Not a great deal happened last week. Nick Clegg said that the government is "up Brexit creek without a paddle"; George Osborne reared his head to make the point that "Brexit won a majority, hard Brexit did not."; economic forecasts compiled by the Treasury predicted that Brexit would not hurt growth this year; a bunch of new poll results were released, one showing that support for Brexit remains at 52%, another simultaneously revealing that whilst a majority of big business leaders think Britain has a bright future, a majority are also considering moving operations out of the country; and finally, top German officials implied that they would get very annoyed indeed if Britain tries to play by her own rules in the negotiations.
reading list
The conversation seems to have shifted rather dramatically towards hard vs. soft Brexit. Roland Smith (a must-follow) provided us with a handy chart outlining exactly what this means:
Some definitions of Brexit, including Soft and Hard. pic.twitter.com/sgFOpjRZ8O
— Roland Smith (@rolandmcs) September 22, 2016
"Hard Brexit" has been more commonly been called the WTO option (or some variation of it), and visitors to this site will know that I think this option is a thoroughly unnecessary risk to take in the short term and the worst place we could hope to find ourselves at the end of the Article 50 negotiations. There is a great deal of worry around the prospect of a hard Brexit, particularly as Liam Fox seems so in favour of the idea. Much of the concern is coming from the city, where a hard Brexit probably means the loss of passporting rights for financial services, as rightfully pointed out by Bundesbank boss Jens Weidmann. CEO of the Financial Conduct Authority Andrew Bailey also wrote to Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee Andrew Tyrie expressing the implications of losing passporting rights.
A true hard Brexit also means leaving the single market, which will impact upon our trade relationship with the EU in a massive way unless a trade agreement is reached during the Article 50 period. Albeit slightly late to the party, OpenEurope have reiterated that the prospect of agreeing such a deal within the two year framework is almost impossible, and that Brexit must be done step-by-step rather than abruptly. An investigation by the independent this week found that the cost to the British economy of exiting the single market without a trade deal would very likely be more than £4.5 billion a year.
The threat of a hard Brexit is starting to be fully understood, with Brexiteers and Remainers of all political persuasions uniting in an effort to rubbish the idea. Brexiteer Phillip Johnston writes that "Nigel Farage needs to stop telling me why I voted for Brexit", echoing the statement by George Osborne that "Brexit won a majority, not hard Brexit." In the Guardian Anne McElvoy argues the same point, and pushes for the Remainers, Brexiteers and Theresa May to start building the narrative around a gradual and de-risked Brexit. Sam Bowman from the Adam Smith Institute attempts to clear up the whole hard vs soft thing, and explains why he favours the latter. Jeremy Corbyn even came out firmly against a hard Brexit after winning the Labour leadership race. The hard Brexiteers are coming out in full force however, with Tory backbenchers setting up their own pro-hard Brexit group.
Elsewhere, Gary Robinson looks at a few of the exit strategies, in particular the Swiss option and it's suitability for Britain, and Liberal Brexiteer Ben Kelly argues that there will be no "bonfire of regulations" after Brexit, and that we shouldn't even want one.
alex.davies@gmchamber.co.uk
@GMCC_Alex
A true hard Brexit also means leaving the single market, which will impact upon our trade relationship with the EU in a massive way unless a trade agreement is reached during the Article 50 period. Albeit slightly late to the party, OpenEurope have reiterated that the prospect of agreeing such a deal within the two year framework is almost impossible, and that Brexit must be done step-by-step rather than abruptly. An investigation by the independent this week found that the cost to the British economy of exiting the single market without a trade deal would very likely be more than £4.5 billion a year.
The threat of a hard Brexit is starting to be fully understood, with Brexiteers and Remainers of all political persuasions uniting in an effort to rubbish the idea. Brexiteer Phillip Johnston writes that "Nigel Farage needs to stop telling me why I voted for Brexit", echoing the statement by George Osborne that "Brexit won a majority, not hard Brexit." In the Guardian Anne McElvoy argues the same point, and pushes for the Remainers, Brexiteers and Theresa May to start building the narrative around a gradual and de-risked Brexit. Sam Bowman from the Adam Smith Institute attempts to clear up the whole hard vs soft thing, and explains why he favours the latter. Jeremy Corbyn even came out firmly against a hard Brexit after winning the Labour leadership race. The hard Brexiteers are coming out in full force however, with Tory backbenchers setting up their own pro-hard Brexit group.
Elsewhere, Gary Robinson looks at a few of the exit strategies, in particular the Swiss option and it's suitability for Britain, and Liberal Brexiteer Ben Kelly argues that there will be no "bonfire of regulations" after Brexit, and that we shouldn't even want one.
alex.davies@gmchamber.co.uk
@GMCC_Alex
RSS Feed