EU & Brexit Bunker

[PurplePenguin]

Why not just "outperformed its peers", rather than underperformed? Your "massively" doesn't appear to be reflected in the paper.

I have previously posted the GDP per capita since 2016 of G7 countries. An additional 8% would have moved the UK from middling to extraordinary.

 

[briantrumpet]

I skimmed the paper quickly.

They caveat their macro analysis due to the impacts of covid. As a result, they attempt to use some micro analysis which they typically do not do - this shows a smaller impact.

They use the group of countries I expected them to (EEA, US, Canada and Japan) then find under performance based on how much weighting is given to the US. I didn't see any discussion on whether the extraordinary levels of US growth were likely to have been replicated in the UK. Some of the US boom has been due to high gas prices and technology companies.

As I say, if their methodology is critiqued by other accredited economists as being inherently flawed, then fair enough. That's what a working paper is for.

 

[Psamathe]

"Better off" seems a very intangible concept. Means different things to different people and even if you manage to narrow the meaning down, it will impact different people differently eg should be all be feeling happier because Jim Ratcliffe (Ineos) is financially better off 'cos we now have weaker environmental and pollution regulations ...

My impression is that too many seem to regard "better off" as applying to the finances of the already wealthy. We should be a society not an economy and we should be striving for a sustainable realistic way forward not some daft "perpetual growth" in our finite system (we only have the one planet).

 

[briantrumpet]

"Better off" seems a very intangible concept. Means different things to different people and even if you manage to narrow the meaning down, it will impact different people differently eg should be all be feeling happier because Jim Ratcliffe (Ineos) is financially better off 'cos we now have weaker environmental and pollution regulations ...

My impression is that too many seem to regard "better off" as applying to the finances of the already wealthy. We should be a society not an economy and we should be striving for a sustainable realistic way forward not some daft "perpetual growth" in our finite system (we only have the one planet).

Yeah, we're already seeing that writ large in the US, and the same people want to bring that to the UK and elsewhere. Robert Reich in the US regularly posts about the widening gulf between the ultra rich and everyone else, the irony being that the people suffering the most are the ones who have been persuaded that Trump is batting for them, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[monkers]

All true however you leave out the part that shows the EU significantly changed after Brexit / under Von der Leyen, transparancy took a nosedive, debit increased (much more then the UK's) and yes they started doing trade deals again, an thing almost dormant under the UK still in the EU situation.

My only point is that the information was false.

I didn't express an opinion about EU trade deals. I'm not sure I want to enter into a conversation about that, but just to say, that one criticism I had of the EU before the referendum was that at one point the EU was allowing itself to be hectored by the USA on a proposal for a trade deal where the USA's demands included that the negotiations should be conducted in secret, without even the knowledge of MEPs and the inclusion of the ISDS clauses, which I consider to be mostly the word 'insidious' with the vowels taken out.

Thankfully the plot was uncovered largely thanks to the efforts of MEP Molly Scott Cato who wrote about it. That exposure by her, at least in part, led the eventual collapse of the deal.

Thing to note though is that the UK has since made trade deals that include ISDS clauses, most notably the CPTPP. This seems to be something that the media has been failing to adequately reporting to the public.

I voted to remain in the EU. After we eventually left, the one benefit that I was hoping to see come to fruition was the UK having the ability to make trade deals without ISDS clauses. I remain disappointed.

I also remain disappointed that the then AG insisted that the divorce bill had no legal basis, that the idea of a divorce bill was Project Fear, and that as a matter of fact rather than there being a divorce bill, the UK would receive a windfall payment. This was abject failure, so it disappoints me to see her sitting as an MP. The other day I read a report that the country has hencefar paid about £51billion in divorce fees, and there is yet more to pay. While it would be incorrect to say that the divorce bill alone is responsible for the parlous state of the UK's economy and finances; that along with the negative effects means that the economic cost to the country is severe for no gain.

Naturally opinions will vary.

 

[PurplePenguin]

As I say, if their methodology is critiqued by other accredited economists as being inherently flawed, then fair enough. That's what a working paper is for.

Their methodology is an accepted approach and they have added their caveats. They have even published graphs with the countries split. For example, look at the UK's terrible labour productivity below. My question is whether this it the Brexit impact or the US impact.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Here's GDP per capita. Again the US dominating although Italy has done well too.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Business investment where the UK does seem to have lagged although still outperforming Germany.

 

[briantrumpet]

Business investment where the UK does seem to have lagged although still outperforming Germany.

View attachment 10979

Thanks PP. As I say, it'll be interesting if/when the paper is critiqued in depth. Obviously you know which 'side' I'm on in the discussion, hence my linking the paper; equally I'd expect you to be sceptical (which is healthy). But I'd like to see an in depth published rebuttal/critique from established economists, if one comes along. When such people put their reputations on the line in published papers, then it gets my attention.

I know it's crying over spilt milk, but I still say that the UK had a uniquely privileged position within/without the EU, which is one of the reasons it had done relatively well over 40 years, despite all the flaws in UK & EU policy and governance.

 

[PurplePenguin]

Thanks PP. As I say, it'll be interesting if/when the paper is critiqued in depth. Obviously you know which 'side' I'm on in the discussion, hence my linking the paper; equally I'd expect you to be sceptical (which is healthy). But I'd like to see an in depth published rebuttal/critique from established economists, if one comes along. When such people put their reputations on the line in published papers, then it gets my attention.

I know it's crying over spilt milk, but I still say that the UK had a uniquely privileged position within/without the EU, which is one of the reasons it had done relatively well over 40 years, despite all the flaws in UK & EU policy and governance.

This is probably a terrible analogy, but for 40 years academics published papers linking fat consumption with heart disease. Every paper was academically fine, because it was consistent with previous papers, so there was no real academic criticism. The problem was that they never answered the question of why France had lower levels of heart disease despite a high fat diet. Only recently has this been looked at.

My point is that you shouldn't expect criticism of the report from academics. They've done everything right. They have looked at how the UK economy tracked other economies prior to 2016 and they have built their counter factual case. That's academically robust, but it also includes the financial crises, some bleak years, Brexit, covid and record gas prices. None of those factors can be reliably stripped out, so every opinion needs to be qualified, and they have qualified theirs, but that's not the headline grabbing bit.

Here's my paper:

Has Brexit worsened trade flows? Yes. By how much? No idea. Does that mean the UK is overall worse off? Perhaps, but not certain.

 

[Pblakeney]

That's academically robust, but it also includes the financial crises, some bleak years, Brexit, covid and record gas prices.

Not arguing for or against and certainly not personal but I have a query.
Has there ever been a sustained period without a crisis of some sort affecting the UK?

 

[PurplePenguin]

Not arguing for or against and certainly not personal but I have a query.
Has there ever been a sustained period without a crisis of some sort affecting the UK?

Yes, the run up to the 2008 financial crisis was pretty stellar. That's why everyone uses it as the default period of how things should be run. They gloss over the fact it was unsustainable and ended in a financial crisis.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

If someone wants to make the argument that the UK would have massively outperformed its peers, then I'm interested to know why.

I assume you mean had we remained in the EU? If so, I would argue that is immaterial as we left. The only valid assessment is how we performed post EU as the whole point of voting leave was to exit the bloc. As we were assured by Vote Leave, this whole exit was to provide economic advantages only available to us outside of the EU i.e. the ability to negotiate our own trade deals. To date we haven't seen any of the upside we were told would occur. I don't think the performance of EU countries is relevant, the argument to leave was never one of the UK declining economically, but don't worry as we will outperform other EU countries. It was a binary, we will be better off argument.

 

[PurplePenguin]

I assume you mean had we remained in the EU? If so, I would argue that is immaterial as we left. The only valid assessment is how we performed post EU as the whole point of voting leave was to exit the bloc. As we were assured by Vote Leave, this whole exit was to provide economic advantages only available to us outside of the EU i.e. the ability to negotiate our own trade deals. To date we haven't seen any of the upside we were told would occur. I don't think the performance of EU countries is relevant, the argument to leave was never one of the UK declining economically, but don't worry as we will outperform other EU countries. It was a binary, we will be better off argument.

You may need to go back to the academic paper being referenced. it is not me creating a counter factual.

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

From Nigel Farage's press conference this morning, on UK small businesses.

"The other great betrayal is that is every one of these millions of businesses, every one of these 5.6 million businesses, believed that, with Brexit, the regulatory burden on their shoulders would become less.

I can tell you, a decade on, almost from the referendum, in every single industry, from financial services to fisheries, the burden of regulation and the threat of the regulator is worse now than it was then."

You have to admit, the guy has a hell of a pair of balls on him to actually say something like this. Joking aside, it again just highlights the absolute disdain he has for people, to lie and obfuscate over something he was a principle architect of.