Impact assessments of Brexit on the UK 'don't exist'

I can't understand the sense in going into a negotiation without knowing the details of what the other side want and what the consequences of a various set of potential outcomes would be.

This strikes me either as Davis being fantastically incompetent, like so incompetent I would be suptised if he is able to get himself dressed in the morning OR he already knows that any report will tell him something he and many people in the country do not want to hear and so they are pursuing a policy of wilfull ignorance.

The terms of the Brexit agreement, in specific, have not been set. There are so many potential different combinations which might be "Brexit" that it impossible to cover all these in your calculations. The actual agreement could be 95% similar to the hypothetical agreement considered in the IA, but that 5% might cause a deviation in sum of hundreds of billions. A comprehensive IA would be incredibly superficial and misleading.

Also, even if it matched 100%, how would you calculate the impact? Say it matched Swiss's terms of access to the EEA, could you take Swiss's data and impose it on our economy? Are our economies not immensely different historically and in substance?

The numbers don't have to be hard and set and stone, but some work to investigate what the impact and scale of particular positions would surely be useful. For example how much would not having access to the common market effect UK import/export markets, how much would it cost to set up and maintain various types of border control between the two parts of Ireland.

There are lots of arguments made about how you cant do a successul negotiation if the other side know what you want (which is obviously total *******s). However it surely has to be even stupider to go into a negotiation when you are not clear on what you want and the benefits, costs and risks of certain positions are a total mystery to you.

The government has had a while Whitehall department dedicated to Brexit for 18 months and they don' appear to have done a great deal in that time

The govt knows that MPs in particular lib dems and some labour will leak it.

How is the govt suppose to negotiate if its red lines and strategy are given to the other side.

Cheap point scoring at such a sensitive junture is disappointing

Considering the EU will simply leak everything [not to mention this current government is probably the leakiest in living memory] thats hardly an excuse.

that's what I said.

Nor is this govt the leakiest in living memory. (Blair vs brown years were the worst)

Also two wrongs dont make a right

As for giving your negotiating partners your bottom line, it would depend on the language of the IA. If it were only of one issue, i.e. EEA access, then it would tell the EU that we are politically married and practically dependent on that outcome. Therefore, they could trade off from our priority to get a better deal on their priorities. A list of possible outcomes and what they would mean to our economy would also inform the EU what outcomes we must be anxious to avoid and again give them leverage. It is not simply "stupid", but I don't think it's the reason why the IA was not carried out.

As I said, a particular outcome which is likely could be calculated but it is very difficult to divorce the impact of that outcome from the agreement as a whole. Say we have free movement of goods in the EEA: you could well say that the level of trade the UK has with the EEA nations would be on the same level as it is currently. However, that would depend on the outcome of other areas of negotiation talks. Will those goods be mutually recognised? You also need to consider the impact of potential trade talks with other countries. Say goods are treated UK-produced goods are treated equal to EU-produced goods, but the US wanted full reciprocal access to the UK market. It might specify that all UK goods in a particular sector have the potential to be traded with the US, and therefore by default those goods might not comply with EU regulations and not be mutually recognised. The initial IA of EEA access would depend on other areas of the EU negotiation, as well as other negotiation we might have other countries in the future.

The EU hasnt leaked its own strategy, it leaked the UK's position on irish border


A debatable point, at any rate the slew of leaks, leaks of leaks etc. is still one of the most damaging in living memory. Britain has been made the laughing stock of Europe - in addition to the doltish decision to leave anyway.



Its politics, that hardly factors in.

The thing is I can't think of any sensible reason not to try and work out what the consequences of certain negotiations would be, even if that data is not perfect it will give you some indication of where both sides can afford to concede ground and where there are areas where both parties can be satisfied relatively easily.

I am not going to pretend like this would be a simple task but the government should have put the apparatus in place in order to make some level of assessent. If the BoE and other financial institutions can model and make predictions of the national and world economy then so should the government.

Right and wrong doesn't matter in forming an effective dipolomatic strategy?
Dont quote me again, prefer not to waste time debating 11 year olds