Skip to main content

The Treasury Reports - Is the Treasury really lying?

Is the Treasury producing reports for political motives?  The Treasury report before the Referendum, called HM Treasury analysis: the immediate economic impact of leaving the EU was so extreme that everyone called it "Project Fear".  The punch line of the report was "..a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller..". That was just for 2016-17!  The report, on page 57, has the following graph that summarizes the Treasury findings:

 By 2017 the UK economy was predicted to experience an unprecedented and huge recession due to the Referendum alone.  Was this Treasury prediction utter incompetence or was it malicious?  The best clue to whether it was incompetence or evil (yes, evil that trusted advisors would lie) is that the Treasury amended its predictions  not long after the referendum because the UK economy was not experiencing utter meltdown:

Notice that these current Treasury predictions go well past the date of actual Brexit.

The lesson from this is that even if the Treasury officials who produced the "Project Fear" predictions were incompetent they were so incompetent that these officials must be dismissed.  If the predictions were politically motivated then the officials must be dismissed. They must be dismissed either way.


This brings us to Project Fear Mk2, the snappily named: “EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing” which was leaked to Buzzfeed.

This analysis is nowhere near as catastrophic as Project Fear, it predicts that a comprehensive trade deal would reduce UK GDP growth by 0.3% a year (5% over 15 years), a WTO exit (incorrectly labelled no deal) would reduce UK GDP Growth by 0.5% pa and remaining in the Single Market would reduce UK GDP by 0.1 % compared with remaining in the EU.  Most of these "losses" in GDP growth are derived from the idea that migration will be reduced (see Buzzfeed) in all scenarios except the Single Market.

Migration into the UK is so huge within the Single Market that it increases the workforce by 1-2% per annum.   If these migrants all earn the average wage then migration increases total UK GDP by 1-2% per annum but it obviously does not make any of us richer.  All of us are still earning the same amount but there are just more of us.  This is why the effects of Brexit policies should always be measured in terms of GDP per head, not overall GDP.

It is this deliberate confusion between GDP and GDP per head that proves that the Civil Servants who produced "EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing" were doing so for political reasons.

Project Fear Mk2. the "EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing", was a political paper produced in the wake of the OBR and others pointing out that UK productivity had stalled since 2008.  The Machiavellian Civil Servants saw that if this is happening then they could make up a story to fool the non-numerate members of government, Parliament and the population into thinking that Brexit would be worse than staying in the EU.  These Civil Servants should be sacked.

What none of the Treasury reports has mentioned is that the UK Trade Deficit with the EU is costing us 4% of GDP growth a year.  Without this Trade Deficit the UK will be 60% better off in 15 years whatever the deal.


Yes, Trade Deficits directly reduce GDP - see Why Trade Deficits must be Avoided

It is clear and obvious that Civil Servants must be sacked for either incompetence or political bias or both.  It is also clear that Ofcom needs a new Head because, had Project Fear been exposed by BBC journalists when it was clear that it was a heinous attack on our democracy then Project Fear Mk2 would not have happened.  Ofcom must not turn a blind eye to News Suppression by the BBC, it is worse than fake news.












































Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Falklands have always been Argentine - Las Malvinas son Argentinas

"The Falklands have always been Argentine" is taught to every Argentine child as a matter of faith.  What was Argentina during the time when it "always" possessed Las Malvinas?  In this article I will trace the history of Argentina in the context of its physical and political relationship with "Las Malvinas", the Falkland Islands.  The Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands dates from a brief episode in 1831-32 so it is like Canada claiming the USA despite two centuries of separate development. This might sound like ancient history but Argentina has gone to war for this ancient claim so the following article is well worth reading. For a summary of the legal case see: Las Malvinas: The Legal Case Argentina traces its origins to Spanish South America when it was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del Plata.  The Falklands lay off the Viceroyalty of Peru, controlled by the Captain General of Chile.  In 1810 the Falklands were far from the geographical b

Practical Idealism by Richard Nicolaus Coudenhove-Kalergi

Coudenhove-Kalergi was a pioneer of European integration. He was the founder and President for 49 years of the Paneuropean Union. His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and huge landowner family in Tokyo. His "Pan-Europa" was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement. Coudenhove-Kalergi's movement held its first Congress in Vienna in 1926. In 1927 the French Prime Minister, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president.  Personalities attending included: Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud. Figures who later became central to founding the EU, such as Konrad Adenauer became members . His basic idea was that democracy was a transitional stage that leads to rule by a new aristocracy that is largely taken from the Jewish "master race" (Kalergi's terminology). His movement was reviled by Hitler and H

Membership of the EU: pros and cons

5th December 2013, update May 2016 Nigel Lawson, ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer,  recently criticised the UK membership of the EU , the media has covered his mainstream view as if he is a bad boy starting a fight in the school playground, but is he right about the EU? What has changed that makes EU membership a burning issue?  What has changed is that the 19 countries of the Eurozone are now seeking political union to escape their financial problems.   Seven further EU countries have signed up to join the Euro but the British and Danish have opted out.  The EU is rapidly becoming two blocks - the 26 and Britain and Denmark.   Lawson's fear was that if Britain stays in the EU it will be isolated and dominated by a Eurozone bloc that uses "unified representation of the euro area" , so acting like a single country which controls 90% of the vote in the EU with no vetoes available to the UK in most decisions.  The full plans for Eurozone political union ( EMU Stage