Brexit matters

[renegademaster]

I'd disagree that was a Brexit disbenefit, but rather just another home-grown, self-inflicted bash to the head.

A responsible government would have figured out what Brexit meant *before* pulling the trigger.

Brexit means leaving the EU. It doesnt mean forever binding a future government to use the independence to do some specific policy

 

[sor]

There are benefits, but from what I can tell many of them haven't actually been enabled. Border control seems to be the main one, we supposedly control all immigration now, but the net migration number keeps going up. Also I believe abolishing VAT on energy bills is a Brexit benefit, but even amidst an energy bills crisis this hasn't been implemented.

the so called “tampon tax” (as feted by brexit supporters) did get abolished in the UK, but I would imagine it’s more than offset by other brexit costs. And then the EU changed their rules to allow member states to do it anyway!

Yeah, and I'd say to some extent that is to be expected because a lot of the potential benefits that Brexiters perceive are long term things that are to do with the UK in principle being able to do things how it wants in ways that suit UK circumstances rather than having to accept a one-size-fits-all EU approach. But changing all the laws etc. can take years, so if those benefits materialize, it's likely to be on a timescale of 10-20 years.

In any sane world, a decision predicated on a very remote possibility of gains in decades to come would probably not have been made. Though in a sane world “brexit” would actually have been defined before it went to a vote

Of course in practice we aren’t changing the laws all that much, we seem to be continuing to adhere to EU rules without getting a say - and the new NI deal might finally lock that in once and for all. So what have we got? We’ve become a rule taker, we have higher net migration than ever before, we’re signing alleged “trade deals” that are very likely damaging to our country or its industries, and for what exactly? Do we need to wait decades for the flowers to bloom?

the 48% never saw it as realistic that the UK is going to meaningfully diverge from the EU and become that “singapore on thames” (well, maybe not the chewing gum ban and strong public housing/transport systems) and other similar guff as spouted by Brexit supporters.

 

[renegademaster]

Our current high immigration isnt because of brexit. Its because the home office grants visas liberally and the government has made the decision to allow that to continue, and they could tell them to be more restrictive but dont want too. The cabinet, while throwing around some anti immigration rhetoric for votes, is ultimately very pro immigration. Brexit just meant it's westministers choice now

 

[LBMPSB]

Seen on the Brexit Battle Bus, what happened to "We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund the NHS instead."? Was there actually £350 million a week sent to the EU? If it was true, where is that extra £350 million a week we save not being in the EU gone?

 

[renegademaster]

In to the general government budget.

 

[REVUpminster]

Pro EU supporters are still proclaiming the benefits of EUtopia. As our economy is so bad perhaps, if we rejoined, we will become a net recipient of EU money instead of a contributor? But pigs might fly.

 

[Richard Scott]

Seen on the Brexit Battle Bus, what happened to "We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund the NHS instead."? Was there actually £350 million a week sent to the EU? If it was true, where is that extra £350 million a week we save not being in the EU gone?

£350 million per week in terms of Government budget is not significant. It was just to persuade people to vote for Brexit as it sounded like a large amount of money (which it would be to an individual) but most probably have no idea what the NHS costs a year to run.

 

[edwin_m]

£350 million per week in terms of Government budget is not significant. It was just to persuade people to vote for Brexit as it sounded like a large amount of money (which it would be to an individual) but most probably have no idea what the NHS costs a year to run.

For context, the Office of Budget Responsibility considers that Brexit reduced the UK economy by 4% compared to where it would have been under business as usual (an ongoing drag not a short-term hit later recovered). GDP is about £2.2 trillion per year so 4% would be about £1.7 billion a week. Total government spending is about 50% of GDP so exiting the EU has meant the government has about £850 million less to spend per week if tax rates and borrowing stay the same. That's over twice the £350m figure, which was always an over-estimate because it didn't allow for the UK's rebate on EU payments or the fact some of it came back to the UK as EU spending. And that's just the impact on government spending - reduction of GDP ultimately affects wages too.

 

[JamesT]

For context, the Office of Budget Responsibility considers that Brexit reduced the UK economy by 4% compared to where it would have been under business as usual (an ongoing drag not a short-term hit later recovered). GDP is about £2.2 trillion per year so 4% would be about £1.7 billion a week. Total government spending is about 50% of GDP so exiting the EU has meant the government has about £850 million less to spend per week if tax rates and borrowing stay the same. That's over twice the £350m figure, which was always an over-estimate because it didn't allow for the UK's rebate on EU payments or the fact some of it came back to the UK as EU spending. And that's just the impact on government spending - reduction of GDP ultimately affects wages too.

I would take that 4% figure with a large bag of salt. It's based on modelling compared to what they think a UK that hadn't left would have done, mostly by using the performance of other countries as a stand-in.
https://policyexchange.org.uk/blogs/why-the-centre-for-european-reform-is-wrong-about-brexit/ is comparing to an analysis done by the CER rather than OBR, but the methodology will be similar.

Summary

The Centre for European Reform (CER) doppelgänger methodology selects a group of countries which had a similar economic performance to the UK prior to Brexit and then compares their post-Brexit performance with that of the UK.

– The research uses different sets of comparator countries for different variables (and different to its previous report) rather than making a comparison with a consistent set of counties.

– It assumes that any divergence between the UK and comparators is due to Brexit, whereas self-evidently it could and probably does come from a wide range of other reasons, notably the cyclical position of different countries at different times.

– Crucially, the massive disruption caused to all economies by the Covid pandemic, and differences in measurement methodology between the UK and many other countries, mean that conclusions based on the pandemic years — nearly half of the CER’s base period — cannot be plausibly substantiated.

A more plausible comparison, between the UK and the other G7 countries, shows no visible impact from Brexit at all. GDP in current prices in the UK fell a little behind the G6 in 2018 but then recovered by 2019. The Covid-induced decline in 2020 was a little deeper than the G6 and, as expected from its earlier ending of lockdowns, the UK’s recovery has been a little faster.

It will take many years to disentangle the effect of Brexit from all the other influences on the UK economy over these years. It can’t be short-circuited by creating an implausible and flawed methodology to draw premature conclusions.

 

[edwin_m]

I would take that 4% figure with a large bag of salt. It's based on modelling compared to what they think a UK that hadn't left would have done, mostly by using the performance of other countries as a stand-in.
https://policyexchange.org.uk/blogs/why-the-centre-for-european-reform-is-wrong-about-brexit/ is comparing to an analysis done by the CER rather than OBR, but the methodology will be similar.

Bit in bold is your assertion and I suggest something of a stretch. Considering the OBR is the defacto producer of economic assessment for the government, can't you find someone to debunk that directly?

 

[JamesT]

Bit in bold is your assertion and I suggest something of a stretch. Considering the OBR is the defacto producer of economic assessment for the government, can't you find someone to debunk that directly?

OBR forecasts that Brexit would damage UK-EU trade are unfounded, says IEA

Financial watchdog accused of creating ‘false narrative’ since Britain left the single bloc

www.telegraph.co.uk

Predictions made by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) before Britain’s exit from the single bloc suggested that the UK economy would shrink by about 4pc in the long run as a result of Brexit.

But the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) said the UK’s trade patterns with the EU failed to show any impact from Brexit, either since the referendum or the end of the transition period.

The OBR's forecast (from page 46 of https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/OBR-EFO-March-2023_Web_Accessible.pdf) is:

On trade and productivity, we assume that the volume of UK imports and exports will
both be 15 per cent lower in the long run than if we had remained in the EU, reducing
the overall trade intensity of GDP. And we assume that this leads to a 4 per cent reduction
in the potential productivity of the UK economy. The reduction builds over time with the
full effect felt after 15 years.

 

[najaB]

If it was true, where is that extra £350 million a week we save not being in the EU gone?

It's with the rainbows and unicorns.

 

[edwin_m]

OBR forecasts that Brexit would damage UK-EU trade are unfounded, says IEA

Financial watchdog accused of creating ‘false narrative’ since Britain left the single bloc

www.telegraph.co.uk

The OBR's forecast (from page 46 of https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/OBR-EFO-March-2023_Web_Accessible.pdf) is:

Better, but still a quote in a right-wing paper from a right-wing think tank. I skipped to the original report's "Conclusion and a warning" to find five "warnings", all of which are right-wing tropes against corporate taxation or green measures.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/has...ponsibilitys-claims/#Conclusion_and_a_warning (not quoted - any quote would either be huge or be out of context).

 

[JamesT]

Better, but still a quote in a right-wing paper from a right-wing think tank. I skipped to the original report's "Conclusion and a warning" to find five "warnings", all of which are right-wing tropes against corporate taxation or green measures.

https://iea.org.uk/publications/has...ponsibilitys-claims/#Conclusion_and_a_warning (not quoted - any quote would either be huge or be out of context).

That's very much shooting the messenger. Yes, the IEA will rail against certain things, but it doesn't make the statistics they're using wrong, those come from the ONS. The OBR themselves admit their forecasts are often incorrect, though they publish analyses claiming they're not excessively wrong compared to other economic forecasters.
But still, if the OBR are correct, they ought to be able to point at a lessening of trade after taking account of Covid etc. that is due to Brexit? I've yet to see that, just their assertion based on their modelling.

 

[edwin_m]

That's very much shooting the messenger. Yes, the IEA will rail against certain things, but it doesn't make the statistics they're using wrong, those come from the ONS. The OBR themselves admit their forecasts are often incorrect, though they publish analyses claiming they're not excessively wrong compared to other economic forecasters.
But still, if the OBR are correct, they ought to be able to point at a lessening of trade after taking account of Covid etc. that is due to Brexit? I've yet to see that, just their assertion based on their modelling.

OBR broadly stand by their conclusions as of last April: https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-forecast/brexit-analysis/#assumptions

Since the announcement of the EU referendum we have been producing analysis and writing about the potential effects of Brexit on the economy and public finances. We have compiled our assumptions, judgements and analysis on this page.

The link has more detailed info including links to justification for their assumptions.


A web search on the IEA reinforces my suspicion that they are highly partisan and "they would say that, wouldn't they".

 

[317 forever]

No, all former opt outs have disappeared. The Lisbon Treaty is pretty clear on the issue, a former member that wants to rejoin gets no special treatment but has to go through the same process as any other country that wants to be a member.

It is understandable if the EU would not grant us those opt-outs again if we ask to rejoin. However, it is possible that an independent Scotland wanting to rejoin might consider it unfair given that, in the words of the SNP, Scotland was "dragged out of the EU against its will".

 

[Richard Scott]

It is understandable if the EU would not grant us those opt-outs again if we ask to rejoin. However, it is possible that an independent Scotland wanting to rejoin might consider it unfair given that, in the words of the SNP, Scotland was "dragged out of the EU against its will".

If all the people in Scotland who voted for Brexit had voted Remain we would still be in EU!

 

[RT4038]

A good point. I do suspect those Remainers (will use this term for want of a better word) who can influence are biding their time until a more amenable government is in power. There is no way in a million years that the current government will get closer to the EU, as Hard Brexit is in their eyes their badge of honour.

I think that we are going through the 'sore' period after a dispute, which will take a little time to pass. Gradually the protagonists on both sides (both in the UK and in the EU) will move on, and gradually the two parties will get closer again. I do not think that there has ever been any agenda to move the UK away on xenophobic grounds (that has just been a label applied to try and discredit) - I believe the underlying agenda has been to reset the relationship and particularly the strings attached to the Single Market. Negotiation was attempted but, with the 'european project' goals and majority voting systems in place this was simply not going to run. It was either 'put up' or leave, so if one didn't want to 'put up' then the only other option was leave and possibly the opportunity to reset the strings later. This will take co-operation and understanding on both sides, and I predict that will happen in the future, on a gradual basis, to the mutual satisfaction of both sides. But it'll take a while.

True. Also the EU is unlikely to want to go through a further set of painful negotiations on a closer relationship with a future government if there is a significant risk that the Tories will get back in and reverse the whole thing again. Labour is proposing to stop any further divergence and to work closer on a few specific areas, but anything more than that is unlikely until the current Tory Brexit faction is no longer active or has been reduced to irrelevance with no prospect of a way back.

Quite. I think it unlikely that there will be any negotiations, painful or otherwise, any time soon. Just a closer relationship. And that, I believe, was the real agenda of the Brexiteers all along - it was not some kind of xenophobia - it was the belief that the UK was too entangled in the strings of the Single Market and there was no way of negotiating / influencing any meaningful changes, or preventing further entanglement. So it had to be Brexit with the possibility of a reset later.

 

[ainsworth74]

Without a huge amount of opposition it may be said, including getting a large majority at a General Election on which it was, I thought, pretty obvious which route was being taken.

I'm not sure I'd characterise what went on during 2018/19 leading up to December 2019 election as being a period "without a huge amount of opposition". It may not have been effective in the end at preventing a hard Brexit but it certainly was there and to pretend otherwise would be re-writing history.

It should also be noted, of course, that that large majority was only in terms of seats in Parliament not votes. A narrow majority of votes cast were for parties who were somewhere on a spectrum of Second Referendum or closer alignment than was on offer with Boris. I perfectly accept that by virtue of our electoral system Boris had all the mandate required to implement a hard Brexit but lets not kid ourselves that he was giving voice to the "Will Of The People" and had a large majority of popular support. The hard Brexit that has been delivered has always been a minority pursuit though it is of course convenient to try and pretend otherwise.

 

[najaB]

And that, I believe, was the real agenda of the Brexiteers all along...

Some people believe in fairies.

The arch Brexiteers - as in the people who were the driving force behind it - had one agenda: to make money off the pain and suffering of others.

 

[edwin_m]

I think that we are going through the 'sore' period after a dispute, which will take a little time to pass. Gradually the protagonists on both sides (both in the UK and in the EU) will move on, and gradually the two parties will get closer again. I do not think that there has ever been any agenda to move the UK away on xenophobic grounds (that has just been a label applied to try and discredit) - I believe the underlying agenda has been to reset the relationship and particularly the strings attached to the Single Market. Negotiation was attempted but, with the 'european project' goals and majority voting systems in place this was simply not going to run. It was either 'put up' or leave, so if one didn't want to 'put up' then the only other option was leave and possibly the opportunity to reset the strings later. This will take co-operation and understanding on both sides, and I predict that will happen in the future, on a gradual basis, to the mutual satisfaction of both sides. But it'll take a while.

Quite. I think it unlikely that there will be any negotiations, painful or otherwise, any time soon. Just a closer relationship. And that, I believe, was the real agenda of the Brexiteers all along - it was not some kind of xenophobia - it was the belief that the UK was too entangled in the strings of the Single Market and there was no way of negotiating / influencing any meaningful changes, or preventing further entanglement. So it had to be Brexit with the possibility of a reset later.

All the ramifications of the single market were agreed by all the members at the time, and indeed Britain under Thatcher was very much in favour of it, so by that logic we're effectively saying we changed our mind. Now we are non-members we have no formal ability to influence where the EU goes next. We can influence informally by indicating the sorts of changes that might make us more likely to re-join, but the words and deeds of the Brexiters have made it that much less likely that the EU will put any weight on anything like that. And none of this changes the fact that the Brexiters effectively railroaded their viewpoint through, and as a minority viewpoint it doesn't deserve to take precedence over all the alternatives.

It should also be noted, of course, that that large majority was only in terms of seats in Parliament not votes. A narrow majority of votes cast were for parties who were somewhere on a spectrum of Second Referendum or closer alignment than was on offer with Boris. I perfectly accept that by virtue of our electoral system Boris had all the mandate required to implement a hard Brexit but lets not kid ourselves that he was giving voice to the "Will Of The People" and had a large majority of popular support. The hard Brexit that has been delivered has always been a minority pursuit though it is of course convenient to try and pretend otherwise.

Also of course, voting for a party opposed to Brexit would also have increased the chances of a government led by Corbyn, and many people opposed to Brexit might have considered that to be even worse. There's at least a suspicion that Corbyn was anti-EU anyway, and it wasn't really clear what Labour's Brexit policy was during the campaign. If Labour in 2019 had been led by Starmer and moved to the centre as it has now, then it's probable that they would have made a clear promise of a second referendum and quite possible they would have been elected and therefore able to achieve this.

 

[RT4038]

I'm not sure I'd characterise what went on during 2018/19 leading up to December 2019 election as being a period "without a huge amount of opposition". It may not have been effective in the end at preventing a hard Brexit but it certainly was there and to pretend otherwise would be re-writing history.

Our definitions of 'huge' will of course be subjective. There could have been a lot more opposition, but there wasn't.

It should also be noted, of course, that that large majority was only in terms of seats in Parliament not votes. A narrow majority of votes cast were for parties who were somewhere on a spectrum of Second Referendum or closer alignment than was on offer with Boris. I perfectly accept that by virtue of our electoral system Boris had all the mandate required to implement a hard Brexit but lets not kid ourselves that he was giving voice to the "Will Of The People" and had a large majority of popular support. The hard Brexit that has been delivered has always been a minority pursuit though it is of course convenient to try and pretend otherwise.

It is not really of any consequence - the Brexiteers got their version of Brexit done, and it is not going to be easily rolled back. They may not had a large majority of popular support, but they didn't have a large majority of opposition either.

Some people believe in fairies.

The arch Brexiteers - as in the people who were the driving force behind it - had one agenda: to make money off the pain and suffering of others.

It is your belief ....... They may well be one and the same thing....

 

[ainsworth74]

Our definitions of 'huge' will of course be subjective. There could have been a lot more opposition, but there wasn't.

What more opposition would you have liked to see in order for it to be relevant? Hundreds of thousands attended protest marches, millions signed a petition saying Article 50 should be revoked, a majority of people voted for parties other than the Tories in 2019, opinion polling has consistently shown opposition to Brexit (at least in the form it arrived in) and that it was the wrong decision, Parliament tore itself apart in 2018/19 with May's Government suffering spectacular defeats, Boris purged the Party of its remaining moderate voices (an issue that I think is in part to blame for the current state of the Tory party, see the other thread) and illegally prorogued Parliament to try and get around the opposition forces to Brexit. Did they need to riot? Set fire to some buses? Storm Parliament January 6th style?

Brexit delivered in the form proposed was always and remains to this day a minority pursuit.

It is not really of any consequence - the Brexiteers got their version of Brexit done, and it is not going to be easily rolled back.

I don't think we'll be rejoining the EU anytime soon to be sure but I think you'll find that the rolling back will start before too long so I wouldn't rest on your laurels.

 

[RT4038]

What more opposition would you have liked to see in order for it to be relevant? Hundreds of thousands attended protest marches, millions signed a petition saying Article 50 should be revoked, a majority of people voted for parties other than the Tories in 2019, opinion polling has consistently shown opposition to Brexit (at least in the form it arrived in) and that it was the wrong decision, Parliament tore itself apart in 2018/19 with May's Government suffering spectacular defeats, Boris purged the Party of its remaining moderate voices (an issue that I think is in part to blame for the current state of the Tory party, see the other thread) and illegally prorogued Parliament to try and get around the opposition forces to Brexit. Did they need to riot? Set fire to some buses? Storm Parliament January 6th style?

Brexit delivered in the form proposed was always and remains to this day a minority pursuit.

I am not doubting that Brexit delivered as it was is a minority pursuit. However, the Brexiteers got that Brexit and it is not easily going to be reversed. The 'Remain' campaign with the referendum was pretty insipid, and lots of people attend protest marches, sign petitions for all sorts of things - that doesn't show large majorities or 'the will of the people' as you put it. (as if it was that simple anyway). Remain organisation in Parliament was hopeless. As with anything, there are people with strong views on both sides, and a lot of middle ground (a bit of this and a bit of that, not necessarily in achievable combinations)

I don't think we'll be rejoining the EU anytime soon to be sure but I think you'll find that the rolling back will start before too long so I wouldn't rest on your laurels.

Sorry that you feel the need to get personal, it is not me resting on laurels. The Brexiteers wanted out of EU, the Single Market and in particular some of the strings attached to membership of the single market. They got what they wanted, in spite of the opposition you mentioned (so not particularly effective). As I have said in earlier posts, I do not think they feel that a close relationship with Europe is unwelcome, just not with those strings.

All the ramifications of the single market were agreed by all the members at the time, and indeed Britain under Thatcher was very much in favour of it, so by that logic we're effectively saying we changed our mind.

The European project has changed considerably since the UK first joined. Perhaps the Politicians and Civil Servants negotiating and agreeing did not envisage the ramifications of what they agreed or the future circumstances following signing of the original agreement(s). [Not an unusual state of affairs in our own lives, let alone that of a country]. To the Brexiteers, there being no prospect of meaningful change, the only other option was exit and renegotiation from that position. Changing one's mind in those circumstances is no disgrace, surely?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The arch Brexiteers - as in the people who were the driving force behind it - had one agenda: to make money off the pain and suffering of others.

That's a pretty serious accusation. Do you have any evidence for it?

 

[RT4038]

That's a pretty serious accusation. Do you have any evidence for it?

It is just one of those throwaway emotional phrases - we are all 'making money' off the pain and suffering of someone, somewhere.

 

[Gloster]

A personal opinion. You can always tell when those on the right (*) are beginning to lose the argument when they start demanding ‘evidence’.

* - The left have their quirks as well, but this isn’t one of them.

 

[najaB]

That's a pretty serious accusation. Do you have any evidence for it?

Has it come as a surprise to you that the group of people who funded Leave.eu has a significant overlap with our most ardent believers in the power of the market? And that they see "European" regulation (e.g. equal pay, fair holidays, environmental protection etc.) as impediments to profit?

 

[edwin_m]

The European project has changed considerably since the UK first joined. Perhaps the Politicians and Civil Servants negotiating and agreeing did not envisage the ramifications of what they agreed or the future circumstances following signing of the original agreement(s). [Not an unusual state of affairs in our own lives, let alone that of a country]. To the Brexiteers, there being no prospect of meaningful change, the only other option was exit and renegotiation from that position. Changing one's mind in those circumstances is no disgrace, surely?

In 2019, when polls showed enough people had changed their minds to swing the balance of opinion against Brexit, trying to stop it led to vilification as an "enemy of the people".

You haven't defined what the "strings" are that you refer to, and others might give a different answer when asked the same question.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Has it come as a surprise to you that the group of people who funded Leave.eu has a significant overlap with our most ardent believers in the power of the market?

Why should that be a surprise? It makes perfect sense that someone who believes in the free market as the way to economic prosperity, and believes we are over-regulated, would consider the EU - with its mass or regulation - to be a hindrance to growth and prosperity and therefore be inclined to support Brexit. You don't need to invent underhand or corrupt motives to see that connection.

And that they see "European" regulation (e.g. equal pay, fair holidays, environmental protection etc.) as impediments to profit?

Or as impediments to growth and prosperity, perhaps? I doubt many people are opposed to equal pay - I suspect you've made that one up. But there are legitimate arguments about too high a level of statutory holidays or too much environmental protection causing more harm than good to people (FWIW personally I'd be slightly sympathetic to those arguments when it comes to statutory holidays but not environmental protection). You seem to be making the usual mistake that so many on the 'progressive'/'remain' side make of assuming that people on the other side of the argument must have some foul motives, instead of accepting that *gasp* *shock* *horror* there are actually people who see the World in a different way from how you see it.

As for the video you posted - I'm immediately distrustful of something that uses emotive language like 'disaster capitalist' and looks rather like propaganda, so I'm somewhat disinclined to watch the whole thing (I did flick through a few moments). If that video does actually provide some hard evidence that most prominent Brexit supporters were motivated by something corrupt or underhand, then perhaps you could point it out?