Cross-party MPs join demand for publication of Brexit analysis and answers to 10 questions

A cross-party group of over 50 MPs have signed an open letter to Brexit Secretary David Davis by the All Party Parliamentary Group on EU Relations demanding that the Government publishes, in full, the secret study into the impact of Brexit on the British economy. MPs are continuing to sign the letter and have been invited by the APPG to add their names to it as and when they wish.

The signatories include Conservative, Labour, SNP, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Green MPs, including senior Conservatives Ken Clarke, Anna Soubry and Antoinette Sandbach. The letter demands answers from the Brexit Secretary to 10 key questions about the leaked impact analysis, and says:

“It is utterly unacceptable for our constituents to have to rely on leaks and newspaper reports to develop an understanding of how Brexit will affect them and their children’s futures.

“Crucially, Parliament, which will have to vote on the withdrawal agreement that is reached later this year, must have access to the latest taxpayer-funded analysis and research … So, we look forward to your prompt response to our questions. And we request that the analysis is now published in its entirety.”
 

The text of the letter and the full list of signatories is attached. The letter is hosted on the websites of Open Britain and the APPG on EU Relations.

Commenting, Chuka Umunna MP, Co-chair of the APPG on EU Relations and leading supporter of the Open Britain campaign, said:

“After last night’s revelations, we need answers and clarity from the Government. Instead, the Brextremist minister Steve Baker has just insulted MPs with a series of non-answers, obfuscations and confused pronouncements in the House of Commons.

“As a result of this unacceptable attempt to conceal vital information from Parliament and the public, we are writing to demand an urgent explanation from the Secretary of State.

“The impact of Brexit is a matter of interest to every person in this country. Any taxpayer-funded analysis produced by the Government should therefore be published in full and without delay.”

/Ends

 

Notes to editors

News website BuzzFeed were leaked the study and published an outline last night (Monday 29 January). The story can be read here: www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/the-governments-own-brexit-analysis-says-the-uk-will-be

For all media enquiries and bids, call Adrian McMenamin on 07812 766017. When using this quote, please reference the Open Britain campaign.

The full text of the letter with the signatories at time of publication is below. The most up-to-date list of signatories can be found at: http://openbrita.in/gaYev7

Dear Secretary of State,

We are writing to call on the Department for Exiting the European Union to publish the findings of the analysis it has carried out of the impact of different Brexit outcomes for the UK economy.

Whatever happens in the negotiations, it is clear that leaving the European Union will have profound and wide-ranging economic consequences for our country. It is right that the Government assesses, to the best of its ability, what these consequences will be, and how any changes to our trading relationship with the EU will impact people’s jobs, businesses and sectors of the economy.

Today, BuzzFeed News reported the main conclusions of a government paper entitled ‘EU Exit Analysis – Cross Whitehall Briefing’. At least ten key questions arise from these revelations:

  1. Why does the analysis not consider the impact of a ‘bespoke trade deal’, given the Government claims this is the most likely outcome? Has an analysis of such an outcome been carried out separately?
  2. Has the Treasury shared the analysis with No 10, and has the Prime Minister read it?
  3. Has the analysis been “inform[ing] our negotiating position”, as Philip Hammond claimed on 5 December 2017?
  4. Given that all the outcomes considered by your department would deliver a worse situation than we currently enjoy, and that the Prime Minister has accepted that any ‘bespoke’ deal would necessarily mean worse access to the Single Market than a Norway-style relationship, do you now accept that we will not have the ‘exact same benefits’ after we leave?
  5. Given that the modelling includes a sectoral analysis, why did the Brexit Secretary say on 6 December that no analysis has been carried out by his department of the impact for different sectors of different Brexit outcomes, but that “we will, at some stage”?
  6. Why was this analysis not mentioned by a single DExEU minister during the debate over the sectoral impact assessments in autumn 2017?
  7. The analysis reportedly concludes that under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5% lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts. If this turns out to be the best deal that can be negotiated, would the Government reconsider its position on the Single Market?
  8. The analysis reportedly concludes that a trade deal with the US would increase GDP by about 0.2%, while other deals non-EU countries would add, in total, a further 0.1% to 0.4% to GDP over the long term. Do you agree that trade deals will not come close to compensating for leaving the Single Market and Customs Union?
  9. In March 2017, you dismissed the Treasury’s pre-referendum forecast that ‘no deal’ would mean GDP would be 7.5% lower by 2030 as being not “robust”. Your department’s new analysis says it would in fact be 8% lower by 2033. Do you think this is “robust”?
  10. A government source cited by Buzzfeed described the analysis as “an early draft”. Has a more recent draft been produced?

It is not acceptable for ministers to withhold this analysis from the public. People have a right to know what the impact of Brexit will be for them and for their families. It is utterly unacceptable for our constituents to have to rely on leaks and newspaper reports to develop an understanding of how Brexit will affect them and their children’s futures.

Crucially, Parliament, which will have to vote on the withdrawal agreement that is reached later this year, must have access to the latest taxpayer-funded analysis and research. Without it, we will be hamstrung in our ability to scrutinise the Government’s approach and to present the facts to our constituents.

So, we look forward to your prompt response to our questions. And we request that the analysis is now published in its entirety.

Yours sincerely,

MPs

Chuka Umunna MP, Co-chair of the APPG

Rt Hon Anna Soubry MP, Co-chair of the APPG

Jonathan Edwards MP, Vice-chair of the APPG

Stephen Gethins MP, Vice-chair of the APPG

Caroline Lucas MP, Vice-chair of the APPG

Jo Swinson MP, Vice-chair of the APPG

Rt Hon Ken Clarke MP

Heidi Alexander MP

Rushanara Ali MP

Luciana Berger MP

Ben Bradshaw MP

Ruth Cadbury MP

Ann Coffey MP

Neil Coyle MP

Stella Creasy MP

Stephen Doughty MP

Maria Eagle MP

Louise Ellman MP

Tim Farron MP

Mike Gapes MP

Preet Gill MP

Kate Green MP

Lilian Greenwood MP

Helen Hayes MP

Wera Hobhouse MP

Rupa Huq MP

Darren Jones MP

Liz Kendall MP

Stephen Kinnock MP

Rt Hon David Lammy MP

Seema Malhotra MP

Alison McGovern MP

Madeleine Moon MP

Ian Murray MP

Antoinette Sandbach MP

Gavin Shuker MP

Tulip Siddiq MP

Andy Slaughter MP

Angela Smith MP

Alex Sobel MP

Wes Streeting MP

Gareth Thomas MP

Matt Western MP

Martin Whitfield MP

Dr Paul Williams MP

Phil Wilson MP

Daniel Zeichner MP

Chris Leslie MP

Pat McFadden MP

Catherine McKinnell MP

Anna Turley MP

Catherine West MP