How do we resolve the Brexit mess?

[hampshireblue]

The growth of 14.84% from 2022 to 2024 inclusive is correct. As I pointed out they are the same as the numbers you quoted me this morning with an assumption for 2024! and include the covid bounce back in 2021. The cumulative growth from the start of 2019 for the UK is 6.16% as I stated.

The table you quoted above is from the end of 2019. My figures included 2019. Statistica gets its data from the UK government. Please check it out if you want.

Anyway , I feel I have made my point and you and others on here may be starting to question the narrative you have convinced yourselves of the past few years.

Have a good day.

You stated: "Since Brexit the UK economy has grown 14.84% (2022 to 2024 inclusive)"

The figures for those 3 years are: 4.84, 0.34, estimated 1.08.

Now I wasn't the smartest when it came to maths but please just explain to us all how the figures above = 14.84.

There is no narrative that needs to be convinced of. It's called counting!

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

You stated: "Since Brexit the UK economy has grown 14.84% (2021 to 2024 inclusive)"

The figures for those 3 years are: 4.84, 0.34, estimated 1.08.

Now I wasn't the smartest when it came to maths but please just explain to us all how the figures above = 14.84.

There is no narrative that needs to be convinced of. It's called counting!

Appologies, I meant 2021 to 2024 as per my original post from yesterday. Not 2022 inclusive which I incorrectly stated in my response to you. So that's four years, and if you include 8.58% for 2021 this comes to 14.84%

 

[hampshireblue]

Appologies, I meant 2021 to 2024 as per my original post. Not 2022 inclusive which I incorrectly stated. So that's four years, and if you include 8.58% for 2021. Which comes to 14.84%

Ok-last attempt. You are now including 2021 where 8.58% of your total figure was catching up with the 10+% drop the year before. I was trying to give you every opportunity to sit back for 5 minutes, realise your figure was wrong and acknowledge that. You actually chose to double down being selective about the time period that suits your flawed narrative without, on your part any reference to C19. So playing to the same rules as you let's go for the whole period since Brexit( and ignoring C19 as you chose to do) and guess what we now get.......drum roll........2.9%.

PS. I'm not sure now whether I'm just being reeled in and the victim of a wind up!!

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Ok-last attempt. You are now including 2021 where 8.58% of your total figure was catching up with the 10+% drop the year before. I was trying to give you every opportunity to sit back for 5 minutes, realise your figure was wrong and acknowledge that. You actually chose to double down being selective about the time period that suits your flawed narrative without, on your part any reference to C19. So playing to the same rules as you let's go for the whole period since Brexit( and ignoring C19 as you chose to do) and guess what we now get.......drum roll........2.9%.

I repeat my figures were as I quoted and I thought you initially agreed with, we're as follows.

2019 1.62%, 2020 -10.3%, 2021 8.58% , 2022 4.84%, 2023 0.34% and 2024 1.08%.

I quoted two culmulative ranges based on those figures.

Anyway I feel this conversation is getting a little out of hand. It certainly wasn't my intention to get you annoyed, so appologies for doing so.

From the ONS

 

[hampshireblue]

I repeat my figures were as I quoted and I thought you initially agreed with, we're as follows.

2019 1.62%, 2020 -10.3%, 2021 8.58% , 2022 4.84%, 2023 0.34% and 2024 1.08%.

I quoted two culmulative ranges based on those figures.

Anyway I feel this conversation is getting a little out of hand. It certainly wasn't my intention to get you annoyed, so appologies for doing so.

OK. I replied directly to your initial post which said:

"I did a little research using Statistica on the GDP growth of the G7 mature economies. Since Brexit the UK economy has grown 14.84% (2021 to 2024 inclusive)"

You then went on to quote other periods which were chosen to try to prove your point. Despite me putting official figures forward even they are not enough for you.

I'm not annoyed, just frustrated that you and somebody last week try to argue and prove a point and when proved wrong just double down on it. You clearly chose not to look at what was posted less than a week ago on this very subject.

By all means have an opinion but base it on facts and don't try to manipulate them to try to fit your narrative. If you're like this with facts, f*ck knows what you're like on the likes of VAR or handball!

I'm sorry to other readers that they have to read through this exchange, though I'm sure many may have blocked us by now.lol

I'm signing off now from a very warm and sultry Wiltshire where the temperature is a balmy 25C. It's only a number and whether it's right or not, who cares?? :-)

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

OK. I replied directly to your post which said:

"I did a little research using Statistica on the GDP growth of the G7 mature economies. Since Brexit the UK economy has grown 14.84% (2021 to 2024 inclusive)"

You then went on to quote other periods which were chosen to try to prove your point. Despite putting official figures forward even they are not enough for you. I'm not annoyed, just frustrated that you and somebody last week try to argue and prove a point and when proved wrong just double down on it. You clearly chose not to look at what was posted less than a week ago on this very subject.

By all means have an opinion but base it on facts and don't try to manipulate them to try to fit your narrative.

I'm sorry to other readers that they have to go through this exchange.

I'm signing off now from a very warm and sultry Wiltshire where the temperature is a balmy 25C. It's only a number and whether it's right or not, who cares?? :-)

Ok fair enough,

I quoted facts all the way through. I just got my quoted year wrong once in my response to you. It was an honest mistake. You can see that from my original post?

But to conclude based on the ONS data, I assume do you now agree, the four years 2021 to 2024 inclusive is 14.84% Assuming 1.08% growth for 2024. And the six years 2019 to 2024 inclusive is 6.16% ?

 

[hampshireblue]

Ok fair enough,

I quoted facts all the way through. I just got my quoted year wrong once in my response to you. It was an honest mistake. You can see that from my original post?

But to conclude based on the ONS data, I assume do you now agree, the four years 2021 to 2024 inclusive is 14.84% Assuming 1.08% growth for 2024. And the six years 2019 to 2024 inclusive is 6.16% ?

As Status Quo said "Whatever you want, whatever you like, whatever you say"

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

As Status Quo said "Whatever you want, whatever you like, whatever you say"

We both know the growth numbers I quoted were correct, everyone can see that. You are just not big enough to admit it.

 

[west didsblue]

Ok fair enough,

I quoted facts all the way through. I just got my quoted year wrong once in my response to you. It was an honest mistake. You can see that from my original post?

But to conclude based on the ONS data, I assume do you now agree, the four years 2021 to 2024 inclusive is 14.84% Assuming 1.08% growth for 2024. And the six years 2019 to 2024 inclusive is 6.16% ?

Only if you add growth percentages which is not what you do to get the correct answer. You need to convert them to a growth factor then multiply them together which gives you a figure from 2019 of 5.2%. That’s an average of 0.848% per year.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Only if you add growth percentages which is not what you do to get the correct answer. You need to convert them to a growth factor then multiply them together which gives you a figure from 2019 of 5.2%. That’s an average of 0.848% per year.

I'm sorry, but i don't understand or agree with that. It would seem that people on here will do anything other than accept figures that don't suit their argument. I have been fair and honest, using official figures.

You and others will be pleased to know I'm out of here , no-one wants to accept any view other than their own utter despair over Brexit. When clearly it's not as bad as that.

Anyway all the best to all, that's me finished.

 

[west didsblue]

I'm sorry, but i don't understand or agree with that. It would seem that people on here will do anything other than accept figures that don't suit their argument. I have been fair and honest, using official figures.

You and others will be pleased to know I'm out of here , no-one wants to accept any view other than their own utter despair over Brexit. When clearly it's not as bad as that.

Anyway all the best to all, that's me finished.

That’s because you don’t understand basic maths. I would try and explain but it’s probably easier if you try to educate yourself. Think about how compound interest works.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

The facts are very clear, as evidenced by multiple reports referenced above.

All expert analysis is consistent that Brexit has cost around 5% of GDP, give or take.

Obviously, this is hard to accept for some, but it is the fact of the matter.

If and how we address this is the question; denying reality won't help that!

 

[Damocles]

All expert analysis is consistent that Brexit has cost around 5% of GDP, give or take.

It's not. That's not how any political figure works and if you think that all the experts agree then you're only viewing the side of the experts that tell you what you want to hear. In reality, absolutely nobody knows or can agree on any figures because figures in economics and politics are essentially bullshit.

What I mean by "bullshit" isn't that they're wrong but that their usage is wrong.

Let's take the statement "Brexit has cost around 5% of GDP, give or take" as a quick example.

What measure of GDP? How does it change if you change the measurements?
When are you measuring it from? I think it's unfair for you to measure it from there and you should measure it from here instead which gives a different figure.
How are you attaching that causality? How much have other global events taken off? How do you know? What other economies are you using to factor in impact for a global event? I think that is a bad measurement because their economy is different to ours and changes in this global event impacted them more than it does us, or less, or maybe not at all.
Why use GDP at all as a measurement of the success or failure of Brexit? I think we should use this metric which gives a different answer.
Who even says having less GDP is a bad thing? There's time when economic growth for the sake of economic growth can destroy a country.
Why are you judging the success or failure at this time? I believe it's too early because this treaty was only signed on this date and this thing happened and we need to give it a running in period.
How are you accounting for non-numeric successes such as return to sovereignty and other things that were a major part of Brexit yet you don't bother to account for them in your success and failure metric.

Continue ad nauseam.

It's never a winning strategy to attempt to use figures in what is essentially a philosophical argument. You have to be much more specific in defining what you consider to be pass and fail, which nobody who was talking about Brexit ever actually did before it happened, so now there's not criteria for it to be judged upon.

The question of whether Brexit works or not can be answered the same as the question of whether you believed Brexit works or not. It's like Greek Gods. They're real because you believe they're real.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

It's not. That's not how any political figure works and if you think that all the experts agree then you're only viewing the side of the experts that tell you what you want to hear. In reality, absolutely nobody knows or can agree on any figures because figures in economics and politics are essentially bullshit.

What I mean by "bullshit" isn't that they're wrong but that their usage is wrong.

Let's take the statement "Brexit has cost around 5% of GDP, give or take" as a quick example.

What measure of GDP? How does it change if you change the measurements?
When are you measuring it from? I think it's unfair for you to measure it from there and you should measure it from here instead which gives a different figure.
How are you attaching that causality? How much have other global events taken off? How do you know? What other economies are you using to factor in impact for a global event? I think that is a bad measurement because their economy is different to ours and changes in this global event impacted them more than it does us, or less, or maybe not at all.
Why use GDP at all as a measurement of the success or failure of Brexit? I think we should use this metric which gives a different answer.
Who even says having less GDP is a bad thing? There's time when economic growth for the sake of economic growth can destroy a country.
Why are you judging the success or failure at this time? I believe it's too early because this treaty was only signed on this date and this thing happened and we need to give it a running in period.
How are you accounting for non-numeric successes such as return to sovereignty and other things that were a major part of Brexit yet you don't bother to account for them in your success and failure metric.

Continue ad nauseam.

It's never a winning strategy to attempt to use figures in what is essentially a philosophical argument. You have to be much more specific in defining what you consider to be pass and fail, which nobody who was talking about Brexit ever actually did before it happened, so now there's not criteria for it to be judged upon.

The question of whether Brexit works or not can be answered the same as the question of whether you believed Brexit works or not. It's like Greek Gods. They're real because you believe they're real.

Per post above

Economic effects of Brexit - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Damocles]

Per post above

Economic effects of Brexit - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I'm not sure you really took my point onboard there mate.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

I'm not sure you really took my point onboard there mate.

Not you mine mate

 

[hampshireblue]

It's not. That's not how any political figure works and if you think that all the experts agree then you're only viewing the side of the experts that tell you what you want to hear. In reality, absolutely nobody knows or can agree on any figures because figures in economics and politics are essentially bullshit.

What I mean by "bullshit" isn't that they're wrong but that their usage is wrong.

Let's take the statement "Brexit has cost around 5% of GDP, give or take" as a quick example.

What measure of GDP? How does it change if you change the measurements?
When are you measuring it from? I think it's unfair for you to measure it from there and you should measure it from here instead which gives a different figure.
How are you attaching that causality? How much have other global events taken off? How do you know? What other economies are you using to factor in impact for a global event? I think that is a bad measurement because their economy is different to ours and changes in this global event impacted them more than it does us, or less, or maybe not at all.
Why use GDP at all as a measurement of the success or failure of Brexit? I think we should use this metric which gives a different answer.
Who even says having less GDP is a bad thing? There's time when economic growth for the sake of economic growth can destroy a country.
Why are you judging the success or failure at this time? I believe it's too early because this treaty was only signed on this date and this thing happened and we need to give it a running in period.
How are you accounting for non-numeric successes such as return to sovereignty and other things that were a major part of Brexit yet you don't bother to account for them in your success and failure metric.

Continue ad nauseam.

It's never a winning strategy to attempt to use figures in what is essentially a philosophical argument. You have to be much more specific in defining what you consider to be pass and fail, which nobody who was talking about Brexit ever actually did before it happened, so now there's not criteria for it to be judged upon.

The question of whether Brexit works or not can be answered the same as the question of whether you believed Brexit works or not. It's like Greek Gods. They're real because you believe they're real.

Why use GDP at all as a measurement of the success or failure of Brexit? Because the leave campaign were telling us we would be financially better off.
Who even says having less GDP is a bad thing? Can you give some examples where a shrinking economy has been a success for the population?

How are you accounting for non-numeric successes such as return to sovereignty and other things that were a major part of Brexit yet you don't bother to account for them in your success and failure metric. If we assume there are "soft benefits" like sovereignty and "other things", these will have variable values for different people and therefore are purely subjective and so almost impossible to measure. But I don't remember anyone standing up and saying here's your sovereignty but you're going to be worse off having it.I'm not sure too many will put a "value" on having a black passport rather than a red one.

 

[inbetween]

The facts are very clear, as evidenced by multiple reports referenced above.

All expert analysis is consistent that Brexit has cost around 5% of GDP, give or take.

Obviously, this is hard to accept for some, but it is the fact of the matter.

If and how we address this is the question; denying reality won't help that!

This is getting beyond tedious. Does that mean that had Brexit not happened then the economy would be 5% bigger, something that would require massive growth far outpacing the Eurozone? If we were 5% worse off than we would be 5% worse off but we're not. The truth is if we were in the EU then the growth of our economy today would be marginally different, the evidence of this is based upon how the rest of Europe is doing in comparison to us today.

5% implies that today Brexit has cost us half as much as COVID did (~£150bn) which is lunacy. Were we locked down for 6 months and paid not to work during Brexit? Did all trade effectively stop for 6 months as a result of Brexit? One LSE study I found claimed that Brexit would cost twice as much as COVID, £600bn-£800bn! If that happened then reasonably at least 10-30% of the workforce would be out of work, such forecasts are completely false and maniacal.

Today the economy is larger than at anytime in history so whichever statistic you use we categorically and factually are not worse off. Maybe we could be doing better but that's difficult to prove. The logic of proving it based upon being in the EU is especially flawed given the rest of Europe is doing so badly (despite its supposed advantages).

If this was all true then where are the jobs losses? The fact is the unemployment rate is low and remains a lot lower than European averages. Vacancies meanwhile are not far off returning to pre-referendum levels. UK GDP has grown and is supposedly going to grow at a rate that marginally beats the Eurozone. France had a marginally bigger economy than us in 2020 and now ours is bigger, if we're 5% worse off then how??

The only thing that I will 100% accept is the huge loss in value of Sterling but that is slowly recovering. I won't mention that the Euro is similarly -50% down on the Dollar compared to 2008, -20% down since Brexit....

 

[blueparrot]

This is getting beyond tedious. Does that mean that had Brexit not happened then the economy would be 5% bigger, something that would require massive growth far outpacing the Eurozone? If we were 5% worse off than we would be 5% worse off but we're not. The truth is if we were in the EU then the growth of our economy today would be marginally different, the evidence of this is based upon how the rest of Europe is doing in comparison to us today.

5% implies that today Brexit has cost us half as much as COVID did (~£150bn) which is lunacy. Were we locked down for 6 months and paid not to work during Brexit? Did all trade effectively stop for 6 months as a result of Brexit? One LSE study I found claimed that Brexit would cost twice as much as COVID, £600bn-£800bn! If that happened then reasonably at least 10-30% of the workforce would be out of work, such forecasts are completely false and maniacal.

Today the economy is larger than at anytime in history so whichever statistic you use we categorically and factually are not worse off. Maybe we could be doing better but that's difficult to prove. The logic of proving it based upon being in the EU is especially flawed given the rest of Europe is doing so badly (despite its supposed advantages).

If this was all true then where are the jobs losses? The fact is the unemployment rate is low and remains a lot lower than European averages. Vacancies meanwhile are not far off returning to pre-referendum levels. UK GDP has grown and is supposedly going to grow at a rate that marginally beats the Eurozone. France had a marginally bigger economy than us in 2020 and now ours is bigger, if we're 5% worse off then how??

The only thing that I will 100% accept is the huge loss in value of Sterling but that is slowly recovering. I won't mention that the Euro is similarly -50% down on the Dollar compared to 2008, -20% down since Brexit....

I don’t know about GDP , and don’t really care that much . For me the quaestion is has it made things harder and more expensive for many busineses in many sectors to operate,and for a few impossible. Yes it has. Has in caused inconvenience for some people, yes it has in different ways who knows how many.
Are there any advantages to compensate for all these things, not that I can see thete aren’t.
Question is how do we fix those things or at least improve them As far as I can see only by having a closer and more integrated relation ship with the EU.

 

[inbetween]

Why use GDP at all as a measurement of the success or failure of Brexit? Because the leave campaign were telling us we would be financially better off.

This is the crux of my argument, I don't think we will be worse off but ultimately whether we're better off in the longer run is a very different argument. It's why I voted remain.