The cost of Brexit (cont)

[SydneyRover]

You have the stage tyke, tell me again why you wanted out, taking into consideration that over half a million people have entered the UK in the last 18 months, the economy is tanking faster than you can type and not even Branton can name those bits of legislation the EU forced upon us that have undermined good old British sovereignty.

Start here:

PS put the flannel down and step away

My apologies Branton, I shouldn't have drawn you back into this and used you to make a point.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie.

I'm guessing at 2030. But what I do know is that trying to take us back in unless there is an overwhelmingly strong feeling in the country for that would be an absolute disaster. For social cohesion in the country and certainly for any party that espoused it.

My take is simple. The large majority of people have to realise what a disaster this decision was before it can ever be safe to try to overturn it. And, much as I wish it weren't the case, that requires several years of economic pain.

Labour has to do it's damnedest to minimise the economic difficulty, both for its own electoral prospects a d of course for the good of the country. It has to position itself so that in 5-6 years time Labour can say "Look! We have been trying our damnedest to make Brexit work. But the facts are now in. Our economic performance has steadily slipped further and further and it has done ever since 2020."

Or if I'm wrong, do what I invited you to do earlier. Talk me through the mechanism by which Labour, here and now, embraces rejoining the EU and doesn't give the Tories an inside run up the rails to the winning post. I'm genuinely interested because, yes, I think that by far and away the best economic position for us would be if a Labour Govt took us back in on Day 1 in December 2024. So tell us: how does that work?

[BobG]

Passions really must be allowed to cool. Data really has to be collected. Information really has to be shared. And economic improvement or disimprovement really has to be felt - by the whole nation irrespective of whether they individually voted for or against leaving the EU. Because then a rational view can be taken; a rational decision made, and, the collapse of tolerant society avoided. For me, whilst leaving the EU was an act of national self harm of historic proportions, the maintenance of a functioning and civilised society is even more important. And for these reasons it'll be 2030 or even later before this subject is once again at the forefront of politics in this country.

BobG

PS. For those of a historical bent we in Britain have been here before. The repeal of the corn laws was an equally divisive, bitter and long lived conflict. The only difference was that it really did split the Tory party in two. They were more honest back in the 1840's.
Robert Peel was a Tory who viewed the well being of the country above the size of his personal bank account. For his principle he was hounded by the rest of the party for the remainder of his life. There's nowt new in politics is there?

[albie]

BST,

You seem to think that you have a disagreement with me, but I am pointing out to you that your real argument is with Keith.

Keith reckons that rejoining the single market is not in the economic interest of the UK, and so has ruled out doing so.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23169962.chump-keir-starmer-slammed-claim-single-market-wouldnt-help-uk/

This is a counterfactual to published Treasury data.
It is clearly not true, and in direct opposition to mainstream economic opinion.
The disadvantage to the UK economy will increase over time.

You do not agree with Keith, as you have been in favour of closer economic ties.
At the same time, you are saying that there will be a new referendum by 2030.

You seem to be saying that Keith is boxing clever, and will move once in power to make a change.
That will look like an act of bad faith, if Labour acts on the sly after misleading voters....the Boris Johnson playbook.

What we are discussing is how any change might come about.
Either Labour include the offer of a referendum in a manifesto, or find another means to a mandate.

It is clearly not going to be in the Labour offer in 2024, as Keith has painted himself into a corner by saying that there would be no economic benefits.
It is very unlikely Keith will still be Labour leader by 2030.

I don't see an easy way to resolve this, as we could have by choosing a "Norway Lite" brexit instead of the hard version to placate the Farage headbangers. Perhaps Scotland rejoining after giving Westminster the boot might shift the balance.

I think a new referendum would be a disaster, as it was when promoted by the "Peoples Vote" campaign in 2019.
I don't understand why you think discussion would be less toxic than the original in 2016.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Albie

Starmer has NOT ruled out rejoining the SM.

He's ruled it out FOR NOW.

The fact that you stubbornly insist on ignoring the realpolitik environment and instead choose to interpret Starmer's actions in the most negative way...THAT is the dividing line between you and me.

This is the third time I've asked you: how does Labour openly embrace the policy you want without risking a Sunak/Braverman/Badenoch Govt from 24-29? And if that happened, what good would that policy be?

If you don't address that, you're reverting yo the Corbynistas attitude of "Well everyone I know thinks this is the right policy so let's do that."

[BillyStubbsTears]

I also agree that a new referendum would be a disaster. Now.

It won't be in 5-10 years time.

[albie]

BST,

It goes for all political dialogue that it is "for now".....the idea that you can predict what might happen 10 years hence is for soothsayers, those with the gift.

Here is Keith telling the BBC that rejoining would not benefit the economy NOW;
https://youtu.be/EwAY-WpiaJw

This kind of flat earth thinking has caused much amusement and consternation among economists.
If he means what he says, clearly he is a Mars bar short of a full picnic.

I have already answered your question about how Labour can move to change in the mid term.....it can't, because Keith has painted himself into a corner. Scotland could change the context, but that remains to be seen.

You are sounding like the political equivalent of Arsene Wenger, who is looking the other way every time his team commit a foul.
Keith slices wildly into his own net under no pressure, and you look to say he is playing the long game by lulling the opposition into a false sense of security.

Take off the rose tinted, lad!

[BillyStubbsTears]

And for the fourth time: How does Labour reopen that debate, NOW, without giving the Tories a lifeline?

Just one response to that will do. No need to extend the discussion. If you can't answer that, your entire approach is meaningless.

[Branton Red]

According to a new study comparing the performance of the UK economy with others of a similar size Brexit (or to be more accurate Johnson's Brexit Deal) is costing the UK £40 billion per year - or £750 million per week.

The economy is 5.5% smaller than it would have been if we had stayed in the EU with business investment down 11% and trade in goods down 7%.

https://www.bylinesupplement.com/p/brexit-costs-us-750-million-a-week

And that's before Truss & Kwarteng's budget. Still we have more tax dodging billionaires in the country than ever before so at least you got what you voted for (or what they wanted you to vote for).

Wilts

This new study was run by the Centre for European Reform. Who per their web site are "devoted to making the EU work better, and strengthening its role in the world. We are pro-European".

They are not in the least bit neutral on the EU or Brexit.

They have produced several similar studies/reports making outlandish claims on the negative impact of Brexit.

For instance here they're claiming the UK is 5.5% smaller now than if we'd stayed in the EU. The OBR estimate the overall hit (i.e. to now and into the future) will be 4%.

I have always agreed that there would be at least a short term negative impact of Brexit.

To assess this impact rationally and fairly we should avoid bias reporting such as this - whether from one side or the other.

[tyke1962]

And for the fourth time: How does Labour reopen that debate, NOW, without giving the Tories a lifeline?

Just one response to that will do. No need to extend the discussion. If you can't answer that, your entire approach is meaningless.

Who is to say there is a debate to open Billy that flies with the broader electorate ?

Based purely on worn down and sick to the back teeth of it .

It's possible most folk want a few years of sustained stability and that hornets nest at the bottom of the garden left well alone .

[Branton Red]

And for the fourth time: How does Labour reopen that debate, NOW, without giving the Tories a lifeline?

Just one response to that will do. No need to extend the discussion. If you can't answer that, your entire approach is meaningless.

For once I agree with Billy on a Brexit thread. Labour are on the verge of winning back all the 60-odd Red Wall seats they lost in 2019 and hence winning the next GE. They will not be jeopardising this by embracing a Remain platform in the Labour manifesto given where public opinion in these seats sits now.

I don't however think this will mean that Labour will just sit on their hands once elected on UK-EU relations.

[BillyStubbsTears]

And for the fourth time: How does Labour reopen that debate, NOW, without giving the Tories a lifeline?

Just one response to that will do. No need to extend the discussion. If you can't answer that, your entire approach is meaningless.

Who is to say there is a debate to open Billy that flies with the broader electorate ?

Based purely on worn down and sick to the back teeth of it .

It's possible most folk want a few years of sustained stability and that hornets nest at the bottom of the garden left well alone .

I agree that a few years of a acceptance of the fact of Brexit is required.

What's required of you is to engage with the evidence  as the cost of the economic hit of Brexit builds up.

I'll tell you now. Brexit WILL be overturned sometime in the next 20 years. The later it is, the worse the damage will be. The issue that will determine how soon it changes is the willingness of Brexit supporters to hold their hands up and admit they've been duped. You can choose how long you take to do that.

[tyke1962]

And for the fourth time: How does Labour reopen that debate, NOW, without giving the Tories a lifeline?

Just one response to that will do. No need to extend the discussion. If you can't answer that, your entire approach is meaningless.

Who is to say there is a debate to open Billy that flies with the broader electorate ?

Based purely on worn down and sick to the back teeth of it .

It's possible most folk want a few years of sustained stability and that hornets nest at the bottom of the garden left well alone .

I agree that a few years of a acceptance of the fact of Brexit is required.

What's required of you is to engage with the evidence  as the cost of the economic hit of Brexit builds up.

I'll tell you now. Brexit WILL be overturned sometime in the next 20 years. The later it is, the worse the damage will be. The issue that will determine how soon it changes is the willingness of Brexit supporters to hold their hands up and admit they've been duped. You can choose how long you take to do that.

Billy in my opinion the Labour Party would be well advised to leave this thing well alone if they want a sustained period in government .

This thing buries everyone who touches it , the casualty list is a mile long .

Who wields the sword doesn't ever  wear the crown with this thing .

The play in my opinion is exactly what Blair did in 1997 , we had to live inside the Thatcher tent and in my opinion your going to have to do the same outside of the EU .

That seems to me to be the reality and I don't say that just because I voted the way I did .

If I thought Labour had a shot at rejoining the EU I'd say so .

[BobG]

Of course they haven't! That's  the point Billy has been making for aeons. Nobody has either the right or the political position to do that. It would hand the Tories the next election on a plate. But that does not mean that the time will not come. Of course it's a guess. But 20 years would be long enough for passions to cool, protagonists to depart and sufficient evidence to be available for a reasoned truth to be widely available.

So stop tilting at windmills that don't exist...  very apt that given where I've been and will be for a while!

BobG

[SydneyRover]

As I said before, any possible benefits that come from brexit will not materialise till long after the those voters are dead and maybe that's the key to re-joining also.

[wilts rover]

According to a new study comparing the performance of the UK economy with others of a similar size Brexit (or to be more accurate Johnson's Brexit Deal) is costing the UK £40 billion per year - or £750 million per week.

The economy is 5.5% smaller than it would have been if we had stayed in the EU with business investment down 11% and trade in goods down 7%.

https://www.bylinesupplement.com/p/brexit-costs-us-750-million-a-week

And that's before Truss & Kwarteng's budget. Still we have more tax dodging billionaires in the country than ever before so at least you got what you voted for (or what they wanted you to vote for).

Wilts

This new study was run by the Centre for European Reform. Who per their web site are "devoted to making the EU work better, and strengthening its role in the world. We are pro-European".

They are not in the least bit neutral on the EU or Brexit.

They have produced several similar studies/reports making outlandish claims on the negative impact of Brexit.

For instance here they're claiming the UK is 5.5% smaller now than if we'd stayed in the EU. The OBR estimate the overall hit (i.e. to now and into the future) will be 4%.

I have always agreed that there would be at least a short term negative impact of Brexit.

To assess this impact rationally and fairly we should avoid bias reporting such as this - whether from one side or the other.

Branton - but you are quite openly a leave voter. Thus based on your own criteria as stated above - you shouldn't be commenting?

Personally I am more than happy for Brexiteers to show all the positive social and economic benefits you told us it would have. It's not bias - it's just counting.

[wilts rover]

Despite what Labour is saying now about not rejoining the EU when they win the next election, I hope this is just a 'let's not rock the boat' tactic, and the first thing they do is apply to rejoin the single market.

Some sort of Single Market arrangement certainly, but absolutely no chance that the EU would consider full membership for the UK for a while to come yet. Because they know that any future government could once again reverse that - and they aren't going thro that again.

[ravenrover]

Just seen a tweet from Farage
"Britain is broken" mmmmm!

[Branton Red]

According to a new study comparing the performance of the UK economy with others of a similar size Brexit (or to be more accurate Johnson's Brexit Deal) is costing the UK £40 billion per year - or £750 million per week.

The economy is 5.5% smaller than it would have been if we had stayed in the EU with business investment down 11% and trade in goods down 7%.

https://www.bylinesupplement.com/p/brexit-costs-us-750-million-a-week

And that's before Truss & Kwarteng's budget. Still we have more tax dodging billionaires in the country than ever before so at least you got what you voted for (or what they wanted you to vote for).

Wilts

This new study was run by the Centre for European Reform. Who per their web site are "devoted to making the EU work better, and strengthening its role in the world. We are pro-European".

They are not in the least bit neutral on the EU or Brexit.

They have produced several similar studies/reports making outlandish claims on the negative impact of Brexit.

For instance here they're claiming the UK is 5.5% smaller now than if we'd stayed in the EU. The OBR estimate the overall hit (i.e. to now and into the future) will be 4%.

I have always agreed that there would be at least a short term negative impact of Brexit.

To assess this impact rationally and fairly we should avoid bias reporting such as this - whether from one side or the other.

It's not bias - it's just counting.

There is a whole myriad of issues that have impacted UK economic performance recently: Brexit; Covid; Global inflation; Strengthening of the US $; Tax rises; Vaccine rollout; the labour market etc etc. Some are inter-related.

To isolate one of those issues to estimate the economic impact of it alone is not 'just counting'.

Such an assessment needs a whole host of judgements. Which of course are all open to 'bias' when being made.

The Centre for European Reform is quite openly pro-EU and has a clear bias.

It has a recent history of similar outlandish claims on this subject.

The claim you highlight is significantly out compared to other economic estimates e.g. from the nominally neutral OBR as I've highlighted.

[BillyStubbsTears]

"There is a whole myriad of issues that have impacted UK economic performance recently: Brexit; Covid; Global inflation; Strengthening of the US $; Tax rises; Vaccine rollout; the labour market etc etc. Some are inter-related."

Barring 1, those factors have affected every economy in Europe.

The CER analysis looks at how our economy has performed over recent years relative to a "doppelganger Britain". The doppelganger is a model of the British economy built of facets of other, closely related economies, predominantly the big European ones.

In pre-Brexit times, the doppelganger has closely matched the real UK performance.

But in recent times, the real British economy has grossly underperformed compared to the doppelganger.

The CER report is simply pointing out what HAS happened. And by far and away the biggest difference between the UK and the economies that make up the doppelganger is that we have had Brexit and they haven't.

I genuinely don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

[Colin C No.3]

Schhhh, Billy,

What’s that ‘sweet sound’ at your door?

Carol singers perhaps, Angels with all your posts grasped to their chests?

Oh no!

It’s all your protagonist’s on this forum that have ‘crossed swords’ with you throughout 2022!

Should we pour the ready made molten tar on them from the ramparts?

Or perhaps open the door, offer them a mince pie, wish them a Merry Christmas then as they depart shout “And another thing you set of bas***ds……!!”?

[SydneyRover]

Just seen a tweet from Farage
"Britain is broken" mmmmm!

that's what he does Raven, he's a broker

[tommy toes]

"There is a whole myriad of issues that have impacted UK economic performance recently: Brexit; Covid; Global inflation; Strengthening of the US $; Tax rises; Vaccine rollout; the labour market etc etc. Some are inter-related."

Barring 1, those factors have affected every economy in Europe.

The CER analysis looks at how our economy has performed over recent years relative to a "doppelganger Britain". The doppelganger is a model of the British economy built of facets of other, closely related economies, predominantly the big European ones.

In pre-Brexit times, the doppelganger has closely matched the real UK performance.

But in recent times, the real British economy has grossly underperformed compared to the doppelganger.

The CER report is simply pointing out what HAS happened. And by far and away the biggest difference between the UK and the economies that make up the doppelganger is that we have had Brexit and they haven't.

I genuinely don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

Added to the fact that the Tories are always bragging about how successful we were in dealing with Covid and the fantastic vaccine roll out that dwarfed the efforts of everywhere else, it makes our Economic performance even more pathetic.

[selby]

  For Britain to be a success in or out of the EU, the younger generations have to show more willingness to work than they have of late.
  Like picking strawberries and nursing, or is that the perceived type of work most want to be members of the EU for, so someone else does the work while the British get stoned out of their heads.

[SydneyRover]

I've tried to tell you selby bashing your younger relatives on here isn't productive if they aren't ever going to read your comments

[selby]

  They have been brought up the right way Syd, they are young right wingers who hate the EU.
  And they think I am fantastic and I agree with them.

[SydneyRover]

that's not what you wrote in comment #53 aye?

[drfchound]

No Syd,he didn’t. He was generalising in reply 53 then you brought his family into things in reply 54 so selby then told you what his family were doing.

[SydneyRover]

No Syd,he didn’t. He was generalising in reply 53 then you brought his family into things in reply 54 so selby then told you what his family were doing.

[Branton Red]

I genuinely don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to understand my point: the 5.5% figure is a deliberately exaggerated estimation.

I've given Motive (the CER's pro-EU stance) and Evidence (how the 5.5% is significantly higher than the neutral OBR's opinion).

You're questioning Opportunity and Means - bizarrely given the CER have calculated this estimate and have control over it. I'll put meat on the bones for you.

1) You assert this modelling began pre-Brexit and therefore imply the underlying assumptions are historically fixed and therefore unbiased. WRONG.

This modelling was first done post-referendum in 2018 - figures prior to this are retrospective. Therefore Opportunity to skew assumptions exist.

On Means: -

2) The base period for the modelling is 2009-15 i.e. the model essentially is expecting UK comparative economic performance to continue into the future at the level it was in that period.

At first glance this seems an arbitrary and small period of time over which to base this study on.

Except...... in 2009-15 UK comparative economic performance was better than would be expected - as we recovered from the 08 crash which disproportionately impacted the UK due to it's large financial sector.

The choice of this, strangely small, base period was selected to skew the data.

3) You assert the doppelganger refers to closely related economies, predominantly the big European ones when being measured. WRONG.

That's what a neutral economist would do – compare economic performance against similar developed countries who have remained in the EU and are close trading partners.

The doppelganger's performance is based on 22 countries – only 1 of whom is in the Eurozone (Germany) hence ignoring France, Italy et al

Instead they've included as reference points countries whose economic performance may, by coincidence, have matched the UK in 2009-15 but who are developing/faster growing economies over the longer term.

Versus the Eurozone post-Brexit GDP growth is 2.8% down not 5.5% - so again they've skewed the data by the countries selected.

4) The model assumes the whole 5.5% (or 2.8%) shortfall relates to Brexit. Ignoring the UK being hit more by energy inflation due to our reliance on gas; the legacy of having some of the stringest Austerity measures; or being practically the only major economy to be raising taxes in a cost of living crisis.

Most damning though is the model's approach to Covid - the biggest factor impacting the world economy over the last few years. It ignores Covid completely.

Their reasoning "as measured by excess deaths through the pandemic, Britain ranked in mid-table globally" which is a preposterous excuse.

This ignores the fact that the UK was one of the hardest hit countries economically by Covid.

GDP fall Q2 2020: UK: -21.2%; Eurozone: -14.5%.

In short by unquestioningly accepting this frankly preposterous 5.5% claim you've naively allowed yourself to be duped.