BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
https://www.niesr.ac.uk/publications/revisiting-effect-brexit?type=global-economic-outlook-topical-featureThe United Kingdom has experienced slower economic growth following the global financial crisis and its exit from the European Union. Our estimates suggest that had the post-2010 trends been sustained, real income and private consumption per capita could have been 8-9 per cent and 11-12 per cent higher than current figures, respectively.
The difference between pre-pandemic trends and the current outlook cannot be solely ascribed to Brexit, considering the substantial economic disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine conflict in the post-Brexit era. A model-based approach is required to help identify the effect of Brexit on UK economic performance amongst these other factors.
As a point of departure, we revisit the impact of Brexit on the UK economy considering the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). We have modelled several macroeconomic factors affecting the UK economy associated with the beginning of the TCA in 2021: a trade decline with the European Union and an associated reduction in the UK terms of trade, a reduction in productivity, and a permanent reduction in the willingness to invest in the United Kingdom. In addition, we assume agents in 2016 (i.e., once the referendum result was known) perfectly anticipated that these shocks would happen in 2021.
These estimates suggest that Brexit had already reduced UK real GDP relative to the baseline by just under one per cent in 2020 as consumers and businesses adapted their expectations even before the TCA came into force. Our estimates further suggest that three years after the transition period, UK real GDP is some 2-3 per cent lower due to Brexit, compared to a scenario where the United Kingdom retained EU membership. This corresponds to a per capita income loss of approximately £850.
Our estimates indicate that the negative impact of Brexit gradually escalates, reaching some 5-6 per cent of GDP or about £2,300 per capita by 2035. The reduction in real incomes resulting from the fall in the UK terms of trade associated with changes in trading relations with the European Union and the fall in productivity are the largest contributors to the estimated reduction in real GDP, with each accounting for over 2.5 percentage points.0 -
So Cornwall was fvcked by Johnson too. Mind you, even at the time it was obvious, given that Cornwall had benefited so much from EU funding.
0 -
you would need a heart of stone not to find that funnybriantrumpet said:So Cornwall was fvcked by Johnson too. Mind you, even at the time it was obvious, given that Cornwall had benefited so much from EU funding.
0 -
that 2% does my head in.TheBigBean said:
How does the 2% ONS found down the back of sofa fit in?briantrumpet said:
The economy and tax revenue is the size that it is, so in that regard the 2% is irrelevant.
Does it mean that the Tories are no long world leaders in % tax take?0 -
GDP is calculated as a change from the previous period rather than a new absolute figure.surrey_commuter said:
that 2% does my head in.TheBigBean said:
How does the 2% ONS found down the back of sofa fit in?briantrumpet said:
The economy and tax revenue is the size that it is, so in that regard the 2% is irrelevant.
Does it mean that the Tories are no long world leaders in % tax take?
0 -
surely one follows from the otherTheBigBean said:
GDP is calculated as a change from the previous period rather than a new absolute figure.surrey_commuter said:
that 2% does my head in.TheBigBean said:
How does the 2% ONS found down the back of sofa fit in?briantrumpet said:
The economy and tax revenue is the size that it is, so in that regard the 2% is irrelevant.
Does it mean that the Tories are no long world leaders in % tax take?0 -
Not exactly. It's like working out how many pairs of socks you have in a drawer. One way would be to empty the drawer and count them all, the other way would be to measure it based on yesterday's figure. The latter approach struggles to adapt if your wife finds some new socks down the back of sofa and adds them to the drawer.surrey_commuter said:
surely one follows from the otherTheBigBean said:
GDP is calculated as a change from the previous period rather than a new absolute figure.surrey_commuter said:
that 2% does my head in.TheBigBean said:
How does the 2% ONS found down the back of sofa fit in?briantrumpet said:
The economy and tax revenue is the size that it is, so in that regard the 2% is irrelevant.
Does it mean that the Tories are no long world leaders in % tax take?0 -
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Surely a better analogy would be if you had calculated you watts to weight ration incorrectly and then you more accuratelymeasured your watts.TheBigBean said:
Not exactly. It's like working out how many pairs of socks you have in a drawer. One way would be to empty the drawer and count them all, the other way would be to measure it based on yesterday's figure. The latter approach struggles to adapt if your wife finds some new socks down the back of sofa and adds them to the drawer.surrey_commuter said:
surely one follows from the otherTheBigBean said:
GDP is calculated as a change from the previous period rather than a new absolute figure.surrey_commuter said:
that 2% does my head in.TheBigBean said:
How does the 2% ONS found down the back of sofa fit in?briantrumpet said:
The economy and tax revenue is the size that it is, so in that regard the 2% is irrelevant.
Does it mean that the Tories are no long world leaders in % tax take?
The new stats tell you that you should be going faster but in reality nothing has changed0 -
my inability to understand TBB's point makes me think I should have voted Brexit.rjsterry said:
Academia does itself no favours spending time and money to prove that thickos are more likely to be fooled.0 -
I'm struggling to get my head round the UK streaking ahead of every other net contributor country in the EU in the parallel universe where the UK didn't leave.TheBigBean said:
How does the 2% ONS found down the back of sofa fit in?briantrumpet said:
The major western Europe economies have performed broadly the same in GDP terms since the start of the pandemic / Brexit, after years of performing broadly the same pre-Brexit. So what would have changed in this parallel universe in 2020 to create this phase of out-performance? (Rhetorical question, obviously!)0 -
I think this nails it. Correcting a retrospective GDP stat doesn't make anyone better off. Though hopefully, the more accurate data will stimulate more sensible discussions e.g. no more "Worst in the G7. It's all Brexit's fault" and more "What can we do to actually improve things?"surrey_commuter said:
Surely a better analogy would be if you had calculated you watts to weight ratio incorrectly and then you more accurately measured your watts.TheBigBean said:
Not exactly. It's like working out how many pairs of socks you have in a drawer. One way would be to empty the drawer and count them all, the other way would be to measure it based on yesterday's figure. The latter approach struggles to adapt if your wife finds some new socks down the back of sofa and adds them to the drawer.surrey_commuter said:
surely one follows from the otherTheBigBean said:
GDP is calculated as a change from the previous period rather than a new absolute figure.surrey_commuter said:
that 2% does my head in.TheBigBean said:
How does the 2% ONS found down the back of sofa fit in?briantrumpet said:
The economy and tax revenue is the size that it is, so in that regard the 2% is irrelevant.
Does it mean that the Tories are no long world leaders in % tax take?
The new stats tell you that you should be going faster but in reality nothing has changed
0 -
A lot of energy was put into comparing the performances of different economies during Covid. There was a lot of chat that the UK was one of the worst performers, but then the ONS found 2% down the back of the sofa. Suddenly the UK wasn't the worst performer, it was distinctly average. And yet, nothing had changed in the UK before and after the sofa incident. The point I'm making is that comparing economies is difficult even when they are actual functioning economies.wallace_and_gromit said:
I'm struggling to get my head round the UK streaking ahead of every other net contributor country in the EU in the parallel universe where the UK didn't leave.TheBigBean said:
How does the 2% ONS found down the back of sofa fit in?briantrumpet said:
The major western Europe economies have performed broadly the same in GDP terms since the start of the pandemic / Brexit, after years of performing broadly the same pre-Brexit. So what would have changed in this parallel universe in 2020 to create this phase of out-performance? (Rhetorical question, obviously!)
In this case we have a tweet about the percentage impact of Brexit on GDP. It's not a comparison of actual economies, but instead a real one and a hypothetical non-Brexit one. Whilst I fully expect Brexit to have a negative impact, it seems a pointless exercise to try to calculate that impact exactly.
0 -
Agreed. Not sure that the infamous "Doppelganger Economy" concept has had a "Good Brexit".TheBigBean said:
A lot of energy was put into comparing the performances of different economies during Covid. There was a lot of chat that the UK was one of the worst performers, but then the ONS found 2% down the back of the sofa. Suddenly the UK wasn't the worst performer, it was distinctly average. And yet, nothing had changed in the UK before and after the sofa incident. The point I'm making is that comparing economies is different even when they are actual functioning economies.wallace_and_gromit said:
I'm struggling to get my head round the UK streaking ahead of every other net contributor country in the EU in the parallel universe where the UK didn't leave.TheBigBean said:
How does the 2% ONS found down the back of sofa fit in?briantrumpet said:
The major western Europe economies have performed broadly the same in GDP terms since the start of the pandemic / Brexit, after years of performing broadly the same pre-Brexit. So what would have changed in this parallel universe in 2020 to create this phase of out-performance? (Rhetorical question, obviously!)
In this case we have a tweet about the percentage impact of Brexit on GDP. It's not a comparison of actual economies, but instead a real one and a hypothetical non-Brexit one. Whilst I fully expect Brexit to have a negative impact, it seems a pointless exercise to try to calculate that impact exactly.0 -
Good point, agreed.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think this nails it. Correcting a retrospective GDP stat doesn't make anyone better off. Though hopefully, the more accurate data will stimulate more sensible discussions e.g. no more "Worst in the G7. It's all Brexit's fault" and more "What can we do to actually improve things?"surrey_commuter said:
Surely a better analogy would be if you had calculated you watts to weight ratio incorrectly and then you more accurately measured your watts.TheBigBean said:
Not exactly. It's like working out how many pairs of socks you have in a drawer. One way would be to empty the drawer and count them all, the other way would be to measure it based on yesterday's figure. The latter approach struggles to adapt if your wife finds some new socks down the back of sofa and adds them to the drawer.surrey_commuter said:
surely one follows from the otherTheBigBean said:
GDP is calculated as a change from the previous period rather than a new absolute figure.surrey_commuter said:
that 2% does my head in.TheBigBean said:
How does the 2% ONS found down the back of sofa fit in?briantrumpet said:
The economy and tax revenue is the size that it is, so in that regard the 2% is irrelevant.
Does it mean that the Tories are no long world leaders in % tax take?
The new stats tell you that you should be going faster but in reality nothing has changed
Unfortunately some people seem unable to move on from the "Worst in the G7. It's all Brexit's fault" position, as you can see from this thread."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Oh lighten up. Everyone else is trolling, why shouldn't academia? 🙂.surrey_commuter said:
my inability to understand TBB's point makes me think I should have voted Brexit.rjsterry said:
Academia does itself no favours spending time and money to prove that thickos are more likely to be fooled.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Interesting view in the Independent on the 'Brexit voters are thickos' claim:
https://msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-why-i-won-t-call-leave-voters-stupid-and-i-m-a-diehard-remainer/ar-AA1kqdWT?cvid=7bc5c7a6a67440b49120c2ed433d1b11&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=4
Something about glass houses and stones?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
Interesting view in the Independent on the 'Brexit voters are thickos' claim:
https://msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-why-i-won-t-call-leave-voters-stupid-and-i-m-a-diehard-remainer/ar-AA1kqdWT?cvid=7bc5c7a6a67440b49120c2ed433d1b11&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=4
Something about glass houses and stones?
I must be stupid, as I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
The author doesn't dispute the study's findings, but (duh!) that it doesn't help persuade people their view might be mistaken (such as the provenly daft "The EU need us more than we need them") if you call them 'stupid', either individually, or as a group.0 -
I don't think you're supposed to take it seriously.Stevo_666 said:Interesting view in the Independent on the 'Brexit voters are thickos' claim:
https://msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-why-i-won-t-call-leave-voters-stupid-and-i-m-a-diehard-remainer/ar-AA1kqdWT?cvid=7bc5c7a6a67440b49120c2ed433d1b11&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=4
Something about glass houses and stones?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Read the article and the point made at the end. Pretty obvious, unless you are what they saybriantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:Interesting view in the Independent on the 'Brexit voters are thickos' claim:
https://msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-why-i-won-t-call-leave-voters-stupid-and-i-m-a-diehard-remainer/ar-AA1kqdWT?cvid=7bc5c7a6a67440b49120c2ed433d1b11&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=4
Something about glass houses and stones?
I must be stupid, as I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
The author doesn't dispute the study's findings, but (duh!) that it doesn't help persuade people their view might be mistaken (such as the provenly daft "The EU need us more than we need them") if you call them 'stupid', either individually, or as a group.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Where do I say that I did?rjsterry said:
I don't think you're supposed to take it seriously.Stevo_666 said:Interesting view in the Independent on the 'Brexit voters are thickos' claim:
https://msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-why-i-won-t-call-leave-voters-stupid-and-i-m-a-diehard-remainer/ar-AA1kqdWT?cvid=7bc5c7a6a67440b49120c2ed433d1b11&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=4
Something about glass houses and stones? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You don't but you seem to have bothered to go and find that article to refute it.Stevo_666 said:
Where do I say that I did?rjsterry said:
I don't think you're supposed to take it seriously.Stevo_666 said:Interesting view in the Independent on the 'Brexit voters are thickos' claim:
https://msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-why-i-won-t-call-leave-voters-stupid-and-i-m-a-diehard-remainer/ar-AA1kqdWT?cvid=7bc5c7a6a67440b49120c2ed433d1b11&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=4
Something about glass houses and stones?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It was a fun article taking the mick out of the smartarse/condescending wing of the remainer movement, but I guess your reply just goes to show that lefties don't have a sense of humourrjsterry said:
You don't but you seem to have bothered to go and find that article to refute it.Stevo_666 said:
Where do I say that I did?rjsterry said:
I don't think you're supposed to take it seriously.Stevo_666 said:Interesting view in the Independent on the 'Brexit voters are thickos' claim:
https://msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/voices-why-i-won-t-call-leave-voters-stupid-and-i-m-a-diehard-remainer/ar-AA1kqdWT?cvid=7bc5c7a6a67440b49120c2ed433d1b11&ocid=winp2fptaskbarent&ei=4
Something about glass houses and stones? "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
-
The maths is shifting. I'm not expecting Starmer to change his tune, certainly not before the election, but if it's not the toxic subject it used to be, pragmatism might yet win, especially now we have the stark proof that the EU was not the problem as far as immigration is concerned.
0 -
I just wonder if Rees-Smug's projection of seeing the benefits of Brexit within 50 years might come true... if within that 50 years the UK does re-join the SM and free movement returns with the toxicity largely removed because of the failure of the Brexit experiment.
Seems about the right timescale, but hopefully sooner.
0 -
I suspect the anti argument would be that we would end up with 1m net immigration, because we have 700,000 at the minute and FoM could add 300k to that potentially.
1 million would be quite a weighty number.
0 -
That's based on the assumption that the EU will last that long, at least in a form that is vaguely similar to what there's today. 50 years is a long time. Long enough for most of us to be dead by then.briantrumpet said:I just wonder if Rees-Smug's projection of seeing the benefits of Brexit within 50 years might come true... if within that 50 years the UK does re-join the SM and free movement returns with the toxicity largely removed because of the failure of the Brexit experiment.
Seems about the right timescale, but hopefully sooner.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
That's based on the assumption that the EU will last that long, at least in a form that is vaguely similar to what there's today. 50 years is a long time. Long enough for most of us to be dead by then.briantrumpet said:I just wonder if Rees-Smug's projection of seeing the benefits of Brexit within 50 years might come true... if within that 50 years the UK does re-join the SM and free movement returns with the toxicity largely removed because of the failure of the Brexit experiment.
Seems about the right timescale, but hopefully sooner.
Maybe re the EU, but I suspect that whatever happens, in the long term it won't be based on putting up barriers between nearby wealthy trading blocs, given that the general momentum has been to removing artificial barriers over the past several centuries.
Mind you, if Trump gets back in, I'm not sure that the US is guaranteed a future either in its current form.
I'd just like to see a slightly more rational and tolerant world before I die, rather than the one the current Republican and Tory parties seem to want. But I might have to accept that the world has gone mad and retreat (when the time comes) to where it can't get me. ⚰️0 -
.briantrumpet said:
...
I'd just like to see a slightly more rational and tolerant world before I die, rather than the one the current Republican and Tory parties seem to want. But I might have to accept that the world has gone mad and retreat (when the time comes) to where it can't get me. ⚰️
If it comes to that console yourself with having lived through the heydays.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
