Ross Clark

On any other day of the week the Guardian is – with some justification – complaining about a housing crisis, with millions of young people priced-out of ever owning – or even renting – a decent home. Now, however, it seems to be treating with alarm news that prices are stagnating. 'UK house prices take pre-Brexit hit, says Nationwide' declared a headline this week – followed by news that house prices have, in fact, risen by 0.5 per cent over the past 12 months. That is a lot lower than we have become used to in recent decades, but isn’t it a good thing if rampant house price inflation has come to a halt? And is it really connected with Brexit? The housing market – outside London – never returned to the mania of pre-2008.

Britain is, of course, in a Brexit-driven recession of its own making, while other EU countries are powering on ahead without us. Or so we keep being told. The ideas is that we are distancing ourselves from European markets - and concerned manufacturers will move production to factories elsewhere in the EU. While this gloomy analysis appears to be confirmed every time the CBI, IMF and others publish their forecasts, it is becoming increasingly hard to square with the economic data. This morning, IHS/Markit published its monthly Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) for manufacturing – a measure of business activity which leads official government statistics on the economy.

There is never more excitement on the Left than when a Tory MP recants and concludes that his heartless party and its callous social policies are wrong. So it was on Friday when Nigel Evans, MP for Ribble Valley, announced that he had had a ‘road to Damascus conversion’ and realised that David Cameron’s legal aid reforms – which reduced the eligibility for legal aid – had made life harder for those who found themselves on the wrong end of a court case. It wasn’t pure altruism which had led him to this conclusion – Evans himself was acquitted on nine charges of sexual assault in 2014. While the case against him fell apart so, too, did his financial security. He complained that it had swallowed up his entire £130,000 life savings.

When Boris Johnson was foreign secretary, he was admonished for accusing the EU of wanting to administer ‘punishment beatings’ to Britain for its temerity in wanting to leave the EU. In the months since it has become clear just how apt his description was. At every turn, the EU has acted with one aim in mind: to try to ensure that Britain suffers from exiting the EU, in order to deter other member states from contemplating leaving the bloc. Today’s memo from the EU, laying out the plans for what would happen in the event of a ‘no-deal’ Brexit is a case in point. It is hard, reading this document, to reconcile it with the EU’s claim to be an organisation which promotes free trade and free movement of people and goods.

There is at least one person in Britain who would beat Theresa May in a contest to see how far they could kick a proverbial can down the road. Fortunately for her, it is the leader of the opposition. Why won’t he do it? Why won’t he table that motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s government while it is bleeding by the roadside? Given a chance to deliver the coup de grace, he chooses instead to table a personal motion of no confidence in Theresa May which he knows the government can put off through lack of time, and which he knows would have no great consequences if she did lose it. No government in the past 40 years has looked quite so miserable, quite so open to being toppled by Parliament, and yet still he won’t do it.

For once, I think Jean Claude-Juncker might have a point. “Nebulous” was a pretty good description of Theresa May’s mission to Brussels. What, exactly, was she expecting from EU leaders that was also going to please her own backbenchers? She must have known the EU would stonewall her over the backstop. She seemed merely to be asking for ‘reassurances’ rather than a legal guarantee that Britain could not be trapped in the backstop – in spite of knowing full well that reassurances are not going to be enough to win over her Commons critics. To adapt Winston Churchill, May’s strategy has become a nebula trapped inside a smog, hidden within a miasma.  Yet there is such as easy way out of the mess.

The world of business is, apparently, appalled by the actions of the 48 or more Conservative MPs who have triggered a vote of no confidence in Theresa May as Conservative leader. According to the Institute of Directors, its members are ‘tearing their hair out’ over today’s news. The message seems to be that a change of Prime Minister is an unwanted distraction when the country is already in a state of crisis. Yet markets seem to disagree. The FTSE this morning is up by more than one per cent. However negatively bosses might see the potential end of Theresa May as Prime Minister, investors in their companies seem to be taking a rather more positive view. It is not the first time that a divergence has emerged between business leaders and investors over Brexit.

How painfully clear it is what happens next. Theresa May returns from her European travels with some kind of non legally-binding piece of paper saying that the EU would rather not enact the backstop if it can possibly avoid it, and, some time in January we finally have the crushing Commons defeat that we should have had today. Unless, that is, Conservative MPs finally overcome their chronic writers’ block and get their 48 letters to Graham Brady. It has become a received wisdom that May has somehow bought herself time by delaying the vote on the withdrawal bill – that she has stayed the executioner’s axe. Yet the opposite is true: by delaying the vote she has created the space for a leadership election.

The “People’s Vote” is celebrating the judgement by the European Court of Justice that Britain could unilaterally revoke Article 50 at any point up until 29 March next year and remain in the EU under existing terms. It destroys the argument that Michael Gove made last weekend: that reversing our decision to stay in the EU would lead to vastly inferior terms, the loss of Britain’s rebate and so on. And while the government still describes the judgement as hypothetical, it will also heap huge pressure on Theresa May if she loses tomorrow’s seemingly doomed vote on her withdrawal bill. Like it or not, she will have to fend off a reinvigorated campaign for a second referendum. But hang on a minute, is the ruling really only good news for Remainers?

Given how Remainers have lost no opportunity to accuse the official Leave campaign of telling porkies about how much money we send to the EU – £350 million per week according to Vote Leave but closer to a net £250 million once the UK rebate is taken into account – one might imagine that the 'People’s Vote' campaign would take extra special care over statements relating to financial contributions to the EU. But it seems not. It has been caught out doctoring a report written by an outside expert, leading to inaccurate claims about how EFTA members’ contributions to the EU are spent. Yesterday, 'People’s Vote' published a report entitled ‘Why Norway Plus Won’t Work’, with a foreword by David Miliband and Jo Johnson.

So will those Remainers seemingly hoping for a Brexit-related recession get what they want after all? This morning Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) for the service sector certainly points in that direction. The index, which is really just a questionnaire to businesses but which can give advance warning of swings in economic growth, fell to 50.4 in November, down from 52.2 in October and 54 in September. Anything above 50 denotes growth – so it doesn’t indicate we are yet in recession – but it suggests a steep plunge in activity and confidence which could well take us there. It would be foolish to deny any link with the Brexit crisis.

How Remainers are feasting on the ruling (although not final judgement) from the European Court of Justice suggesting that Britain could unilaterally revoke Article 50 at any point up until 29 March next year and remain in the EU under existing terms. If the final judgement confirms the ruling it will destroy the argument that Michael Gove made at the weekend – that reversing our decision to stay in the EU would lead to vastly inferior terms, the loss of Britain’s rebate and so on. It will also heap huge pressure on Theresa May if she loses next week’s seemingly doomed vote on her withdrawal bill. While Downing Street has described the ECJ ruling as hypothetical, she will have to fend off a reinvigorated campaign for a second referendum.

What’s wrong with UK financial markets? The global economy is recovering, but British stocks and shares are not keeping pace. The pound has failed to recover from the slide it experienced in the wake of the EU referendum. This is frequently blamed on investors being spooked by Brexit, even more so by the possibility of a no deal. But has anyone actually asked the markets what is spooking them? Look closer and it becomes clear that while Brexit is a problem for some investors, most are much more worried about a far bigger risk, even if they rarely speak about it in public. It is the possibility of a Corbyn government. Since last year’s election, when the Labour leader came within a stone’s throw of No. 10, it has been impossible to write off the idea of a Corbyn victory.

It is the decimal point which really gets me. If we have a ‘no deal’ Brexit, according to Treasury forecasters, the economy will be 7.6 per cent lower in 15 years’ time than it would be if we didn’t leave the EU. What, not 7.7 per cent? It is an age-old trick: express your guesswork with a decimal point or two on the end and hope that it sounds a bit more convincing, as if a bit more science has gone into it. But sorry, the Treasury should not be fooling anyone this time.

With the leak of a 26-page political declaration this morning – an enhanced version of last week’s briefer document – we now know the shape of the future EU-UK relationship which May and the EU negotiators want to achieve in the long run – if, and this could turn out to be a big if – the UK ever manages to escape from the purgatory of the backstop. It is not a bad document in itself. Neither does it bear much of a resemblance to Chequers. The big difference is that it envisages a future trade deal which encompasses services as well as goods – Chequers envisaged Britain pretty well staying in the single market for goods while diverging on services.

Anyone trying to get about London over the past few days may have come across the activities of a group called Extinction Rebellion, which blocked Westminster and several other bridges on Saturday, blocked Lambeth Bridge today and plans to repeat the exercise later this week. Its tactics are simple – it gathers raggle-headed eco warriors, together with some terribly nice middle class students, buses them up to London and then disgorges them to sit in the middle of the road, where they then get arrested for blocking the traffic. But no matter the illegal tactics. The world is in the middle of ecological crisis, and so, of course, the normal rules of political protest do not apply.