Best Of

Even The Telegraph are no longer denying reality.

Time to admit the truth: Brexit has been an unmitigated economic failure

Leaving the EU has reduced Britain’s GDP by up to 8pc, according to a devastating US study

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/11/29/admit-truth-brexit-has-been-an-unmitigated-economic-failure/

Utter bovine manure and clickbait.

The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".

The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.

And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).

Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.

Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.

"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."

The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".

The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.

Interesting weighting.
I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.

I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.

However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit.
You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.

Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.

Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.

I've given a credible counter-argument, that the data does not match the assumptions.

The UK has outgrown our peers that we were tracking with pre-Brexit.

We haven't kept up with the USA post-Brexit, but we weren't pre-Brexit either.

Why do such a weight of studies disagree with you?
And indeed the great preponderance of economic opinion?

Even The Telegraph are no longer denying reality.

Time to admit the truth: Brexit has been an unmitigated economic failure

Leaving the EU has reduced Britain’s GDP by up to 8pc, according to a devastating US study

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/11/29/admit-truth-brexit-has-been-an-unmitigated-economic-failure/

Utter bovine manure and clickbait.

The UK has grown as fast as the EU has over time. We've grown faster than Germany in recent years. "Despite Brexit".

The idea we'd be miraculously have an economy 9% bigger than we have now if we were in the EU is utter bollocks.

And yet several studies keep alighting on similar numbers (plus or minus two points).

Germany has, as I'm sure you’re aware, been a notable laggard in recent years due its reliance on Russian gas and Chinese markets, both of which are now busted.

Also the report suggests, “up to 8%” rather than the 9% you seem to have confabulated.

"In the construction of our synthetic control estimate, we use pre-referendum data from 2006 Q1 to 2016 Q1 (41 periods), to obtain optimal weights that minimize the prediction error in the pre- referendum period."

The weights are: "USA: 61.4%, Estonia: 10.9%, Greece: 9.5%, Italy: 6.7%, Ireland: 4.4%, Latvia: 3.4%, Iceland: 3% and Hungary 0.7%".

The theory that, if we had stayed in the EU, we would have enjoyed US-like growth rates wants arguing for, not assuming.

Interesting weighting.
I’m surprised it does not include France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany which I’d have thought are “most UK-like”.

I would also argue to only include the U.S. North East, if I were creating such a model.

However, once again I’d note that this is the umpteenth study to find for significant economic damage from Brexit.
You and I may quarrel with the weighting here, but at the end of day it’s hard to dispute damage that after all follows what would be suggested by pretty basic economic theory.

Studies based on garbage in, garbage out.

Saying “garbage” all the time is not a credible counter argument. You’re effectively a “Brexit denier”, who chooses not to address the economic facts.

It is worth remembering that the last government also had, by historic standards, a very large majority. Larger than Blair or Brown in New Labour's final term, larger than Eden and Macmillan in the 1955-59 Parliament, larger than Heath, larger than Wilson except from 1966-68.

That didn't stop factions forming. Johnson's messy resignation and Truss' decision to rely on a narrow clique of supporters were largely to blame, but not solely.

Yes, but that was at the end of a long period in office and followed Johnson's ridiculous personality cult and tossing overboard those who didn't swear fealty earnestly enough. Having internal problems in the first years following a landslide victory is rather astonishing.

It's what happens when you have back benches full of social workers. Running the economy is someone else's responsibility.

The back benches are not full of social workers. The commonest prior job is possibly lawyer.

Spad, political researcher, councillor, charity worker or trade union official for Labour MPs

Looking at some Labour MPs:

Natasha Irons, worked at Channel 4

Sally Jameson, prison officer

Dan Jarvis, Army

Terry Jermy, publisher

Diana Johnson, barrister

Darren Jones, solicitor

And so on. There’s a variety there beyond the stereotypes.

It is worth remembering that the last government also had, by historic standards, a very large majority. Larger than Blair or Brown in New Labour's final term, larger than Eden and Macmillan in the 1955-59 Parliament, larger than Heath, larger than Wilson except from 1966-68.

That didn't stop factions forming. Johnson's messy resignation and Truss' decision to rely on a narrow clique of supporters were largely to blame, but not solely.

Yes, but that was at the end of a long period in office and followed Johnson's ridiculous personality cult and tossing overboard those who didn't swear fealty earnestly enough. Having internal problems in the first years following a landslide victory is rather astonishing.

It's what happens when you have back benches full of social workers. Running the economy is someone else's responsibility.

Social workers who don’t like making tough decisions.

Not convincing. Social workers have been a hate figure of the right for decades. I remember when an older relative claimed that social workers were getting evil children off punishment because someone stole their teddy bear when they were small. And that was in the 1980s.

Actually thet have a shit job even when it goers more or less OK. And the same rightists who complain about their being employed in the first place and condone their understaffing and overwork are the first to complain about them when things go wrong.

I don't know any social workers or have any relatives who are. It's just so obvious.

I've worked with several. And they are a mixed bag in terms of quality and ability. Some are pretty poor. Most were pretty good. One was actually astonishingly brilliant and taught me more on safeguarding and abuse though neglect in five minutes of photographs than I learned in five years in inner-city schools.

One thing they all had in common however was they all wanted to do the right thing. That some of them weren't really up to making that decision was a different problem, and may reflect how badly they are treated so really able people find less demanding and frequently better paid jobs.

Can we say that of lawyers? Horizon answers with an emphatic 'no.'

It is worth remembering that the last government also had, by historic standards, a very large majority. Larger than Blair or Brown in New Labour's final term, larger than Eden and Macmillan in the 1955-59 Parliament, larger than Heath, larger than Wilson except from 1966-68.

That didn't stop factions forming. Johnson's messy resignation and Truss' decision to rely on a narrow clique of supporters were largely to blame, but not solely.

Yes, but that was at the end of a long period in office and followed Johnson's ridiculous personality cult and tossing overboard those who didn't swear fealty earnestly enough. Having internal problems in the first years following a landslide victory is rather astonishing.

It's what happens when you have back benches full of social workers. Running the economy is someone else's responsibility.

Social workers who don’t like making tough decisions.

There is not a social worker born who lasts more than five minutes who isn't able to take tough decisions. By the time pretty much *anything* gets to social services all that is left is a very difficult choice between at least two suboptimal outcomes. The only exception would be a child living temporarily with a close family member for educational reasons.

I am talking about the MPs who were described as social workers.

They don’t like taking tough decisions as we saw with winter fuel and reducing the benefits bill.

In my time in local Government, I met and dealt with plenty of social workers and I had a friend who was a Housing Officer in a London Borough. Some of the stories they told about the people they encountered - well, let's just say we must never forget how fortunate many of us are and where the consequences of familial breakdown, bereavement, loss of a business or addiction can take you.

Sympathy only gets you so far and indeed my Housing Officer was as hard as nails - she had seen every trick and heard every story and this notion social workers are all "woke" is just nonsense. They need to be able to process what they see and hear in ways most of us, in our employment, either never have to or can do so with a coffee or tea with a colleague.

The fact most of them are ridiculously overworked with caseloads they cannot manage or support is almost incidental - it appalls me sometimes how we treat our fellow human beings yet we worry about how much tax we pay, whether our football team does well or a flag - none of that nonsense is important.

It is worth remembering that the last government also had, by historic standards, a very large majority. Larger than Blair or Brown in New Labour's final term, larger than Eden and Macmillan in the 1955-59 Parliament, larger than Heath, larger than Wilson except from 1966-68.

That didn't stop factions forming. Johnson's messy resignation and Truss' decision to rely on a narrow clique of supporters were largely to blame, but not solely.

Yes, but that was at the end of a long period in office and followed Johnson's ridiculous personality cult and tossing overboard those who didn't swear fealty earnestly enough. Having internal problems in the first years following a landslide victory is rather astonishing.

It's what happens when you have back benches full of social workers. Running the economy is someone else's responsibility.

Social workers who don’t like making tough decisions.

There is not a social worker born who lasts more than five minutes who isn't able to take tough decisions. By the time pretty much *anything* gets to social services all that is left is a very difficult choice between at least two suboptimal outcomes. The only exception would be a child living temporarily with a close family member for educational reasons.