Sorry could be the IP location I can just open it.
Anyway let me paste it in case you are interested:
Britain will be left worse off under all Brexit scenarios, with financial services, chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, cars and retailing among the sectors worst hit, according to secret government analysis.
Cabinet ministers are being privately briefed this week on updated economic analysis of the impact of Brexit and the results, closely guarded in Whitehall, will strengthen the hand of “soft Brexiters”, including chancellor Philip Hammond.
The paper, EU Exit Analysis — Cross Whitehall Briefing, is dated January 2018, and looks at three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios based on existing EU arrangements.
The document, obtained by BuzzFeed, suggests that a “no deal” scenario, which would see the UK revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, would reduce growth by 8 per cent over the next 15 years.
It says that under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, UK growth would be 5 per cent lower over the same period compared with current forecasts.
The softest Brexit option of continued Norway-style single market access through membership of the European Economic Area, an option ruled out by Theresa May, would in the longer term still lower growth by 2 per cent.
The forecasts, produced by economists working across Whitehall departments, suggest that Britain would suffer a less dramatic hit than those produced by the Treasury ahead of the 2016 EU referendum.
Under those calculations, dubbed “Project Fear” by the Leave campaign, the WTO option was forecast to cost 7.5 per cent of growth over 15 years, an FTA 6.2 per cent and a Norway-style single market deal 3.8 per cent.
Under the new modelling assumptions, a trade deal with the US is concluded in all the scenarios, offsetting lost trade with the EU when Britain leaves the single market and customs union.
The study, which the government is refusing to publish on the grounds that it would undermine Britain’s negotiating position, confirms that remaining in the single market would cause least economic damage.
Mrs May is hoping to negotiate a deal somewhere between a traditional free-trade agreement and a Norway-style single market deal and there is no modelling for this undefined outcome.
However, the government analysis suggests a hit of between 2 per cent and 5 per cent on growth over the next 15 years, depending on whether Britain ends up a closer to a single market deal or a Canada-style trade agreement.
Meanwhile, every UK region would also be affected negatively in all the modelled scenarios, with the north-east, the West Midlands and Northern Ireland facing the biggest falls in economic performance.
The paper, which is being shown to ministers individually over the course of the next two weeks, also acknowledges the risk to London’s status as a financial centre; the EU says the City will not be covered by any free-trade agreement.
Ministers have been told they will not be able to take copies of the briefing out of the room, so the leak of the slides on Monday night will be hugely embarrassing to the government.
It is also likely to see Labour demand full publication of the study. The Department for Exiting the EU said last night that it would not be published because it was “advice to ministers” and that revelation of the information would harm Britain’s negotiating position.
According to BuzzFeed, the analysis assumes in all scenarios that a trade deal with the US will be concluded, and that it would benefit gross domestic product by about 0.2 per cent in the long term.
Trade deals with other non-EU countries and blocs, such as China, India, Australia, the Gulf countries and the nations of South East Asia, would add, in total, up to 0.4 per cent to GDP over the long term. The Brexit department did not dispute the veracity of the leak.
A government spokesman said: “We have been clear that we are not prepared to provide a running commentary on any aspect of this ongoing internal work and that ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiation position.”
