Six gaps in Whitehall’s Brexit analysis

J. Jessop
{"title":"Six gaps in Whitehall’s Brexit analysis","authors":"J. Jessop","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3853679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Whitehall Briefing (leaked in January but only officially released this month) is not the last word on the potential long-term economic impact of Brexit, despite claims from others that it ‘proves’ GDP will be lower in ‘all’ scenarios. As the report itself says, it is only ‘draft analytical thinking with preliminary results’, with many gaps and uncertainties. In particular, officials had not attempted to quantify the outcome that the government is actually seeking to achieve, including a new and comprehensive free trade deal with the EU that minimises both tariff and non-tariff barriers. Instead, the Briefing only looks at three alternative trade scenarios based on existing precedents. It does suggest that the UK might land somewhere in-between. But the outcome will depend on talks with the EU that have not yet even begun, as well as future policy choices to be made by HMG alone. For example, the Briefing recognises that the impact of leaving the Customs Union on customs barriers between the UK and EU could be anywhere between ‘high’ and ‘none’, depending on what new arrangements are agreed. Here, some have argued it is wrong to model something that the EU may not be willing to accept. But the purpose of scenario analysis is to look at a range of possible outcomes, not to close options down. Elsewhere, the Briefing includes only skimpy assessments of the scope for new trade deals with the rest of the world and for regulatory optimisation, and is too quick to dismiss the budget savings on payments to the EU. Overall, the ‘Cross Whitehall Briefing’ is an honest attempt to improve on the analysis published by the Treasury in 2016. But it is far from conclusive, and anyone claiming otherwise should read it again.","PeriodicalId":426783,"journal":{"name":"PSN: Trade Policy (Topic)","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PSN: Trade Policy (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3853679","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Whitehall Briefing (leaked in January but only officially released this month) is not the last word on the potential long-term economic impact of Brexit, despite claims from others that it ‘proves’ GDP will be lower in ‘all’ scenarios. As the report itself says, it is only ‘draft analytical thinking with preliminary results’, with many gaps and uncertainties. In particular, officials had not attempted to quantify the outcome that the government is actually seeking to achieve, including a new and comprehensive free trade deal with the EU that minimises both tariff and non-tariff barriers. Instead, the Briefing only looks at three alternative trade scenarios based on existing precedents. It does suggest that the UK might land somewhere in-between. But the outcome will depend on talks with the EU that have not yet even begun, as well as future policy choices to be made by HMG alone. For example, the Briefing recognises that the impact of leaving the Customs Union on customs barriers between the UK and EU could be anywhere between ‘high’ and ‘none’, depending on what new arrangements are agreed. Here, some have argued it is wrong to model something that the EU may not be willing to accept. But the purpose of scenario analysis is to look at a range of possible outcomes, not to close options down. Elsewhere, the Briefing includes only skimpy assessments of the scope for new trade deals with the rest of the world and for regulatory optimisation, and is too quick to dismiss the budget savings on payments to the EU. Overall, the ‘Cross Whitehall Briefing’ is an honest attempt to improve on the analysis published by the Treasury in 2016. But it is far from conclusive, and anyone claiming otherwise should read it again.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国政府脱欧分析存在六大漏洞
白厅简报(1月份泄露,但直到本月才正式发布)并不是对英国脱欧潜在长期经济影响的最后定论,尽管有人声称它“证明”在“所有”情况下GDP都会下降。正如报告本身所说,这只是“初步结果的分析思维草案”,存在许多差距和不确定性。特别是,官员们没有试图量化政府实际寻求实现的结果,包括与欧盟达成一项新的、全面的自由贸易协议,将关税和非关税壁垒降至最低。相反,《简报》只根据现有的先例研究了三种可供选择的贸易情景。它确实表明,英国可能会落在两者之间的某个地方。但结果将取决于与欧盟的谈判(甚至尚未开始),以及HMG单独做出的未来政策选择。例如,《简报》承认,离开关税同盟对英国和欧盟之间关税壁垒的影响可能介于“高”和“零”之间,这取决于双方达成了什么新安排。在这方面,一些人认为,模仿欧盟可能不愿意接受的东西是错误的。但情景分析的目的是研究一系列可能的结果,而不是关闭选项。在其他方面,《简报》仅对英国与世界其他地区新贸易协定的范围和监管优化的范围进行了粗略的评估,而且对英国向欧盟支付的预算节省也草率地不予考虑。总的来说,这份“跨白厅简报”是对财政部2016年发布的分析进行改进的诚实尝试。但它远不是结论性的,任何持不同观点的人都应该再读一遍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Trade Diversion Effects of the US-China Trade War on Vietnam U.S. International Trade Commission Testimony The New Trade Route: The Story of the IEA, Brexit and the UK's New Approach to Global Trade Biden’s Trade Policies - Recalibrated, More Focused, and a Bit Concerning International Trade Costs in Services: An Empirical Analysis Through Gravity Framework
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1