> And so far, do you think that Brexit has been more of a success or more of a failure? %
With 62% saying failure (the rest are don't know/neither).
Note that only 55% say it was wrong to leave, and on such a close referendum anyway I'm not even sure that's a statistically significant different answer than in 2016.
Key point: you can think it hasn't gone well (managed poorly, opportunities no taken, whatever) without thinking it was wrong, or even that in hindsight being in the EU is better.
(You can also have voted to remain, but now want to make the best of it, and think it's going well/badly - it's completely independent.)
A sad truth about policy change is that most of the negative side effects take many years to manifest and are far out of the memory range of the average voter and so they never really get properly correlated with the cause, and therefore nobody ever changes their mind.
I think that's why so many US voters are now telling each other "I hope you get what you voted for" after the last presidential election. Sometimes you need a really, really bad hangover to decide that you need to make some changes in your life.
> Note that only 55% say it was wrong to leave, and on such a close referendum anyway I'm not even sure that's a statistically significant different answer than in 2016.
Conveniently ignoring that only 30% say we were right to leave. Nice try.
The tories completely butchered it. They've done the opposite of what should have been done in terms of making brexit pay, and now we're in an absolute mess.
I'd have to say that when the UK initially joined the EU most people probably didn't notice much of a difference, except that the euro made going on holiday and using the local currency a lot easier (I still remember the Lira in Italy being particularly difficult to get my head around). But otherwise it didn't make much of a difference in day-to-day life for most.
But now, leaving seems to be like constantly picking at a festering scab.
Except that the UK joined the EU before it was even called the EU and long before the Euro existed. The UK also never adopted the Euro or joined the Schengen area, so we never got the full open borders + same currency experience. Being over the water from the EU - with the exception of the Irish border, which is over the water from the rest of the UK anyway - helps add a sense of separation, uniqueness and sheer arrogance which has allowed our newspapers to lie about the EU for the entirety of its existence.
What's hurt us from leaving is the single market. It's now vastly more difficult to trade with the EU, our closest geographical neighbour. Lots of post-referendum talk about amazing trade deals with Australia and the USA and Canada and India came largely to nothing, and they're all so far away and much more difficult to manage the logistics of. Plus the awkward situation where Northern Ireland is still kind of in the single market and kind of not, due to the need to preserve various agreements about trade and movement over the Irish border.
Ultimately, EU membership was what helped us get out of the economic pit we were in in the early 1970s. It's what helped us build the massive services economy which fuelled the 1980s on a wave of consumer credit and London skyscrapers. I'm not saying those are necessarily good things, but the day to day impact of EU membership was actually enormous - just most people weren't consciously aware of it.
Which is why it was possible for a bunch of charlatans to convince a tiny majority to vote to leave it.
> Ultimately, EU membership was what helped us get out of the economic pit we were in in the early 1970s. It's what helped us build the massive services economy which fuelled the 1980s on a wave of consumer credit and London skyscrapers.
there was (and still is) no single market for services, so how could have joining the EEC have caused any of these things?
the 80s boom this was purely a result of Thatcherite policy (for better or worse), it had nothing to do with the EEC
Also the fact most of the UK’s newspapers are owned by non-UK, non-European citizens. The US doesn’t allow foreigners (non US persons, green card holders are US persons) to hold a controlling stake in the media, or to contribute money to the political process.
> when the UK initially joined the EU most people probably didn't notice much of a difference, except that the euro made
There were 26 years between the UK joining and the euro being introduced. 29 between that and coins & notes being in people's hands (for the first three years the currency was primarily only used for accounting purposes not day-to-day, though in the run up to 2002 prices were often presenting in both currencies in preparation for the public switch starting).
> But now, leaving seems to be like constantly picking at a festering scab.
There was a plan for joining. Leaving was a desire without a (properly thought out) plan.
After joining it took time to fully integrate and over the decades, unpicking all that was always going to be much more complicated than merging into it in the first place (the “we are not in any more, we don't have to do a thing or pay what we'd already agrees” ideas many brexit supporters seemed to have were pure fantasy). Most divorces are more complicated than the marriage that preceded them.
Of course, it is all us remoaners fault for not helping the leavers make their plan. :)
It's like removing a particular dependency that you thought would be simple and it turns out to have been useful all over the place in ways that one person alone doesn't remember off the top of their head.
Then you start realising that the fab new modules you were thinking of using have all sorts of missing features and limitations and now your performance has dropped x% and memory usage went up instead of down.
...but you put the old module on the banned list and can't take the hit to your credibility of admitting that it wasn't as bad as the alternatives.
> But now, leaving seems to be like constantly picking at a festering scab.
Does it? I feel similarly to your description of joining about it: maybe I can't join an EU line (more often I now join an EU + UK + ... line, so it's only a signing quirk) and my passport is a different colour, but otherwise it hasn't made a difference day-to-day.. at all? Maybe if I was an international lorry driver or something?
EU + UK line are going to disappear when the new EU passport check (ESS) and electronic travel authorization (euphemism introduced by the US to call a visa) will come into force. And now that EU citizen have to do the same for UK it will to just transform a quick Eurostar travel in a big headache.
I am an academic working on a multinational clinical trial. I assure you, it has made many aspects of my daily life much worse, from shipping things across borders, recruiting students or staff, to discussions about patient safety and the EMA/MHRA, as well as the desire of colleagues to collaborate internationally.
Born in the 1960s, I remember when the UK joined a trade bloc. Decades later, during the Brexit referendum, the "think of the children" argument was heavily pushed by the Remain campaign. Yet, as someone who grew up within the trade bloc and later the EU, I recall that we had no say on the Maastricht Treaty—while other countries did, with some even being told to vote again.
I also remember the Liberal Democrats advocating for a referendum on EU membership from the early 2000s onward. However, when the vote finally happened, the level of vitriol and disdain the party directed at Leave voters completely changed my perception of what "liberal" and "democratic" truly mean. Their stance no longer aligned with those ideals.
Corporate lobbying has a significant impact on EU policy, often overshadowing the interests of its citizens. The EU’s influence is a mix of positives, negatives, and deeply concerning interventions. One striking example was when the entire EU was forced to pay higher prices for imported solar panels to protect a single German company. Another was the rushed adoption of CFL lighting just before LED technology became viable—CFLs contain mercury, posing a serious health hazard if broken, and many have likely ended up polluting landfills.
While I support the idealistic vision of a united Europe, many well-intentioned policies have been poorly thought out, leading to unintended consequences. The depopulation of many towns and villages across Europe due to youth migration is a direct result of EU-driven policies, yet little thought was given to the broader impact.
The UK sought EU reforms, but when those were denied, a referendum became inevitable. Many who voted Leave did so because the trade bloc they originally joined had evolved into something they no longer recognized. For decades, key decisions were made without direct input from the British people. It's no surprise that those who had once voted to join felt compelled to vote to leave. Yet, the mainstream media labeled them as racists, disregarding the complexity of their concerns.
Beyond the UK's experience, France’s actions in African countries when it adopted the Euro are worth investigating—they reveal a shocking side of EU monetary policy. Meanwhile, Germany, whose strong currency transitioned smoothly into the Euro, benefited enormously—often at the expense of struggling nations like Greece and Italy, which found themselves locked into an economic framework that served German interests far more than their own.
Saddest part is, France blocked any reforms until the UK had left the EU, and had they only engaged back then and made some reforms, the UK could have justified a new vote on the EU, with a more informed opinion. That in itself is a tradegy, but then the UK being physically seperated from Europe, has always seen many cultures and approached, not as aligned as the Europe and subsequently the EU as a whole, which beyond cheap holidays, duty free, not many really embraced the EU as a whole and vice versa.
> Beyond the UK's experience, France’s actions in African countries when it
adopted the Euro are worth investigating—they reveal a shocking side of EU
monetary policy.
Can you elaborate on this? I know enough to know that I should not pretend to
know anything.
They have only realised the leaving part. They haven’t committed to the being a better European country part. Regulations, tax, government spending, immigration are no better than leaving the EU. They have so much potential if the Tory didn’t waste effort in fighting for status. Liz truss was right in bringing down government spending and lowering tax, Suella Braverman was right about immigration. Boris Johnson was right about abolishing EU regulations. Now everything is even worse, more tax, no cap illegal immigration, more government debt. But people instead blame the brexit.
However you feel about the way the EU and member states are currently run, it's odd to make such a big deal about leaving and then copy everything about the EU. Feels like you're just creating an EU country with less freedom of movement and free trade.
I keep an eye on OurWorldInData's Energy [0] and GDP [1] per capita graphs. They suggest that the UK is moving roughly in step with the other western-Europe powers and have been in a state of crisis since around 2005. It matches up well with the growing political instability that seems to be coming to a head all through Europe, there are a surprising number of people who refuse to accept that >33% drop in energy use (& trending) is a problem.
I'd speculate that Brexit was actually a response to an energy crisis slowly eroding living standards and people are getting more antsy when it turns out that it didn't lead to saner energy policy than the EU mainland. I remain glad that I'm closer to China who, for all her faults, at least has the whole energy-and-prosperity link under control. I wish my civilisation would re-learn that one.
I'd be a bit wary of using energy use that directly as indicator. Yes, it is a broad measure of industrialization, however:
Suppose a country goes on a broad national campaign to insulate drafty houses. That drops energy use, but has no corresponding drop in living standard.
i.e. there is some sort of measure/factor for efficient application of energy needed for it to really be meaningful
Run me through your numbers. Where did the 33% drop in per-capita energy use come from? What order of magnitude do you think is draft reductions?
Because if that were true I'd expect the UK would be a world-leading paradise with vast energy surpluses and everyone having a high old time in great comfort. That isn't the vibe they're giving off. They look like a nation with a slow-rolling energy crisis and a social contract that is coming under quite a bit of pressure because of it. Happy people don't vote for Nigel Farage.
So let me get this right, solar panels on the roof, heat pumps, better fridges, and better insulation among other things are a crisis that will lead, in comparison, to the downfall of Western civilisation?
Jeez, I better randomly turn on a resistive space heater in the middle of summer when I’m not home so we can all live better lives somehow.
Do you think I should randomly flail my arms about in the hope it’ll somehow make more dividends for my bank of choice? Just want to double-check.
> So let me get this right, solar panels on the roof, heat pumps, better fridges, and better insulation among other things are a crisis that will lead, in comparison, to the downfall of Western civilisation?
Well the data does seem to incline in that direction. Particularly the UK, as far as I can tell it is impossible to be both intellectually honest and believe that a 33% (!) reduction in per capita energy is good for people's living standards. Someone'd have to be wilfully ignorant of Jevons' paradox, the only way to get that drop off is some sort of squeeze in their ability to access energy which isn't fun to live through. I feel for the poor who are being forced to live with that and be told that they're better off and shouldn't believe their lying eyes. It also neatly explains a lot of the political trends the UK has undergone in the last decade like the high debt level and general dissatisfaction with the leadership.
Which makes sense as energy is a costly input and so using less to get the same result is a good thing.
In other documents the EIA list people moving to Southern states as one of several factors driving this trend.
Just moving from coal and gas plants of 40% efficiency to 60% combined cycle gas plants would make everything consuming the generated electricity use 1/3rd less primary energy with no changes on their end.
> In the US the amount of energy used to create an inflation adjusted dollar of GDP has been declining since 1949.
That does more to cast doubt on the GDP than anything else; a lot of the commonly used metrics are flawed. One of the interesting things about the Trump campaign(s) is his message is typically that the economy is bad and it seems a lot of people have on-the-ground experiences that match that.
Since GDP dissociated from energy use in the 70s, I tend to side with the people who think the metrics are flawed. If GDP isn't a proxy for energy it isn't obvious what it is measuring or why anyone should care about that - for all that people do for reasons that are hard to unravel. There is a such a thing as intangible wealth but on aggregate it still pales compared to the tangible sort that requires energy.
> Just moving from coal and gas plants ...
One of the reasons I link the OurWorldInData series is they include fudge factors to try and account for that. If you look at the graph you can see it uses something they call the substitution method.
I get the vague feeling this has been pointed out to you before but maybe not.
I just double check on GDP [1] as well rather than GDP per capita.
It is clear post 2007, UK and France and perhaps Germany as well had 15 years of stagnation. Using Bank of England 's calculator [2] £10.00 in 2008 would equal to £16.00 today.
You make good points, thanks for sharing. May I also add onto your speculation by saying that Brexit was a symptom of bad governance in general, and the energy crisis is a symptom too.
I have a feeling that somehow your point is going to be proven (or disproven) rather soonish, considering Trump's total turn on renewables and energy output ("Drill, baby, drill"). We might actually find out if the old school American way can indeed make a significant difference on the average guy...
An area I don’t see much discussion on is the double whammy impact of Brexit AND Covid. Both have permanently reshaped live in UK and both landed within months of each other.
Exactly- trickle-down economics does not work, it's trickle-up that was the overlooked and needed solution.
Universal basic income, known as UBI is one tool to enable this. Removed inequality and equally, restores dignity and makes benefits and the lambasting and disdain of those in that position a thing of the past.
Yeah, the issue is how the cash was spent, who it was given to.
I'd rather have money printing be used for long-term investments, all things being equal.
But if it can be done, I'd rather inject it in the real economy rather than in the stock market and second-hand real estate.
Multiple things could have been done to do that. Rent freeze + automatic social security payments (rather than paying the business, you pay the now inactive employees until the economy starts again) would have been great.
The Brexit vote was June 2016. The withdrawal agreement was first drafted in 2018. The business impact was being felt for years before Covid as uncertainty and confusion affected investment.
Sure, but every country was affected by Covid. Not always to a similar degree as Britain but the differences in Europe in that regard aren't so big. Most handled it similarly, saw similar infection rates and are seeing similar long-term consequences. Just like we were all affected by cheap Russian gas disappearing.
I think you can safely cancel out Covid and Putin when comparing the way living standards and cost of living have changed over the last decade between the UK and countries like France, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, etc.
This is not a pro-Brexit opinion, but it is also interesting how much of the worst prophesies did not happen. Tech business in particular mostly stayed in the UK and London is still the best place to be within the European geographical region. And London is still the financial capital. Very little moved to Paris and Frankfurt. Indeed London is still a very attractive place for EU skilled labour despite the added friction.
> but it is also interesting how much of the worst prophesies did not happen.
So, I think the real issue was the new investments (net FDI fell off a cliff for years after the vote). Generally companies won't move unless forced to, but new companies generally seemed to avoid the UK post Brexit.
In fact, Ireland benefited from a bunch of this, I worked for 1-2 companies who'd moved their headquarters and staff from the UK to IE because they needed an EU base.
> Indeed London is still a very attractive place for EU skilled labour despite the added friction.
Honestly, not unless you work in finance. I was offered a Big tech role in London a few years back, and it was basically my euro salary converted into pounds, so it didn't make any financial sense for me to move (which is easy because I'm an Irish citizen).
> net FDI fell off a cliff for years after the vote
I don't know what stats you're looking at. As a percentage of market share the UK is essentially where it was in 2017 and inline with historical trends. Moreover it has been recently increasing largely due to poor conditions in Germany.
5 years ago, the value of companies listed on the LSE was 2 times the size of Paris. Now they are almost equal (Paris was first in 2023). In 2024 only 18 IPO took place on the LSE, the lowest number in the last 20 years. London is still the major place for financial services but other European center are growing faster.
Before Brexit I knew tech companies where they had a UK EMEA HQ, where they would have people looking after all regions, with people living and paying tax in the UK. Post Brexit, so many people started moving home, companies started opening more local offices in region. So the people who would have been on high wages paying high tax here, sending in the UK, are not back in their home country.
London is still one of the two financial capitals of the world (the other one being NY). In finance no-one left London after Brexit, at most they shifted the legal minimum into the EU as required and not more.
a) Having English be the national language is a massive advantage which only Ireland shares (and Ireland has plenty of American tech outposts). That's an advantage people don't mention often.
b) The EU keeps adding regulations, which make it a less attractive place to invest. The UK seems to copy each of these regulations though, which maybe makes this a moot point.
But I think ultimately, it's probably down to network effects. The same way Twitter/X stuck around even though basically everything about it changed, cities might do the same.
The Brexit the UK ended up with was pretty might the lightest possible Brexit. This is exactly because anyone in power rapidly understood anything else would be a huge disaster. It was interesting watching a succession of "leaders" scream that they would deliver true Brexit, be given power, and then lose their nerve only to be replaced by the next "true" brexiteer.
The result is we suffered only 10% of the maximum damage in exchange for 0% of the "advantages" (can't sign our own trade deals, no say in the EU, must take rules, last in queue for access etc).
I think this is actually the worst outcome long term: a car crash hard Brexit would have all but assured reentry in the long term. Instead we will be in Europe for all practical purposes but dragging our feet at the back...
I was listening to some report about the economic effects which said that the economic impact of increased immigration had somewhat offset the negative impact s of Brexit :-)
As for finance, it seems a complicated area. Some UK companies seem to list on the NYSE now which is a reminder that when we lose things they don't only have to be lost to the EU.
The predicted overnight exodus didn't happen, but I'm certainly seeing a slow bleed out happening. We've had attrition on London headcount & all the replacements are in EU.
>Countries usually strike trade deals to reduce border bureaucracy, but the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement did the reverse, restoring the customs requirements that had disappeared with the advent of the EU single market.
Nothing was done in this regard. Frankly speaking the government thought the border check was good. And both UK and EU and each individual countries customs have very different views of the rules.
>Starmer’s negotiations with the EU could reduce friction for some individual sectors, such as food and drink exporters, if Labour makes good on its promise to strike a veterinary agreement with Brussels.
Only agriculture sector, not Food and Drink which often implies something else.
>smaller companies had less capacity to deal with “the deluge” of new bureaucracy, while larger businesses had the money and staff to adapt.
I can assure you even large businesses took very long time and still failed to adapt.
We can all argue about whether Brexit was right or wrong on politics. But there isn't a single shred of doubt post Brexit handling was absolutely appalling.
>> But there isn't a single shred of doubt post Brexit handling was absolutely appalling
That’s not the bit that confuses me, the bit that I’ve never had a satisfying answer to is why would anyone have believed anything else might be possible?
If the task was akin to extracting your eggs from a baked cake, then which personalities looked up to the job in 2016?
It is the basic like trading agreement, customs and border checks, simple things that you do when you trade.
The problem is absolutely no one inside the government, politicians or civil servant has any idea about trading. This makes drafting any decent, workable agreement and procedure near impossible. And that is ignoring all the politics involves, both internal and external.
Having said that, all that expectation may be a tall order. I have known little to zero government that actually execute well. Singapore being perhaps the only one. US Government does well comparatively speaking, partly because they are well paid, only let down are the politics.
Readit News
Here is a current poll.
“11% of Britons say Brexit has been a success, with more Leavers saying it has gone badly than well”
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/51484-how-do-britons-...
> And so far, do you think that Brexit has been more of a success or more of a failure? %
With 62% saying failure (the rest are don't know/neither).
Note that only 55% say it was wrong to leave, and on such a close referendum anyway I'm not even sure that's a statistically significant different answer than in 2016.
Key point: you can think it hasn't gone well (managed poorly, opportunities no taken, whatever) without thinking it was wrong, or even that in hindsight being in the EU is better.
(You can also have voted to remain, but now want to make the best of it, and think it's going well/badly - it's completely independent.)
I think that's why so many US voters are now telling each other "I hope you get what you voted for" after the last presidential election. Sometimes you need a really, really bad hangover to decide that you need to make some changes in your life.
Conveniently ignoring that only 30% say we were right to leave. Nice try.
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/3534-will-britain-vot...
But now, leaving seems to be like constantly picking at a festering scab.
What's hurt us from leaving is the single market. It's now vastly more difficult to trade with the EU, our closest geographical neighbour. Lots of post-referendum talk about amazing trade deals with Australia and the USA and Canada and India came largely to nothing, and they're all so far away and much more difficult to manage the logistics of. Plus the awkward situation where Northern Ireland is still kind of in the single market and kind of not, due to the need to preserve various agreements about trade and movement over the Irish border.
Ultimately, EU membership was what helped us get out of the economic pit we were in in the early 1970s. It's what helped us build the massive services economy which fuelled the 1980s on a wave of consumer credit and London skyscrapers. I'm not saying those are necessarily good things, but the day to day impact of EU membership was actually enormous - just most people weren't consciously aware of it.
Which is why it was possible for a bunch of charlatans to convince a tiny majority to vote to leave it.
there was (and still is) no single market for services, so how could have joining the EEC have caused any of these things?
the 80s boom this was purely a result of Thatcherite policy (for better or worse), it had nothing to do with the EEC
There were 26 years between the UK joining and the euro being introduced. 29 between that and coins & notes being in people's hands (for the first three years the currency was primarily only used for accounting purposes not day-to-day, though in the run up to 2002 prices were often presenting in both currencies in preparation for the public switch starting).
> But now, leaving seems to be like constantly picking at a festering scab.
There was a plan for joining. Leaving was a desire without a (properly thought out) plan.
After joining it took time to fully integrate and over the decades, unpicking all that was always going to be much more complicated than merging into it in the first place (the “we are not in any more, we don't have to do a thing or pay what we'd already agrees” ideas many brexit supporters seemed to have were pure fantasy). Most divorces are more complicated than the marriage that preceded them.
Of course, it is all us remoaners fault for not helping the leavers make their plan. :)
Then you start realising that the fab new modules you were thinking of using have all sorts of missing features and limitations and now your performance has dropped x% and memory usage went up instead of down.
...but you put the old module on the banned list and can't take the hit to your credibility of admitting that it wasn't as bad as the alternatives.
Does it? I feel similarly to your description of joining about it: maybe I can't join an EU line (more often I now join an EU + UK + ... line, so it's only a signing quirk) and my passport is a different colour, but otherwise it hasn't made a difference day-to-day.. at all? Maybe if I was an international lorry driver or something?
I also remember the Liberal Democrats advocating for a referendum on EU membership from the early 2000s onward. However, when the vote finally happened, the level of vitriol and disdain the party directed at Leave voters completely changed my perception of what "liberal" and "democratic" truly mean. Their stance no longer aligned with those ideals.
Corporate lobbying has a significant impact on EU policy, often overshadowing the interests of its citizens. The EU’s influence is a mix of positives, negatives, and deeply concerning interventions. One striking example was when the entire EU was forced to pay higher prices for imported solar panels to protect a single German company. Another was the rushed adoption of CFL lighting just before LED technology became viable—CFLs contain mercury, posing a serious health hazard if broken, and many have likely ended up polluting landfills.
While I support the idealistic vision of a united Europe, many well-intentioned policies have been poorly thought out, leading to unintended consequences. The depopulation of many towns and villages across Europe due to youth migration is a direct result of EU-driven policies, yet little thought was given to the broader impact.
The UK sought EU reforms, but when those were denied, a referendum became inevitable. Many who voted Leave did so because the trade bloc they originally joined had evolved into something they no longer recognized. For decades, key decisions were made without direct input from the British people. It's no surprise that those who had once voted to join felt compelled to vote to leave. Yet, the mainstream media labeled them as racists, disregarding the complexity of their concerns.
Beyond the UK's experience, France’s actions in African countries when it adopted the Euro are worth investigating—they reveal a shocking side of EU monetary policy. Meanwhile, Germany, whose strong currency transitioned smoothly into the Euro, benefited enormously—often at the expense of struggling nations like Greece and Italy, which found themselves locked into an economic framework that served German interests far more than their own.
Saddest part is, France blocked any reforms until the UK had left the EU, and had they only engaged back then and made some reforms, the UK could have justified a new vote on the EU, with a more informed opinion. That in itself is a tradegy, but then the UK being physically seperated from Europe, has always seen many cultures and approached, not as aligned as the Europe and subsequently the EU as a whole, which beyond cheap holidays, duty free, not many really embraced the EU as a whole and vice versa.
Can you elaborate on this? I know enough to know that I should not pretend to know anything.
However you feel about the way the EU and member states are currently run, it's odd to make such a big deal about leaving and then copy everything about the EU. Feels like you're just creating an EU country with less freedom of movement and free trade.
I'd speculate that Brexit was actually a response to an energy crisis slowly eroding living standards and people are getting more antsy when it turns out that it didn't lead to saner energy policy than the EU mainland. I remain glad that I'm closer to China who, for all her faults, at least has the whole energy-and-prosperity link under control. I wish my civilisation would re-learn that one.
[0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab...
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?...
Suppose a country goes on a broad national campaign to insulate drafty houses. That drops energy use, but has no corresponding drop in living standard.
i.e. there is some sort of measure/factor for efficient application of energy needed for it to really be meaningful
Because if that were true I'd expect the UK would be a world-leading paradise with vast energy surpluses and everyone having a high old time in great comfort. That isn't the vibe they're giving off. They look like a nation with a slow-rolling energy crisis and a social contract that is coming under quite a bit of pressure because of it. Happy people don't vote for Nigel Farage.
Jeez, I better randomly turn on a resistive space heater in the middle of summer when I’m not home so we can all live better lives somehow.
Do you think I should randomly flail my arms about in the hope it’ll somehow make more dividends for my bank of choice? Just want to double-check.
Well the data does seem to incline in that direction. Particularly the UK, as far as I can tell it is impossible to be both intellectually honest and believe that a 33% (!) reduction in per capita energy is good for people's living standards. Someone'd have to be wilfully ignorant of Jevons' paradox, the only way to get that drop off is some sort of squeeze in their ability to access energy which isn't fun to live through. I feel for the poor who are being forced to live with that and be told that they're better off and shouldn't believe their lying eyes. It also neatly explains a lot of the political trends the UK has undergone in the last decade like the high debt level and general dissatisfaction with the leadership.
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T...
China appears to have a similar progress.
Which makes sense as energy is a costly input and so using less to get the same result is a good thing.
In other documents the EIA list people moving to Southern states as one of several factors driving this trend.
Just moving from coal and gas plants of 40% efficiency to 60% combined cycle gas plants would make everything consuming the generated electricity use 1/3rd less primary energy with no changes on their end.
That does more to cast doubt on the GDP than anything else; a lot of the commonly used metrics are flawed. One of the interesting things about the Trump campaign(s) is his message is typically that the economy is bad and it seems a lot of people have on-the-ground experiences that match that.
Since GDP dissociated from energy use in the 70s, I tend to side with the people who think the metrics are flawed. If GDP isn't a proxy for energy it isn't obvious what it is measuring or why anyone should care about that - for all that people do for reasons that are hard to unravel. There is a such a thing as intangible wealth but on aggregate it still pales compared to the tangible sort that requires energy.
> Just moving from coal and gas plants ...
One of the reasons I link the OurWorldInData series is they include fudge factors to try and account for that. If you look at the graph you can see it uses something they call the substitution method.
I get the vague feeling this has been pointed out to you before but maybe not.
It is clear post 2007, UK and France and perhaps Germany as well had 15 years of stagnation. Using Bank of England 's calculator [2] £10.00 in 2008 would equal to £16.00 today.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?location...
[2] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/in...
In the UK it has basically been a massive injection of inequality.
Universal basic income, known as UBI is one tool to enable this. Removed inequality and equally, restores dignity and makes benefits and the lambasting and disdain of those in that position a thing of the past.
I'd rather have money printing be used for long-term investments, all things being equal.
But if it can be done, I'd rather inject it in the real economy rather than in the stock market and second-hand real estate. Multiple things could have been done to do that. Rent freeze + automatic social security payments (rather than paying the business, you pay the now inactive employees until the economy starts again) would have been great.
The Brexit vote was June 2016. The withdrawal agreement was first drafted in 2018. The business impact was being felt for years before Covid as uncertainty and confusion affected investment.
I think you can safely cancel out Covid and Putin when comparing the way living standards and cost of living have changed over the last decade between the UK and countries like France, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, etc.
So, I think the real issue was the new investments (net FDI fell off a cliff for years after the vote). Generally companies won't move unless forced to, but new companies generally seemed to avoid the UK post Brexit.
In fact, Ireland benefited from a bunch of this, I worked for 1-2 companies who'd moved their headquarters and staff from the UK to IE because they needed an EU base.
> Indeed London is still a very attractive place for EU skilled labour despite the added friction.
Honestly, not unless you work in finance. I was offered a Big tech role in London a few years back, and it was basically my euro salary converted into pounds, so it didn't make any financial sense for me to move (which is easy because I'm an Irish citizen).
I don't know what stats you're looking at. As a percentage of market share the UK is essentially where it was in 2017 and inline with historical trends. Moreover it has been recently increasing largely due to poor conditions in Germany.
https://www.ey.com/en_uk/newsroom/2024/07/foreign-direct-inv...
it's an insignificant fraction of financial services London provides and certainly not significant data point to measure the EU against London
Great for their home country, bad for the UK.
London is #2 Nearest EU is at #10
a) Having English be the national language is a massive advantage which only Ireland shares (and Ireland has plenty of American tech outposts). That's an advantage people don't mention often.
b) The EU keeps adding regulations, which make it a less attractive place to invest. The UK seems to copy each of these regulations though, which maybe makes this a moot point.
But I think ultimately, it's probably down to network effects. The same way Twitter/X stuck around even though basically everything about it changed, cities might do the same.
Which new EU regulation since Brexit has UK copied into law?
The result is we suffered only 10% of the maximum damage in exchange for 0% of the "advantages" (can't sign our own trade deals, no say in the EU, must take rules, last in queue for access etc).
I think this is actually the worst outcome long term: a car crash hard Brexit would have all but assured reentry in the long term. Instead we will be in Europe for all practical purposes but dragging our feet at the back...
this is not true in the slightest, we had the 2nd hardest exit possible
a possible outcome could have been that we left the EU and remained in the EU single market and EU customs union
there's this rather famous EU commission slide of the various options the UK could take: https://i.kinja-img.com/image/upload/c_fit,q_60,w_1315/adf2f... with integration decreasing as you move right (the "brexit hardness")
we ended up with the Canada option, the only harder option would have been to drop out without a signed deal (which thankfully didn't happen)
As for finance, it seems a complicated area. Some UK companies seem to list on the NYSE now which is a reminder that when we lose things they don't only have to be lost to the EU.
Do you feel differently?Are you baiting some reponse for sake of proving a point?
The predicted overnight exodus didn't happen, but I'm certainly seeing a slow bleed out happening. We've had attrition on London headcount & all the replacements are in EU.
Nothing was done in this regard. Frankly speaking the government thought the border check was good. And both UK and EU and each individual countries customs have very different views of the rules.
>Starmer’s negotiations with the EU could reduce friction for some individual sectors, such as food and drink exporters, if Labour makes good on its promise to strike a veterinary agreement with Brussels.
Only agriculture sector, not Food and Drink which often implies something else.
>smaller companies had less capacity to deal with “the deluge” of new bureaucracy, while larger businesses had the money and staff to adapt.
I can assure you even large businesses took very long time and still failed to adapt.
We can all argue about whether Brexit was right or wrong on politics. But there isn't a single shred of doubt post Brexit handling was absolutely appalling.
That’s not the bit that confuses me, the bit that I’ve never had a satisfying answer to is why would anyone have believed anything else might be possible?
If the task was akin to extracting your eggs from a baked cake, then which personalities looked up to the job in 2016?
The problem is absolutely no one inside the government, politicians or civil servant has any idea about trading. This makes drafting any decent, workable agreement and procedure near impossible. And that is ignoring all the politics involves, both internal and external.
Having said that, all that expectation may be a tall order. I have known little to zero government that actually execute well. Singapore being perhaps the only one. US Government does well comparatively speaking, partly because they are well paid, only let down are the politics.