Starmergeddon: They Came And Ate Us

[Biffer]

I am so fucking sick of the fishing industry being held up totemically by Brexit morons as a symbol of Whitehall betrayal.

It's a tiny part of our economy and much of their catch was sold to European countries (at least pre-Brexit) 'cause Brits don't eat all that much fish and certainly not seafood.

A closer trading relationship with Europe will make things better for them if anything.

And also, much of the fishing rights was sold to European fishermen by British fishermen.

[Yeeb]

Brexit has proved a very popular research area. Costs/losses to the UK economy are estimated to be circa £100 billion per annum, what figures are attached, ongoing that is, to Covid, Trump and Ukraine?

Covid alone estimated to be £500b pa, longer term mental health and industry structure effects still being analysed and realised.

That on the face of it sounds wrong, at the time sure, ongoing that seems... high. But even if true leaves Trump and Putin as similarly needing to cost more than £100 billion per year.

And too, suppose Trump, Covid and Putin all cost more than Brexit, that still leaves Brexit costing £100 billion per annum. Which still makes Brexit a god awful act of self-harm inflicted by morons and racists

See, the easy counter is that Brexit £100b pa seems….. high. Most leave voters then / reform voters now deemed it a price worth paying to try and do something about the number of poolshitters stinking up the joint & blowing up children / bumming them. I think you over estimate just how much the economy / global economy matters to the large number of voters who have little or no wealth, property or foreign holidays and work opportunities.

Stopping anyone not white / ‘sending back home’ those already here legally, yeah that’s racist. Being concerned and aghast how none of the main parties in decades seem to be willing or able to do anything about the numbers and types of immigrants & ‘refugees’ coming to the uk (especially those that conveniently dissappear or drop out from their ‘studies’ ) , is not racist. And to widen the radar those concerns are also shown in most of the rest of European countries.

[Sandstorm]

I think you over estimate just how much the economy / global economy matters to the large number of voters who have little or no wealth, property or foreign holidays and work opportunities.

Stopping anyone not white / ‘sending back home’ those already here legally, yeah that’s racist. Being concerned and aghast how none of the main parties in decades seem to be willing or able to do anything about the numbers and types of immigrants & ‘refugees’ coming to the uk (especially those that conveniently dissappear or drop out from their ‘studies’ ) , is not racist. And to widen the radar those concerns are also shown in most of the rest of European countries.

It's both racist and ignorant. Sadly you can't deny the vote from stupid people.

[Yeeb]

I think you over estimate just how much the economy / global economy matters to the large number of voters who have little or no wealth, property or foreign holidays and work opportunities.

Stopping anyone not white / ‘sending back home’ those already here legally, yeah that’s racist. Being concerned and aghast how none of the main parties in decades seem to be willing or able to do anything about the numbers and types of immigrants & ‘refugees’ coming to the uk (especially those that conveniently dissappear or drop out from their ‘studies’ ) , is not racist. And to widen the radar those concerns are also shown in most of the rest of European countries.

It's both racist and ignorant. Sadly you can't deny the vote from stupid people.

Ah, you the type who labels any concern over immigration as racist then yep? Gotcha

[Sandstorm]

I think you over estimate just how much the economy / global economy matters to the large number of voters who have little or no wealth, property or foreign holidays and work opportunities.

Stopping anyone not white / ‘sending back home’ those already here legally, yeah that’s racist. Being concerned and aghast how none of the main parties in decades seem to be willing or able to do anything about the numbers and types of immigrants & ‘refugees’ coming to the uk (especially those that conveniently dissappear or drop out from their ‘studies’ ) , is not racist. And to widen the radar those concerns are also shown in most of the rest of European countries.

It's both racist and ignorant. Sadly you can't deny the vote from stupid people.

Ah, you the type who labels any concern over immigration as racist then yep? Gotcha

It IS racist when someone says " the numbers and types of immigrants & ‘refugees’ coming to the uk (especially those that conveniently dissappear or drop out from their ‘studies’ )" That's Racist 101

Also being "concerned over immigrants" is a racist way to frame the argument. What everyone should be concerned with is how the UK will evolve, invest in and build it's infrastructure to accommodate all kinds of immigration,. Immigration is good, especially to a 1st world nation with young people who don't want to move or do low-end jobs. If you are a smart person you'll know this.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Covid alone estimated to be £500b pa, longer term mental health and industry structure effects still being analysed and realised.

That on the face of it sounds wrong, at the time sure, ongoing that seems... high. But even if true leaves Trump and Putin as similarly needing to cost more than £100 billion per year.

And too, suppose Trump, Covid and Putin all cost more than Brexit, that still leaves Brexit costing £100 billion per annum. Which still makes Brexit a god awful act of self-harm inflicted by morons and racists

See, the easy counter is that Brexit £100b pa seems….. high. Most leave voters then / reform voters now deemed it a price worth paying to try and do something about the number of poolshitters stinking up the joint & blowing up children / bumming them. I think you over estimate just how much the economy / global economy matters to the large number of voters who have little or no wealth, property or foreign holidays and work opportunities.

Stopping anyone not white / ‘sending back home’ those already here legally, yeah that’s racist. Being concerned and aghast how none of the main parties in decades seem to be willing or able to do anything about the numbers and types of immigrants & ‘refugees’ coming to the uk (especially those that conveniently dissappear or drop out from their ‘studies’ ) , is not racist. And to widen the radar those concerns are also shown in most of the rest of European countries.

The costs of Brexit are based on serious studies by bodies such as the OBR. They could well be wrong, but they're sensible attempts to calculate the damage wrought. And even supposing they're out 100% and the damage is £50 billion that would still be a fortune, and still far more than £350 million a week

The really obvious clue that Brexit is costing a fortune is people such as the alky running Reform don't want to slur about it, when if it was even close to breaking even they'd be crowing about their successes

[Yeeb]

It's both racist and ignorant. Sadly you can't deny the vote from stupid people.

Ah, you the type who labels any concern over immigration as racist then yep? Gotcha

It IS racist when someone says " the numbers and types of immigrants & ‘refugees’ coming to the uk (especially those that conveniently dissappear or drop out from their ‘studies’ )" That's Racist 101

Also being "concerned over immigrants" is a racist way to frame the argument. What everyone should be concerned with is how the UK will evolve, invest in and build it's infrastructure to accommodate all kinds of immigration,. Immigration is good, especially to a 1st world nation with young people who don't want to move or do low-end jobs. If you are a smart person you'll know this.

It isn’t racist to use types to differentiate doctors nurses and engineers, from criminals terrorists or people unwilling and unable to intergrate peacefully and come purely for the free stuff lefties like giving away. It IS racist to use types to differentiate purely based on someone’s skin colour, like SA does.

[Paddington Bear]

That on the face of it sounds wrong, at the time sure, ongoing that seems... high. But even if true leaves Trump and Putin as similarly needing to cost more than £100 billion per year.

And too, suppose Trump, Covid and Putin all cost more than Brexit, that still leaves Brexit costing £100 billion per annum. Which still makes Brexit a god awful act of self-harm inflicted by morons and racists

See, the easy counter is that Brexit £100b pa seems….. high. Most leave voters then / reform voters now deemed it a price worth paying to try and do something about the number of poolshitters stinking up the joint & blowing up children / bumming them. I think you over estimate just how much the economy / global economy matters to the large number of voters who have little or no wealth, property or foreign holidays and work opportunities.

Stopping anyone not white / ‘sending back home’ those already here legally, yeah that’s racist. Being concerned and aghast how none of the main parties in decades seem to be willing or able to do anything about the numbers and types of immigrants & ‘refugees’ coming to the uk (especially those that conveniently dissappear or drop out from their ‘studies’ ) , is not racist. And to widen the radar those concerns are also shown in most of the rest of European countries.

The costs of Brexit are based on serious studies by bodies such as the OBR. They could well be wrong, but they're sensible attempts to calculate the damage wrought. And even supposing they're out 100% and the damage is £50 billion that would still be a fortune, and still far more than £350 million a week

The really obvious clue that Brexit is costing a fortune is people such as the alky running Reform don't want to slur about it, when if it was even close to breaking even they'd be crowing about their successes

What timescale is this alleged £100bn loss over? As it very clearly isn’t an annual one and when I’ve seen figures before they’ve largely been based upon potential growth that may not happen due to productivity gains which won’t happen (which probably wouldn’t have happened anyway given the cratering of our productivity growth since 2007)

[Paddington Bear]

It's both racist and ignorant. Sadly you can't deny the vote from stupid people.

Ah, you the type who labels any concern over immigration as racist then yep? Gotcha

It IS racist when someone says " the numbers and types of immigrants & ‘refugees’ coming to the uk (especially those that conveniently dissappear or drop out from their ‘studies’ )" That's Racist 101

Also being "concerned over immigrants" is a racist way to frame the argument. What everyone should be concerned with is how the UK will evolve, invest in and build it's infrastructure to accommodate all kinds of immigration,. Immigration is good, especially to a 1st world nation with young people who don't want to move or do low-end jobs. If you are a smart person you'll know this.

Immigration is not a good in of itself, if you’re not discerning about who and how many people you bring in it can be very negative

[Tichtheid]

This from the OBR.

Since the announcement of the EU referendum we have been producing analysis and writing about the potential effects of Brexit on the economy and public finances. We have compiled our assumptions, judgements and analysis on this page.

Last updated: 21 Feb 2025
Current assumptions and judgements
This page sets out our assumptions related to EU exit that underpin our latest October 2024 forecast. Specifically, our latest economy forecast assumes that:

The post-Brexit trading relationship between the UK and EU, as set out in the ‘Trade and Cooperation Agreement’ (TCA) that came into effect on 1 January 2021, will reduce long-run productivity by 4 per cent relative to remaining in the EU. This largely reflects our view that the increase in non-tariff barriers on UK-EU trade acts as an additional impediment to the exploitation of comparative advantage. In order to generate this figure, we looked at a range of external estimates of the effect of leaving the EU under the terms of a ‘typical’ free trade agreement (FTA) (see Box 2.1 of our March 2020 EFO for more information). Our assessment is that the TCA is broadly similar to the ‘typical’ FTAs assumed in those studies and reflected in our forecasts since March 2020. We estimate that around two-fifths of the 4 per cent impact had already occurred by the time the TCA came into force, as a result of uncertainty weighing on investment and capital deepening (see Box 2.2 of our March 2021 EFO for more information).

Both exports and imports will be around 15 per cent lower in the long run than if the UK had remained in the EU. The size of this adjustment is calibrated to match the average estimate of a number of external studies that considered the impact of leaving the EU on the volume of UK-EU trade (see our November 2016 EFO for more information). Impacts on export and import growth are similar, therefore downward revisions to gross trade flows are broadly neutral in their effect on the current account over the medium term. Box 2.5 of our October 2021 EFO and Box 2.6 of our March 2022 EFO provide initial assessments of this assumption.
New trade deals with non-EU countries will not have a material impact, and any effect will be gradual (see our 2018 Discussion paper for more detail). This is because the deals concluded to date either replicate (or ‘roll over’) deals that the UK already benefited from as an EU member state, or do not have a material impact on our forecast. An example of the former is the UK-Japan ‘Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement’ – which largely mirrors the agreement Japan signed with the EU in 2019 – where the Government’s economic impact assessment suggests that it will increase the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over the next 15 years (see the Government’s October 2020 UK-Japan CEPA: final impact assessment). This estimate is relative to not having a trade deal with Japan, whereas the UK would have been part of the EU-Japan agreement had it not left the EU. An example of the latter is the free-trade agreement with Australia, the first to be concluded with a country that does not have a similar arrangement with the EU. The Government’s estimate of the economic impact is that it will raise the UK’s GDP by 0.1 per cent over 15 years (see the Government’s December 2021 UK-Australia FTA: impact assessment).

We had assumed that the Government’s new post-Brexit migration regime would reduce net inward migration to the UK, settling at 129,000 a year in the medium-term, based on the ONS ‘zero net EU migration variant’ of the 2018-based population projections (see Box 2.4 of our March 2020 EFO). We have since revised up our projections for net migration to reflect evidence of sustained strength in inward migration since the post-Brexit migration regime was introduced. We now assume net migration settles at 315,000 a year in the medium term, based on the ONS 2021-based interim population projections (see Box 2.3 of our March 2024 EFO). This compares to 245,000 in our November 2023 forecast, which was based on the ONS 2020-based interim migration projections.

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/the-e ... ssumptions

Also
"In October 2021, the UK government's Office of Budget Responsibility calculated that Brexit would cost 4% of GDP per annum over the long term. a 4% GDP hit could translate into a £32 billion cost per annum to the UK taxpayer. After rebates, the UK's EU membership fee in 2018 was £13.2 billion."

[Yeeb]

So £32b less £13b = £19b per year likely actual cost then of brexit ? And as of yesterday £9b got added back so £10b per year is perhaps closer to reality than £100b ?

(Or was the 9bill not annual? Hard to keep up with all this pie in sky numbers)

Seems quite good value tbh, especially measured against current annual debt interest payments of £104b pa , state pension £145b or nhs £182b pa

[Tichtheid]

The Maastricht Treaty on debt and deficit defined a reference max figure of 3% of GDP for deficit (60% for debt to GDP ratio), it would be unsustainable to go beyond that for extended periods. Of course there are external events like the crash in 2008 and the pandemic, but deliberately hacking 4% pa off your GDP on top of these events seems a bit rash to me.

The kicker is then claiming fiscal responsibility and good practice - that's fucking hilarious, in a gallows humour kind of way.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

A £32 billion cost to the taxpayer isn't one might consider the same as the hit to the economy. One might event venture the hit to the economy that would underscore a £32bn reduction in tax taken might be say... £100bn

[Paddington Bear]

A £32 billion cost to the taxpayer isn't one might consider the same as the hit to the economy. One might event venture the hit to the economy that would underscore a £32bn reduction in tax taken might be say... £100bn

Yes but the critical word in the OBR forecast (beyond ‘forecast’) is ‘could’. There is no evidence of a £100bn a year hit to the British economy from Brexit, and as I say given a huge amount of this is due to lost productivity gains in an era where we have had shocking productivity in and out of the EU, it has to be considered speculative

[Paddington Bear]

Meanwhile Reform are 7 points clear in the polls and the Tories are trailing the Lib Dems

[Yeeb]

A £32 billion cost to the taxpayer isn't one might consider the same as the hit to the economy. One might event venture the hit to the economy that would underscore a £32bn reduction in tax taken might be say... £100bn

Yes but the critical word in the OBR forecast (beyond ‘forecast’) is ‘could’. There is no evidence of a £100bn a year hit to the British economy from Brexit, and as I say given a huge amount of this is due to lost productivity gains in an era where we have had shocking productivity in and out of the EU, it has to be considered speculative

Don’t get too bogged down on productivity , France adds their holidays to their productivity measures which is a genius bit of stat padding

[Slick]

What do we make of all these Ukrainians being arrested for the fires at Starmers houses?

Russian hires?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

A £32 billion cost to the taxpayer isn't one might consider the same as the hit to the economy. One might event venture the hit to the economy that would underscore a £32bn reduction in tax taken might be say... £100bn

Yes but the critical word in the OBR forecast (beyond ‘forecast’) is ‘could’. There is no evidence of a £100bn a year hit to the British economy from Brexit, and as I say given a huge amount of this is due to lost productivity gains in an era where we have had shocking productivity in and out of the EU, it has to be considered speculative

And thus it follows the true cost could be far higher than £100 billion. Sticking with the reasonably moderate claim of the costs being £100 billion per annum it would be common sense that there's a huge economic hit stemming from an act of significant self-harm, it's what was expected to happen, and we know many businesses struggled, odd that official policy of 'fuck business' caused such problems perhaps, but there and indeed here we are

There are businesses that thrived post Brexit but that's tended to be because whilst there might have been 32 firms in their business area that reduced down to say 8 post Brexit and they've picked up business from failing firms, but still the amount of economic activity overall has declined

Myself I would consider the harm well beyond £100 billion, but then I thought we should have been pushing the single market for services not leaving the single market there was, so we could/should have had far more growth in a sane world. That would have relied on the EU having to accept two tier solutions, and they don't love variable rather than single market, but too they've shown with the Euro it can be done.

[shaggy]

What do we make of all these Ukrainians being arrested for the fires at Starmers houses?

Russian hires?

I think he will be disappointed it wasn’t Reform voters.

[sockwithaticket]

What do we make of all these Ukrainians being arrested for the fires at Starmers houses?

Russian hires?

On the face of it a little shocking, but then we have to remember that there were some Ukrainians who collaborated with the invading Russian forces. Some willingly, some through coercion (usually threats to family).

Remains to be seen whether it's anything broader or a lone nutter. He certainly doesn't seem to have achieved much, so I'm leaning towards the latter. As displeased as Russia are with the UK, I think if they actually wanted to try and threaten or intimidate Starmer, the attack would be more severe than torching a car and a fire that only singed a door.

[Slick]

What do we make of all these Ukrainians being arrested for the fires at Starmers houses?

Russian hires?

On the face of it a little shocking, but then we have to remember that there were some Ukrainians who collaborated with the invading Russian forces. Some willingly, some through coercion (usually threats to family).

Remains to be seen whether it's anything broader or a lone nutter. He certainly doesn't seem to have achieved much, so I'm leaning towards the latter. As displeased as Russia are with the UK, I think if they actually wanted to try and threaten or intimidate Starmer, the attack would be more severe than torching a car and a fire that only singed a door.

It's 3 of them, at least

[sockwithaticket]

What do we make of all these Ukrainians being arrested for the fires at Starmers houses?

Russian hires?

On the face of it a little shocking, but then we have to remember that there were some Ukrainians who collaborated with the invading Russian forces. Some willingly, some through coercion (usually threats to family).

Remains to be seen whether it's anything broader or a lone nutter. He certainly doesn't seem to have achieved much, so I'm leaning towards the latter. As displeased as Russia are with the UK, I think if they actually wanted to try and threaten or intimidate Starmer, the attack would be more severe than torching a car and a fire that only singed a door.

It's 3 of them, at least

Oh, I'd only seen Roman Lavrynovych named as having been arrested, although that was last week. A quick google shows they've also now charged Stanislav Carpiuc (who's Romanian).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3088p85pero

Where are you seeing three?

If it is a wider conspiracy, seems to be a bit Four Lions.

[Slick]

On the face of it a little shocking, but then we have to remember that there were some Ukrainians who collaborated with the invading Russian forces. Some willingly, some through coercion (usually threats to family).

Remains to be seen whether it's anything broader or a lone nutter. He certainly doesn't seem to have achieved much, so I'm leaning towards the latter. As displeased as Russia are with the UK, I think if they actually wanted to try and threaten or intimidate Starmer, the attack would be more severe than torching a car and a fire that only singed a door.

It's 3 of them, at least

Oh, I'd only seen Roman Lavrynovych named as having been arrested, although that was last week. A quick google shows they've also now charged Stanislav Carpiuc (who's Romanian).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3088p85pero

Where are you seeing three?

If it is a wider conspiracy, seems to be a bit Four Lions.

3rd one is Petro Pochynok, charged last night I think.

re the last comment,

[Yeeb]

On the face of it a little shocking, but then we have to remember that there were some Ukrainians who collaborated with the invading Russian forces. Some willingly, some through coercion (usually threats to family).

Remains to be seen whether it's anything broader or a lone nutter. He certainly doesn't seem to have achieved much, so I'm leaning towards the latter. As displeased as Russia are with the UK, I think if they actually wanted to try and threaten or intimidate Starmer, the attack would be more severe than torching a car and a fire that only singed a door.

It's 3 of them, at least

Oh, I'd only seen Roman Lavrynovych named as having been arrested, although that was last week. A quick google shows they've also now charged Stanislav Carpiuc (who's Romanian).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3088p85pero

Where are you seeing three?

If it is a wider conspiracy, seems to be a bit Four Lions.

Stanislav isn’t a Romanian name , Carpuic is though
(Carr pyu itch phonetically is my guess).

Rom name would just be Stan.

[tabascoboy]

What do we make of all these Ukrainians being arrested for the fires at Starmers houses?

Russian hires?

Well it won't be long until they're up in court, so guess we might find out. Carpuic though Ukrainian born took Romanian nationality at some point

[C69]

Say hello to strikes in the NHS, AFC Unions not happy with the divide and rule pay rises

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Say hello to strikes in the NHS, AFC Unions not happy with the divide and rule pay rises

As soon as one saw the future spending plans Reeves set out this was guaranteed. Absent them truly thinking the economy was going to grow 3-4% (and actually maybe more) it was patently a nonsense they'd get away with some initial increases in wage agreements and that was it. I simply don't see how they talk about reducing government waste and then clearly piss resources up the wall producing such gibberish. I get they don't want to make difficult choices on tax/spending, but they were stupid enough to ask for the job so bollocks to 'em, and clearly it was beyond nonsense they could hold future pay increases to 0.5-1% which is basically what was in the projections.

One does wonder what lasts longer, their claims on what merits consideration for future spending/costs or Reeves. I don't see how Reeves survives changing the rules she's said many times she's not going to change. The real fun will come if they change the rules and get anything even close to a Trussian market response, because no one on the Labour side will favour not going after wealth, so how much can Starmer really divorce himself from the Labour movement?

Of course it might be they simply change the rules and Reeves declares two legs better as the reason, it would hardly be a first in politics, and any notions we might have about character and honesty can go fudge themselves. But there are some fair arguments to be made around fiscal headroom and assumptions 4-5 years hence, I don't happen to agree with them, but you could reasonably make them, just more so if your name isn't Reeves. Or maybe I'm just wrong and Reeves is exactly the person who needs to make the about face.

[C69]

I'll be voting to go on strike.
The NHS is no longer fit for purpose and working in it is horrible.
It's a basket case atm. Streeting really is a clueless twat

[Hal Jordan]

Romania has a serious fash problem, they only just avoided voting in their own version of Orban (who has, of course, announced his intention to dispute the results having earlier conceded).

[Sandstorm]

I'll be voting to go on strike.

Commie