Even by Brexiters’ Standards, This Hollow Claim is a New Low
As one economist, Frances Coppola, asked on Twitter, what had David Davis been smoking? In a keynote interview with the BBC’s Andrew Mar on Sunday, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said that Britain would simply not pay the £40 billion it had agreed just two days earlier that it owed as a departing member if it did not get a trade deal with the EU.
While some might see this as a tough negotiating position, it is such patent nonsense it is hard to imagine why he said it. It immediately raised the idea that a member of the Group of Seven industrialised nations would simply turn its back on its financial obligations.
One wonders what the financial institutions that hold Britain’s £1.6 trillion debt and whom the Treasury’s Debt Management Office asks to buy more bonds to help fund the deficit £52 billion over the coming fiscal year thought as they watched this government effectively default on its debts.
The one group of people who have something to say would be the credit rating agencies, who hand out the grades to governments that investors follow closely when deciding whether to buy their sovereign bonds.
this was bravado for the benefit of pro-Leave voters
The UK has already lost its cherished triple-A rating — the highest available grade — after their reckless austerity programme in the wake of the global financial crisis led to a pronounced slowdown in growth. Rating agencies’ grade are a measure of the chance of default, so the chances of dropping to an A+ grade (the same as Chile and Slovenia) are quite high.
One can only assume that this was bravado for the benefit of pro-Leave voters watching Andrew Marr to check that the government was loyally following their agenda. However, just as Davis and Theresa May have turned their once unlovable negotiating red lines pink over the negotiating timetable, alignment with the single market and many other, so this refusal to pay its debts will be conveniently forgotten.
The plain reason for his statement is the need to cover up the harsh reality: the government is spending a large amount of time, money and political energy to secure a deal that will be much worse than what the UK enjoys as a member of the EU. The truth may be painful but at least it’s the truth.
About the author
Phil has run Clarity Economics, a London-based consultancy, since 2007 and, before that, was Economics Correspondent at The Independent.
Phil won feature writer of the year Work Foundation Work World media awards in 2009, and was commended by the Royal Statistical Society in 2007.
Enjoyed this article?
Help us to fund independent journalism instead of buying:
Also in Disclaimer
United Nations does not currently enjoy the best reputation. Founded in 1945 as a way of both preserving and enforcing peace, the United Nations was designed to fix problems where its predecessor the League of Nations failed. peacekeeping. Now it is being characterised in much the same way, seen as toothless, impotent and irrelevant.
Among hard Brexiters, re-engaging with the Commonwealth offers one of the more seductive “opportunities of Brexit”. The Commonwealth secretary-general, Patricia Scotland, has pledged to “turbocharge the Commonwealth trade advantage”. But a closer look suggests that Brexit cannot create a new economic role for the Commonwealth.
Many of the Windrush Generation who arrived between 1948 and 1973 never planned to travel outside the UK again. Suddenly, they needed passports to keep their jobs and access vital services such as healthcare. Despite evidence of them having lived here for decades, the Home Office decided not to believe them. How could things go so wrong at the Home Office that it too did not consider them British?
bad ideas and notions ultimately hurt the Left and help the Right. Whether it be conspiracies, fake news, factoids, bad rhetoric, or mud-slinging, all it does is feed into right-wing assertions—sometimes unfortunately accurate—of leftist hysteria, intolerance, and untrustworthiness.
The homelessness epidemic faced in developed countries has been described as a humanitarian crisis unfolding in our streets. There’s a direct correlation between the rising cost of living in cities and the severity of homelessness. This crisis has reached a point where it’s drawn comparisons to poverty in developing nations, as homelessness jumps to record-breaking levels in the U.S. and further afield.