What the Brexit vote demonstrated IMHO is that you should not make profound systemic changes based on 50% + 1 vote. You really need a super-majority, otherwise the country is at the mercy of any campaign or latest fashion. This vote is not like electing a new PM, as it caused changes that will ripple across generations and dozens of PMs. Such changes should require a true mandate--which Brexit's 51.9% was not.
I think part of the problem was a lack of follow-up. Each of the issues raised in the article should have been discussed and voted on nationally, Switzerland style, instead of bubbling up to people in funny wigs only when the problem is too large to ignore.
But then Switzerland is surrounded by progressive governments instead of inbreeding on a small island, which could influence decision-making.
And that judgement has to account for the fact that the period since Brexit has been a time of huge global flux. The pandemic that struck in the spring of 2020, the war in Ukraine that began two years later and, more recently, the energy price shock sparked by the conflict in Iran all have to be accounted for.
To clarify the title, the impact of Brexit is dwarfed by events that have happened sense, to the point that it is difficult to make any judgments. As time goes on, it makes working with statistics a little easier, but it's still far from clear.
Here's the only thing I found that really stands out:
Services sector exports from the UK to the EU are up 57% over the last decade, driven by a category that includes accountancy, legal services and consultancy. Non-EU services exports are up 49%. Imports from the EU are up 35% in the same time, and up 60% from outside the EU.
It looks like there's more growth in non-EU trade than EU trade. If that occurred in concert with fluctuations in exchange rate, that could show a UK/EU economic imbalance, but considering that exchange rate stayed pretty flat, especially compared to the swings after the 2009 financial crisis, it looks like the post-Brexit economics between the UK and the EU stayed closer in sync than they did pre-Brexit.
What the Brexit vote demonstrated IMHO is that you should not make profound systemic changes based on 50% + 1 vote. You really need a super-majority, otherwise the country is at the mercy of any campaign or latest fashion. This vote is not like electing a new PM, as it caused changes that will ripple across generations and dozens of PMs. Such changes should require a true mandate--which Brexit's 51.9% was not.
I think part of the problem was a lack of follow-up. Each of the issues raised in the article should have been discussed and voted on nationally, Switzerland style, instead of bubbling up to people in funny wigs only when the problem is too large to ignore.
But then Switzerland is surrounded by progressive governments instead of inbreeding on a small island, which could influence decision-making.
From the article:
To clarify the title, the impact of Brexit is dwarfed by events that have happened sense, to the point that it is difficult to make any judgments. As time goes on, it makes working with statistics a little easier, but it's still far from clear.Here's the only thing I found that really stands out:
It looks like there's more growth in non-EU trade than EU trade. If that occurred in concert with fluctuations in exchange rate, that could show a UK/EU economic imbalance, but considering that exchange rate stayed pretty flat, especially compared to the swings after the 2009 financial crisis, it looks like the post-Brexit economics between the UK and the EU stayed closer in sync than they did pre-Brexit.9 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13985192
Earlier:
Scars mark Britain's economy 10 years after Brexit vote
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48650924