Chancellor Told To Publish Full Brexit Resesarch
14 October 2018, 09:18 | Updated: 14 October 2018, 10:32
MPs, business leaders and researchers from Herts, Bucks and Northants callled for urgent clarification from the Chancellor over the Treasury's full Brexit analysis over the economy.
Leading Euro-sceptic Peter Bone has called on the Chancellor to publish full research into the Government's economic analysis.
In an open letter in the Sunday Telegraph, the Wellingborough MP says the public are battered and bewildered by conflicting predictions for the UK's ecomony after Brexit.
The letter has been co-signed by Tim Martin (pictured), the chairman of the Watford-based pub-chain Wetherspoons, Professor Tim Congdon, the founder of the Institute of International Monetary Research associated with the University of Buckingham and the former MP for Hitchin and Harpenden; Lord Lilley and many others.
(see the letter in full below).
Meanwhile in the Sunday Times the former Brexit secretary David Davis is urging the Cabinet to stage a mutiny against Theresa May's plan for leaving the EU.
Mrs May's plan could keep the UK in a customs union to avoid a hard Irish border.
David Davis has described it as "completely unacceptable".
LETTER TO THE CHANCELLOR
It is imperative, as we approach votes on the Government's proposed future relationship with the EU, that we have an open debate on the Government's modelling.
It is unacceptable that the Government leaks the results of its modelling when it suits but simultaneously hides what lies behind these forecasts from the public. The Cross-Whitehall Brexit Analysis leaked to the news website Buzzfeed early this year and subsequently ‘published’ in the form of 24 PowerPoint slides, forecasts a 7.7 per cent hit to GDP under a World Trade Deal under WTO rules and a 4.8 per cent contraction under Canada Plus.
While all such forecasts are only indicators of orders of magnitude and general direction, independent private sector forecasts and those of Whitehall are wildly far apart, many of which forecast a positive impact on GDP. Such differences have huge consequences for Brexit strategy and the longterm trajectory of future public expenditure, taxation, and borrowing.
Your recent evidence to the Lords' Economic Affairs Committee confirms that the key points of difference are now the benefits accruing from free trade agreements and the impact of any possible new non-tariff barriers. With regard to the latter, you appear to believe that the EU will behave illegally and in defiance of WTO rules that are backed by the international legal order.
Differences in assumptions must be debated in detail and resolved. Adopting a constructive and transparent approach would be in the national interest. The general public is battered and bewildered by conflicting predictions of the future path of the economy following Brexit, fuelling a growing suspicion that Whitehall is engaging in what is apparently known internally as 'policybased evidence-making'.
We therefore propose that you publish in full detail the cross-Whitehall Brexit analysis and the underlying models and assumptions so that experts from all sides can study its methodology, assumptions, and conclusions. "