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
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.
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.
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.
you are arguing from ignorance, ask for evidence, then reject said evidence in the first paragraph instead of reading the entire thing because of a boilerplate disclaimer (which you of course do not understand to be boilerplate).
you read the executive summary, even though you asked for the methodology, which is explained in the studies linked under the sources of the article.
you need to click through to the actual study to see the methodology.
the link i provided is just a summary of multiple studies.
the studies lack this disclaimer, which was added by factually, probably for legal reasons, not because the data is faulty.
since you’re apparently too lazy to even click the links already pointing to the exact information you asked for, here’s the abstract of the NBER/Stanford paper (most relevant part at the end highlighted):
This paper examines the impact of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (Brexit) in 2016.
Using almost a decade of data since the referendum, we combine simulations based on macro data with estimates derived from micro data collected through our Decision Maker Panel survey. These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact
accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process. Comparing these with contemporary forecasts – providing a rare macro example to complement the burgeoning micro-literature of social science predictions – shows that these forecasts were accurate over a 5-year horizon, but they underestimated the impact over a decade
from the CEPR/VoxEU article (already in plain language and easy to read):
So, taking all this together, what’s the bottom line? First, the public is right. Brexit has damaged the UK economy. But, inevitably, the mechanisms and hence the impacts have been considerably more complex than economists could incorporate in macroeconomic or trade models, with their inevitably simplifying assumptions. To simplify hugely, however, it would be reasonable to say that the impact on trade overall has been broadly consistent with predictions so far, that on immigration much less negative (and perhaps even positive) and on investment somewhat worse.
so, yes, brexit has been bad for the UK economy. definitely, without question.
what IS still in question is how badexactly it was.
THAT’S were the uncertainty is.
whether or not it was detrimental has been answered with abundant certainty: it was bad.
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.
That article is from 2024. We have already established that the map is showing the 2023 data. So you’re complaining that the evil EU is not showing data from the UK that the UK has not send to Eurostat because they have left the EU. And you are using an agreement that was after this map here was created as a source?
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
yeah, nah, brexit did have a major negative Impact on the UK economy:
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Maybe you should read it
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
yeah, alright then:
you are arguing from ignorance, ask for evidence, then reject said evidence in the first paragraph instead of reading the entire thing because of a boilerplate disclaimer (which you of course do not understand to be boilerplate).
you read the executive summary, even though you asked for the methodology, which is explained in the studies linked under the sources of the article.
you need to click through to the actual study to see the methodology.
the link i provided is just a summary of multiple studies.
the studies lack this disclaimer, which was added by factually, probably for legal reasons, not because the data is faulty.
since you’re apparently too lazy to even click the links already pointing to the exact information you asked for, here’s the abstract of the NBER/Stanford paper (most relevant part at the end highlighted):
from the CEPR/VoxEU article (already in plain language and easy to read):
so, yes, brexit has been bad for the UK economy. definitely, without question.
what IS still in question is how bad exactly it was.
THAT’S were the uncertainty is.
whether or not it was detrimental has been answered with abundant certainty: it was bad.
Why not use actual data though. It’s been ten years, we don’t need models. Especially ones that are commissioned by politicians with a clear bias.
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.
They signed a deal in 2024 to continue submitting stats, these are the facts. Draw your own conclusions
Please provide a source that they have submitted those stats to Eurostat.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/news/news/newpartnershipbetweenstatisticalauthoritiesoftheukandtheeu
We have to submit stats to be part of Horizon and Copernicus
That article is from 2024. We have already established that the map is showing the 2023 data. So you’re complaining that the evil EU is not showing data from the UK that the UK has not send to Eurostat because they have left the EU. And you are using an agreement that was after this map here was created as a source?
Are they incapable of adding data?
The UK is back in the data browser because of this deal. It’s not like the UK’s ONS stopped providing data at that time.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database?hl=en-GB
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.
They are not in the EU. Norway is in the single market, Switzerland is not.
Keep downvoting facts though lol