Economic impact of Brexit

[@michaelutech4786]

10:39 - Manufacturing output & GDP: "The UK is doing ok" - If the UK is doing ok and even better than EU economies, does this mean that the problems reported by the media that are not reported about the EU are just made up? If the graphs shown there are both accurate and indicative, would the solution to these problems be to just change the reporting and the people and economy would do well? For me as a consumer of such information, these are just colorful lines that I cannot evaluate People claiming that the UK fell behind Europe also have such graphs and they look entirely different. They may not measure the same thing, they may manipulate data, I don't know. I find it hard to believe that fishermen who say that their business is worse than it was before are just fooled by the colorful lines of biased media. Why are there food shortages? If the UK really had a sustained productivity problem, why would the manufacturing output be higher in the UK. Should a productivity problem not result in a lower output or at least in worse scalability? If Brexit will eventually turn out to be beneficial for the UK economy, then it must be because of diverging legislation or market opportunities that the newly gained sovereignty provides. I don't see any new opportunities in farming, fishing, trade or the financial markets that could possibly explain why the UK should have done better than the EU. But there are many immediate negative factors we know resulted from Brexit, that would explain some of the reported problems - if they were real. So what do these colorful lines show? Are they real? Was science not about objectivity? I only see lines that do not really make any sense to me. Ok, it's only 10 minutes into the presentation. But even so, "the UK is doing ok" is a rather powerful statement based on these colorful lines.

[@michaelutech4786]

1:14:00 - Dergulating Biotec/Genetics - Its obvious that deregulating biotech can lead to technological advances and more productivity. But not only does this only benefit a small part of the economy, the risks are entirely socialized. If a genetic manipulation - unlikely as it may be - leads to uncontrollable problems, the damage will almost certainly be carried by the people. Only a few global companies hold the vast majority of patents on genetically modified crops. Because of their productivity advantage, farmers will be obliged to use these products and they will be prone to monopolized markets. A huge part of that benefit will flow to these entities and not to farmers or consumers. It is actually to be expected that there will be next to no benefit for the UK from opening up markets to the likes of Monsanto. Why should UK companies have a competitive advantage over the USA or a US company owned by a German conglomerate that operates from within unregulated space? A lot of EU regulations are not beneficial for the economy, because they aim to be beneficial for the people. These regulations are likely to be removed. But is this really a benefit? Even for the economy, considering that "the economy" in a global context is never really the UK economy.

[@louis-philippearnhem6959]

It’s again all about the economy here. Not a word about the political EU project that emphasizes Human rights, worker’s rights and consumer’s rights to name a few. I know that the theme of this discussion is economics and not politics but you cannot pull the two apart in this case. And that’s the problem because the UK always thought about the European project as a huge Free Trade Zone. Hence the numerous exceptions, opt-outs and even the choice between opt-ins or opt-outs for opt-outs. Notions like cooperation, solidarity and compromise are completely alien to the UK. Cf. the vaccine rollout which made a complete mockery of the EU solidarity and cooperation. Greetings from Belgium, EU

[@drazen1972cro]

Well said!

[@sharknado623]

Well said! Greetings from Italy, EU! Let's stick together! Please guys, don't ever leave EU!

[@louis-philippearnhem6959]

@@sharknado623 🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺🇪🇺

[@michaelutech4786]

1:10:19 - Consumer advantages vs. Farmers pain - Here I wonder, economists measure GDP and production output. Is the farmer's pain (farming becoming less competitive, business shrinking) not going to be stronger reflected in the GDP and production output indicators than initially lower consumer prices? What happens in the long run, if farming shrinks and the UK becomes more dependent on imported food? Is this a net-positive for the economy or the people? Will prices continue to stay lower once the economy adapted to serve new circumstances? Scaling in agronomy is relatively slow. Is it a net positive that electronics are nearly exclusively produced in China? Devices are cheaper. But does that make the life of UK citizens better? Does it help the UK economy? What is the better qualified job of people formerly working in electronics? Well the can speculate on financial markets. Is gambling more sustainable than building phones or 5G? What if China or Australia have a conflict of interest with the UK? The UK always had conflicts of interest with the EU, but it had veto rights in the EU. Does it have this instrument in free trade with Australia, China or the USA? What is going to compensate for this obviously weaker position with free trading partners?

[@Purple_flower09]

I believe it was intended that UK farming would decline in the face of cheap imports from world producers. It was obvious this would happen and it is.

[@CBfrmcardiff]

When higher food prices supposedly resulted from Brexit import barriers, it was announced as an unalloyed negative, despite the report supposing that the increase in profit for UK farmers was worth 80% of the total cost of those higher prices. And when lower import prices are anticipated to come from trade deals with non-EU states, the exact opposite rule is applied to the reporting - you only hear about how it will negatively impact UK farmers, not about the lower prices. Ditto everything else, including electronics. Most Brexiteers (the politicians, anyway) are free-trade enthusiasts. So their position - free trade with as many people as possible - is, at least, internally consistent. But some Brexit critics are in danger of opportunistically opposing anything that results from Brexit, and treating free trade as good, but only if that free trade is with the EU.

[@CBfrmcardiff]

If I don't like the effects of free trade, and want to protect domestic industries, then I shouldn't support EU membership. Similarly, if I am a supporter of free trade, then I should be dissatisfied with the EU because it blocks free trade with the rest of the world. That might seem like a paradox (where, whichever your position is, you should oppose the EU) but it's not when you realise that the internal logic of the EU project is not to support or oppose free trade, but rather to build up the EU into a cohesive unit, politically, economically, and - it is hoped - at the level of identity. Therefore the priority is to have a single EU market, for the sake of building a more deeply integrated Europe, rather than a priority of maximising economic welfare by either supporting or opposing protectionism.

[@michaelutech4786]

@@CBfrmcardiff I'm not aware that there actually is such a thing as free trade in the absolute sense. Given the vast disparities between global economies, I also doubt there should be free trade, simply because the entities best suited to profit from free trade are not us (these entities do not comment on KZbin) I personally like the approach of the EU because it balances economical and social aspects surprisingly well, at least in my estimation. What I was arguing here was whether the particular effect of the trade agreement with Australia has any positive outcome for the UK, something I cannot see. I'm not opposed to free trade in a more limited sense in general. The EU implements partial free trade in a limited scope with the objectives you described which makes sense and I think it has proven to be beneficial, primarily for EU members, though it probably also has some positive global impact (as well as some discriminatory effects, especially in developing countries - though I'm not sure if that's not compensated in other areas). The EU also implements a lot of protectionism. This is a mixed bag for me, I support some of it and reject other elements. But overall I'm fine with the approach. I'm delighted to see you mentioning the integration aspect. For me personally that's actually the most valuable effect of the EU that rarely gets any recognition. The EU solved problems that have been considered to be unsolvable for centuries.

[@michaelutech4786]

@@CBfrmcardiff The single market is not only tariff free market but also as you mentioned harmonization. As far as food prices are concerned, this is a rather special sector, considering how specific agronomy is organized in the EU. If the UK had only exchanged one trade agreement with another, that would in principle be exchangeable. The strange situation were fish is caught in the UK that is not in demand on the local market and can no longer be exported profitably to the EU while EU imports become more expensive can hardly be exchanged with a trade agreement with Australia that basically creates a situation where UK farmers can hardly compete with Australian counterparts. This is good for consumer prices, at least in the short term, but it's detrimental for farming in the UK. But I also wonder if the benefits from this trade agreement are wholesome enough to replace the agreements with the EU that have been negotiated over decades creating a fine tuned system of subventions all over Europe. Many EU concessions have been won by the UK using the veto powers, a tool that the UK does not have in negotiations with other trading partners. I see the same contradictions in reporting from all sides. In part this is due to the complexity of the subject matter, where it's really hard to predict what the overall effect of changes will be. Economics is far less scientific than I thought it would be. Brexit taught me more than anything else, that we should operate much more on an experimental basis and spend a lot more effort in observation and quality control of our governance. We really don't know what we're doing.

[@peterebel7899]

Two remarks on this stranger discussion: - effects on the population's wealth/ living standards are no economic impact? - effects on the national debt are no economic impact?

[@oneillcotv]

The reference to Ireland from the first two contributions is not necessary their arguments and is derogatory.

[@murphaph]

The UK and its crown dependencies is the largest tax haven in the world and it's all centred on the City but they genuinely think it is all squeaky clean and it's just those cheating foreigners that are up to no good again. The final remarks about the benefits of the general prosperity in the Irish economy not trickling down are also plainly false as anyone who grew up in 1980's Ireland can attest to. Do these people not remember the throngs of Irish getting off the bus in London Victoria looking for work? They aren't there anymore because there is ample well paid work at home.

[@peterebel7899]

Wasn't it "Global Britain in a changing world"?

[@EllieD.Violet]

IIRC the main change they expected was the EU to collapse after Brexit and little brexitannia creating an EU2.0, and heading it of course. In other words: they wanted their empire back. Us evil EUropeans 🇪🇺 ignoring their cunning plan and being as disobedient as ever, no surprise it didn't go according to their plan.

[@andrescasado5975]

Brexit means wrecks it

[@schrecksekunde2118]

thanks for sharing!

[@WendyPink-s3y]

We talk about Net Zero and not about the effect of Net Zero on transporting goods around the world rather than between neighbours.

[@samcarena4702]

12% drop in GDP is a complete disaster

[@yingyang1008]

That's what happens when you lock people in their homes for a year

[@jcliu]

If you’re going to do Brexit, do Brexit. Either choose Truss’s low-tax, trickle-down dystopian Singapore or Corbyn’s Trotskyite socialist fantasy. Leaving the world’s largest trade bloc just to do more or less the same orthodox austerity economics-except with zero power to set the rules-is the worst of all possible world. Why take back control, if you have no ideas what to do with such power?

[@michaelutech4786]

1:04:55 - "People have spend a lot of time [.. to get a number]" - This says a Cambridge professor criticizing a model. Is he surprised that he is going to be asked for a number serving as an alternative to the number he declared to be invalid? He was not asked for a precise result. Just something to be sniffed in a smell test. A "can this be real" number. If you look like Dumbledore without beard, you should serve at least a little bit of magic.

[@michaelutech4786]

The conclusion of this round of experts seems to be: We learned to speak with more modesty. We agree to disagree. We don't really try to find out who if anybody was right to preserve civility. "I did not vote for Brexit because of economic benefits" today were it was "The future will be fabulous" or "I have a pessimistic tendency where I saw doom before". I think it's safe to say that we don't need to listen to economic advise in the future.

[@academyofrock]

Excellent event

[@Guilfordust]

Please use logs for growth, please zero your graphs for literally anything where 0 is not outrageously arbitrary

[@michaelutech4786]

50:56 "The UK[..] is the weakest of the G7" - I overheard what the actual measure here was, probably growth. I'm not feeling guilty because GDP and growth sounds to be correlating measures. They might not be. But growth and GDP are indicators that are always used both by the media and experts to describe the well being of the economy. So how does that fit together with "the UK is doing ok". We learned at the beginning that we should not consider the USA, because of their fiscal expansion. So let's consider G6 then. But then the UK is still the weakest. Remove four other invalid comparisons and the UK will still be the weakest. The apocalyptic predictions of the leave campaign have obviously not come to pass. But despite there being a Brexit benefits officer in government, such benefits have yet to be seen. My observation is that science fails to predict consequences massive changes such as Brexit on all levels and in all granularites. Sciences also fails to explain or measure both the status quo and the reasons for that status quo. I wonder, what is the actual (factual) expertise of these experts? Do we actually have science as a basis to make rational decisions or is it ok to just decide based on whims and personal preferences because that's exactly as responsible as to listen to economic advice? My understanding of science changed fundamentally over the last couple of years.