The few families that rule the UK were undecided if joining EU was benefiting, mainly for them, or not. They experimented, the experimemt failed and they cancel it. I believe the most important reason was that they felt subordinate to the Germans and couldn't predict this feeling beforehand.
I can only give anecdotes, but the majority of the support I saw for leaving the EU wasn't rooted in hard economics – there were claims about doing our own free trade deals and having an extra £350 Million being spent on the NHS instead, but that was about it. A lot of support centred around how our culture & history ought to be perceived, limiting migration, and not having faith/trust in the EU and our Governments.
Again anecdotes, but the most common reprieve I hear from Leave supporters is that leaving would've been great if not for 1) the years of political deadlock 2) Johnson's deal being naff. For most of us life hasn't improved since leaving (the pandemic right after didn't help); and after the promises about the sunlit uplands if we left, I don't think anything short of a miracle would make it feel like it was worth it.
I think the only people who feel like it was worth it were those who voted Leave through a culture/prestiege lens and put the fact that we left above everything else.
>> A lot of support centred around how our culture & history ought to be perceived, limiting migration
In reality they voted to replace immigration from EU with immigration from other countries. I guess it is better for UK culture to have more Asian people instead of European.
The guy who voted Brexit because he was fine with German and Polish immigrants who came to the U.K. and worked but he didn’t want Iraqi and Syrian refugees told me everything I needed to know about democracy.
As a 24 year old this is the biggest kick in the teeth, and I had no say in the matter because I wasn't old enough to vote. Apparently the EU is in discussion with the UK to continue the Youth Mobility Scheme - I hope it happens.
It's a good opportunity to experience what most people on Earth have to deal with. Please don't take it personally Simon, it's just that your compatriots tend to be the most entitled people I've met.
If you're an older person who's secure and has a pension and whose biggest problem is fear of other people, then this costs you almost nothing and probably alleviates your fears.
Though I know yours is a rhetorical question, I'll answer: No. Brexit was essentially an anti-immigration and pro-deregulation movement. Simple small-c conservatism. (It was also anti-status-quo, but that was implicit.)
The, uh, "Conservatives" who were tasked with implementing Brexit supercharged immigration and, with considerable assistance from the EU, doubled down on ridiculous social and business regulations, paperwork, and red tape. There was no upside. They just made everything much worse. I know that they expected the Brexit vote to fail, and I think there's a term for their subsequent actions: "Malicious compliance."
Now England is a powder keg if there ever was one. If things are going to kick off, it'll happen there first. As Weimar as America is these days, England is worse.
The main problem is that Brexit Meant Brexit: the Leave camp was promoting a dozen different and contradictory goals at the same time, and every pro-Leaver was free to cherry-pick their own interpretation of Brexit from it.
This obviously led to a massive issue when they actually won: you simply can't have your cake and eat it - especially when it involves another foreign power! There is no universe in which it would've been possible for the UK to completely detach itself from all EU rules, while still retaining completely free transit of goods, while also taxing import certain goods for protectionist reasons. Similarly it was never going to be possible for UK citizens to retain unlimited visa-free travel to the Schengen area while retaining the possibility for the UK to arbitrarily block access to certain groups of EU citizens.
The most obvious example of this is Northern Ireland: you can't leave the Common Market, and keep an open border between NI and RoI (thus not blowing up the Good Friday agreement and not starting another civil war), and keep an open border between NI and GB (thus not partially giving up sovereignty and suggesting acceptance of a slow move towards a united Ireland). Failing to deliver on all three at once (as promised piecemeal by various pro-Leave people) isn't malicious compliance - it's reality. Something has to yield, and if you don't decide up-front you'll of course get a nasty surprise later on.
The immigration betrayal was obvious to anyone familiar with UK history.
It's how the ruling class works. They import cheap labour from the (former) colonies to drive down wages. Then they pay their puppet politicians to hyperventilate about how terrible immigration is, how filthy these foreigners are, and how it Must Be Stopped.
It's been happening for centuries - the same scam, over and over.
Estimates are that between 1870 and 1913 net emigration of British citizens averaged about 131,000 per year, i.e. more people left the UK than arrived:
In the 1881 census of England and Wales, "natives of foreign states" were 174,372 people, just 0.671% of the population.
In the 19th century, England was a country of emigrants, with net migration at roughly -100k/year. From 2014–24, you're looking at typically +200k to +900k per year. This is totally unprecedented to put it mildly. And now, like it or not, I'm sure that things are going to get ugly.
Rejoining the EU can absolutely be done, but I think it's unlikely the UK could join on the terms it had before, I can't see that being accepted in the current political climate in Europe.
In theory, any new country joining the EU has to switch to the common currency, the Euro, something the UK was able to gain an exemption from while still a member along with Denmark, Sweden and a handful of others, a long time ago when the Euro was first introduced.
This has always been an issue when discussing Scottish independence too, given the SNP have always claimed Scotland could rejoin the EU and keep the pound; the EU has always said otherwise.
Instead of "breenter" it would probably be more realistic for the UK to join up with Mexico, USA, and Canada as a fourth member of that trace bloc. Together they would then have more power to negotiate a favorable trade deal with the EU.
The same people who tell you that GDP means nothing to the average person and that investments only go to the rich will tell you that Brexit was bad because it reduced GDP and investments.
as a casual observer living in the uk, what brexit has done is stopped the influx of highly educated and economically contributing people from the EU, and instead replaced them with people who are claiming "asylum" from asian and african countries
Downvotes because while you're right it has reduced immigration from the EU, the vast majority of post-Brexit migration to the UK has no been asylum seekers, and most asylum seekers have not been Asian or African.
OK let's look at other measurements: Did Brexit increase UK soft power? Did Brexit increase cultural exchanges? Was Brexit good for the universities? Is the food better and more wholesome? Was racism reduced?
>Recently, weren't there supply and inflation issues regarding food?
From a US perspective, the supply and inflation issues regarding food were primarily focused on eggs, and the problem resolved itself as soon as companies stopped killing chickens due to whatever avian flu was going around. That being said, it might be different for the land of kidney pies, I'm not sure.
Also, I should've been clearer in my original comment. I usually hear the whole "but what about the food?" argument from people who are just upset that deportation of illegals will make their favorite empanada restaurant close, or who argue that the original food of a place is terrible and by introducing migrants of legal or illegal status, then everything (culinary scene & life in general) will magically become better.
Are you trying to be provocative? Talking about "illegals", and expressing contempt for people who care about them. Whatever the legal status and whether or not someone should be in the country, they are people and others legitimately care about them and their rights and freedom. Being deported, espeically in the way it's often conducted, is awful.
Not that it matters for immigration policy, but Britain's food was greatly improved by immigration; it's not magic. In the US it's hard to say because, other than things like corn and bison, etc., all cuisine is from immigrants!
>Talking about "illegals", and expressing contempt for people who care about them.
I do have contempt for illegals and the people in the countries where they're illegally present who care about them and stymie attempts to remove said illegals. It's a gross violation of the social contract and I'm tired of people just hand waving it away like it's no big deal and we just have to accept it.
>Not that it matters for immigration policy, but Britain's food was greatly improved by immigration
I agree with you that it doesn't/shouldn't matter for immigration policy, but at the same time I've heard this argument used by people who brand themselves as pro-immigration as a reason why we can't do anything about illegal immigrants because if they're deported, who will cook their unique cuisine?
Most of those are in the same class - not things that directly affect many people. Most people in the UK don't know what 'soft power' is (I'm not being condescending; most people don't get into international relations on that level of detail) and its effect is indirect. How many people are directly affected by the quality of universties? - of the population that attends, many are just as happy regardless and aren't concerned with world-class professors and research.
Brexit can be a bad idea and at the same time the GP can have a good point about globalization.
I'm assuming this was posted to draw a parallel with current U.S. international policy, such as tariffs and protectionist measures, which share some fundamental similarities with Brexit.
The paper just came out. I would assume they're posting it because it's interesting to a generally economically curious audience, and Brits in particular. No need for posting to be some targeted snipe at America.
Hopefully it leads to more investments in other places. That way the voters will eventually get what they want in a monkey’s paw way. Less immigration because the home countries get more investments and more opportunities.
Do you mean it turns out America was already great (despite still having some problems) and that’s why the whole world was flocking to it. In fact, it was so great that it was sucking up potential greatness from other countries.
Who gained financially from Brexit? I mean in terms of the "elite" behind the scene. If no one gained that would be really weird. Someone or some group of people must have gained something, financially, even in an indirect way. Can you think of anyone who benefitted?
I honestly believed that Britain would find a way to hold a second referendum before Brexit, given that the polling almost universally favored "remain" after the vote, and the vote itself was so close (52% to 48%). Now what surprises me is the lack of enthusiasm for Scottish independence (62% voted to remain), though I can't claim to keep up on Scottish politics. Maybe someone knows?
Yes, but this wasn't the usual two-party election. The 1972 referendum to join the EU got a 67% "yes" vote, the 2011 Alternate Vote referendum got a 68% "no" vote. You see similar number with, say, California's ballot propositions: a "solid win" is closer to a two-thirds majority. 52-48 is close enough to flip depending on the weather.
It's not uncommon in some democracies to require multiple votes for major changes (such as constitutional changes or leaving/entering intergovernmental orgs). And 4 points may be a clear margin, but it's not a large margin, and polling showed an immediate shift in opinion. In terms of the Scots, 62% is an actual blowout. And I'd think it might be enough to overcome the 10 point gap on their vote on independence (pre-Brexit).
These are the dying days of neoliberalism where only a fasicst police state is capable of propping it up.
The core problem here, and pretty much everywhere else, is rising inequality. We have seen a truly massive wealth transfer from the poor to the rich (either directly or via the government) and we're rapidly reaching the point where the poor simply won't have anything left.
Post-GFC austerity measures have been an abject failure. Successfully blaming those failures on immigration (as what became the Reform movement did) directly led to Brexit because neoliberalism in the UK is uniparty. So here we are where Nigel Farrage is odds on favorite to be the next Prime Minister of the UK (barring whatever leadership coups take place in Labor in until the next election, at least 1 of which is expected).
So the problems of neoliberalism are blamed on migrants. There is no counter-narrative to that. So we see a rise in isolationism and nationalism. And nothing improves. Well done, the system works.
What I find particularly fascinating is that many who push this agenda fetishize the 1950s (particularly in the US), which is funny because there was vastly less inequality and the marginal tax rate (in the US) was 91%.
Switzerland and Norway have better navigated being on the edge of the EU but not in it. But Norway has vast oil reserves (and, to their credit, is using them for a sovereign wealth fund instead of minting a handful of billionaires). Switzerland was the banking center but is really losing that title. Britain was once the heart of a vast empire and it too is a financial hub and a center for international money laundering (ie real estate) but, much like Switzerland, it doesn't really produce anything anymore.
The post-neoliberals have created even more inequality, and openly oppose any efforts to fix it. The US government is still trying to disrupt food programs for the hungry.
> There is no counter-narrative to that. So we see a rise in isolationism and nationalism.
Few argue for a counter-narrative, but there are plenty. One is that almost everyone in the US is in a family of immigrants. The economic counter-narrative is overwhelming. Also economics is not a zero-sum competition - it's not beggar-thy-neighbor: If your neighbor does well, you do well - they are your employers, customers, employees, lenders, borrowers, renters, etc. Fewer neighbors is a smaller, slower economy.
Surely replacing neoliberalism with social democratic sharia sectarian state will bring prosperity to all. There are so many examples of succesful, prospering countries that have choosen this path in the East. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia...
I remember someone on HN complaining that there were places selling authentic Polish sausages in London, and somehow it sounded they were deeply unhappy about it.
I don't know if average Londoners can still afford authentic Polish sausages, but if they can't, I hope the original commenter is happy now.
It only makes sense to compare GDP between countries on PPP basis. Otherwise you don't account for currency rate fluctuations and difference in averge price level.
IMF figures for 2025:
87% GDP per capita PPP,
50% nominal GDP per capita
>> GDP is a meaningless measure for all but governments and the very elite.
Source?
The top three GDP per capita are: Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Bermuda. The bottom three are: Afghanistan, Yemen, South Sedan. As an average person I would rather live in the top countries of the list than the bottom but that's just anecdote.
Taking maximas and minimas is only saying that the scale of GDP figures is interesting to look at. Like does it have 3 figured or 6 figures ? But that metric is easily done with others measures than GDP.
And yeah, if you study GDP its easy to see it’s a giant scam and the economy cannot be put into numbers. Qualities are better than quantities
Your point is a serious one, and well taken. But “South Sedan” made me smile. Seemed like a reference to rusting sedans on cinder blocks in the low-gdp rural south.
Well this just tells you that if you play by someone else's rules you get money and investment pouring in and GDP going up. If you don't then its the opposite. The main question is do you prefer to play by your own rules or rules imposed by investment interests.
Edit: For an average person its not always true that an illusion of prosperity is always good. Eventually there might be a payback for all this capital.
I don't know why people are being to negative towards GP. (Maybe because he didn't argue his point?) It's well known that GDP is not a good measurement for common people.
You can have a rich elite and a high GDP, but that doesn't mean the common people are doing as well as the GDP suggests.
A good example of this is Ireland. It has a huge GDP. 129,132$ per capita. It's the 3rd richest country in the world if you look at it like that (Liechtenstein and Luxembourg are first and second).
But do you think the average Irishman actually makes 129,132$ per year? No. Ireland is a tax heaven and its artificially inflated by tax shenanigans from foreign multinationals.
There are other reasons why absolute GPD is bullshit. Even PPP GDP is a little bullshit.
> It's well known that GDP is not a good measurement for common people.
It has many flaws, but can you name a better one?
> that doesn't mean the common people are doing as well as the GDP suggests.
Nobody who understands GDP would say everyone is doing as well (or poorly) as GDP suggests. Some people do better, some worse.
But people in places with higher GDP reliably do better. Visit a poor or middle-income country; the difference is unmistakeable and this debate becomes absurd.
Inequality is a major problem in high-GDP countries; that doesn't mean GDP is meaningless.
this is such a bad way to evaluate a metric. we want something that can distinguish small percentage changes in affordability for the people who live there
The average citizen in those places do not reap the rewards. Those places are countries where laws are built for the rich and to shield money. GDP is not a great measure for the average person unless communism is fully realized.
The average citizen is much better off than in low-GDP places. The issue is how much prosperity they miss out on because it's captured by a few.
The world has never seen an explosion in prosperity, and reduction in poverty, like the post-WWII and post-Cold War years, and it was accomplished via free markets, trade, etc. (not perfectly or exclusively, of course). Look at S Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil, China, India - like nothing the world has ever seen. Billions lifted from poverty.
Look at Western Europe after the absolute destruction of two world wars, and compare their recovery with places that did not follow the path of free markets and trade.
That's an overly simplistic take. Obviously the absolutely richest nations in the world are better places to live than the absolutely poorest. But that doesn't mean there is a strict ranking based on GDP.
For example, based on GDP/capita:
- The United States outrank the Netherlands.
- The United Arab Emirates outrank Italy.
- Puerto Rico outranks South Korea.
- Saudi Arabia outranks Japan.
I don't know about you but for all of these pairs I'd rather live in the latter rather than the former.
Yes, but a third of Poles emigrated, largely ending Brits' moral panic about Polish plumbers stealing the jobs, social housing and increasing housing prices.
Not that it solved the issue of jobs, social housing or housing prices of course.
What issue is that? Propagandistic, lying media spreading misinformation to the public as corrupt politicians, being paid off by malign foreign actors intent on destroying the influence and power of Britain on the world stage?
Yeah, but long term it will increase GDP due to the UK being able to have better (fewer) regulations than those allowed by the EU. It does require Parliament getting it together.
> long term it will increase GDP due to the UK being able to have better (fewer) regulations than those allowed by the EU
Speaking from finance view, the trade from Britain has been moving capital out for years. Not in. The stock market has shrunk,
If real deregulation comes at some point, maybe the curve changes. That remains unlikely, however, given to export anything the UK would have to meet their importers’ (read: America and Europe’s) standards.
(The benefits of deregulation are absolutely swamped by the benefits from trade. This inequality grows the smaller your economy is relative to your trading partners’.)
By leaving the EU, they greatly increased regulation of intra-European trade and labor movement. Both used to be generally open and free - deregulated.
Ok but the current vibe in the UK is Parliament wants to watch you while you sleep so they can judge your worthiness. Not exactly an "efficient regulations" regime.
GDP is a measurement that doesn't reflect the wealth of the average voter and foreign investment less so.
What good is 8% higher gdp if that only belongs to richest. A lower gdp but higher wages is a win for the average citizen and a loss for the banking class.
Brexit was a loss for the banking class but win for the average person.
The few families that rule the UK were undecided if joining EU was benefiting, mainly for them, or not. They experimented, the experimemt failed and they cancel it. I believe the most important reason was that they felt subordinate to the Germans and couldn't predict this feeling beforehand.
People who voted for Brexit didnt vote because of GDP and Investments
Haha, they mostly had no investment and didn't contribute to GDP.
This is deepening as people with either are now leaving in droves...
> People who voted for Brexit didnt vote because of GDP and Investments.
Nevertheless they got the opposite of what they voted for, besides lower GDP and investments.
And the ones who tipped the scale are already dead based on voting by age cohort. Like ordering dinner and dipping out before they’ve served the meal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028
Every democratic country gets a government they deserve
That would make sense. Less trade. Fewer workers in UK etc. Was it worth it?
(Dont know... dont have too much dog in fight)
> Was it worth it?
I can only give anecdotes, but the majority of the support I saw for leaving the EU wasn't rooted in hard economics – there were claims about doing our own free trade deals and having an extra £350 Million being spent on the NHS instead, but that was about it. A lot of support centred around how our culture & history ought to be perceived, limiting migration, and not having faith/trust in the EU and our Governments.
Again anecdotes, but the most common reprieve I hear from Leave supporters is that leaving would've been great if not for 1) the years of political deadlock 2) Johnson's deal being naff. For most of us life hasn't improved since leaving (the pandemic right after didn't help); and after the promises about the sunlit uplands if we left, I don't think anything short of a miracle would make it feel like it was worth it.
I think the only people who feel like it was worth it were those who voted Leave through a culture/prestiege lens and put the fact that we left above everything else.
>> A lot of support centred around how our culture & history ought to be perceived, limiting migration
In reality they voted to replace immigration from EU with immigration from other countries. I guess it is better for UK culture to have more Asian people instead of European.
The guy who voted Brexit because he was fine with German and Polish immigrants who came to the U.K. and worked but he didn’t want Iraqi and Syrian refugees told me everything I needed to know about democracy.
Please point out the non-democracy where all citizens have enlightened views on race and culture.
It was more about how he voted against his expressed wishes.
He was ok with eu immigration but not non eu immigration, so he voted for less eu immigration.
As a British citizen I also lost the right to live and work in 27 countries in the EU. Thanks for that.
As a 24 year old this is the biggest kick in the teeth, and I had no say in the matter because I wasn't old enough to vote. Apparently the EU is in discussion with the UK to continue the Youth Mobility Scheme - I hope it happens.
It's a good opportunity to experience what most people on Earth have to deal with. Please don't take it personally Simon, it's just that your compatriots tend to be the most entitled people I've met.
It should be possible to complain about the downsides of a political action without being called entitled.
I loved being entitled to live and work in the whole of the EU.
Sadly my compatriots apparently didn't value that at all. It was barely an issue in the Brexit public discourse before the vote.
I think people didn't realize that they wouldn't be able to retire to Spain, tbh.
The impact on trade is almost entirely in goods and the UK is >80% services. Services is basically unaffected by Brexit. (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7657...)
Hits on GDP aren't felt equally across the population.
> Fewer workers in UK etc.
You mean fewer European workers. The UK has far more workers today since the post-Covid migration wave.
If you're an older person who's secure and has a pension and whose biggest problem is fear of other people, then this costs you almost nothing and probably alleviates your fears.
If you're younger, heeeeeeelllllllll no.
No
> Was it worth it?
Though I know yours is a rhetorical question, I'll answer: No. Brexit was essentially an anti-immigration and pro-deregulation movement. Simple small-c conservatism. (It was also anti-status-quo, but that was implicit.)
The, uh, "Conservatives" who were tasked with implementing Brexit supercharged immigration and, with considerable assistance from the EU, doubled down on ridiculous social and business regulations, paperwork, and red tape. There was no upside. They just made everything much worse. I know that they expected the Brexit vote to fail, and I think there's a term for their subsequent actions: "Malicious compliance."
Now England is a powder keg if there ever was one. If things are going to kick off, it'll happen there first. As Weimar as America is these days, England is worse.
The main problem is that Brexit Meant Brexit: the Leave camp was promoting a dozen different and contradictory goals at the same time, and every pro-Leaver was free to cherry-pick their own interpretation of Brexit from it.
This obviously led to a massive issue when they actually won: you simply can't have your cake and eat it - especially when it involves another foreign power! There is no universe in which it would've been possible for the UK to completely detach itself from all EU rules, while still retaining completely free transit of goods, while also taxing import certain goods for protectionist reasons. Similarly it was never going to be possible for UK citizens to retain unlimited visa-free travel to the Schengen area while retaining the possibility for the UK to arbitrarily block access to certain groups of EU citizens.
The most obvious example of this is Northern Ireland: you can't leave the Common Market, and keep an open border between NI and RoI (thus not blowing up the Good Friday agreement and not starting another civil war), and keep an open border between NI and GB (thus not partially giving up sovereignty and suggesting acceptance of a slow move towards a united Ireland). Failing to deliver on all three at once (as promised piecemeal by various pro-Leave people) isn't malicious compliance - it's reality. Something has to yield, and if you don't decide up-front you'll of course get a nasty surprise later on.
The immigration betrayal was obvious to anyone familiar with UK history.
It's how the ruling class works. They import cheap labour from the (former) colonies to drive down wages. Then they pay their puppet politicians to hyperventilate about how terrible immigration is, how filthy these foreigners are, and how it Must Be Stopped.
It's been happening for centuries - the same scam, over and over.
Are you joking?
Estimates are that between 1870 and 1913 net emigration of British citizens averaged about 131,000 per year, i.e. more people left the UK than arrived:
>https://docs.iza.org/dp81.pdf
In the 1881 census of England and Wales, "natives of foreign states" were 174,372 people, just 0.671% of the population.
In the 19th century, England was a country of emigrants, with net migration at roughly -100k/year. From 2014–24, you're looking at typically +200k to +900k per year. This is totally unprecedented to put it mildly. And now, like it or not, I'm sure that things are going to get ugly.
Quick bias check: Do migrants or employers drive down wages?
this is the study that assumes if the UK had voted remain, GDP would have grown 2-3x faster than similar sized nations in the EU
seems to be somewhat of a stretch
Having 8 governments in 9 years probably didn't help
Well, that one was mostly Kremlin money.
Impressive feat.
I thought the point of Brexit was to change the UK to differ from the EU, but has anything really changed? Is it too late to breenter?
Rejoining the EU can absolutely be done, but I think it's unlikely the UK could join on the terms it had before, I can't see that being accepted in the current political climate in Europe.
In theory, any new country joining the EU has to switch to the common currency, the Euro, something the UK was able to gain an exemption from while still a member along with Denmark, Sweden and a handful of others, a long time ago when the Euro was first introduced.
This has always been an issue when discussing Scottish independence too, given the SNP have always claimed Scotland could rejoin the EU and keep the pound; the EU has always said otherwise.
> https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/euro/enlargement-euro-a...
Sweden doesn't have an exemption.
But to join the Euro, it is a requirement to be a member of ERM II for 2 years, and Sweden argues that that is voluntary, and just haven't done it.
You're right that Denmark has an opt-out, though.
Instead of "breenter" it would probably be more realistic for the UK to join up with Mexico, USA, and Canada as a fourth member of that trace bloc. Together they would then have more power to negotiate a favorable trade deal with the EU.
The same people who tell you that GDP means nothing to the average person and that investments only go to the rich will tell you that Brexit was bad because it reduced GDP and investments.
I'm pretty sure people will tell you that Brexit was bad for a laundry list of other reasons too that do very much directly affect the average person
as a casual observer living in the uk, what brexit has done is stopped the influx of highly educated and economically contributing people from the EU, and instead replaced them with people who are claiming "asylum" from asian and african countries
downvotes ahoy
Downvotes because while you're right it has reduced immigration from the EU, the vast majority of post-Brexit migration to the UK has no been asylum seekers, and most asylum seekers have not been Asian or African.
Had to look it up but I found Indian and Nigeria specifically as country of origin for work related migration
Economic migration is very different from asylum seekers, as the person above claimed.
The vast majority of people arriving from Nigeria and India do so on visas, and would have near zero chance of getting asylum claims approved.
OK let's look at other measurements: Did Brexit increase UK soft power? Did Brexit increase cultural exchanges? Was Brexit good for the universities? Is the food better and more wholesome? Was racism reduced?
>Is the food better and more wholesome?
Why do people always focus on food in these discussions? It's such a weak argument.
It's not highly consequential, but it's a powerful representation that everyone can understand.
Something the GP omitted: Recently, weren't there supply and inflation issues regarding food?
Of course, many in the land of kidney pies might be just as happy either way. :)
>Recently, weren't there supply and inflation issues regarding food?
From a US perspective, the supply and inflation issues regarding food were primarily focused on eggs, and the problem resolved itself as soon as companies stopped killing chickens due to whatever avian flu was going around. That being said, it might be different for the land of kidney pies, I'm not sure.
Also, I should've been clearer in my original comment. I usually hear the whole "but what about the food?" argument from people who are just upset that deportation of illegals will make their favorite empanada restaurant close, or who argue that the original food of a place is terrible and by introducing migrants of legal or illegal status, then everything (culinary scene & life in general) will magically become better.
Are you trying to be provocative? Talking about "illegals", and expressing contempt for people who care about them. Whatever the legal status and whether or not someone should be in the country, they are people and others legitimately care about them and their rights and freedom. Being deported, espeically in the way it's often conducted, is awful.
Not that it matters for immigration policy, but Britain's food was greatly improved by immigration; it's not magic. In the US it's hard to say because, other than things like corn and bison, etc., all cuisine is from immigrants!
>Talking about "illegals", and expressing contempt for people who care about them.
I do have contempt for illegals and the people in the countries where they're illegally present who care about them and stymie attempts to remove said illegals. It's a gross violation of the social contract and I'm tired of people just hand waving it away like it's no big deal and we just have to accept it.
>Not that it matters for immigration policy, but Britain's food was greatly improved by immigration
I agree with you that it doesn't/shouldn't matter for immigration policy, but at the same time I've heard this argument used by people who brand themselves as pro-immigration as a reason why we can't do anything about illegal immigrants because if they're deported, who will cook their unique cuisine?
Why should anyone listen to you if you have contempt for others? That's the violation of the social contract.
You might see others acting with contempt - the more you see it, the more you need to stand up for something better.
Most of those are in the same class - not things that directly affect many people. Most people in the UK don't know what 'soft power' is (I'm not being condescending; most people don't get into international relations on that level of detail) and its effect is indirect. How many people are directly affected by the quality of universties? - of the population that attends, many are just as happy regardless and aren't concerned with world-class professors and research.
Brexit can be a bad idea and at the same time the GP can have a good point about globalization.
I'm assuming this was posted to draw a parallel with current U.S. international policy, such as tariffs and protectionist measures, which share some fundamental similarities with Brexit.
The paper just came out. I would assume they're posting it because it's interesting to a generally economically curious audience, and Brits in particular. No need for posting to be some targeted snipe at America.
Hopefully it leads to more investments in other places. That way the voters will eventually get what they want in a monkey’s paw way. Less immigration because the home countries get more investments and more opportunities.
The NY Times had an interesting article in the last week about Vietnam, which continues to embrace globalization, and with good results.
Is illegal immigration a problem in Vietnam?
Is illegal immigration a real problem in US? It's a political issue for sure.
I would say a real problem is how current administration is fighting against immigrants at the moment.
Statistically, illegal imigranta behave better than american citizens. Less burden to the budget either as they are cut off from public services.
Could you unpack your argument?
Do you mean it turns out America was already great (despite still having some problems) and that’s why the whole world was flocking to it. In fact, it was so great that it was sucking up potential greatness from other countries.
?
someone needs a Jump to Conclusions Mat
Who gained financially from Brexit? I mean in terms of the "elite" behind the scene. If no one gained that would be really weird. Someone or some group of people must have gained something, financially, even in an indirect way. Can you think of anyone who benefitted?
Proving that another thing extremists share (on whatever side) is the total lack of economic sense.
I honestly believed that Britain would find a way to hold a second referendum before Brexit, given that the polling almost universally favored "remain" after the vote, and the vote itself was so close (52% to 48%). Now what surprises me is the lack of enthusiasm for Scottish independence (62% voted to remain), though I can't claim to keep up on Scottish politics. Maybe someone knows?
A reasonable way of achieving that would have been to announce a referendum on the deal, with the other option being to remain.
But it was idiocy to not set those kinds of terms out before the vote.
52-48 is a reasonably solid win in elections.
Yes, but this wasn't the usual two-party election. The 1972 referendum to join the EU got a 67% "yes" vote, the 2011 Alternate Vote referendum got a 68% "no" vote. You see similar number with, say, California's ballot propositions: a "solid win" is closer to a two-thirds majority. 52-48 is close enough to flip depending on the weather.
In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.
It's not uncommon in some democracies to require multiple votes for major changes (such as constitutional changes or leaving/entering intergovernmental orgs). And 4 points may be a clear margin, but it's not a large margin, and polling showed an immediate shift in opinion. In terms of the Scots, 62% is an actual blowout. And I'd think it might be enough to overcome the 10 point gap on their vote on independence (pre-Brexit).
Painful seeing it in numbers. And people wonder why the UK is struggling ...
It's a fucking mystery, isn't it ...
France and Germany are struggling too. Blaming it all on Brexit is just being ignorant
Taking what someone says and extrapolating it to "all" is meta-ignorant. My condolences.
These are the dying days of neoliberalism where only a fasicst police state is capable of propping it up.
The core problem here, and pretty much everywhere else, is rising inequality. We have seen a truly massive wealth transfer from the poor to the rich (either directly or via the government) and we're rapidly reaching the point where the poor simply won't have anything left.
Post-GFC austerity measures have been an abject failure. Successfully blaming those failures on immigration (as what became the Reform movement did) directly led to Brexit because neoliberalism in the UK is uniparty. So here we are where Nigel Farrage is odds on favorite to be the next Prime Minister of the UK (barring whatever leadership coups take place in Labor in until the next election, at least 1 of which is expected).
So the problems of neoliberalism are blamed on migrants. There is no counter-narrative to that. So we see a rise in isolationism and nationalism. And nothing improves. Well done, the system works.
What I find particularly fascinating is that many who push this agenda fetishize the 1950s (particularly in the US), which is funny because there was vastly less inequality and the marginal tax rate (in the US) was 91%.
Switzerland and Norway have better navigated being on the edge of the EU but not in it. But Norway has vast oil reserves (and, to their credit, is using them for a sovereign wealth fund instead of minting a handful of billionaires). Switzerland was the banking center but is really losing that title. Britain was once the heart of a vast empire and it too is a financial hub and a center for international money laundering (ie real estate) but, much like Switzerland, it doesn't really produce anything anymore.
> only a fasicst police state is capable
That's what the fascists always have said.
The post-neoliberals have created even more inequality, and openly oppose any efforts to fix it. The US government is still trying to disrupt food programs for the hungry.
> There is no counter-narrative to that. So we see a rise in isolationism and nationalism.
Few argue for a counter-narrative, but there are plenty. One is that almost everyone in the US is in a family of immigrants. The economic counter-narrative is overwhelming. Also economics is not a zero-sum competition - it's not beggar-thy-neighbor: If your neighbor does well, you do well - they are your employers, customers, employees, lenders, borrowers, renters, etc. Fewer neighbors is a smaller, slower economy.
Surely replacing neoliberalism with social democratic sharia sectarian state will bring prosperity to all. There are so many examples of succesful, prospering countries that have choosen this path in the East. Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia...
GDP is a meaningless measure for all but governments and the very elite.
How about some metrics on issue that led to Brexit?
I remember someone on HN complaining that there were places selling authentic Polish sausages in London, and somehow it sounded they were deeply unhappy about it.
I don't know if average Londoners can still afford authentic Polish sausages, but if they can't, I hope the original commenter is happy now.
Poland's GDP per capita went from less than 20% that of the UK in 2005 to 38-48% currently depending on source.
Those sausages have only become less affordable.
It only makes sense to compare GDP between countries on PPP basis. Otherwise you don't account for currency rate fluctuations and difference in averge price level.
IMF figures for 2025:
87% GDP per capita PPP, 50% nominal GDP per capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
But what about the food though!
The English are deathly afraid of food with flavor.
>> GDP is a meaningless measure for all but governments and the very elite.
Source?
The top three GDP per capita are: Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Bermuda. The bottom three are: Afghanistan, Yemen, South Sedan. As an average person I would rather live in the top countries of the list than the bottom but that's just anecdote.
Taking maximas and minimas is only saying that the scale of GDP figures is interesting to look at. Like does it have 3 figured or 6 figures ? But that metric is easily done with others measures than GDP.
And yeah, if you study GDP its easy to see it’s a giant scam and the economy cannot be put into numbers. Qualities are better than quantities
Do you have a historical example when a decrease in GDP in a country was accompanied with generally accepted increase in quality of life?
> if you study GDP its easy to see it’s a giant scam and the economy cannot be put into numbers. Qualities are better than quantities
You'll need to have some sources for that!
Your point is a serious one, and well taken. But “South Sedan” made me smile. Seemed like a reference to rusting sedans on cinder blocks in the low-gdp rural south.
Well this just tells you that if you play by someone else's rules you get money and investment pouring in and GDP going up. If you don't then its the opposite. The main question is do you prefer to play by your own rules or rules imposed by investment interests.
Edit: For an average person its not always true that an illusion of prosperity is always good. Eventually there might be a payback for all this capital.
I don't know why people are being to negative towards GP. (Maybe because he didn't argue his point?) It's well known that GDP is not a good measurement for common people.
You can have a rich elite and a high GDP, but that doesn't mean the common people are doing as well as the GDP suggests.
A good example of this is Ireland. It has a huge GDP. 129,132$ per capita. It's the 3rd richest country in the world if you look at it like that (Liechtenstein and Luxembourg are first and second).
But do you think the average Irishman actually makes 129,132$ per year? No. Ireland is a tax heaven and its artificially inflated by tax shenanigans from foreign multinationals.
There are other reasons why absolute GPD is bullshit. Even PPP GDP is a little bullshit.
> It's well known that GDP is not a good measurement for common people.
It has many flaws, but can you name a better one?
> that doesn't mean the common people are doing as well as the GDP suggests.
Nobody who understands GDP would say everyone is doing as well (or poorly) as GDP suggests. Some people do better, some worse.
But people in places with higher GDP reliably do better. Visit a poor or middle-income country; the difference is unmistakeable and this debate becomes absurd.
Inequality is a major problem in high-GDP countries; that doesn't mean GDP is meaningless.
HDI, electrical generation per capita, energy use per capita.
this is such a bad way to evaluate a metric. we want something that can distinguish small percentage changes in affordability for the people who live there
I steal all your shit, you get reimbursement from insurance, gdp goes up.
The average citizen in those places do not reap the rewards. Those places are countries where laws are built for the rich and to shield money. GDP is not a great measure for the average person unless communism is fully realized.
The average citizen is much better off than in low-GDP places. The issue is how much prosperity they miss out on because it's captured by a few.
The world has never seen an explosion in prosperity, and reduction in poverty, like the post-WWII and post-Cold War years, and it was accomplished via free markets, trade, etc. (not perfectly or exclusively, of course). Look at S Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil, China, India - like nothing the world has ever seen. Billions lifted from poverty.
Look at Western Europe after the absolute destruction of two world wars, and compare their recovery with places that did not follow the path of free markets and trade.
That's an overly simplistic take. Obviously the absolutely richest nations in the world are better places to live than the absolutely poorest. But that doesn't mean there is a strict ranking based on GDP.
For example, based on GDP/capita:
I don't know about you but for all of these pairs I'd rather live in the latter rather than the former.The metrics for that were pretty much: 2 World Wars and 1 World Cup.
Racism has increased, yes. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3vg33nje4o
Immigration massively up, mainly legal, but illegal immigration’s up too.
Right have been removed from tens of millions of Brits (some like Farage have kept their European citizenship but most have had it taken away)
I’m still waiting for a benefit.
If you have a look at figure 2 here: https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/lo...
You'll see that immigration was at record levels post Brexit.
Yes, but a third of Poles emigrated, largely ending Brits' moral panic about Polish plumbers stealing the jobs, social housing and increasing housing prices.
Not that it solved the issue of jobs, social housing or housing prices of course.
So a largely imaginary "problem" was replaced with an even larger "problem".
What issue is that? Propagandistic, lying media spreading misinformation to the public as corrupt politicians, being paid off by malign foreign actors intent on destroying the influence and power of Britain on the world stage?
Yes, let’s see some details on that.
Yeah, but long term it will increase GDP due to the UK being able to have better (fewer) regulations than those allowed by the EU. It does require Parliament getting it together.
This is just naive.
The EU is still a major trading partner, and regulatory divergence would kill trade, not increase it.
Elsewhere, the only way fewer regulations would increase GDP would be if the UK was selling goods and services that benefited from lower standards.
It already does that, because tax evasion and money laundering are a significant part of GDP.
But there are very, very few areas in normal international trade where buyers want to see looser regs and lower standards.
As an argument, it's just incoherent.
> long term it will increase GDP due to the UK being able to have better (fewer) regulations than those allowed by the EU
Speaking from finance view, the trade from Britain has been moving capital out for years. Not in. The stock market has shrunk,
If real deregulation comes at some point, maybe the curve changes. That remains unlikely, however, given to export anything the UK would have to meet their importers’ (read: America and Europe’s) standards.
(The benefits of deregulation are absolutely swamped by the benefits from trade. This inequality grows the smaller your economy is relative to your trading partners’.)
The UK will get 6% GDP recovery from curved bananas alone!
By leaving the EU, they greatly increased regulation of intra-European trade and labor movement. Both used to be generally open and free - deregulated.
Enjoy your chlorinated chickens guv!
I'm vegan, I don't eat tortured animals. Thanks though.
Ok but the current vibe in the UK is Parliament wants to watch you while you sleep so they can judge your worthiness. Not exactly an "efficient regulations" regime.
Yeah, that's fair. There's hope though!
> There's hope though!
Where would that be? The Stuart heir isn't interested in the job, and Divine Intervention probably isn't on the table. Reform Party? Oh, come on...
It won’t matter if no one can move there to take advantage of this libertarian utopia, which by the way is a bizarre fantasy lie.
GDP is a measurement that doesn't reflect the wealth of the average voter and foreign investment less so.
What good is 8% higher gdp if that only belongs to richest. A lower gdp but higher wages is a win for the average citizen and a loss for the banking class.
Brexit was a loss for the banking class but win for the average person.
> Brexit was a loss for the banking class but win for the average person.
That has not been my experience, and I haven't seen any data to support your statement. Please feel free to provide sources.
Average citizen wanted unlimited immigration to stop based on voting. Smaller hiring pool high wages.
Please share your experience how have things turned worse for you. When did it happen?
hello it's me the average voter
my wealth is reduced
Wages or wealth? Don't forget to factor covid in.