Matthew Lynn

Should the exit bill be €20bn or €40bn? Should the trade deal be the 'Swiss-plus' or 'Canada-lite'? Should our negotiating strategy be the full cliff-edge, or should we opt for the reverse gear? If we had a couple of micro-chip factories for every different version of Brexit on offer, we'd probably be worrying about it a lot less. But in fact there is something far more important than whether we end up with a hard or soft Brexit - and that is a quick Brexit. Ask anyone in business - and the debate about how to leave the EU is mostly about preserving the economy - and they will tell you that it is often just as important to get things done fast as to get them completely right. That is why the software industry releases Version 1.0, Version 2.

House prices are in freefall. Unemployment is rising relentlessly. The pound is plunging on the markets, and companies are re-locating to Paris and Frankfurt in droves. In the parallel universe Mark Carney increasingly seems to live in, that is a pretty accurate description of the British economy. In this universe, however, the picture is very different. The economy is doing just fine – and that is making it increasingly hard to understand why interest rates are being held at ‘emergency’ levels to cope with the ‘catastrophe’ of leaving the European Union. At a meeting of the Monetary Policy Committee yesterday, the Bank left rates on hold at 0.25 percent, while hinting that might finally go up next month.

Fifty billion? Seventy-five? In its wilder moments, the FT might even splash on a hundred billion pounds as the minimum cost of our exit from the European Union. As the negotiations over our departure reach perhaps the thorniest issue of all, the final bill will have to be settled. But what should it be? If the hardliners on both side would calm down for a moment, then the answer should be very simple. We should agree to cover the cost of the disruption our departure creates, but only in return for a fair deal on trade. It is probably a mystery to most people why we have to pay anything to leave the EU at all.

We will be hopelessly out-witted by wily Brussels negotiators. We are unprepared for the scale of the task. We are about to be humiliated as we discover just how weak our hand is against a unified European Union that is determined to punish us for our foolishness in leaving the world’s largest trading bloc. The hardcore Remainer commentary on our negotiations over Brexit is so familiar it just about writes itself. But in the last few days, there has been an interesting twist to that script. The UK, far from being the confused, divided and weak partner is the side coming up with the interesting innovative ideas. And it is the EU that looks shackled to a rigid, out-dated structure.

Labour regulations were going to be swept aside. The euro would be reformed, tech entrepreneurs would flock to Paris, and Brexit-fleeing City bankers, flush with tax-free bonuses, would be quaffing champagne in the bars of the Latin Quarter. When Emmanuel Macron was elected President of France, there was a lot written about how he would finally reform the French economy, and restore the euro-zone to healthy growth at the same time. True, plenty of people expected some bruising battles with the unions, some tough negotiations with the bloated public sector, and some fights with Angela Merkel. Whether Macron would ultimately win those was always an unknown quantity. There was one thing they didn’t expect, however.

Output is under pressure. Prices are starting to rise, living standards are getting squeezed, and every day brings fresh stories of one bank or another leasing office space in Frankfurt or Dublin. As the International Monetary Fund downgrades its growth forecast for the UK, whole edging up its predictions for our continental neighbours, Remainers can hardly believe their luck. Finally, all those predictions of disaster are coming true. Indeed, some are starting to describe Britain as the ‘sick man of Europe’ – a particularly potent phrase, since it was precisely to escape that label that we joined the EU in the first place more than four decades ago. The trouble is, there is a problem with taking the IMF too seriously. It is a terrible forecaster.

Who has the most over-inflated reputation in British politics? Theresa May’s air of calculating caution is long gone, no one has believed in Boris Johnson’s connection with ordinary voters for a while, and if anyone still thinks the dwindling tribe of hardcore Blairites blathering on about the radical centre know anything about what is going on they are keeping themselves well-hidden. But for some strange reason, Sir Vince Cable’s reputation for being able to read the economy with lethal accuracy remains intact. To much of the media, he remains the ‘man who saw the crash coming’. As the so-called Sage of Twickenham becomes leader of the Liberal Democrats later today, we will no doubt hear a great deal more about it.

As double acts go, it is probably not up there with Eric and Ernie, John and Paul, or even Liam and Noel. Even so, Mark and Phil, the Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney and the Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond, certainly looked today as if they were working in tandem to try and steer the country towards a gentler version of Brexit than some of the harder men of that movement would prefer. Anyone listening to their speeches in the City this morning, postponed from last week in the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, will have seen immediately what they were up to. Carney was at pains to point out that while the economy had been resilient in the immediate aftermath of the referendum vote last summer, there would still be tough times ahead.

Sterling plunges on the currency markets. Middle Eastern oil money flees London. A Prime Minister resigns in mysterious circumstances, and a government clings on to a vanishing majority. Sound familiar? In fact, it is a description of the run up to the sterling crisis of 1976, which forced the Labour Government to crawl to the IMF for an emergency bail-out, rather than 2017. But the parallels are spooky. As a catastrophic election result for the Conservative party is digested, sterling is already sinking like a stone. No one has any real idea who will be PM in a few months, whether there will be another election, or who might win it if another vote is held. We are not about to quite repeat the traumatic experience of 1976.

Sterling plunges on the currency markets. Middle Eastern oil money flees London. A prime minister resigns in mysterious circumstances, and a government clings on to a vanishing majority. Sound familiar? In fact, it is a description of the run-up to the sterling crisis of 1976, which forced the then Labour government to crawl to the IMF for an emergency bailout. But the parallels with today are spooky. As the catastrophic election result for the Conservative party is digested, sterling is already sinking like a stone. No one has any real idea who will be PM in a few months’ time, whether there will be another election, or who might win if a second vote is held.

Friday morning. A humbled looking Theresa May is muttering about how 'defeat means defeat', while Boris Johnson readies his leadership bid. Nicola Sturgeon is flying down to London with a list of demands for supporting a Labour-led coalition. And Jeremy Corbyn is finishing off some work on his allotment before hopping on a bus to the Palace. It might sound far-fetched. But the polls are so all over the place, it is no longer impossible that the Tories will lose their majority. If it happens, one point has been overlooked. Over in the City, stocks will be getting trashed, and the pound will be in free-fall. The markets have only just begun to contemplate what a Corbyn-led Labour Government would be like, but have hardly paused to give it any serious consideration.

Inflation is rising. Real wages are stagnant, and GDP is being revised downwards, putting us down there with the likes of Italy. If Theresa May had a script for the final fortnight of the election campaign it probably didn’t include figures like those. Today’s revision of the quarterly GDP number, down to a sluggish-looking 0.2 percent, from the initial 0.3 percent, will no doubt be seized upon by critics of the government, and by the increasingly battle-weary battalions of hardcore Remainers, as evidence that the wheels are finally coming off the economy, and the impact of a ‘hard Tory Brexit’ is finally being felt. In fact, however, it tells us something quite different. The UK is certainly slowing down in the first half of this year.

Unemployment is down. Retail sales are still strong. House prices are stable. Even the Great British Peso, the currency formerly known as the pound, has recovered much of its losses of the past year. After the vote to leave the EU, the UK economy has been remarkably strong. Even triggering Article 50, which some said would be the point when the whole pack of cards collapsed, doesn’t seem to have made any difference. With that wind in behind the UK’s sails, it is easy to understand why the Conservative party is feeling fairly secure about the state of the economy. And that may help explain why there is remarkably little in the manifesto to strengthen the competitiveness of the country. Sure, the commitment to reduce corporation tax to 17percent is maintained, and that is great.

Another day, another tax rise. So far in this campaign, the Labour party has rolled out one hit or another on the wealthy and big business just about every morning. The City is getting a Robin Hood tax on every financial transaction. Companies are getting a one-third increase in corporation tax. Anyone on more than £80,000 will see their income tax go up, and a new levy in high-earners will whack any business paying a star performer more than £330,000. They haven’t slapped a 50pc VAT rate on Range Rovers and Marc Jacobs crocodile handbags – but heck, it is still only Tuesday and there are still three more weeks of this stuff to go. As it launched its manifesto today, the party made the audacious claim that its programme was ‘fully costed’.

Big hikes in corporation tax. A sweeping programme of nationalisation. Large increases in the minimum wages, a 20-1 cap on executive pay, and, just in case it gets lost in that blizzard of promises, hefty tax increases on anyone earning more than £80,000 a year. Even in a normal year, the leaked Labour party manifesto has more than enough in it to make anyone in business or industry feel just slightly nervous. But hold on. This is hardly a normal time for the British economy. We know Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell would like to pretend it simply wasn’t happening, but 2017-22 will also see the most crucial, and in many ways scary, challenge the UK has faced since the first full bracing blast of Thatcherism in the early 1980s.

Better access to education. Tax cuts for anyone in the struggling middle. More affordable homes, and more money for the National Heath Service. There is nothing wrong with Theresa May seeking to stake out the centre ground of British politics and stop Brexit turning into a right-wing campaign to turn back the clock. But one might have imagined she’d use conservative means to achieve this, rather than raiding Ed Miliband’s last manifesto for ideas. The proposed price cap on energy companies is an alarming example of Mrs May’s left turn. There are so many ways in which the price cap is a genuinely terrible idea that it is hard to find space to list them all. But here are four big flaws to be getting on with.

Thirty billion? Fifty billion? Eighty billion, and we have to cover the cost of Jean-Claude Juncker’s martinis for the next decades, plus pick up the dry cleaning for every member of the European Parliament. The debate over Britain’s final exit bill for leaving the EU looks set to be among the most acrimonious issues as we negotiate our departure. But hold on. The first-class brains over in Brussels have made a slip. They are demanding that all the bills be settled in euros, rather than pounds. And yet they seem to have forgotten that their currency remains uniquely vulnerable to a catastrophic collapse. In fact, Philip Hammond should take that deal – because it might turn out to be very good one for the UK.

Its economy will be destroyed by leaving the single market. Losing access to European sales will destroy swathes of industry, and without free movement, employers will be crucified by skill shortages. Nicola Sturgeon is no doubt already preparing her lines for a vote on Scottish independence once the UK leaves the EU. Right now, that looks as if it could come a lot sooner than anyone imagined. It is reported that as soon as the Prime Minister Theresa May triggers Article 50 and starts the process of leaving the European Union, Scotland’s First Minister will announce plans for a second referendum on independence – a demand that May could find impossible to resist. But hold on.