Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Brexit Ten Years On: The Economy

ukandeu.ac.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 108 posts

Re: Brexit Ten Years On: The Economy

#51

Post by bborud »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #34
vrganj wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no making "the most" out of Brexit the same way there isn't a way to make "the most" out of sawing your own leg off. It was completely unforced self-mutilation. The fact they're still hobbling on is commendable, but it's still much worse than they would've been off otherwise.

That isn't true, and a ridiculous take. There are pros and cons to both being in and out of the EU.

Well here is how it looks from my perspective:

- At previous gig relocation of manufacturing to the UK stopped because it would be impossible to operate there due to severe delays in procurement and long delays in securing appropriate visas for employees. Manufacturing sent to different country. (for many projects I work on 1-2 days delivery is the expected norm. With 3-5 days for "slow" shipping)

- Stopped buying from UK companies due a) many UK companies no longer shipping to EU, b) long delays when ordering something from the UK.

Of course, this is what it looks like from my perspective. That doesn't represent the totality. But in my work (which spans a few different sectors), the UK sort of became a black hole that we avoid if we can. Find different locations and sources for products, move on.

Re: Brexit Ten Years On: The Economy

#52

Post by bborud »

gpt5 wrote: post #30
rm445 wrote: post #11

The EU has mildly outperformed the UK in overall economic growth by perhaps 1 percentage point over the last 5-6 years, i.e. ~7% vs ~6%. While of course both massively underperformed the USA. It's hard to avoid concluding that the actual effects of Brexit have been smaller than this kind of analysis suggests, and while we squabble about such things our countries are missing opportunity after opportunity.

If you compare UK to its equivalent developed countries (France, Germany, Italy, etc. ), without including the developing EU economies of Eastern Europe, you get that the UK’s GDP growth has outperformed the rest since brexit happened.

you're going to have to quote sources and explain the math.

Re: Brexit Ten Years On: The Economy

#53

Post by foxygen »

nostrademons wrote: post #38
kev009 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term globalization is doing a lot of work in this comment, what does it mean to you?

The idea that governments should get out of the way of free trade across borders , and that the policies they make only serve to make the economy less efficient. The backdrop for the economy should be the world , and not the nation . Within it, firms should feel free to transact with whoever gets the job done best.

Are we pretending the US/NATO hasn't been interfering with the world's economy for the past decades? Or free trade here means the US being the sheriff of the world, forcing everyone else to use their currency, and bringing "freedom and democracy" to whoever thinks of challenging that?

Re: Brexit Ten Years On: The Economy

#54

Post by kibibu »

dudul wrote: post #45
grahar64 wrote: post #28

"The question was never whether this would involve costs" Brexit was sold as being positive for the economy. The proponents drove a bus around saying they would get 350 million back. It was largely advertised as a net positive for the economy

This is incorrect, the official Vote Leave campaign focused very heavily on immigration and overall sovereignty. Remain was the campaign highlighting risks for the economy. Of course the argument was made re: EU contributions staying "home" to be allocated domestically, but the economy was always shrugged away as a "necessary unknown to take back control"

You're saying the bus didn't exist?

Re: Brexit Ten Years On: The Economy

#56

Post by mytailorisrich »

bborud wrote: post #51
mytailorisrich wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't true, and a ridiculous take. There are pros and cons to both being in and out of the EU.

Well here is how it looks from my perspective: - At previous gig relocation of manufacturing to the UK stopped because it would be impossible to operate there due to severe delays in procurement and long delays in securing appropriate visas for employees. Manufacturing sent to different country. (for many projects I work on 1-2 days delivery is the expected norm. With 3-5 days for "slow" shipping) - Stopped buying fr…

Noone buys Korean phones or cars or whatever because they are not in the EU... of course not.

The issue, and lack of plan to cope with, is that the change requires a (long?) period of deep reconfiguration.

But still, places like London, Cambridge, etc are doing incredibly well and better than on the continent...

Brexit hasn't been a fairytale but it hasn't been a catastrophe, either.

Re: Brexit Ten Years On: The Economy

#57

Post by Zigurd »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #50
Zigurd wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not all noise. Being able to live, work, or study anywhere in the Schengen zone has tremendous value. But it doesn't show up in GDP numbers. Brexit harmed the young people of UK, and they hate it.

Regarding the UK specifically, very few people chose to study in the EU when they could while many in the EU wanted to study in the UK. British unis are a huge asset to the country that also brings a lot of money from foreign students. Same for young people wanting to come work in UK/London. Frankly, I think the "harm" done to young British people is vastly overblown and more symbolic than actual.

Young people voted against Brexit by 2 to 1. If anything they are more opposed now. Perhaps they know if they've been harmed or not.

Re: Brexit Ten Years On: The Economy

#58

Post by kayo_20211030 »

pyeri wrote: post #43
grahar64 wrote: post #28

"The question was never whether this would involve costs" Brexit was sold as being positive for the economy. The proponents drove a bus around saying they would get 350 million back. It was largely advertised as a net positive for the economy

It was totally a rigged referendum, that bus hoarding propaganda somehow worked and the masses fell for the lies. But a great number didn't and it was barely lost by a few percentage points. David Cameron should have stayed and battled it out instead of resigning.

David Cameron may be the biggest idiot in almost 300 years of British Prime Ministers, and there's been a few beauties. He really could have done a better job with the whole referendum business. Up/Down only. No "by a majority of...". No requirement for a second referendum on the terms of the disengagement agreement. Asking him to stay around would have been like asking the driver that drove you over the cliff to drive you home. And then there was that other beauty, Boris!

Re: Brexit Ten Years On: The Economy

#59

Post by cherryteastain »

nostrademons wrote: post #13

It's almost like the academics who said that free-trade and globalization were net benefits to the economy were right , and then reversing globalization and shutting borders simply reverses those gains. The interesting part is that while the benefits of globalization were not evenly distributed (part of the reason for the populist backlash against it), reversing it does not seem to benefit the people who were harmed…

> reversing it does not seem to benefit the people who were harmed by it

Second and third laws of thermodynamics - our universe has no (macroscopic scale) reversible processes and every irreversible process causes losses

Re: Brexit Ten Years On: The Economy

#60

Post by dudul »

kibibu wrote: post #54
dudul wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect, the official Vote Leave campaign focused very heavily on immigration and overall sovereignty. Remain was the campaign highlighting risks for the economy. Of course the argument was made re: EU contributions staying "home" to be allocated domestically, but the economy was always shrugged away as a "necessary unknown to take back control"

You're saying the bus didn't exist?

Reading is hard I guess. I'm saying Brexit was not sold as being positive for the economy. Yes the bus probably existed, and as I said, the argument was made that the excess in EU contribution would be spent domestically instead. But improving the economy was not the main argument of the Leave. They always mostly acknowledged that it would be a bit unknown, but whatever happened would be worth it if it meant more sovereignty.
Post reply on HN