( THREE MINUTE READ)
As Britain’s negotiations to leave the European Union enter their crunch moment, let’s be clear on one thing:
The EU doesn’t need to punish Britain for leaving; the referendum did that just fine.
To have a meaningful Parliamentary vote on a withdrawal agreement Parliament and the taxpayer require an up-to-date estimate of the settlement’s costs, as well as better information on the wider potential costs of withdrawal.
Without this, MPs and the taxpayer won’t have complete information about the potential costs of the government’s deal with the EU.
The UK’s contribution to the EU’s outstanding commitments and liabilities after 2020 is unknown.
Any estimate excludes the costs that may arise from parts of the withdrawal agreement still to be negotiated. But there are other potentially significant ongoing costs likely to arise from post-Brexit restructuring—for example, new trade and customs arrangements, replacement institutions and the costs of participating in EU programmes as a non-member state.
FOR EXAMPLE, UK payments to cover pension and benefit costs could run for decades.
A Parliamentary vote on EU withdrawal will only be truly meaningful if this information is disclosed in a timely fashion.
Is it possible to take part in the economic advantages of the European project without having to bear the associated political costs of relinquishing sovereignty?
THERE IS ONE THING ABOUT BREXIT THAT IS TRUE AND THAT IS THE COST NOT IN FINANCIAL TERMS BUT IN WHAT IT HAS UNLEASHED POLITICALLY BOTH IN ENGLAND AND THE EU ITSELF. WEAKING BOTH.
Any dividend are still too remote even to assess.
The economic impact various degrees depending who you believe.
We don’t know the shape of the Brexit deal, including what arrangements will be put in place to keep trade flowing. And Brexiters complain such exercises tend to use assumptions that favour negative results.
However, you model how the U.K. economy it would have grown had the referendum gone the other way.
Leaving without a deal is now a high possibility and it stands to reason that in the short term it will lead to lower growth which means lost income for the government, meaning it has to borrow more to meet its spending goals.
If the U.K. remains in the customs union and achieves a trade deal with minimal barriers, tariffs or otherwise, the economy will recover lost ground in a shorter time.
On the leaver’s side, it seems that economic toll doesn’t matter. They voted for “control,” for sovereignty over laws and borders above all.
There must be a solution to the conflict that is better for everyone involved than a Brexit, which would burn all the bridges.
Here is my suggestion.
Hold a peoples assembly to decide on what question or questions should be on the ballot paper in a peoples referendum.
Call a halt to Article 50 provided it is agreed that the Uk net contributions to the EU’s limited to 0.03% of GDP. The cost of such a compromise would have to be borne by the other member states provided the Uk takes an active and reformist leadership role in Europe – Good for All.
Article 50 is always open it can be used TO LEAVE whenever if there is no improvement.
All human comments appreciated. All abuse and like clicks chucked in the bin.