This is how the same old faces try to con the British public.
“New figures reveal Brexit costing UK business £37bn a year…”
Or do they?
Another controversial Brexit report surfaces from The Independent — let’s analyse its claims and implications!
Another questionable #Brexit ‘exclusive’ from The Independent! Let’s break it down: the so-called ‘new figures’ are actually derived from official data released by the ONS back in December last year, which were used to respond to a parliamentary question posed by an SNP MP. Stephen Gethins on 4 March. So they are neither ‘new’, nor ‘exclusive’.
The Minister’s reply on 7 March stated that the UK’s total trade in goods and services with the EU for the four quarters leading up to September 2024 was 5% lower than in 2018, after adjusting for inflation and excluding precious metals. This figure is accurate; however, it’s worth noting that UK-EU trade saw a 17% increase in value before accounting for inflation.
This demonstrates that while the volume of trade has declined in real terms, the nominal value of trade has grown significantly, reflecting changes in pricing and market dynamics. It’s also worth considering that other external factors, such as global economic trends and shifts in supply chains, may have contributed to these variations in trade performance.
However, we then encounter two significant assumptions. The first is attributing the entire 5% decline solely to Brexit — disregarding other critical factors such as Covid, the energy crisis, the transition to electric vehicles (EVs), the prolonged stagnation in the eurozone (particularly in Germany), global trade trends (including weak UK non-EU trade during this period), and shifts in data collection and classification. While the increased trade frictions with the EU and related uncertainties have undoubtedly had some adverse effects, this approach is not a reasonable method for quantifying them.
Additionally, the second assumption lies in the interpretation of the data itself. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and isolating a single factor like Brexit without considering the interplay of multiple global and domestic influences risks oversimplifying a complex economic landscape. For instance, the global shift toward protectionist policies, supply chain disruptions, and geopolitical tensions have all played significant roles in shaping trade dynamics. Moreover, attributing the entirety of the decline to Brexit ignores the adaptive measures businesses have undertaken, such as diversifying supply chains or seeking new markets, which may have mitigated some of the adverse effects. A more nuanced analysis would require disentangling these overlapping variables to present a clearer, evidence-based understanding of the contributing factors.
The ‘£37 billion’ figure represents the total decline in EU exports and imports since 2018, expressed in pound terms after adjusting for inflation. This calculation, attributed to the House of Commons Library, is accurate (though it’s worth noting that trade increased by £115 billion in value before accounting for inflation). However, The Independent interprets this data to claim that ‘Brexit has cost UK business £37bn a year.’ Such an interpretation would not be supported by any serious economist, and it is telling that the article fails to reference any credible sources to back this assertion.
This interpretation oversimplifies the complexities of trade dynamics and economic factors influencing the UK’s post-Brexit performance. While it is true that Brexit introduced new trade barriers, such as tariffs and customs checks, attributing the entirety of the £37 billion reduction solely to Brexit ignores other global factors like the COVID-19 pandemic and supply chain disruptions. Furthermore, trade data often fluctuates due to currency exchange rates, consumer demand, and broader geopolitical developments, making it difficult to isolate Brexit as the sole cause. A more nuanced analysis would consider these variables rather than drawing sweeping conclusions from a single figure.
Instead we have a rollcall of the usual suspects who are quoted in almost every one of these ‘exclusives’ -
or whoever was available from
and Stephen Gethins himself.
These repetitive mentions not only dilute the impact of the stories but also make readers feel like they’re stuck in a Netflix series that keeps recapping the previous episode — can we please skip to the good part?
It turns out these are the individuals championing a return to the customs union and single market. With all due respect, they’ve been singing this same tune since 2016 — at this point, it’s less a ground breaking revelation and more like a broken record stuck on repeat. Essentially, this report, much like its predecessors, feels less like a serious analysis and more like a snack for #FBPE readers — light, crunchy, but not exactly filling.
Breakdown of trade — Office for National Statistics
