Brexit flags
Image via

What we know about a no-deal Brexit

And why it's really, really confusing when two government bodies say different things about GDP.

Two big Brexit-related things happened yesterday: The Department for Exiting the EU (DEXEU) released a series of papers on what the consequences of a no-deal could be, and Philip Hammond, Chancellor and head of the Treasury, released a letter saying the consequences would be very, very bad.

What it means: When you've got two government bodies (who you'd think would be on the same side) arguing over how much Brexit will affect GDP, it's difficult not to despair for the prospect of understandable economics.

Philip Hammond's letter said a no-deal exit would leave Britain needing to borrow an additional £80bn per year by 2033-34 - a painful statement for a Chancellor who's obsessively tried to lower the amount the government borrows during his time in power. He also said the total value of the goods and services Britain produces could fall by up to 10% in the same time period.

Meanwhile, Dominic Raab, Brexit secretary, was releasing papers on the consequences of no-deal outlining specific changes that could happen – credit card payments to the EU could become more expensive, organic farmers will need a certification to trade with the EU, there may be changes to VAT - but all wrapped in assurances that this probably won't happen and 'Britain's best days lie ahead'.

Both sides started launched doubt and dismissive statements at each other over the course of the day, with hard-line Brexiteers dismissing Hammond's warnings as 'Project Fear'.

But groups like the National Farmers Union have already expressed worry about the contents of the papers, with the Federation of Small Businesses asking for them to be re-issued in in language "every small business owner can understand".

Recent articles

Reader Comments

  • RW

    Your right to a degree. You mentioned “the wandering Jew”.

    I elaborate that the Jewish people, historically have tended to migrate almost exclusively to locations that are economically and culturally vibrant already. I would speculate that Jews have thrived in these places and have often improved the bounds of their economies and knowledge base.

    You can also ask; how many massive entertainment conglomerates, Nobel winners or billionaires has Isreal developed? If Jews are so capable, why isn’t Tel Aviv the Rome of our time?

    Jews are successful because they value education, maintain a strong social cohesive, they actively monitor and have a good sense for Zeitgeist wherever they are and they carefully choose the places they settle and congregate themselves heavily in these choice locations.

    But most importantly (haulocaust increased the importance of this aspect), they actually designed their culture for success. They not only attend Harvard, they use what they learned to better the group as a whole. With as much, they studied intricate networking systems, adapted to it and in many cases improved upon them. (See how Japan acquired Aegis warships and made them better).

    Of course there is nothing wrong with any of this. It’s when you elaborately gain disproportionate power in any society where you would stand out, you must take care when attempting to make a society better (Civil Rights movement) and rewriting that society all together (mass immigration). Ask blacks in China, Mexico, Philippines or India how much opportunity they have? Go to businesses owned by their American diaspora and see how many blacks they hire. Go to Silicon Valley and see how many East or South Asian tech workers wish they could work with more black people. California might work as a state, but as a nation, I think your rolling the nuclear dice here. I hope we can succeed as a tolerant pluralistic superpower but at this stage in human societal development, it’s a pipe dream.

    And if Jews really are the icon for success, they would see that fundamental human successes happen over generations. Just look at the rest of the planet? Are we ready?