Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 4)
Discussion
Bannock said:
Sway said:
What benefits does SM membership provide (MB, let's ignore REACH as that's not specifically SM related!)?
Erm, the elimination of tariffs. The reduction of non-tariff barriers to trade with 27 of our nearest neighbours. Freedom of movement of people, goods and services.
I'm sorry, is it 2016 again? I'm sure you know all this.
About 4% of GDP we've lost, wasn't it?
As to the parrot, possibly not, though a reminder that Economic modelling is flawed would be timely, recent financial modelling on the UK economy has been good only for belly laughs. Still, thanks for a chuckle.
AIUI banks, insurance providers, asset management firms et al could sell their products and services into the rest of the EU under SM conditions vIa passporting without the need to obtain a licence, get regulatory approval, or set up local subsidiaries to do so. As of now, what's happened with licences, regulatory approval and subsidiaries? Are banks and other finance whizzo co's really incapable of basic admin? Is sitting on one's hands whining also a feature of finance co's?
SMEs have had a basic guide available online, so finance co advisers should have better sector-specific guidance to offer than that.
Around the time of brexit around 5,000 co's in the UK were using passporting to conduct business with RoEU but it's not a one way street. More than 8,000 co's in the EU were trading into the UK using passporting rules. Have they sat on backsides due to being administratively incompetent?
So many years on, lots of flapping about, but the sky hasn't fallen in - though interest rates could yet see off some not-quite-recovered-enough zombie banks in Italy with or without passporting. See link posted earlier. As per covid and Ukraine and fuel and energy, there are other major factors in play which are conveniently sidelined by the blame brexit brigade.
turbobloke said:
No, nobody knows the % impact on GDP, so stating a number as a fact via a leading question has no basis.
Citation needed, squire. You're in academia, there's plenty to support that figure. That's a bold statement with no trousers on to spare it's blushes, so to speak.
M.
turbobloke said:
Bannock said:
Sway said:
What benefits does SM membership provide (MB, let's ignore REACH as that's not specifically SM related!)?
Erm, the elimination of tariffs. The reduction of non-tariff barriers to trade with 27 of our nearest neighbours. Freedom of movement of people, goods and services.
I'm sorry, is it 2016 again? I'm sure you know all this.
About 4% of GDP we've lost, wasn't it?
As to the parrot, possibly not, though a reminder that Economic modelling is flawed would be timely, recent financial modelling on the UK economy has been good only for belly laughs. Still, thanks for a chuckle.
AIUI banks, insurance providers, asset management firms et al could sell their products and services into the rest of the EU under SM conditions vIa passporting without the need to obtain a licence, get regulatory approval, or set up local subsidiaries to do so. As of now, what's happened with licences, regulatory approval and subsidiaries? Are banks and other finance whizzo co's really incapable of basic admin? Is sitting on one's hands whining also a feature of finance co's?
SMEs have had a basic guide available online, so finance co advisers should have better sector-specific guidance to offer than that.
Around the time of brexit around 5,000 co's in the UK were using passporting to conduct business with RoEU but it's not a one way street. More than 8,000 co's in the EU were trading into the UK using passporting rules. Have they sat on backsides due to being administratively incompetent?
So many years on, lots of flapping about, but the sky hasn't fallen in - though interest rates could yet see off some not-quite-recovered-enough zombie banks in Italy with or without passporting. See link posted earlier. As per covid and Ukraine and fuel and energy, there are other major factors in play which are conveniently sidelined by the blame brexit brigade.
Edited by turbobloke on Friday 31st March 16:24
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-26...
Why do you insist on making imaginary argument? Which number do you prefer to 4 as a best estiamte, and show your working whilst you're at it.
Bannock said:
I said 'about' 4%, which can hardly be called stating the number as fact. What is a fact is that that is the number quoted by the Office of Budget Responsibility as a best estimate.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-26...
Why do you insist on making imaginary argument? Which number do you prefer to 4 as a best estiamte, and show your working whilst you're at it.
Reiterated by the BBC. Turbs doesn't like Bloomberghttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-26...
Why do you insist on making imaginary argument? Which number do you prefer to 4 as a best estiamte, and show your working whilst you're at it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59070020
M.
Mortarboard said:
Bannock said:
I said 'about' 4%, which can hardly be called stating the number as fact. What is a fact is that that is the number quoted by the Office of Budget Responsibility as a best estimate.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-26...
Why do you insist on making imaginary argument? Which number do you prefer to 4 as a best estiamte, and show your working whilst you're at it.
Reiterated by the BBC. Turbs doesn't like Bloomberghttps://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-26...
Why do you insist on making imaginary argument? Which number do you prefer to 4 as a best estiamte, and show your working whilst you're at it.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59070020
M.
I expect the BBC is a woke liberal lefty den of Islington elitism too.
Perhaps he'd prefer the horse's mouth:
https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-economy-fore...
No doubt the OBR is some kind of Corbynista plot to undermine Boris though.
Perhaps ITV is a palatable source?
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-12-20/brexit-costs-g...
Who could hate the Jersey Evening Post?
https://www.jerseyeveningpost.com/morenews/uknews/...
Hull Daily Mail, for the down to earth, non-southern shandy drinking, whippets and flat caps, salt of the Earth angle?
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/uk-world-news...
The Belly Telly, perhaps:
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/uk-wor...
Bannock said:
Oh I see he's one of those sorts who will reject any message delivered by a messenger he doesn't like. Got it.
It’s one of the many Brexiter’s paradoxes 
-Trade groups are bad, so we must leave one to join another
-Trade groups with lots of big economies are great, but only if we’re one of the biggest
-Border control is important, but we won’t do that in a hurry
-Immigration control is important, but we won’t do that in a hurry either
-We need to escape the EU red tape, so that we can create our own, less value added red tape
-Brexit wasn’t about the economy, unless it improves
-Polls are not to be trusted, expect the Brexit non-binding one itself
-We can ignore improving trade with the massive economy next door, in favour of ones thousands of miles away
-The UK is a massive services exporter, but we didn’t need to cover that in the EU trade agreement
-Boris’ deal was brilliant, but we also agree with the people who negotiated it that it is bad
-We needed the Windsor framework to fix the deal, but we don’t know if it’s good or bad (or at least, we won’t give an opinion on PH!)
-Exports can only be quoted in what we sell for, not what the buyers pay for
M.
don'tbesilly said:
Their availability has no bearing on their validity now, does it?Of course the opinion pieces in a magazine that's owned by an ERG strategist is going to paint Brexit in a positive light.
The validity of the arguments made are left wanting, however. But it's becoming increasingly clear you care more about maintaining your blissful echo chamber and drowning out contrary thought than you do about actually considering the validity and veracity of arguments being made.
Edited by HM-2 on Friday 31st March 17:04
Mortarboard said:
turbobloke said:
No, nobody knows the % impact on GDP, so stating a number as a fact via a leading question has no basis.
Citation needed, squire. You're in academia, there's plenty to support that figure. That's a bold statement with no trousers on to spare it's blushes, so to speak.
M.
No model manages to cope adequately with separating out the effects of covid, Ukraine, interest rates and so on. All the numbers are flawed estimates.
There are nevertheless academic references which show it's not possible to 'know' the impact of brexit on gdp, starting with Dhingra et al (2016-2021) "the economic consequences of leaving the EU will depend on what policies the UK adopts following Brexit" - policy is continuously evolving - and including Springford (2022) "for now, we cannot know what the impact of Brexit on services trade has been" with obvious implications for attribution in GDP analysis, nobody can know what brexit has done to GDP as a 'fact' when the impact on services is an unknown.
It looks suspiciously like the Full Fact people have been scanning the literature as well "There’s no definitive figure for the economic impact of Brexit" as they put it...though they're not exclusively academics (so no reference needed, but you knew anyway) they got there easily enough in terms of the inevitable uncertainty. You and others may benefit from Epistemology 101.
turbobloke said:
AIUI banks, insurance providers, asset management firms et al could sell their products and services into the rest of the EU under SM conditions vIa passporting without the need to obtain a licence, get regulatory approval, or set up local subsidiaries to do so. As of now, what's happened with licences, regulatory approval and subsidiaries? Are banks and other finance whizzo co's really incapable of basic admin? Is sitting on one's hands whining also a feature of finance co's?
SMEs have had a basic guide available online, so finance co advisers should have better sector-specific guidance to offer than that.
Around the time of brexit around 5,000 co's in the UK were using passporting to conduct business with RoEU but it's not a one way street. More than 8,000 co's in the EU were trading into the UK using passporting rules. Have they sat on backsides due to being administratively incompetent?
So many years on, lots of flapping about, but the sky hasn't fallen in - though interest rates could yet see off some not-quite-recovered-enough zombie banks in Italy with or without passporting. See link posted earlier. As per covid and Ukraine and fuel and energy, there are other major factors in play which are conveniently sidelined by the blame brexit brigade.
You do have some odd arguments. Yes the loss of passporting also effected EU firms operating in the UK as well as UK firms operating in the EU. So both sides have lost. It still means the UK has lost out. SMEs have had a basic guide available online, so finance co advisers should have better sector-specific guidance to offer than that.
Around the time of brexit around 5,000 co's in the UK were using passporting to conduct business with RoEU but it's not a one way street. More than 8,000 co's in the EU were trading into the UK using passporting rules. Have they sat on backsides due to being administratively incompetent?
So many years on, lots of flapping about, but the sky hasn't fallen in - though interest rates could yet see off some not-quite-recovered-enough zombie banks in Italy with or without passporting. See link posted earlier. As per covid and Ukraine and fuel and energy, there are other major factors in play which are conveniently sidelined by the blame brexit brigade.
No FS company sat on its butt. My last project before retirement was setting up operation in our French sub. It cost a lot of money so less tax paid in the UK and a lot of profits and some jobs being moved.
Did you read the guide before you posted the link. It recommends UK firms setting up subs in the EU. So again profits and people moving from the UK to the EU due to Brexit.
turbobloke said:
There are nevertheless academic references which show it's not possible to 'know' the impact of brexit on gdp, starting with Dhingra et al (2016-2021) "the economic consequences of leaving the EU will depend on what policies the UK adopts following Brexit" - policy is continuously evolving - and including Springford (2022) "for now, we cannot know what the impact of Brexit on services trade has been" with obvious implications for attribution in GDP analysis, nobody can know what brexit has done to GDP as a 'fact' when the impact on services is an unknown.
Both confirm that it can be known. Even included in the titles.Springford has the loss at greater than 4%:
Indeed, Dhingra et al are even more pessimistic than Springford
Dhingra et al said:
In the long run, reduced trade lowers productivity. Factoring in these effects substantially
increases the costs of Brexit to a loss of 6.3% to 9.5% of GDP (about £4,200 to £6,400
per household).
M.increases the costs of Brexit to a loss of 6.3% to 9.5% of GDP (about £4,200 to £6,400
per household).
Mrr T said:
You do have some odd arguments.
Turbobloke has a very particular set of views which he refuses to consider or allow to be challenged under any circumstances. Everything affirms these views to him, even when it actually contradicts them. I've learned there's relatively little sense or value in trying to address or challenge these beliefs, as they're simply brushed off or completely ignored. It does make having a reasonable discussion quite a chore. turbobloke said:
Inverted reality is bolder, and that's your turf. There's not 'plenty' supporting any % as fact, there are only estimates from modelling using assumptions.
No model manages to cope adequately with separating out the effects of covid, Ukraine, interest rates and so on. All the numbers are flawed estimates.
There are nevertheless academic references which show it's not possible to 'know' the impact of brexit on gdp, starting with Dhingra et al (2016-2021) "the economic consequences of leaving the EU will depend on what policies the UK adopts following Brexit" - policy is continuously evolving - and including Springford (2022) "for now, we cannot know what the impact of Brexit on services trade has been" with obvious implications for attribution in GDP analysis, nobody can know what brexit has done to GDP as a 'fact' when the impact on services is an unknown.
It looks suspiciously like the Full Fact people have been scanning the literature as well "There’s no definitive figure for the economic impact of Brexit" as they put it...though they're not exclusively academics (so no reference needed, but you knew anyway) they got there easily enough in terms of the inevitable uncertainty. You and others may benefit from Epistemology 101.
Since the TCA does not cover services the question is not how brexit will affect services it how badly it will effect services. No model manages to cope adequately with separating out the effects of covid, Ukraine, interest rates and so on. All the numbers are flawed estimates.
There are nevertheless academic references which show it's not possible to 'know' the impact of brexit on gdp, starting with Dhingra et al (2016-2021) "the economic consequences of leaving the EU will depend on what policies the UK adopts following Brexit" - policy is continuously evolving - and including Springford (2022) "for now, we cannot know what the impact of Brexit on services trade has been" with obvious implications for attribution in GDP analysis, nobody can know what brexit has done to GDP as a 'fact' when the impact on services is an unknown.
It looks suspiciously like the Full Fact people have been scanning the literature as well "There’s no definitive figure for the economic impact of Brexit" as they put it...though they're not exclusively academics (so no reference needed, but you knew anyway) they got there easily enough in terms of the inevitable uncertainty. You and others may benefit from Epistemology 101.
As to the fullfact quote from 2020 its very selective. The full article shows fullfacts accepts brexit has had a serious negative effect on GDP. It just impossible to be exact. The more resent studies are obviously still estimates but when you come to large figure, even if it's not 3% of GDP 2.5% of GDP is still seriously bad.
Focusing on unknowable GDP impacts via guesstimates based on a constantly evolving trade context really is myopic. Even so, the guesswork to date has suggested marginally less growth per year (not contraction) over many years, in which covid and Ukraine have already intervened. The annual changes being guessed are at the level of decimals, the same magnitude as corrections to GDP. Brexit benefits including greater self-determination and governance, more power over more decisions in more areas of policy at Westminster not Brussels, represent changes of value beyond cost calculations. Remaining a subservient part of dysfunctional, supranational, political bloat led by distant autocratic has-beens, and having to pay for this as a net contributor, just wasn't sufficiently appealing to make a sufficient number of voters go to the polls and say so. As the bickering wears politicians down, with people and businesses demanding more of politicians on each side, and improvements in relations emerge, the future won't be worse. Re-joining is dreamworld but dreams are free unlike our EU membership.
Mortarboard said:
4% of GDP isn't marginal.
It's a bigger cost than covid (and has no end date)
It's two thirds of the impact that the global financial crisis had.
Orders of magnitude higher than the "cost" of EU membership.
M.
As being in the SM only gained the UK 1% of GDP can you explain how exactly we are going to lose 4% by leaving? It's a bigger cost than covid (and has no end date)
It's two thirds of the impact that the global financial crisis had.
Orders of magnitude higher than the "cost" of EU membership.
M.
Vanden Saab said:
Mortarboard said:
4% of GDP isn't marginal.
It's a bigger cost than covid (and has no end date)
It's two thirds of the impact that the global financial crisis had.
Orders of magnitude higher than the "cost" of EU membership.
M.
As being in the SM only gained the UK 1% of GDP can you explain how exactly we are going to lose 4% by leaving? It's a bigger cost than covid (and has no end date)
It's two thirds of the impact that the global financial crisis had.
Orders of magnitude higher than the "cost" of EU membership.
M.
And it's already lost btw, according to the ONS.
M.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff