Brexit reduced UK GDP by 6-8%, investments by 12-18% [pdf]
Mood
heated
Sentiment
negative
Category
politics
Key topics
Brexit
UK economy
Globalization
A study found that Brexit reduced UK GDP by 6-8% and investments by 12-18%, sparking a debate on the consequences of Brexit and its implications for the UK and global economies.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
39m
Peak period
122
Day 1
Avg / period
122
Based on 122 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
11/14/2025, 11:17:59 PM
4d ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
11/14/2025, 11:56:53 PM
39m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
122 comments in Day 1
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
11/15/2025, 5:07:13 PM
3d ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
(Dont know... dont have too much dog in fight)
Though I know yours is a rhetorical question, I'll answer: No. Brexit was essentially an anti-immigration and pro-deregulation movement. Simple small-c conservatism. (It was also anti-status-quo, but that was implicit.)
The, uh, "Conservatives" who were tasked with implementing Brexit supercharged immigration and, with considerable assistance from the EU, doubled down on ridiculous social and business regulations, paperwork, and red tape. There was no upside. They just made everything much worse. I know that they expected the Brexit vote to fail, and I think there's a term for their subsequent actions: "Malicious compliance."
Now England is a powder keg if there ever was one. If things are going to kick off, it'll happen there first. As Weimar as America is these days, England is worse.
It's how the ruling class works. They import cheap labour from the (former) colonies to drive down wages. Then they pay their puppet politicians to hyperventilate about how terrible immigration is, how filthy these foreigners are, and how it Must Be Stopped.
It's been happening for centuries - the same scam, over and over.
Estimates are that between 1870 and 1913 net emigration of British citizens averaged about 131,000 per year, i.e. more people left the UK than arrived:
>https://docs.iza.org/dp81.pdf
In the 1881 census of England and Wales, "natives of foreign states" were 174,372 people, just 0.671% of the population.
In the 19th century, England was a country of emigrants, with net migration at roughly -100k/year. From 2014–24, you're looking at typically +200k to +900k per year. This is totally unprecedented to put it mildly. And now, like it or not, I'm sure that things are going to get ugly.
This obviously led to a massive issue when they actually won: you simply can't have your cake and eat it - especially when it involves another foreign power! There is no universe in which it would've been possible for the UK to completely detach itself from all EU rules, while still retaining completely free transit of goods, while also taxing import certain goods for protectionist reasons. Similarly it was never going to be possible for UK citizens to retain unlimited visa-free travel to the Schengen area while retaining the possibility for the UK to arbitrarily block access to certain groups of EU citizens.
The most obvious example of this is Northern Ireland: you can't leave the Common Market, and keep an open border between NI and RoI (thus not blowing up the Good Friday agreement and not starting another civil war), and keep an open border between NI and GB (thus not partially giving up sovereignty and suggesting acceptance of a slow move towards a united Ireland). Failing to deliver on all three at once (as promised piecemeal by various pro-Leave people) isn't malicious compliance - it's reality. Something has to yield, and if you don't decide up-front you'll of course get a nasty surprise later on.
Sadly my compatriots apparently didn't value that at all. It was barely an issue in the Brexit public discourse before the vote.
I can only give anecdotes, but the majority of the support I saw for leaving the EU wasn't rooted in hard economics – there were claims about doing our own free trade deals and having an extra £350 Million being spent on the NHS instead, but that was about it. A lot of support centred around how our culture & history ought to be perceived, limiting migration, and not having faith/trust in the EU and our Governments.
Again anecdotes, but the most common reprieve I hear from Leave supporters is that leaving would've been great if not for 1) the years of political deadlock 2) Johnson's deal being naff. For most of us life hasn't improved since leaving (the pandemic right after didn't help); and after the promises about the sunlit uplands if we left, I don't think anything short of a miracle would make it feel like it was worth it.
I think the only people who feel like it was worth it were those who voted Leave through a culture/prestiege lens and put the fact that we left above everything else.
He was ok with eu immigration but not non eu immigration, so he voted for less eu immigration.
In reality they voted to replace immigration from EU with immigration from other countries. I guess it is better for UK culture to have more Asian people instead of European.
Hits on GDP aren't felt equally across the population.
> Fewer workers in UK etc.
You mean fewer European workers. The UK has far more workers today since the post-Covid migration wave.
If you're younger, heeeeeeelllllllll no.
How about some metrics on issue that led to Brexit?
I don't know if average Londoners can still afford authentic Polish sausages, but if they can't, I hope the original commenter is happy now.
Those sausages have only become less affordable.
IMF figures for 2025:
87% GDP per capita PPP, 50% nominal GDP per capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)...
Source?
The top three GDP per capita are: Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Bermuda. The bottom three are: Afghanistan, Yemen, South Sedan. As an average person I would rather live in the top countries of the list than the bottom but that's just anecdote.
And yeah, if you study GDP its easy to see it’s a giant scam and the economy cannot be put into numbers. Qualities are better than quantities
You'll need to have some sources for that!
The world has never seen an explosion in prosperity, and reduction in poverty, like the post-WWII and post-Cold War years, and it was accomplished via free markets, trade, etc. (not perfectly or exclusively, of course). Look at S Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil, China, India - like nothing the world has ever seen. Billions lifted from poverty.
Look at Western Europe after the absolute destruction of two world wars, and compare their recovery with places that did not follow the path of free markets and trade.
You can have a rich elite and a high GDP, but that doesn't mean the common people are doing as well as the GDP suggests.
A good example of this is Ireland. It has a huge GDP. 129,132$ per capita. It's the 3rd richest country in the world if you look at it like that (Liechtenstein and Luxembourg are first and second).
But do you think the average Irishman actually makes 129,132$ per year? No. Ireland is a tax heaven and its artificially inflated by tax shenanigans from foreign multinationals.
There are other reasons why absolute GPD is bullshit. Even PPP GDP is a little bullshit.
It has many flaws, but can you name a better one?
> that doesn't mean the common people are doing as well as the GDP suggests.
Nobody who understands GDP would say everyone is doing as well (or poorly) as GDP suggests. Some people do better, some worse.
But people in places with higher GDP reliably do better. Visit a poor or middle-income country; the difference is unmistakeable and this debate becomes absurd.
Inequality is a major problem in high-GDP countries; that doesn't mean GDP is meaningless.
Edit: For an average person its not always true that an illusion of prosperity is always good. Eventually there might be a payback for all this capital.
For example, based on GDP/capita:
- The United States outrank the Netherlands.
- The United Arab Emirates outrank Italy.
- Puerto Rico outranks South Korea.
- Saudi Arabia outranks Japan.
You'll see that immigration was at record levels post Brexit.
Not that it solved the issue of jobs, social housing or housing prices of course.
Right have been removed from tens of millions of Brits (some like Farage have kept their European citizenship but most have had it taken away)
I’m still waiting for a benefit.
Yes, let’s see some details on that.
Why do people always focus on food in these discussions? It's such a weak argument.
Something the GP omitted: Recently, weren't there supply and inflation issues regarding food?
Of course, many in the land of kidney pies might be just as happy either way. :)
From a US perspective, the supply and inflation issues regarding food were primarily focused on eggs, and the problem resolved itself as soon as companies stopped killing chickens due to whatever avian flu was going around. That being said, it might be different for the land of kidney pies, I'm not sure.
Also, I should've been clearer in my original comment. I usually hear the whole "but what about the food?" argument from people who are just upset that deportation of illegals will make their favorite empanada restaurant close, or who argue that the original food of a place is terrible and by introducing migrants of legal or illegal status, then everything (culinary scene & life in general) will magically become better.
Not that it matters for immigration policy, but Britain's food was greatly improved by immigration; it's not magic. In the US it's hard to say because, other than things like corn and bison, etc., all cuisine is from immigrants!
I do have contempt for illegals and the people in the countries where they're illegally present who care about them and stymie attempts to remove said illegals. It's a gross violation of the social contract and I'm tired of people just hand waving it away like it's no big deal and we just have to accept it.
>Not that it matters for immigration policy, but Britain's food was greatly improved by immigration
I agree with you that it doesn't/shouldn't matter for immigration policy, but at the same time I've heard this argument used by people who brand themselves as pro-immigration as a reason why we can't do anything about illegal immigrants because if they're deported, who will cook their unique cuisine?
You might see others acting with contempt - the more you see it, the more you need to stand up for something better.
Brexit can be a bad idea and at the same time the GP can have a good point about globalization.
downvotes ahoy
The vast majority of people arriving from Nigeria and India do so on visas, and would have near zero chance of getting asylum claims approved.
Also a lot of regular Brits have moved abroad. Dyson who famously advocated for brexit to help Britain moved to Singapore, my friends have moved to France, Portugal, Spain and Dubai.
Where would that be? The Stuart heir isn't interested in the job, and Divine Intervention probably isn't on the table. Reform Party? Oh, come on...
The EU is still a major trading partner, and regulatory divergence would kill trade, not increase it.
Elsewhere, the only way fewer regulations would increase GDP would be if the UK was selling goods and services that benefited from lower standards.
It already does that, because tax evasion and money laundering are a significant part of GDP.
But there are very, very few areas in normal international trade where buyers want to see looser regs and lower standards.
As an argument, it's just incoherent.
Speaking from finance view, the trade from Britain has been moving capital out for years. Not in. The stock market has shrunk,
If real deregulation comes at some point, maybe the curve changes. That remains unlikely, however, given to export anything the UK would have to meet their importers’ (read: America and Europe’s) standards.
(The benefits of deregulation are absolutely swamped by the benefits from trade. This inequality grows the smaller your economy is relative to your trading partners’.)
I would say a real problem is how current administration is fighting against immigrants at the moment.
Statistically, illegal immigrants behave better than american citizens. Less burden to the budget either as they are cut off from public services.
It's a fucking mystery, isn't it ...
I think the thing is a bit of a travesty though. At the time of the vote, the apathetic who didn't bother voting were about 60% remain so the overall balance of the population was pro remain but it got forced through for better or worse, probably worse.
But it was idiocy to not set those kinds of terms out before the vote.
The core problem here, and pretty much everywhere else, is rising inequality. We have seen a truly massive wealth transfer from the poor to the rich (either directly or via the government) and we're rapidly reaching the point where the poor simply won't have anything left.
Post-GFC austerity measures have been an abject failure. Successfully blaming those failures on immigration (as what became the Reform movement did) directly led to Brexit because neoliberalism in the UK is uniparty. So here we are where Nigel Farrage is odds on favorite to be the next Prime Minister of the UK (barring whatever leadership coups take place in Labor in until the next election, at least 1 of which is expected).
So the problems of neoliberalism are blamed on migrants. There is no counter-narrative to that. So we see a rise in isolationism and nationalism. And nothing improves. Well done, the system works.
What I find particularly fascinating is that many who push this agenda fetishize the 1950s (particularly in the US), which is funny because there was vastly less inequality and the marginal tax rate (in the US) was 91%.
Switzerland and Norway have better navigated being on the edge of the EU but not in it. But Norway has vast oil reserves (and, to their credit, is using them for a sovereign wealth fund instead of minting a handful of billionaires). Switzerland was the banking center but is really losing that title. Britain was once the heart of a vast empire and it too is a financial hub and a center for international money laundering (ie real estate) but, much like Switzerland, it doesn't really produce anything anymore.
That's what the fascists always have said.
The post-neoliberals have created even more inequality, and openly oppose any efforts to fix it. The US government is still trying to disrupt food programs for the hungry.
> There is no counter-narrative to that. So we see a rise in isolationism and nationalism.
Few argue for a counter-narrative, but there are plenty. One is that almost everyone in the US is in a family of immigrants. The economic counter-narrative is overwhelming. Also economics is not a zero-sum competition - it's not beggar-thy-neighbor: If your neighbor does well, you do well - they are your employers, customers, employees, lenders, borrowers, renters, etc. Fewer neighbors is a smaller, slower economy.
In theory, any new country joining the EU has to switch to the common currency, the Euro, something the UK was able to gain an exemption from while still a member along with Denmark, Sweden and a handful of others, a long time ago when the Euro was first introduced.
This has always been an issue when discussing Scottish independence too, given the SNP have always claimed Scotland could rejoin the EU and keep the pound; the EU has always said otherwise.
> https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/euro/enlargement-euro-a...
But to join the Euro, it is a requirement to be a member of ERM II for 2 years, and Sweden argues that that is voluntary, and just haven't done it.
You're right that Denmark has an opt-out, though.
What good is 8% higher gdp if that only belongs to richest. A lower gdp but higher wages is a win for the average citizen and a loss for the banking class.
Brexit was a loss for the banking class but win for the average person.
That has not been my experience, and I haven't seen any data to support your statement. Please feel free to provide sources.
Please share your experience how have things turned worse for you. When did it happen?
Have you already forgotten about the Boris Bus, or him being publicly censured by the ONS (and then carrying on with the same lies)?
my wealth is reduced
Impressive feat.
Nevertheless they got the opposite of what they voted for, besides lower GDP and investments.
This is deepening as people with either are now leaving in droves...
seems to be somewhat of a stretch
You can see all such claims are lies by just looking at the relevant graphs and comparing like with like. UK GDP has continued to track that of France. These are neighbors with similar economies, one in the EU and one out.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-maddison-p...
You could also compare to prior trajectory or look at trade impact.
This study doesn't do any of those things. It makes up a convoluted economic simulation and compares against that, with "uncertainty" being a major component. It's the same technique used to predict a recession immediately following the 2016 vote that would cause 800,000 job losses. No recession happened and employment numbers hit record highs. The prior failure of economic forecasting doesn't stop them from doing it again, with full confidence.
The establishment tell these lies about Brexit for the same reason they doctor video footage of Trump. They staked their credibility on these things being a disaster, and when the sky didn't fall it shook their worldview. Letting go of their prior beliefs is hard because the updates required would affect everything, so some of them decided that maybe if they lie hard and often enough they can live in the fantasy forever.
25 more comments available on Hacker News
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.