• deHaga@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Everyone else manages to include the UK, OECD, World Bank, IMF etc.

    Just petty eurocrats. Leaving out the 2nd largest economy is pretty daft.

    • jenesaisquoi@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      You chose to be left out. You don’t get to bitch about others respecting your decisions.

    • JensSpahnpasta@feddit.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Voting to leave the EU and therefore Eurostat and then going onto the internet a few years later to complain that Eurostat didn’t include the UK in one of their statistics is really something.

      • deHaga@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Switzerland and Norway are not in the EU either. All 3 non EU countries in Europe make up 25% of GDP.

        They signed an agreement 2 years ago, they should put the data in for comparison.

        Maybe they have political instructions, they really want to say the UK has been damaged by Brexit, but the actual stats, not bullshit models, tell a different story

        Edit. This isn’t Reddit, your downvotes don’t censor me in any way. Lol

        • 9bananas@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 day ago

          yeah, nah, brexit did have a major negative Impact on the UK economy:

          Taken together, independent assessments paint a consistent picture: Brexit has reduced UK GDP (estimates commonly span roughly 2–8% to date, with central academic estimates clustering around 6–8% by 2025), slashed business investment (commonly estimated down 12–18% by mid‑2020s and in some scenarios far larger over decades), and trimmed productivity (roughly 3–4% in many studies and up to 4% in OBR scenarios), and they identify trade frictions, uncertainty and misallocation as core drivers—facts that point to policy levers on trade facilitation, investment incentives and productivity reforms if the UK seeks to narrow the gap with its peers [2] [4] [1] [3].

          damn near all economy experts agree on a negative, long-term impact fo the UK economy. they just can’t be entirely sure how bad it was, just that it was quite bad.

          single digit percentage points don’t sound too bad, but when it’s entire percentage points pf an entire economy that actually works out to billions in lost economic activity.

          the stats you provided do not show any comparison to a no-brexit/remain scenario, which is what should be compared.

          • deHaga@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Estimates are not facts. Stick to the facts. The UK has performed exactly the same as France and Germany post Brexit

            All these wank estimates you cling onto are just models. Where is the control?

            • 9bananas@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              if we only ever look at past data, and never compare that data to alternative scenarios, then it gets really difficult to make better decisions in the future.

              in circumstances where the sample size is naturally limited to just 1, it is necessary to perform simulations in order to gain insight into the outcome of any given event. there’s not really any other way to do this.

              what you call “wank estimates” (very scientific, thank you) is a collection of well established research methodologies that have been used with great success in both predicting future outcomes and analyzing past outcomes.

              this is evidence. it provides mathematical certainty, in this case about brexit.

              this is factual evidence, not simply “wank estimates”.

              and the evidence suggests that the UK economy would be significantly better off without brexit.

              this is simply fact.

              that the UK economy did mostly fine on its own is not relevant, because that’s not the point.

              the point is, that it would have been better for the economy, if the UK had remained.

              • deHaga@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                We use climate models, and back date them against data to check accuracy. This is not the same

                An alternative scenario is not a fact. They use doppleganger models and attribute everything to Brexit, when we went through a 100 year pandemic, energy shock, and war.

                When you compare against our actual peers, France and Germany there is no delta.

                If the models were right, why is there no delta?

                • 9bananas@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  maybe check the actual papers i linked?

                  all the sources, including their methodology and their conclusions are linked.

                  that’s why i chose an article that aggregates multiple studies, from multiple countries, including the UK, as the provided evidence.

                  it’s all explained in the paper; go read it.

                  • deHaga@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 day ago

                    Maybe you should read it

                    the size and timing of those hits vary across studies and depend on assumptions about counterfactual growth and other shocks

                    I prefer to stick to facts. These papers claim that the UK is losing £100b a year. That’s 3% of GDP a year.

                    Go find me a stat that shows that and I’ll eat my hat

        • JensSpahnpasta@feddit.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          2 days ago

          Or maybe the brits didn’t submit any data? If you’re spouting conspiracy stuff of political instructions to surpress british interest, please provide some sources.

        • 9bananas@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 days ago

          Switzerland and Norway actually ARE “in the EU”. at least more so than the UK.

          they are both Schengen countries.

          there are multiple levels of EU membership, and the UK has none.

          that’s why those two are included and the UK is not.

          • deHaga@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            They are not in the EU. Norway is in the single market, Switzerland is not.

            Keep downvoting facts though lol

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      When this data was recorded, the UK was not in the EU and did not have an agreement to share data with Eurostat. This is equivalent to complaining that Mercosur doesn’t show the UK in its data

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          It absolutely is. At the time of the data being recorded, the UK was not a member of either organisation and did not have an agreement to share data with either organisation.

          • deHaga@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            It’s not the equivalent of being involved with a terrible trade deal like mercosur

            The chart has no year, or what the units are

            • Skua@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              It’s not the equivalent of being involved with a terrible trade deal like mercosur

              What on Earth does your opinion on Mercosur’s trade deals have to do with whether or not the UK is sharing data with them?

              The chart has no year

              I gave you the year in my first reply to you: the most recent year of data in the source (a partial source, but it gives us a limit) is 2024.

              what the units are

              It’s PPP, it is the international dollar. PPP is strictly a relative measure, units are not important.

              • deHaga@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 day ago

                I thought you meant we weren’t involved with the amazing trade deal the EU has done with the rainforest destroying countries

                It’s not my fault the chart isn’t labeled correctly