Brexit

[PerkyLady]

Hello.
Maybe some of you will consider this a fresh topic, but I'm interested in it nevertheless.
Did you vote for or against Brexit?
And what were your reasons?
Stay well.

It seems that yet again GlobalAI is entirely unable to come up with a list of benefits, despite repeatedly saying that they are easy to find.

And, yet again, it claims that something is a benefit to itself, when it clearly isn't a benefit to 99.9% of the UK population. Brexiteers are selfish perhaps?

I can think of one benefit for Brexit, but it is not for the UK.
Poland is doing rather well, a lot of young people and educated and talented people returned to Poland. Poland is set to take over GDP per capita by 2030-2035.
Meanwhile in GB, we are experiencing the exact same outward brain drain that Globetrotter2020 described for Bulgaria. Outward brain drain and brain drain of capital - it appears plenty of British youngsters want out.
Another benefit, Ireland and NI have benefitted economically too.

NI hasn't benefited. Like many poorer parts of the UK, we lost so many resources with the withdrawal of EU programmes.

Not only that, but our Assembly was collapsed for years over Brexit which really fucked us.

Ah, but Globe got a few drinks a bit cheaper, so, er, screw you? Or something...

@MaybeNotBob

It seems that yet again GlobalAI is entirely unable to come up with a list of benefits, despite repeatedly saying that they are easy to find.

You are the one who is looking for a list, not me. I have advised where you can find them on MN. If you don’t want to look, that’s your choice.

I can only list the benefits I have experienced as I do not have knowledge of what others are thinking. Regards a benefit for everyone, there will be no such thing. There will always be winners and losers, regardless of the subject.

But surely if there were so many benefits that were genuine benefits for everyone in the UK, they would be visible from space.

But you're, yet again, completely unable to point us towards them.

One might almost think they didn't exist...

"After that, my guess is that you'll never hear from him again. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And like that... he's gone."

Who is Keyser Soze?

Brexit benefits, that's who !

Never existed in the first place. And the promises made have been hidden deep in the bowels of mumsnet, where the people who believed those promises and those who repeated them, hope they remain.

@MaybeNotBob

genuine benefits for everyone every in the UK

Not possible as there will never be a policy that pleases everyone. There will always be winners and losers. It’s why the concept of voting came about.

That neither the 2016 referendum nor the HOC vote in 2017 produced a 100% vote for leave or remain demonstrated that there were differences of opinion. Likewise, within the leave and remain groups there will be differing reasons for their choice.

Whenever the subject of Brexit arises on BBC Question Time, there is never an unanimous consensus.

Whether or not you have looked at the MN threads suggested by myself I don’t know. However, if you have, I am certain that people did not all give the same answers.

There will always be winners and losers.

Unfortunately, 99.9% of the UK are losers.

But you seem to reckon that there were many more winners. But the only one you can find is yourself.

Funny that...

Even JRM's attempt at benefits is pathetic!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/09/jacob-rees-mogg-house-brexiters-labour-brexit-benefits

And he's willing to share them, rather than trying to imply that there are millions of them down the back of the sofa...

The Guardian article refers to the NBER estimates. However, it has already been established that their forecast model is flawed.

For example, NBER estimated that employment in UK has reduced by 3% to 4% over a 10 year. However, actual measured data collected by the ONS demonstrates that unemployment had declined steadily from 2015 to Q42024. To produce a report that includes an estimate that is the opposite to actual reality, gives the report zero credibility.

As per the Bank of England, 9 Dec 2025, the rise in unemployment from Q2024 is attributable to Labour policy of making the cost of employment higher. Hence employers reduced the number of people they employ.

I can only list the benefits I have experienced as I don’t know what the rest of the UK population is thinking. If, as suggested by yourself, 99.9% of the UK population is worse off since Brexit, how do you explain the following:

Reform are topping the polls

None of the major parties are advocating rejoin the EU

There are no calls for another referendum

Indeed, their forecast model was flawed. They found out that the damage was twice as bad as they forecast.

So that's nice...

Quote " The Guardian article refers to the NBER estimates. However, it has already been established that their forecast model is flawed."

Source for that ?

Is it the pro Brexit site you linked earlier, where it chose to describe revised predictions based on updated data as flawed ? That is, it added spin.

I can't access the article, so that can be my only comment really. But I am sure there will be things in there you chose not to try tackling :-)

@RedTagAlan

Quote " The Guardian article refers to the NBER estimates. However, it has already been established that their forecast model is flawed."
Source for that ?

The article Maybe posted has a link to the Guardian article which refers to the NBER estimate.

The Britain for Briefings plotted actual measured data from 1995 to 2025. The productivity drop occurs noticeably in 2008 subsequent to the financial crisis which affected all developed economies. The UK has continued on the same trajectory since 2008.

Their conclusion fits what is known to be true, such as:

Before Brexit, the only EU member to have a larger economy than the UK was Germany. This remains the same today. So, if being in the EU guarantees higher growth, why have the EU members, whose economy’s were smaller than UK before Brexit, have not all roared past the UK since Brexit?

@MaybeNotBob

The NBER (American non profit organisation) report was produced one year after measured data proved that unemployment had declined over a ten year period from 2015 to 2024. Yet, in their report, they stated employed had declined over the same period. Hence their report contained in incorrect statement.

That the NBER report was produced before Rachel Reeves budget on 26 November 2025 was perfect timing and camouflage for tax rises that had been promised not to happen.

@GlobeTrotter2000

I am confused. A few pages back you said you don't trust polls and interpolations from data.

But now you do ?

Re this bit. Quote : "Before Brexit, the only EU member to have a larger economy than the UK was Germany. This remains the same today. So, if being in the EU guarantees higher growth, why have the EU members, whose economy’s were smaller than UK before Brexit, have not all roared past the UK since Brexit?"

Now you are adding another factor in that has not been discussed. Has anyone said Brexit guaranteed higher growth ? I don't recall that.

And without even looking up the data, I can say that it is very easy for the growth to vary by individual nation, and the order to remain the same.

The UK can slow down, loose billions, and still be above the next nation on the graph. It depends of the gaps between them.

@RedTagAlan

I am confused. A few pages back you said you don't trust polls and interpolations from data.

Based on previous polls, I don’t consider them to be accurate.

Germany being the only EU member to have a larger economy than the UK, both before and after Brexit, is neither an interpolation nor a poll, but a fact.

As per OECD, UK has grown more than Germany since 2016.

How could that have happened if being in EU is guaranteed to be better than leaving?

Bulgaria, a country I know well, joined the EU 1 January 2007. Before that, poverty was 1 in 5. Today, it’s 1 in 3.

Funny how the only metric Globe ever uses is unemployment over a specific set of years.

It's almost as if every other metric doesn't agree with it...

@MaybeNotBob

Any retrospective analysis that produces a conclusion that is the opposite of what actually happened is proof that the; assumptions, methodology and samples were wrong. Historical employment/unemployment does not need economics modelling of any kind as it is data which is easy to measure and record.

If you read (doubtful) the full NBER report, it describes how they have made (as opposed to measures) their estimates which includes:

Comparison to what they term as 33 comparator countries. This included the 27 EU members and; US, Japan, Canada, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland.

Flawed comparison as both Japan and the US have larger economies than the UK. Likewise, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland have said they will never become full EU members.

Large reliance on UKs DMP (Decision Maker Panel) which has taken data from 7000 UK businesses which is 0.125% of the 5.6 million businesses in the UK.

Again, flawed. A sample of 0.125% can never be extrapolated to reflect the remaining 98.75%.

NBER also references US tariffs on the UK as a trade barrier, but makes no reference to the fact that tariffs on the EU are double!

Utter nonsense! From start to finish.

You only use that specific set of unemployment figures because everything else shows it to be an utter disaster.

Please! Stop with this disingenuous rubbish!

@MaybeNotBob

You only use that specific set of unemployment figures because everything else shows it to be an utter disaster.

There’s no way you could have read and assimilated the NBER’s 81 page report in 3 seconds, the time elapsed between the time I posted at 22.24 and your post at 22.37.

The tiny samples used and comparison to large economies that have never been part of the EU cannot be used to make an accurate assessment.

UK's measured unemployment figures do not require; assumptions, sampling or comparison to other countries as they are factual as opposed to estimated like all the other metrics. This is acknowledged by the NBER with their constant use of the words estimate and estimated. The words actual or measured never appear.

Do you have a link, for this NBER stuff ?

It might work for me.

Anyway, when presented with a gish gallop of info, one can either ignore it, or what I do, pick one claim and fact check it. I picked this one, because it is a standout claim.

"Bulgaria, a country I know well, joined the EU 1 January 2007. Before that, poverty was 1 in 5. Today, it’s 1 in 3."

Now, where I am, poverty data can be considered a "sensitive" subject, It can also be further complicated by some reports being by age demographic and what rates are used.

This site uses world bank data and $1.90 PP per day. An impressive drop from 2006 onwards, a bit of a climb from 2009... blah bah.. contradicts the above claim.

Bulgaria Poverty rate, 1974-2024 - knoema.com (opendataforafrica.org)

This site, no idea what the data source is, uses $5.50 PP per day. Again, a fair drop post 2006, the graph pretty much matching the above graph.

Bulgaria Poverty Rate | Historical Data | Chart | 1989-2022 (macrotrends.net)

2000 - 35.8%

2003 -37.3%

2006 -33.5%

2007 - 18.5%

2008 - 13.4%

2014 -13.2%

2022 - 5.5%

Of course, it's probably a coincidence that poverty dropped around 2006 , causation and correlation and all that, but it does make me wonder if the claim made by @GlobeTrotter2000 is correct.

I suspect they used specific demographic info. Poverty for ages 18-24 for example, that appears a bit higher.

Of course, for this claim " "Bulgaria, a country I know well, joined the EU 1 January 2007. Before that, poverty was 1 in 5. Today, it’s 1 in 3.", maybe Globetrotter did go out and asked all 6million people in Bulgaria individually ?

DP sorry

The more @GlobeTrotter2000 posts, the more I think Mnet Brexiteers dont live here.

Well, at least we have learned that poverty in Bulgaria fell a good bit around the time they joined the EU, and I reckon with a bit of digging, a link between the two might be found. It's not a given of course. But it has potential to be a BENEFIT of EU membership :-)

Almost an example of Toon's first law of flerth.

@GlobeTrotter2000

This statement you made here:

"NBER also references US tariffs on the UK as a trade barrier, but makes no reference to the fact that tariffs on the EU are double!"

Not true (at the moment), despite the exclamation mark !

10% v 15%

And it changes so often I think most people ( no, I did not personally ask them) have stopped listening to news on tariffs. Trump changes with the wind. Say something hurty about him : DOUBLED. Say something nice: REDUCED.

Add to that the by the line stuff, it's not double., Depends on what it is.

Given that Starmer has just come out yesterday defending Sir Sadiq, after Trump insulted him, the wind and the tariff rates might have changed by the time I finish this post.

Rate tracker here:

Trump 2.0 tariff tracker | Trade Compliance Resource Hub