan, have called for a final deal that allows the U.K. to remain within the EU’s single market and customs union, while others, like British Trade Secretary Liam Fox, adamantly oppose the U.K. staying in either. The debate is made no less contentious by revelations that all plausible Brexit scenarios—including those in which the U.K. stays in the single market, those in which it leaves the single market (but with a free-trade agreement with the EU), and a hard Brexit (leaving the single market without a deal)—appear to leave the U.K. worse off than it is currently. A leaked Brexit impact report prepared by the British government found that, in all plausible scenarios, almost every sector of the U.K. economy would take a hit. Polling has shown that if the U.K. were to put the original Brexit referendum to a re-vote, the outcome would closely mirror the first outcome, albeit with reversed results: 51 percent are projected to support remaining in the EU, with 49 percent in favor of leaving it. This is likely due, at least in part, to the fact that the demographic divides surrounding the Brexit debate have remained consistent. Voters under the age of 24 are still more likely to want to remain, and voters over the age of 65 are just as determined to leave. In fact, a new report by the independent London-based research institute U.K. in a Changing Europe found that one consequence of Brexit has been the creation of two new, and seemingly unyielding, political identities: Leavers and Remainers. “And one thing we know about identities is that they do not easily shift,” the report reads. “Eighteen months on from the referendum, its effects on our politics show no sign of dissipating. … There is thus little evidence to support the Prime Minister’s statement that Britain ‘has come together’ to face the challenge of Brexit. It seems that she is presiding over a divided and polarized nation.” Complicating matters, those expressing interest in a second referendum are probably interpreting what that means differently, depending on whichever final Brexit outcome they favor. “Remainers are thinking about a referendum that gives you a choice between Theresa May’s deal and staying in the European Union,” Anand Menon, the director of U.K. in a Changing Europe, told me. “Some people are thinking if we have a referendum, it should be between Theresa May’s deal and leaving with no deal at all. And other people seem to think that having a vote on the deal means you have three or four options on a menu for sorts of deals you can have with the EU and you pick one, which obviously isn’t possible because she will have negotiated a single deal by then.” The British parliament is one group that will be guaranteed a final say on whatever divorce terms U.K. negotiators agree to with the EU. In December, the parliament backed an amendment to the EU withdrawal bill that codifies British lawmakers’ right to reject the terms of the agreement and send both sides back to the negotiating table. Menon notes, however, that the British government might not have the luxury of that kind of time. “A vote in October isn’t a meaningful vote because it’s too late for parliament to actually amend the terms that are negotiated,” he said. “So the choice is basically have this deal or have no deal.” The UK needs a data-sharing deal with Europe to prevent serious problems for security and the economy, two former intelligence chiefs have said. But Robert Hannigan and Sir John Sawers told the BBC it would be a mistake if the UK's strength in the field became a "bargaining chip" in the Brexit talks. Former MI6 chief Sir John said the talks were "not a zero-sum game". Ex-GCHQ head Mr Hannigan said it would not be ethical to threaten to withhold material which might stop terrorism. No bordersWhen terror attacks hit Paris in late 2015, British intelligence scrambled to find out what it could about the attackers. At the UK's spy agency, GCHQ, a team worked on tracing their communications while MI5 looked for connections to the UK. It was all a sign that modern threats - whether terrorism, cyber attacks or Russian subversion - rarely respect borders. The Paris attacks showed that those responsible crossed borders with greater ease than information which might stop them. That led some to argue for closer co-operation, while others cited it as evidence of the need instead for stronger national border controls. "Europe is going to be our security backyard forever," Sir John told the BBC. "And we need to be able to work very closely with our European partners in order to maximise our own security. "And their security benefits our security. The more secure France is, the fewer dangerous people are likely to cross from Calais to Dover." On one level, Brexit does little to threaten these key intelligence and security relationships. This is because in almost all cases the intelligence flows bilaterally - country to country - rather than through Brussels. "As an institution, the EU's role is extremely limited," Mr Hannigan said. "It doesn't really get involved in any sharing of operational intelligence. The real co-operation on operations - counter-terrorism or cyber or hostile states - goes on bilaterally and always has." GCHQ, for instance, would have a liaison in Paris who could ensure information relevant to the protection of France would be shared quickly. 'Need our help'Officials in Europe and the UK are also aware that intelligence and security is a relative British strength and other countries will not want to be cut off from Britain's contribution. "The thing that is driving the quality of those relationships currently is the darkness of the threat and the common concern about it," Andrew Parker, the current head of MI5, told the Intelligence and Security Committee last year - with his comments included in its annual report. "Half of Europe is scared of terrorism and the other half is scared of Russia and both halves want us to help them… That will not change with Brexit," he said. The only significant EU intelligence sharing body is INTCEN, which shares analysis of the threats with policymakers. Some European intelligence officers say that even though Britain is an intelligence powerhouse, there are areas - such as North Africa - where other European services may have better insights. Because Britain is a net giver rather than receiver of intelligence, particularly in MI5's counter-terrorism experience and GCHQ's extensive collection of communications and cyber activity, there was discussion in government early last year about using what some called the "security surplus" as a bargaining chip in negotiations. 'Bargaining chip'But the former intelligence officers caution against playing the security card. "The Brexit negotiation is not a zero-sum game," argues Sir John, who was chief of MI6 until 2014. "Security co-operation can help create an atmosphere in which the EU-27 and the UK can see that it is in everyone's interests to maintain a climate of co-operation. "If either side try to use it as a bargaining chip or a point of leverage it's likely to be negative on both sides," he says. Theresa May's letter to Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, setting out her stall on Britain's position surprised some within the intelligence community with its language, and the three serving British intelligence chiefs together expressed concerns, according to one official. Mr Hannigan, who left GCHQ before the letter, also cautions against playing the security card in upcoming trade negotiations. "I've never thought this was realistic or indeed ethically sound," he told the BBC. "I mean how could you possibly think of withholding material that might stop a terrorist attack in exchange for fish quotas or something. It's absurd." The data questionBut there is one issue that does worry British spies about Brexit - and that is data. The ability to move data across borders is vital - such as information on suspects moving from one country to another. This is even more of an issue for policing and border forces, but their work overlaps with the counter-terrorist work of security services who also increasingly share data on cyber threats. Any impediment to this flow would be a real issue, former and current officials say. "It would be a very serious problem," says Sir John, adding: "The intelligence these days is based very heavily on having access to data." Sharing and retaining data requires meeting EU safeguards on privacy. "We have been an active player in that within Europe and now European rules will be made without us and we will be outside the immediate legal framework. "But that is something that the British government is going to have to address very early on - how we continue to retain data." ECJ 'burden'The EU rules have also been shaped by legal challenges at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Mr Hannigan, who had to deal with the legal challenges as head of GCHQ, said it would not be as simple as being freed from the burden of the court. He said it was a "bit naive" to think being free from the ECJ would "solve all our problems". "It will solve our problems if we only wanted data to flow within the UK and never to leave its borders," he says, adding: "But that would mean cutting ourselves off from the modern world. "That means what the EU regards as adequate regulation of privacy [and] protection of privacy is incredibly important to us and it does effectively give the ECJ a say in what we do." The US has had to negotiate a deal with the EU and this has proved a difficult and lengthy process. But a UK deal will be vital not just for national security but the economy as a whole. "The UK equivalent - which we will now need to negotiate - will be very difficult," says Mr Hannigan. "And we will have to take some time to do it. But it's vital to the economy broadly." Read again Post-Brexit data sharing crucial, say ex-intelligence heads : http://ift.tt/2GAn4jyLabour will try to force the government to release its latest assessment of the impact of Brexit on the economy through a binding Commons vote. The leaked study suggests that in three different scenarios the UK economy would grow more slowly than it would if it stayed in the European Union. Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer said MPs needed the details to make informed decisions. The government said the document could damage UK negotiations with the EU. The leaked document, titled EU Exit Analysis - Cross Whitehall Briefing, suggests that almost every part of the economy would do less well as otherwise expected, according to Buzzfeed which has seen it. It looked at scenarios ranging from leaving with no deal to remaining within the EU single market. Brexit minister Steve Baker said the government would not be publishing the study, adding that it was at a "preliminary" stage and had not been approved by ministers. It "does not yet take account of the opportunities of leaving the EU", he said, adding that civil service forecasts were "always wrong, and wrong for good reasons". But Labour's Sir Keir said: "People voted to leave the European Union in part to give Parliament control about its own future. "That means giving MPs the information they need to scrutinise the government's approach to Brexit. "Ministers cannot keep sidelining Parliament to hide the deep divisions within their own party," he added. "They should accept this motion and allow the country to have an informed debate about its relationship with Europe after Brexit." In an opposition day debate later, Labour will use an archaic parliamentary procedure to bring a vote which would be binding on the government. On Tuesday, a number of pro-Remain Conservatives joined opposition MPs in calling for the analysis to be released, suggesting the vote could be close. Former Conservative chancellor Kenneth Clarke accused ministers of trying to protect the government from "political embarrassment" in refusing to release the document. The report, seen by Buzzfeed, suggests UK economic growth would be 8% lower than current forecasts, in 15 years' time, if the country left the bloc with no deal and reverted to World Trade Organisation rules. It says growth would be 5% lower if Britain negotiated a free trade deal and 2% lower even if the UK were to continue to adhere to the rules of the single market. All scenarios assume a new deal with the US. Read again Labour seeks to force publication of leaked Brexit study : http://ift.tt/2GyL2LY |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2018
Categories |