AuthorTopic: Brexit: Let's Do the Numbers  (Read 675 times)

Offline Eddie

  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 19711
    • View Profile
Brexit: Let's Do the Numbers
« on: June 25, 2016, 11:39:11 AM »
An excellent think-tank report ordered up by the elites a while back to try to quantify what the Brexit would mean in terms of economic impact on various countries. Very long, but chock full of information.

https://www.global-counsel.co.uk/sites/default/files/special-reports/downloads/Global%20Counsel_Impact_of_Brexit.pdf

What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11820
    • View Profile
    • Renewable Rervolution
Re: Brexit: Let's Do the Numbers
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2016, 12:52:18 PM »
An excellent think-tank report ordered up by the elites a while back to try to quantify what the Brexit would mean in terms of economic impact on various countries. Very long, but chock full of information.

https://www.global-counsel.co.uk/sites/default/files/special-reports/downloads/Global%20Counsel_Impact_of_Brexit.pdf


I scanned though a little over 70% of the report. It is a nice presentation but I found no mention of the economic effects of BREXIT on environmental polices and regulations of member states, except in a round about sort of way (if you make a rough connection between liberals and clean energy).

Quote
The UK is one of the most economically liberal states and along with the Nordics, the Netherlands, and Ireland can be relied upon to oppose illiberal proposals in the Council. Under the voting rules introduced in 2014 the liberal states can typically secure about 25% of the votes. If Germany votes with the liberal states this provides enough votes to achieve a 35% blocking minority. This puts Germany in a powerful position as a swing voter in the Council.

If the UK leaves the EU this will shift the balance of power in the Council away from the liberalisers, who will find it harder to assemble a blocking minority, even with German support. The combined votes of Germany plus the ten most liberal states would by itself be insufficient to achieve the necessary 35% of votes.

Considering that the environmental costs of global warming on the arctic alone have been estimated at over 60 trillion dollars, I find this report lacking because it fails to point out the environmental cost multiplier for all the economies of Europe that a 'leave' vote signifies.

There is a graph in there that has a color coded "environment protection" section for the U.K. and some other countries, but the word "environment" only appears in the report text in the context of the "business environment", not biosphere environment. This produces an incomplete economic picture, to put it mildly.

Anyone reading these paragraphs can see what BREXIT means to polluter fortunes, despite the nod to Renewable energy.

Quote
The UK would gain leeway to run a more active industrial policy unconstrained by EU state aid rules under some models. This might include reinstating a public interest test for takeovers, or introducing more comprehensive R&D tax credits. State aid rules have constrained UK policy in several areas including investment in Hinckley Point, renewables support schemes and the British Business Bank. The UK would, however, still be bound by WTO rules and even an FTA-based approach would impose disciplines in this area.

Hinkley Point is a nuclear power plant that has been the center of a giant funnel of money coerced from the people of England, exceeding all initial cost estimates and even being used to force the people of the U.K. to pay a surcharge on renewable energy in order to make Hinkley point DIRTY energy appear "competitive" (also notice that the authors of this report cling to the erroneous view that nuclear power is "renewable energy"). 
Protest against Hinkley nuclear power plant in England

Quote
The UK was an important influence on the 2030 targets for emissions reduction, calling for tighter targets, while successfully fighting off calls for additional binding targets for renewables and energy efficiency. This would have added to the cost to business of meeting the emissions targets.

Uh huh: "added to the cost to business" that BUSINESS now EXTERNALIZES to we-the-people.   ;)

Quote
About Global Counsel

Global Counsel helps businesses across a wide range of sectors anticipate the ways in which politics, regulation and public policymaking create both risk and opportunity. We also help businesses to develop and implement strategies to meet these challenges.

The firm was founded in 2010. Our senior team are former public policymakers who have worked at the highest level in the British government and European Union institutions. They draw on decades of experience and are backed by a global network.

The author of this report is Dr Gregor Irwin, Chief Economist of Global Counsel. Dr Irwin was the Chief Economist of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 2008 to 2013 and a Director of the FCO from 2011 to 2013. He has previously held senior positions at the Bank of England and HM Treasury.

Cherry picking benefits for business that celebrate externalizing pollution costs is the 'business as usual' that is degrading the biosphere.

The truth is that BREXIT is a boon to U.K. polluters and a huge cost multiplier to the people in the U.K. and all of Europe, due to climate change costs exacerbated by unregulated profit over planet. This is irresponsible on the part of this Global Counsel think-tank.


Quote
Many climate and energy experts, including Christiana Figures, had been outspoken about the potential danger for EU and UK climate policy if the UK were to leave.

Without the UK involved, it is unlikely that the EU would revise up its current 40% emissions reduction target, experts say.

The ‘leave’ vote and change in government also raises uncertainty about domestic policies.

Craig Bennett, head of Friends of the Earth, said the leave vote was a “red alert” for the environment.

 (News: Politico Pro $, Grist, New Statesman, Reuters, Wall Street Journal $. Commentary: The Guardian, Damian Carrington column; Climate Home, Ed King column; Politico, Sara Stefani column; BusinessGreen, James Murray column; Carbon Pulse analysis $; Climate Home, Robin Webster op-ed)

If the report had been objective about the climate costs to businesses and the people, I would agree that it was an "excellent" report. But since it is cheerleading business as usual, as would be expected by a "think-tank" influenced by U.K. bankers, then I must conclude that the report is a disservice to both the people and the business community.


« Last Edit: June 25, 2016, 01:22:53 PM by agelbert »
Leges         Sine    Moribus      Vanae   
Faith,
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
834 Views
Last post August 24, 2016, 04:49:04 AM
by Slogger
15 Replies
816 Views
Last post June 15, 2018, 07:50:24 PM
by BuddyJ
0 Replies
59 Views
Last post June 05, 2020, 08:09:56 AM
by Eddie