Britain has the lowest growth in the G-7 three years after Brexit

One of the many things that doesn't work in the UK is the post office.

Thomas Osborne
Thomas Osborne
31 January 2023 Tuesday 21:35
13 Reads
Britain has the lowest growth in the G-7 three years after Brexit

One of the many things that doesn't work in the UK is the post office. Christmas greetings written in December have not arrived, but a card sent from Washington by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has with the following message: "You are going to have the lowest growth of all the G-7 economies in 2023 , and they will be the only one in recession. Congratulations!"

The unfortunate telegram from the IMF responds to the institution's annual report, but coincidentally it coincided with the third anniversary of the official exit from the EU, which neither its supporters nor its detractors want to celebrate, like those older people who see no grace in celebrating Over time. Some, because it has not produced, by far, the expected results and has turned politically against them. Others, because the subject is taboo, and just mentioning it is considered an unpatriotic sin, an attack against the democratic will.

“Freed from the shackles of Brussels,” said the Brexit propaganda three years ago, “the United Kingdom will be a global power with enviable growth, a focus of foreign investment, without regulations, truly sovereign, which will sign much more beneficial trade agreements and it will free up so many resources that it will be able to dedicate an extra 600 million euros per week to healthcare”.

The reality in 2023, three years after the break and two years after the de facto exit from the single market and the customs union, is very different: an economically, politically and socially broken country, with the lowest productivity rate since the industrial revolution, a GDP lower than that of India and Mississippi, a per capita income that this year will be surpassed by that of Slovenia, and within a decade, by that of Poland. It is not, as a former US Secretary of State said, that Great Britain does not find its place in the world. It is that she has found it, and it is –relatively speaking, with respect to countries of its level– at the bottom of the well, there where the light does not reach.

The most staunch supporters of Brexit, such as former European deputy and Telegraph columnist Daniel Hannan, consider that it is a conspiracy by the remainers to lay the foundations for a return to the arms of the EU in three phases: one, prevent divergence of European standards and maintain the Northern Ireland protocol (which regulates trade with the province); two, to re-enter the customs union under the pretext of simplifying bureaucracy and paperwork (which would mean regaining freedom of movement and would annul the trade agreements signed by London with third countries), and three, to fully reintegrate, since at that point there would be no practical difference.

In his opinion, the problem is that Brexit, due to the weakness of the rulers, has not been applied harshly enough, as God intended, so there has been no possibility of obtaining economic benefits. And what is needed is to burn at the stake all the European laws that are still in force, to shatter the Northern Ireland protocol (which creates an internal border and "leaves part of the country under the sovereignty of foreign powers"), the same with workers' rights, environmental, veterinary and food hygiene protections, break with the European Court of Human Rights, lower taxes and become a Singapore. In short, what Liz Truss tried and resulted in the intervention of the markets.

The reality has very little to do with the paranoia of the Brexiters, because neither the EU now wants the British return, nor Labor (which could very well be in power within two years) has a new referendum on the agenda. Its policy is simply to ease trade friction with continental partners, improve political relations, and rejoin academic and scientific exchange programs such as Erasmus and Horizon.

Brexiters argue that it was always clear that there would be a price to pay in the short term to win in the long term. That price, for the moment, is at least four points of GDP, 150,000 million in annual income and 50,000 million that are not received in taxes. If this were an old telegram, the IMF message would be: “Right road to the cliff. Point. Change address as soon as possible. Point".