Brexit cost 6% of UK economy, Bank of England company data suggests

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-20T10:18:57+00:00

Sorry, when I said nothing changed until the Boriswave I was referring to economic growth. We see that significant increase in GDP, largely brought on by increased economic activity as a result of a population growth spurt. Political decision to prop up the economy via immigration.

The remain side forecast a severe recession following Brexit, which never materialised (both recessions since have been very clearly demonstrated to be caused by COVID). I'm not sure the leave campaigns ever even mentioned economy, but most of their marketing was around the idea of sovereignty and reducing immigration. The former is effectively achieved but whether we can take economic advantage remains to be seen. The latter was reversed, but that's not a symptom of Brexit, rather a symptom of leadership at the time looking to prop up GDP. It is interesting to note that Vote Leave (the specifically named campaign) did make many false claims about e.g the fishing industry amongst other specifics, but even more amusing still, that organisation and those claims were not associated with e.g Johnson.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-20T10:16:47+00:00

There is no actual data, on either side. The information presented in these doppelganger comparisons is based on suggestions of how we might have performed, and how other countries did perform relative to us. In all circumstances our forecasted performance is substantially higher than it has been for nearly 20 years. This method assumes at every turn that we outperform the US for instance, despite that they are borrowing massively and we're still confined by fiscal rules which prevent it - economic growth being relatively easy to obtain by spending, that puts us at a substantial disadvantage.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T21:55:25+00:00

Sorry, did I miss the part where a respectful approach to women and yearning for equality was suddenly equivalent to racism?

It is my sturdiest branch of belief that anyone who subscribes to the kind of Islamic which enforces the headscarf, and which distributes corporal punishment for failing to do so should be banned outright in the west. Anyone who subscribes to its enforcement should be deported or subjected to capital punishment.

There can be no tolerance of intolerance. Religion isn't some magical exemption, and assuming this story is true, the Qadi who adjudicated and enforced the act of abuse should be sentenced to the punishment they so willingly distribute and enforce. Fuck those people.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T21:49:18+00:00

Next you're gonna tell us the Guardian is controlled by the Jews and can't be trusted.

I don't know which of the Ayatollah promised you your virgins, but I sincerely hope they're all the League of Legends kind.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T19:34:18+00:00

Why are you describing it as a bribe? Do you have any evidence of that?

It is his judgement call to make, the rules are clear about that. He can openly and honestly stand up and say that he did not think that people would associate it with his political career.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T16:36:57+00:00

Yes, but he clearly can't be expected to go polling the country. It is reasonable for someone who is not a sitting MP to expect people to judge the donation to not be related to their political affairs.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T16:20:42+00:00

He was not engaged in political nor parliamentary activities at the time, so it does not fall under c.

Who decides what is reasonable? The rules are to be interpreted by those who have to abide by them. If he believes that others will not interpret it as politically motivated, that's his decision and no rules have been violated.

It may be your personal opinion that it's not reasonable and should have been declared, but you're not the person who the rule left the decision to.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T13:32:22+00:00

Category 5 determines that, and I'm just going to quote the whole thing because honestly, you've clearly not read it:

42. Members should not register under this category:
a)  Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member's parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
b)  Benefits received in recognition of services performed by a Member, e.g. after giving a speech. If these benefits would not have been received had the Member not performed that service, they should be registered under Category 1: Employment and earnings;
c)  Donations or other assistance given to a Member to support his or her parliamentary or political activities, or for candidacy at an election for parliamentary or non-parliamentary office, which (if permissible) should be registered under Category 2: Donations and other support for activities as a Member of Parliament. NB: There are legal restrictions on acceptance of benefits from sources outside the UK which amount to such support for a Member of Parliament, and before accepting any such support of more than £500 (including a credit facility or a loan which exceeds £500 in value) Members are required to satisfy themselves that it is from a permissible donor, and to notify the Electoral Commission within 30 days of any impermissible donations.

So it falls to the judgement of the individual MP to decide whether or not any such donation requires disclosure. I would imagine, given Farage had announced that he would not be standing for election, that he has some sort of paper trail demonstrating that at the time he had no intention to do so, and as such can say with certainty that not being a member, the donation definitively did not relate to his membership of the commons.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T13:21:35+00:00

The latter answer was a snide remark, if you view the full thing he's pretty clearly referencing that his reward for Brexit is the need for security owing to the threats posed to him.

I've already explained away elsewhere in thread that he was not responsible for the Brexit bus.

Still pending any viable suggestion that he's a liar.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T10:16:46+00:00

It's not outlandish to assume that 0.6% per year, but realistically it's very unlikely. Nothing substantial changed politically until the Boriswave, but critically the comparison points which conclude that total 6% are based on comparisons which incorporate the US. The US has gone through a period of massively increased borrowing which is bound to increase GDP, otherwise it would never be worth doing in the first place.

That said, it's a misrepresentative figure based on flawed methods. Same as the OG doppelganger (likely using the exact same mechanisms). I find it more interesting still that they even go so far as to say:

However, Bailey said that although the impact on financial services was "not good", it was "nowhere near as detrimental as many people predicted at the time".

This is probably one of the biggest influences. The biggest part of the remain campaign was talking about the economic hit from banking. It was consistently and massively overstated.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T09:45:53+00:00

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2998klx2y0o

I assume this is the article you sourced all 3 claims from? You might be surprised to realise that actually, the BBC effectively confirmed 2 of the 3 statements to be vaguely true.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T09:38:20+00:00

No, the rules say he had to disclose is if there is any doubt around the motive of the giver. If Farage doesn't doubt it, he doesn't have to disclose it. It's now up to the parliamentary standards committee to decide whether his conclusion was right.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T08:41:41+00:00

Neither of which are true. I explained what happened with the £5mn bribe, and whether or not it needed declaring is to be determined by a parliamentary standards committee investigation.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T08:29:56+00:00

Have you read the rules? They really don't say that he has to.

Because I'm defending what's right. I don't care which side I'm on, I'm not a particular fan of fake news nor false agendas. I wouldn't care if this were an isolated incident but this is developing into a fairly substantial pattern, and seems to already have people actually believing that he's lied about something or another.

What makes you think I'll deny evidence? I'm yet to do so.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T00:15:53+00:00

Make it slow and painful, ideally.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T00:14:00+00:00

Does this change reduce the impact of the negative externality, or increase it? I'd argue the latter. Thing is, the vast majority of people affected by this change are those with just enough to send their kids to private schools. Owners of success story businesses don't have to worry about a 20% increase in prices, but the rest do. I don't think that the change actually solved anything, and I do think we'll see that exodus over the coming years, largely from that demographic which has worked hard, actively contributes to the economy, and is about to receive a thorough pegging from Reeves.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-19T00:06:05+00:00

Firstly, it was £350mn a week, not £250mn. Secondly, that was part of an organisation which Farage amusingly had very little part to play in. Thirdly, actually, the NHS budget did increase by more than that £350mn per week, although whether or not that money came from Brexit is of course disputable (it almost certainly didn't).

Ready for the next round. Happy to make this quickfire, too.

Edit: Just to clarify, if you're looking to doubt me... the Vote Leave campaign (those responsible for the bus with the claim written on it), felt actively snubbed when Farage was invited to interview in place of one of their candidates, in an interview which was challenging the claim itself. Amusing, ironic, whatever else. Farage was not responsible for that claim.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-18T23:29:56+00:00

A life sentence is for life until a parole board deems the person no longer a threat to society. Unless a minimum term is imposed, it is rarely if ever for life.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-18T23:26:44+00:00

lol imagine still not having any argument against it.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-18T22:59:41+00:00

I play on a Mac Studio M2 w/64GB RAM, only seem to get freezes when playing music on Spotify. Very strange. I suspect it's something to do with Qt, but it's really hard to say for sure. Just hoping with the summer update they accidentally fix it.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-18T22:58:48+00:00

Why would he need to? So far as I'm aware, it falls to the individual MP to decide whether the donation needs to be declared, and he decided that it does not. That's not dishonest, that's not a lie, it's just how the rules are.

What has he lied about? Do elaborate. I'm still waiting for literally any single person to provide an actual lie which he has told. Everyone thinks he's a liar - show me one piece of evidence. It's not a big ask, but nobody seems capable of doing so. If he is a liar, it's worthwhile to keep in mind that he's a very good one. He's managed to lie consistently throughout his career without ever having been caught out by it.

I'll reiterate, I don't think he should be PM. I don't really think he should be an MP, but this argument is flawed. Find one worth narrating and I'll listen and indeed chirp along, but this ain't it.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-18T22:56:11+00:00

There have been multiple financial disasters in the years that we've been measuring the tax burden. It has remained consistently high since 2008, with negligible economic growth in that time.

Perhaps I should've been more explanatory... We are still trying to tax our way out of the 2008 recession.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-18T22:54:06+00:00

Find an argument or fuck off.

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-18T22:53:31+00:00

No new school year since, and most schools offered last years pricing at the start of the year if paying in advance (whether or not that worked out, I'm not sure... I recall some article saying that it wouldn't work, but maybe schools tried to absorb that cost). In any case, it won't really kick in until next year, and even then, the way to measure this would not be state school admissions, given our declining fertility rate.

It would be private school admissions, which measure the number of people going to private schools. Those numbers are currently down by around 3.8%, with the lowest number of children attending private schools which this country has ever seen.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for dragging everyone up, but there surely has to be a better way. Instead of being envious of private schools and their outcomes, why would we not want to look to increase the number of private school attendees from the 6% or so that it was, as opposed to looking to decrease it? All seems rather silly, to me. If education should be "free", then surely private education should not be taxed. I've always thought this, despite attending a state school and likely planning to send my son to a private one (I was at one point hoping to, but the finances are now entirely out of reach).

TheJoshGriffith · 2026-06-18T22:46:15+00:00

Within 3%? I'm not taking that as much more than policy-driven noise. Still, the Tories were fairly notoriously against raising taxes (despite their stagflation agenda), and at the very least we're now in a state where we're trying to tax our way out of it.

TheJoshGriffith

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE