Would you vote to re-join the EU in another referendum?

[GorgeousSpringtime]

Simple question. If there is another referendum to re-join the EU, will you be voting to re-join?

This isn't to have a go at anyone who supported Brexit, or who supported Remain, it's just a quick straw poll. Thank you.

If anyone is wondering, (or cares!) I think I will vote to re-join. (I won't say at this point what I voted for last time...)

Technically we do have a free trade deal with the EU

I think it is hard to dispute the 6-8% figure. The fact that out GDP growth has roughly been in line with the EU isn’t really relevant.

Those making the claim are the vast vast majority of serious economists. Although I am not comfortable with economics as a forecasting science, I think it does much better looking backwards. For those saying some economists dispute it, how many and which ones? Are they really credible?

I can’t personally prove it, but I do see the weight of expert opinion and tend to believe it. I couldn’t personally prove anthropogenic climate change, but I rely on the experts to believe it is happening.

I don’t think gut feel beats analysis.

@Newbutoldfather

I think that, unless you have studied econometrics and can model it better than the professionals, it is hard to dispute these numbers.

Based on the fact that the so-called experts' forecasts in 2016 were nowhere near correct, it's very easy to doubt their accuracy.

The NBER report that estimated UK has lost 6% of GDP has been debunked. Link is

What the NBER got wrong on the ‘Economic Impact of Brexit’ – Plain-speaking Economics

Also, as other posters have said, the UK has grown faster than, France, Germany and Italy since COVID. Andrew Neil made this point on BBC Question Time 24 September 2026.

I suspect so, though it would obviously be subject to negotiations. In return we would gain access to all the EU deals, though.

Many of the deals UK had with other Countries when an EU member were rolled over.

On a slightly different point, how the EU is doing is kind of irrelevant to the single market. They are still our biggest trading partner by far and friction free trading really matters , as we have learnt.

The TCA with the EU does not apply the regulatory requirements applied to goods to services. Therefore, there is no friction for services.

Again, other posters have said the service sector has boomed since Brexit. Considering that services are over 80% of UK GDP and employment, I would say that's the reason UK has grown faster that France and Germany since Brexit.

Of course it needs to be questioned. Has growth slowed in EU countries such as Germany?

In the same period a prediction might say it’d be higher today but isn’t.

There are many many economists who are skeptical of the study and disagree and posted critiques. Economics isn't a hard science and studies do have flaws.

@Newbutoldfather

Those making the claim are the vast vast majority of serious economists.

Look how wrong they were in 2016.

18 April 2016, the Treasury issued a report which estimated;

500,000 to 800,000 jobs would be lost just by a vote to leave.

GDP would have declined by 4% by Q3 2018.

HM Treasury analysis: the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives (Archived) - GOV.UK

If never happned.

15 June 2016 (8 days before the referendum) George Osbourne, chancellor at the time, stated publicly that if there was a vote to leave there would be an emergency budget that would raise taxes and cut spending.

It never happened

@EasternStandard ,

‘Of course it needs to be questioned. Has growth slowed in EU countries such as Germany?’

In the same period a prediction might say it’d be higher today but isn’t’

I don’t think it is one study; I think it is multiple studies.

• <📊> Bloom et al. / NBER (2025/2026)
• GDP reduction: 6% to 8% lower by 2025.
• Investment impact: 12% to 18% lower.
• Methodology: Combines macro data with micro survey data (Decision Maker Panel). 1]
• <📈> Bloomberg Economics (2025/2026)
• Total cost: Estimated cumulative hit of £180bn–£240bn.
• GDP impact: Adjusted to a 2% to 4% hit after controlling for global shocks (US/Ireland proxies).
• Methodology: Synthetic counterfactual modeling against peer economies. 1,
• <📉> Cambridge Econometrics (2024)
• Projected loss: £311bn by 2035.
• Employment: Projected deficit of up to 1.8–2 million jobs nationwide over the medium-to-long term.
• Methodology: Sectoral econometric modeling for regional and national impacts. 1, 2]

I am all for critically examining arguments and studies, but these are big studies from serious economists.

The one study which questioned it (linked to here) was an independent economist who questioned just the first of these three studies.

Do you question anthropogenic global warming? And, if not, why not? I suspect it is because you believe experts rather than have personally modelled it!

@Grower37

Economics isn't a hard science and studies do have flaws.

I agree. However, many of those who voted remain and want the Uk to rejoin are convinced the studies are accurate. That measured data says the opposite to the studies apparently is irrelevant.

@Newbutoldfather

Take note.

@EEexpat ,

Please see the 3 big and serious studies that I have linked to.

As I said in an earlier post, I think economics does a better job at looking back and explaining than making forward predictions.

So, we have those three big studies and a plausible mechanism. We have had a real decline in trade with the EU of between 10 and 15% since Brexit. This is easy to measure, and we haven’t replaced any significant portion of it.

If you decide to ignore what the majority (and it is a huge majority) of experts are saying, how will you make decisions? Gut feel?!

@Newbutoldfather

Do you question anthropogenic global warming? And, if not, why not? I suspect it is because you believe experts rather than have personally modelled it!

Measured data does not need to be modelled as it is already historical data.

but these are big studies from serious economists.

So, why is it their forecasts and estimates do not align with measured data?

@EEexpat ,

I think we cross posted, but the studies I am talking about aren’t forecasts, they are an analysis of existing data.

‘Measured data does not need to be modelled as it is already historical data’

So, you don’t believe in modelling anthropogenic climate change looking forwards?

@Newbutoldfather

We have had a real decline in trade with the EU of between 10 and 15% since Brexit.

UK does not only trade with the EU. UK being able to trade with whoever they wish, without EU restriction, was one of the reasons for leaving.

Yes. It would be the quickest way to improve the economy.

@EEexpat ,

‘UK does not only trade with the EU. UK being able to trade with whoever they wish, without EU restriction, was one of the reasons for leaving.’

This is kind of ‘magical thinking’ .

We still do 46% of our total trade with the EU: that is goods and services. Proximity really matters in trade.

As for the rest of it, for the vast majority we just (at some cost) rolled over the old EU deals on the same terms and conditions. We made a couple of small deals, but they are absolutely tiny in comparison to what we lost.

Can I check the timescales on these.

The 2024 one makes sense as it has a scale to 2035.

But the first one has the date 2025 / 26 and impact in the same year. When was it written?

We have a free trade deal with the EU

@EasternStandard ,

Publication date: November 2025, revised June 2026.

We are doing pretty much the same as EU countries rn

Why would anyone look at Germany or France and think we should be an outlier with higher growth, for what reasons?

@Newbutoldfather

Proximity really matters in trade.

So, why is the EU talking about Canada being an associate member? Canada is not on the EU doorstep.

So, you don’t believe in modelling anthropogenic climate change looking forwards?

UK weather measurements go back to the 1800s. No need to develop models to take the temperature.

If you decide to ignore what the majority (and it is a huge majority) of experts are saying, how will you make decisions? Gut feel?!

The NBER report issued November 2025 was based on selective data and flawed in its methodology. For example;

It was based on a 10-year period from November 2025 back to 2015. That's before the referendum was held and over 4 years before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.

60% of the model was based on US performance. A country that has had the largest economy since the late 1800s. Also, a country that have never been, nor ever will be, an EU member.

Biggest fudge was their model excluded France and Germany.

Final nail in their coffin was their conclusion that employment in the UK had fallen between 3-4%. That's the opposite of the measured ONS data which recorded unemployment had declined from 2015 to Q3 2024.

That they put their name to a report without a cross check against known data tells me they are neither competent nor professional. Would you out your name on a report that concluded the opposite to known data which is publicly available?

@EasternStandard ,

There seem to be two type of economic models done here, one is loooking at a proxy economy to the uk by correlating it to other world economies. It seems that the U.S does carry a lot of weight here. The other is sectoral modelling; looking at the impact of Brexit sector by sector to see the cost. The fact that they broadly agree is comforting (scientifically).

I just looked in AI and it confirmed my belief that the UK tracked between the U.S and Northern Europe. So, with the US massively outperforming, the UK should have substantially outperformed France and Germany. Sadly, it didn’t.

I think that Burnham is talking about the single market (or EU membership) for a reason. I don’t think he wants to needlessly dredge up all wounds. He needs the money to achieve his domestic objectives.

‘The UK economy historically falls in between the EU and the US, sharing significant trade and geographic ties with Europe while closely mirroring the financial cycles, market structures, and service-sector dominance of the United States.’

Thanks for this. I haven’t read the info but I’m reading with interest.

And trade has actually increased with the EU since Brexit.

@EasternStandard

Why would anyone look at Germany or France and think we should be an outlier with higher growth, for what reasons?

Excellent question, but I don't think you will receive a reply.

Other posters have said that had the UK remained in the EU, UK growth would have been higher than that of France and Germany than it already has been. My reply was

"What advantage would EU membership give to the UK, but not to France and Germany, that would allow the UK to grow even faster than France and Germany after they had left the EU? "

That too was not answered.

Yes this, why we would have been in the EU still.

Why put the US in a report measuring success when we were not linked to them but the EU?

@EEexpat ,

Replied in my last post!

‘60% of the model was based on US performance. A country that has had the largest economy since the late 1800s. Also, a country that have never been, nor ever will be, an EU member.

Biggest fudge was their model excluded France and Germany.’

It wasn’t a fudge! It was a computer model and the computer picked the highest correlation countries. We are correlated to the EU via trade and the U.S via market structure and finance. Much more so than France or Germany.

The Bloomberg study specifically removed the U.S and Ireland, and included France and Germany. They found Brexit cost us 2-4% of GDP, a smaller number but still a huge loss in terms of opportunity.

The Cambridge econometrics model was sectorial and didn’t use a combination or other countries as a proxy, and still came up with a large loss.

No study at all has found a gain!!