
Leaked Brexit Document Predicts 'Catastrophic Collapse' of U.K. Infrastructure - Anon84
https://www.npr.org/2019/08/18/752173091/leaked-brexit-document-depicts-government-fears-of-gridlock-food-shortages-unres
======
Havoc
>and does not reflect the preparations spearheaded by Johnson that are now
underway.

All the more reason to be alarmed. The guy seems like a complete loose cannon
- more likely to cause additional chaos that help.

Really starting to wonder whether this isn't one big geopolitical campaign to
short an entire country.

~~~
arethuza
Jacob Rees-Mogg's father actually wrote a book called _" The Sovereign
Individual: The Coming Economic Revolution and How to Survive and Prosper in
It"_

~~~
inflatableDodo
And also, _' Blood in the Streets: Investment Profits in a World Gone Mad'_.

------
buboard
Just a reminder though, economic predictions are known to sometimes be wrong.

And calm your tits everyone, this is such a contentious matter. Both sides
don't know what the future will bring, it's probably neither a disaster nor a
panacea. At least it hasn't been so far, despite being known as a definite
inevitability for 3 years.

~~~
ulisesrmzroche
I dunno. If I was British, I’d be hanging on to my nuts reaaal tight or maybe
look into selling the left one

~~~
repolfx
If you were British, you'd remember that these are the same people who assured
the population that simply voting to leave would trigger a massive recession
that'd destroy half a million jobs in the best case, _before_ leaving actually
happened, just due to "uncertainty".

They were completely wrong. Not just wrong by magnitude, but wrong in the
wrong direction. The economy boomed.

This sort of report was written by civil servants who hate Brexit and want it
to die, for ministers who hate Brexit and were looking for reasons to cancel
it all together. It has no credibility, simple as that.

Many British people do remember this, and have watched for the last three
years as their political leadership mendaciously manipulate things as hard as
they can to try and avoid doing what they said they'd do. That's why polls
show "no deal" to be significantly more popular than, for example, the
opposition party taking over.

~~~
drcongo
> The economy boomed.

Citation needed?

How about this: [https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/03/21/economic-
performan...](https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/03/21/economic-performance-
since-the-brexit-vote-slowed-gdp-growth-lower-productivity-depreciated-pound/)

"Relative to G7 countries, however, the UK has slipped from having the highest
growth rate in the G7 before the vote, to the lowest now (OBR 2018)."

"Worryingly, the gap between output per worker in OECD countries and the UK
has widened since the referendum"

"On referendum night, the pound fell from a high of $1.50 to $1.33. This is
the single biggest drop in the daily exchange rate since the 1970s among the
four major currencies of the world. The sterling depreciation was expected by
some to spark an export boom, but this has not happened."

"The fallout of higher import costs has to a degree fallen on UK workers in
terms of lower earnings now and in the future through fewer skill development
opportunities."

"Purchasing power has gone down. On average, real wages have been flat since
the referendum. Nominal wages have risen, but below the previous 2% norm (ONS
2018). Consumer prices have risen to reduce real wages. Inflation rose sharply
after the referendum and remained high till recently."

"Overall, the real economy shows signs of productivity and real wage
stagnation, which has taken the UK much lower than other high-income countries
since the Brexit referendum."

Lucky us eh! With our booming economy! Personally, I've found that running a
business working almost exclusively with charities and non-profits, that since
the vote it has been much harder to get our clients to spend money.

~~~
repolfx
Ah, the LSE blog. Always good for the worst possible spin on anything Brexit
related.

It's all especially tough for economists because the profession was so united
in the claims about economic decline after the vote, but they were proven
completely wrong.

The economy boomed. I will show you with data.

People in work hit the largest numbers ever seen in British history,
unemployment fell to lows not seen for decades. Wages rose. GDP growth stayed
about normal for the UK. TradingEconomics has lots of datasets with useful 5
and 10 year views, so you can get a feel for what's normal.

Go look at the 10 year view here:

[https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-
annua...](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth-annual)

Essentially flat, see? From 2016-2018 GDP growth wandered around between 1%
and 2%. Nobody looking at these numbers would have guessed there was meant to
be some massive economic calamity.

Meanwhile, the pound. The pound has been in slow long term decline, as you'd
expect given the trade deficit, and many analysts think it's a much needed
correction given the pound being "over strong" thanks to the City. Go here and
click "MAX" so you can see the long term trends:

[https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GBPEUR%3DX](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GBPEUR%3DX)

The big impact on the GBP/EUR rate was the financial crisis. It eventually got
back within its old region around 2015 (pre Brexit) but then went into decline
again at the end of 2015 and has been wandering around the same rough level
ever since. Again, look at that MAX graph and try to spot this economic
calamity that was supposed to slaughter the economy and destroy nearly a
million jobs. You can't see it because it never happened.

Meanwhile LSE blog is saying things totally false - there _was_ an exports
boom, in fact exports are doing great. See for yourself:

[https://tradingeconomics.com/united-
kingdom/exports](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/exports)

Look at the 10 year view. You can see growth between 2009 and 2012, stability
between 2012 and 2016, then a sudden jump at the time of the referendum. Since
then exports have been climbing rather than stable. It seems the (relatively
small) currency drop _did_ cause an immediate and large increase in exports,
it's impressive how quickly the economy responded actually. I can't see why
the LSE guys are claiming there was no exports boom given that dataset. The
magnitude of that mis-statement is vast: what on earth _would_ qualify as an
"exports boom" by their standards?

Wage growth is also very high, in fact it's at about the level it was before
the financial crisis started.

[https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/wage-
growth](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/wage-growth)

So let's recap.

The world was meant to end on the day of a Leave vote, even before leaving
happened. Between 500,000 and 800,000 jobs lost in an instant recession,
according to the Treasury, and only a tiny number of economists disagreed
(Patrick Minford was one, Krugman disagreed _after_ the vote but before was
publishing similar things).

But exports jumped and continue to grow. GDP growth was normal. Unemployment
dropped through the floor. Wage growth grew, it's still high and climbing.
Foreign investment is also within normal ranges. Inflation is inside normal
ranges and currently wage growth is higher than inflation:

[https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/core-
inflation-r...](https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/core-inflation-
rate)

Remember the central bank tries to target 2%, and that's about where it's
sitting. For the LSE to spin this as bad news is implicitly to state that
central bank and economic orthodoxy is wrong, but they aren't arguing that.

The LSE blog want you to believe that Brexit is a disaster because that's what
academic and government economists predicted, and, sadly, because they
desperately want it to be true. But remember to compare what they write
against their prior claims and the magnitude of their prior failures. These
people have no credibility. That's why they're desperately cherry picking
strange stats like "output per worker in OECD countries" and "growth rate
amongst the G7 only", which aren't normally prominent in discussions about
economic performance. They spin growth as bad news, and in some cases simply
seem to mislead you about the data. Don't trust them on anything Brexit
related.

------
creaghpatr
Political opposition leaked a scare document? Welcome to politics.

~~~
vesinisa
No, this document was drafted by Boris Johnson's pro-Brexit government.

E: Apparently it was his predecessor, but it's nevertheless not drafted by
Labour.

~~~
privateSFacct
Totally false. And using fear in politics is nothing new. The US now has
tariffs on Canada because of the "risk" Canada poses to national security.

The idea that the UK crumbles (the document has things like cancer patients
dying, folks with diabetes dying - its just an incredible list) seems far
fetched. The UK operated prior to the EU without all these disasters.

~~~
renaudg
This is like saying it's easy to refactor a huge codebase to strip a critical
software component from it overnight, because 40 years ago you used to have a
standalone version that didn't require it.

~~~
privateSFacct
Actually - if I can get totally illegal drugs in the UK, I suspect that if
market forces work the same way for legal drugs as they do for illegal, folks
who face death without their drugs will find a way to get supply of those
drugs.

And it will be totally appalling if the EU to prove a point blocks shipments
of those drugs.

This is a chance for the US perhaps to get in with some timely shipments using
the US military or other govt resources. Could save lots of UK lives while the
EU let's their neighbors die.

~~~
renaudg
It sounds like you're either trolling or deeply confused about what's going
on.

The EU is not threatening to block shipments of anything nor to "let their
neighbors die". It's the UK government that seems intent on imposing economic
sanctions unto itself by leaving the single market.

Actually, the closest thing to suggesting to let neighbors die was these
outrageous comments by UK Home Secretary Priti Patel a few weeks ago
([https://www.joe.ie/news/british-politician-says-uk-
threaten-...](https://www.joe.ie/news/british-politician-says-uk-threaten-
ireland-food-shortages-leverage-backstop-650910)), suggesting to cause food
shortages in Ireland in order to pressure them to drop the backstop. To anyone
who knows history between the 2 countries (actual famine in Ireland caused by
Britain centuries ago), this is abhorrent.

------
leke
I think they predicted this a long time ago, and have been stockpiling, in
case of such an emergency. Some things of course, you can't stockpile up on.

It's going to be really interesting to see what happens to the UK as it will
influence the politics of other EU countries, and the future of the EU, a lot.

------
mettamage
Since the vote was so close, why not do another referendum on doing another
referendum?

You can organize this with one referendum, which is:

1\. Would you like to do another referendum on leaving the EU?

A) Yes

B) No

2\. Great-Brittain should leave the EU

A) Yes

B) No

If people still want Great-Brittain to leave, then they bought themselves some
time and otherwise this whole brexit thing has been resolved.

~~~
sleavey
You joke, but asking the uninformed public to vote on such deep constitutional
matters was what got the UK into this mess. Barely anyone in the public was
qualified to give their judgement on the merits of continuing inside the EU
versus the concept of being out of it. The question was then morphed by the
Leave side into "do you think we should stop immigrants coming to the UK?",
with the consequences we can all see now.

~~~
burtonator
It's like voting over whether vaccines work or not...

Some things should be left to experts.

This is the major criticism of direct democracy.

~~~
sleavey
Indeed. A recent poll was quoted on yesterday's "Any Questions?" show on BBC
Radio 4 by a Brexiteer, which apparently asked the public "should MPs
represent their own views or those of their constituents?". Some small number
of voters - I forget, but it was around 7% - thought they should represent
their own views and the rest thought those of their constituents. This was, in
the Brexiteer's view, evidence that MPs delaying Brexit in any form was anti-
democratic given that 52% voted for "it" (where "it" was sadly not defined).

Thing is, we elect MPs exactly so they can express their views in parliament.
They're supposed to be experts, or at least they are given resources to
consult experts on matters that affect their constituents. They are resolutely
not for representing their constituents' views - that's why they publish a
manifesto of what they want to do and we are asked to vote on it every 5
years. Of course, part of an MP's job is to consult their constituents, but
they are not bound whatsoever to represent the majority view of their
constituents. Apparently 93% of the public apparently don't understand this;
the same public that were asked to decide whether to stay in the EU or not...

~~~
abraae
Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts.

Economists could perhaps answer some small parts of it - like "will this be
net plus for the economy over next 5 years", but even then I'd imagine there
would be little consensus.

Questions this huge are really the sort of thing that _should_ be put to the
unwashed masses. They know as much as anyone else - not much.

~~~
kybernetikos
> Questions such as "should we stay in the EU" can't be answered by experts.

There's an interesting idea for a method of government based on the
distinction between values and policy results.

> In "futarchy," we would vote on values, but bet on beliefs

[https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html](https://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/futarchy.html)

In my opinion 'should the UK stay in the EU' would very definitely be a
question of policy not values. It would actually be pretty difficult to
disentangle the brexit question into meaningful values.

You could say it's about 'sovereignty', but the UK parliament is as sovereign
as it ever was - as the very fact that it's currently leaving demonstrates. In
fact for the pure self-interested, short term version of sovereignty, the
right thing to do is to plough your own furrow, taking advantage of the
benefits and ignoring what you don't like until you are finally kicked out of
the EU, which is something we might well see some other EU countries do. Any
more nuanced understanding of sovereignty would realize that sovereignty is
how we describe an entity that is able to enter into and keep agreements, and
exercise infuence on other actors, not one that is unable to because it might
restrict its freedom of action. Just as for humans, the end result of refusing
all bonds is not freedom, it's extreme restriction. And that's not even
considering the strain that leaving the EU puts on relationships with Scotland
and Northern Ireland. It wouldn't surprise me at all if down the road brexit
ends in break-up. Sovereignty takes on a bit more nuance when you're
simultaneously denying it to your constituent members by leaving.

You could say it's about 'migration', but that's not a proper value either. I
suspect that people who complain about migration have values to do with crime,
economics, and needing to be around people 'like them'. The only thing about
those values, is that for most of them, migration is exactly the wrong thing
to be worried about. As 'experts' know, migrants are less likely to commit
crime, and more likely to pay taxes than the native born.

I don't think the UK should be leaving the EU for policy reasons. I believe
that it's in the interests of the UK, of Europe, of the world to resist the
forces trying to disintegrate Europe (I've read enough history to know what
happened last time). I think many of the disagreements I have with people who
think it should leave are at the level of reality - things that could be
established by fact.

Trying to claim that it's motivated by differences of values is part of what
is making the issue less clear.

Of course this is all made extra difficult by the fact that the whole thing
has been horrendously mishandled. The government has repeatedly and
continually believed things for long periods of time about negotiating with
Europe that are simply untrue. It was obvious from the start that this was
going to be complicated, and pressing the button to start the ticking timebomb
you're sat on top of, is not a great way to negotiate either. Whether you want
Brexit or not, invoking article 50 before anyone knew what it meant was the
height of idiocy.

------
SkyMarshal
Anyone manage to get the source doc? Seems it’s behind a paywall.

------
sleavey
A peculiarity: the "south east" is the area most typically associated with the
Conservatives and their voters, who have been in power for the past 9 years
and who have driven most of the Brexit rhetoric. The south east is also
nearest the Channel Tunnel and ferry ports to the continent, and so their
food, drugs, etc. will suffer the least delay, least spoilage, etc. in the
case of a "No Deal" Brexit.

~~~
esotericn
I think that's over-egging it a bit.

You can drive from Dover to almost all of the mainland UK in 8 hours.

The Scottish Highlands will take a bit longer.

It'll be a problem, but I doubt being close to the port will make a
difference.

~~~
martin8412
I mean.. If the people crossing the border at Dover are as slow as the average
person passing the British border, then the backlog will be all the way from
Dover to Inverness

~~~
esotericn
The backlog relevant for those importing goods would be on the French side?

------
throwaway9kls
As bad as a hard Brexit would be for the UK, it it probably necessary at this
point, if for no other reason than to give the hard-core Brexiteers exactly
what they want

The way that Hitler was defeated was that Berlin was pounded into rubble that
put paid to the revival of stab-in-the-back theories that followed WW1. Japan
was defeated by two nuclear bombs that replaced any hope of resistance with
fear of obliteration. Bin Laden killed in his pajamas, and his body was dumped
in the ocean: an ignominious end to a man who claimed to take divine
inspiration for his acts. The supporters of these ideologies had to experience
the shame of total defeat, and see no hope, before they moved on.

A hard Brexit, while causing some pain for the British public, may well be the
medicine needed to show its most fanatical supporters the error of their ways.
Otherwise their resentment will fester for decades longer.

~~~
pjc50
I'd agree with this apart from the cost to other people being completely
unacceptable.

------
Simulacra
If true, would this not point towards avoiding such unions in the future?

~~~
ealexhudson
No, it just points to a. Having a reasonable exit process (the default of two
years makes no sense) and b. The public having the patience to understand 40+
years of cooperation can't be rolled back in a matter of months.

~~~
throwaway122379
The 2 year window and article 50 was an addition from UK ironically

Also they did not have to lodge the article 50 letter when they did, they
could have spent years preparing and figuring out what it is exactly they want
to accomplish.

Finally the EU gave an extension twice now for them to figure out what they
want, instead of doing that UK govt doubled down on stupid.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
If the UK wants more time, they should just revoke article 50 and then
activate it again later on. I don't understand this whole "will the EU grant
an extension?" business.

~~~
martin8412
They can't just revoke article 50 to only reenact it later on. A retraction of
article 50 would have to be in good faith. A European court came to that
conclusion.

------
beaner
Haven't we seen from the steele dossier that these things can essentially be
made up, outdated, or inaccurate, and then be leaked to a salivating press to
push an agenda? I feel like this is a tired plot by now. There's no reason to
take this seriously without more context and input from the counter-
perspective.

~~~
untog
So because one leaked document is controversial (and last I checked the Steele
dossier isn't confirmed to be all that inaccurate) we should disregard all
leaked communications? That feels like faulty logic.

Should we have dismissed Watergate because it was based on leaked information?

~~~
beaner
The problem isn't that it's leaked, it's that it's taken as true without
further regard, despite changes since then or even untruths contained within,
because it is what some people want to believe to be true. The "leak" aspect
makes it seem secretive and therefore more revealing, when in reality it
likely lulled from inaccuracy.

~~~
untog
None of that is true, though. It's taken as the only evidence we currently
have. The government is free to dispute it, to disown it, and to publish its
own contrary information.

Still waiting.

------
jfk13
Scaremongering headline; I thought NPR was better than that.

The document doesn't "predict" any such thing. It considers a number of worst-
case scenarios of things that could happen, but that's a far cry from
predicting that every worst-case scenario will actually come to pass.

~~~
save_ferris
> A government source told the Sunday Times: "This is not Project Fear — this
> is the most realistic assessment of what the public face with no deal. These
> are likely, basic, reasonable scenarios — not the worst case."

One of their sources indicates that these aren't just a worst case scenario,
though.

------
cybersnowflake
The EU and the British establishment will do everything they can to punish the
UK for their insolence. All the more reason it was a good idea to #Leave.
Better to take whatever lumps that come now.

~~~
trilila
Agreed. The eu is basically a german/french dictatorship. The thing is, once
the uk recovers after the leave event, many other eu countries will follow
suit.

~~~
throwaway122379
What? EU is loose federation of 28 EQUAL members

I think the UK has a problem with being an equal and has not got over its loss
of empire, just look at how they treat their own constituent countries such as
Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales

~~~
mschuster91
> What? EU is loose federation of 29 EQUAL members

To be fair: whatever us Germans and the French want, we eventually get - most
often by outright nation-scale bribery. It's all backroom dealing - for
example, us Germans get no opposition preventing harsher pollution regimes EU-
wide (to protect our heavy car-oriented industry), the countries which would
oppose get EU funding grants for construction or whatever.

~~~
renaudg
Likewise for the UK. Not even talking about the outrageously good (even
slightly unfair) membership rebate they have, I remember reading that the UK
has been outvoted around 2% of the time at the EU level, and not on important
matters either.

