Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Brexit was a mistake and letting the fate of something like this being decided by a majority public vote is silly. The politicians in favour were either dumb AF or knew it would be a disaster waiting to happen.A real answer would be to have a serious hard look at EU policies that go against the UK’s interests, by teams of economists, financial professionals, and trade specialists. Imagine if all this Brexit effort was put into cohesion.
The average person doesn’t know how interest rates and inflation relate. You let the economy of your country and the stability of the largest trading bloc be decided by a majority vote? SMH. Hurray for democracy, but damn, some things shouldn’t be a popularity contest.
If a recession hits, GG. I don’t even understand the rhetoric; the net benefit far outweighed any issues for Britain. I saw the pro-Brexit politician claiming some ridiculous amount of savings from an exit, and about 30 seconds of independent research, I realized it was going to be an emotional populist shit show.
I'd caution the "facts" you're finding on this.
The UK is more mature than the US when it comes to propaganda in the press. We are just children compared to the awesome machines of media industry that the UK has.
I would not be surprised if there are huge lies being spread about the economic detriments of a Brexit.
Take the US unemployment data. The U3 stat is an outright lie. But it is seen as correct and right by so many that it has become the staple of determining unemployment. The U6 is a far more accurate stat but even that falls short. A truer stat is true work force percentage compared to the population in additional to a U6 stat. If you have 5% U6 unemployment but only 35% of you population is working, you have a massive unemployment issue. The stats are lies. Shadowstats, while criticized by at least one economist, is far closer to a truly accurate unemployment rate than the U6 stat. But you won't see the news talking about how the US population only has 60-ish percent of the population actually working with unemployment actually being closer to 20%. Who is talking about that? Anyone? As far as I can tell, not a single news source of national repute is talking about these. Work force participation rates? True unemployment stats? I don't read or see these anywhere on the big money news sites or channels.
This is why the Brexit issue is not so one-sided, based on the facts, like it seems. There's more to it than just the superficial economic analyses you find in front page results.
For example, even these Anti-Brexit researchers criticize both sides for using too many assumptions and subjective inputs into their economic impact assessments from a Brexit Scenario:
https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/157171
"Currently, there is no universally accepted method of estimation available to integrate all of these specific effects in a comprehensive way. The available backward-looking empirical studies that attempt to do this can be criticised to some extent."
And:
https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=676841
"Since Brexit is a unique event with no precedent it is not possible to do a normal forecast in which a few assumptions are made about a limited range of exogenous variables. The best that can be done is to construct scenarios and two are presented here."
And this group conservatively states a 2.7% reduction of economic output compared to a "Remaining in the EU" baseline:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264999316301833
I believe that this last group comes closest to a realistic figure. They use a widely acceptable economic model, project out further than just a few years, and try to balance multiple variables that include economic benefits of a Brexit. Because there definitely are some economic benefits to a Brexit and only fools will tell you there are none.