BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Thanks. Does the FT mention this bit?kingstongraham said:TheBigBean said:
See headline quoted above. I have little faith in FT reporting.rick_chasey said:
The general gist of the twitter thread seems to match with the source: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1847.pdf
If you can't make money as a small company shipping relatively low value products overseas any more, you would just not do that.We do not find evidence of a statistically or economically significant decline in the UK’s trade with the EU relative to the rest of the world prior to the implementation of the TCA. This finding holds for both exports and imports and for both the intensive and extensive margins of trade. As Brexit only affected expectations regarding future trade costs during the Interim period, our results provide novel evidence that trade flows are relatively unresponsive to anticipated, but uncertain, increases in trade barriers.
However, we find that the shift from the transition period to the TCA led to immediate and sizable changes in UK-EU trade relative to UK-rest of the world trade, with notable asymmetries between exports and imports. Although UK exports to the EU fell sharply at the start of 2021, they subsequently rebounded, and our results do not show a persistent negative effect of the TCA on export values. Nonetheless, we do find large negative effects on the extensive margin of exports to the EU relative to the rest of the world. We estimate that the introduction of the TCA reduced the count of product-destination export relationships with EU countries per quarter by around 30% in 2021. The extensive margin effect is concentrated in lower value relationships, which is consistent with the rise in non-tariff barriers under the TCA increasing the fixed costs of trade.0 -
Nope, I have no understanding of big businesses. Different world.rjsterry said:
See also the difference between your experience and, say, Stevo's experience - "we just put a team on it for a few months and it was sorted - no significant impact on the business. People who work in Corporateland seem to have no clue how small businesses work (and I'm sure the opposite is also true).skyblueamateur said:I've been fairly consistently and boringly banging on about the negative implications of exports for small businesses as I am directly affected.
I'll be honest I'm surprised it's not higher.
I wish I could stick my head in the sand and say I have no faith in the FT reporting.
TBF to Stevo he offered some really good advise on preparations that I was very grateful for.0 -
Yup. It also puts it into context. The article isn’t what you think it is about.TheBigBean said:
Thanks. Does the FT mention this bit?kingstongraham said:TheBigBean said:
See headline quoted above. I have little faith in FT reporting.rick_chasey said:
The general gist of the twitter thread seems to match with the source: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1847.pdf
If you can't make money as a small company shipping relatively low value products overseas any more, you would just not do that.We do not find evidence of a statistically or economically significant decline in the UK’s trade with the EU relative to the rest of the world prior to the implementation of the TCA. This finding holds for both exports and imports and for both the intensive and extensive margins of trade. As Brexit only affected expectations regarding future trade costs during the Interim period, our results provide novel evidence that trade flows are relatively unresponsive to anticipated, but uncertain, increases in trade barriers.
However, we find that the shift from the transition period to the TCA led to immediate and sizable changes in UK-EU trade relative to UK-rest of the world trade, with notable asymmetries between exports and imports. Although UK exports to the EU fell sharply at the start of 2021, they subsequently rebounded, and our results do not show a persistent negative effect of the TCA on export values. Nonetheless, we do find large negative effects on the extensive margin of exports to the EU relative to the rest of the world. We estimate that the introduction of the TCA reduced the count of product-destination export relationships with EU countries per quarter by around 30% in 2021. The extensive margin effect is concentrated in lower value relationships, which is consistent with the rise in non-tariff barriers under the TCA increasing the fixed costs of trade.0 -
It makes sense that if you were in a business that could already make money from exporting outside the EU (and did), it would be relatively straightforward to port that process onto exporting to the EU.rjsterry said:
See also the difference between your experience and, say, Stevo's experience - "we just put a team on it for a few months and it was sorted - no significant impact on the business. People who work in Corporateland seem to have no clue how small businesses work (and I'm sure the opposite is also true).skyblueamateur said:I've been fairly consistently and boringly banging on about the negative implications of exports for small businesses as I am directly affected.
I'll be honest I'm surprised it's not higher.
I wish I could stick my head in the sand and say I have no faith in the FT reporting.0 -
I haven't stuck my head in the sand. The introduction of trade barriers will clearly have an impact on trade. The problem is that the FT makes no attempt to report the impact in a statistically robust manner. Instead it cherry pick statistics to push its agenda. This applies to covid as much as Brexit. Of course, all papers do that, but for some reason people still seem to think the FT is a reliable source.skyblueamateur said:I've been fairly consistently and boringly banging on about the negative implications of exports for small businesses as I am directly affected.
I'll be honest I'm surprised it's not higher.
I wish I could stick my head in the sand and say I have no faith in the FT reporting.0 -
Can you pass me a link to a statistically robust report on the implications of exports to the EU for small businesses please.TheBigBean said:
I haven't stuck my head in the sand. The introduction of trade barriers will clearly have an impact on trade. The problem is that the FT makes no attempt to report the impact in a statistically robust manner. Instead it cherry pick statistics to push its agenda. This applies to covid as much as Brexit. Of course, all papers do that, but for some reason people still seem to think the FT is a reliable source.skyblueamateur said:I've been fairly consistently and boringly banging on about the negative implications of exports for small businesses as I am directly affected.
I'll be honest I'm surprised it's not higher.
I wish I could stick my head in the sand and say I have no faith in the FT reporting.0 -
ONS probably has some stuff. Also, I'd put KingstonGraham above the FT as well.skyblueamateur said:
Can you pass me a link to a statistically robust report on the implications of exports to the EU for small businesses please.TheBigBean said:
I haven't stuck my head in the sand. The introduction of trade barriers will clearly have an impact on trade. The problem is that the FT makes no attempt to report the impact in a statistically robust manner. Instead it cherry pick statistics to push its agenda. This applies to covid as much as Brexit. Of course, all papers do that, but for some reason people still seem to think the FT is a reliable source.skyblueamateur said:I've been fairly consistently and boringly banging on about the negative implications of exports for small businesses as I am directly affected.
I'll be honest I'm surprised it's not higher.
I wish I could stick my head in the sand and say I have no faith in the FT reporting.0 -
-
Interesting aspect of the LSE report is the permanent decline in imports from the EU in comparison to the temporary decline in exports to the EU.0
-
I suspect what he means is that the number fo small firms exporting to the EU may decline by 25% but that will have a much smaller impact on overall export volumes.skyblueamateur said:
Can you pass me a link to a statistically robust report on the implications of exports to the EU for small businesses please.TheBigBean said:
I haven't stuck my head in the sand. The introduction of trade barriers will clearly have an impact on trade. The problem is that the FT makes no attempt to report the impact in a statistically robust manner. Instead it cherry pick statistics to push its agenda. This applies to covid as much as Brexit. Of course, all papers do that, but for some reason people still seem to think the FT is a reliable source.skyblueamateur said:I've been fairly consistently and boringly banging on about the negative implications of exports for small businesses as I am directly affected.
I'll be honest I'm surprised it's not higher.
I wish I could stick my head in the sand and say I have no faith in the FT reporting.
Like everything to do with Brexit this ignores the major downsides to individual livelihoods0 -
Another downside of leaving Europe..
Spa Cycles: "Please note that we have stopped shipping to Europe."
Does anyone know what continent we are now part of?0 -
Ah, the screw small business argument of the Brexiteers. Gotcha.surrey_commuter said:
I suspect what he means is that the number fo small firms exporting to the EU may decline by 25% but that will have a much smaller impact on overall export volumes.skyblueamateur said:
Can you pass me a link to a statistically robust report on the implications of exports to the EU for small businesses please.TheBigBean said:
I haven't stuck my head in the sand. The introduction of trade barriers will clearly have an impact on trade. The problem is that the FT makes no attempt to report the impact in a statistically robust manner. Instead it cherry pick statistics to push its agenda. This applies to covid as much as Brexit. Of course, all papers do that, but for some reason people still seem to think the FT is a reliable source.skyblueamateur said:I've been fairly consistently and boringly banging on about the negative implications of exports for small businesses as I am directly affected.
I'll be honest I'm surprised it's not higher.
I wish I could stick my head in the sand and say I have no faith in the FT reporting.
Like everything to do with Brexit this ignores the major downsides to individual livelihoods
Thanks0 -
From a different outlet BB.0 -
I've looked at the actual report that KingstonGraham posted.rick_chasey said:
From a different outlet BB.0 -
-
rick_chasey said:
…aaaand?
TheBigBean said:Interesting aspect of the LSE report is the permanent decline in imports from the EU in comparison to the temporary decline in exports to the EU.
0 -
how do they know one is 'permanent' and the other 'temporary'?TheBigBean said:Interesting aspect of the LSE report is the permanent decline in imports from the EU in comparison to the temporary decline in exports to the EU.
brexit has increased complexity, cost, and shipping time for eu<->uk trade, barring a roll back of brexit, those changes are clearly a permanent drag on both uk and eu exporters, not temporary
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
I think it is more Rick's idea that the only jobs that matter are ones that appear in children's books.skyblueamateur said:
Ah, the screw small business argument of the Brexiteers. Gotcha.surrey_commuter said:
I suspect what he means is that the number fo small firms exporting to the EU may decline by 25% but that will have a much smaller impact on overall export volumes.skyblueamateur said:
Can you pass me a link to a statistically robust report on the implications of exports to the EU for small businesses please.TheBigBean said:
I haven't stuck my head in the sand. The introduction of trade barriers will clearly have an impact on trade. The problem is that the FT makes no attempt to report the impact in a statistically robust manner. Instead it cherry pick statistics to push its agenda. This applies to covid as much as Brexit. Of course, all papers do that, but for some reason people still seem to think the FT is a reliable source.skyblueamateur said:I've been fairly consistently and boringly banging on about the negative implications of exports for small businesses as I am directly affected.
I'll be honest I'm surprised it's not higher.
I wish I could stick my head in the sand and say I have no faith in the FT reporting.
Like everything to do with Brexit this ignores the major downsides to individual livelihoods
Thanks0 -
Surely any reports based on figures from the past 2 years must have a covid caveat.
Then there will be the Ukraine caveat. Who knows when we will be able to do a fair comparison with 2019.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yes, all ONS reports have this caveat. They've also changed some date involved in the reporting which has had a significant effect. These caveats tend to be ignored by journalists.pblakeney said:Surely any reports based on figures from the past 2 years must have a covid caveat.
Then there will be the Ukraine caveat. Who knows when we will be able to do a fair comparison with 2019.0 -
One has recovered. One hasn't. It's a report not a crystal ball.sungod said:
how do they know one is 'permanent' and the other 'temporary'?TheBigBean said:Interesting aspect of the LSE report is the permanent decline in imports from the EU in comparison to the temporary decline in exports to the EU.
brexit has increased complexity, cost, and shipping time for eu<->uk trade, barring a roll back of brexit, those changes are clearly a permanent drag on both uk and eu exporters, not temporary1 -
That's good.TheBigBean said:
Yes, all ONS reports have this caveat. They've also changed some date involved in the reporting which has had a significant effect. These caveats tend to be ignored by journalists.pblakeney said:Surely any reports based on figures from the past 2 years must have a covid caveat.
Then there will be the Ukraine caveat. Who knows when we will be able to do a fair comparison with 2019.
However that caveat renders conclusions meaningless IMO.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
permanentTheBigBean said:
One has recovered. One hasn't. It's a report not a crystal ball.sungod said:
how do they know one is 'permanent' and the other 'temporary'?TheBigBean said:Interesting aspect of the LSE report is the permanent decline in imports from the EU in comparison to the temporary decline in exports to the EU.
brexit has increased complexity, cost, and shipping time for eu<->uk trade, barring a roll back of brexit, those changes are clearly a permanent drag on both uk and eu exporters, not temporary
adjective
lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely
certainly looks like crystal ball gazingmy bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
That's why the comparisons with other G7 performance is relevant, rather than exclusively focussing on previous UK performance.TheBigBean said:
Yes, all ONS reports have this caveat. They've also changed some date involved in the reporting which has had a significant effect. These caveats tend to be ignored by journalists.pblakeney said:Surely any reports based on figures from the past 2 years must have a covid caveat.
Then there will be the Ukraine caveat. Who knows when we will be able to do a fair comparison with 2019.
Relative performance of the UK is weaker than the rest of the G7, and it is roughly to the tune of what the expected and measured cost of Brexit is. Go figure.0 -
Not if the conclusion is that it is hard to say because of the caveats.pblakeney said:
That's good.TheBigBean said:
Yes, all ONS reports have this caveat. They've also changed some date involved in the reporting which has had a significant effect. These caveats tend to be ignored by journalists.pblakeney said:Surely any reports based on figures from the past 2 years must have a covid caveat.
Then there will be the Ukraine caveat. Who knows when we will be able to do a fair comparison with 2019.
However that caveat renders conclusions meaningless IMO.0 -
c
Sorry they used the word persistent instead. Hope that helps.sungod said:
permanentTheBigBean said:
One has recovered. One hasn't. It's a report not a crystal ball.sungod said:
how do they know one is 'permanent' and the other 'temporary'?TheBigBean said:Interesting aspect of the LSE report is the permanent decline in imports from the EU in comparison to the temporary decline in exports to the EU.
brexit has increased complexity, cost, and shipping time for eu<->uk trade, barring a roll back of brexit, those changes are clearly a permanent drag on both uk and eu exporters, not temporary
adjective
lasting or intended to last or remain unchanged indefinitely
certainly looks like crystal ball gazing1 -
FT's analysis on this ignored significant caveats noted by ONS (eg date change). Instead it blindly relied on the data alone.rick_chasey said:
That's why the comparisons with other G7 performance is relevant, rather than exclusively focussing on previous UK performance.TheBigBean said:
Yes, all ONS reports have this caveat. They've also changed some date involved in the reporting which has had a significant effect. These caveats tend to be ignored by journalists.pblakeney said:Surely any reports based on figures from the past 2 years must have a covid caveat.
Then there will be the Ukraine caveat. Who knows when we will be able to do a fair comparison with 2019.
Relative performance of the UK is weaker than the rest of the G7, and it is roughly to the tune of what the expected and measured cost of Brexit is. Go figure.0 -
So either the conclusion is meaningless, or it is inconclusive.TheBigBean said:
Not if the conclusion is that it is hard to say because of the caveats.pblakeney said:
That's good.TheBigBean said:
Yes, all ONS reports have this caveat. They've also changed some date involved in the reporting which has had a significant effect. These caveats tend to be ignored by journalists.pblakeney said:Surely any reports based on figures from the past 2 years must have a covid caveat.
Then there will be the Ukraine caveat. Who knows when we will be able to do a fair comparison with 2019.
However that caveat renders conclusions meaningless IMO.
Great use of time.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Unionism's legal case against the Protocol is going to the Supreme Court
3 items to be adjudicated
The Article 6 of the Acts of Union
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
