Article writer in “Manager’s Magazine” He tells his readers what he thinks about leaving. Among other things, she says:
“Had it not been for Johnson as a pioneer, the Brexit campaign would likely have failed. In this way he bears the main responsibility for this disaster. With his reign coming to a close, it’s time for a preliminary assessment of his main business, Brexit. And it shows two things: First, all concerns about Britain’s well-being outside the EU were fully justified. Second, a policy based on nonsense that is only loosely grounded in reality is doomed to failure. However, it may be years before the citizens realize this.”
The author sees Brexit as a “disaster”. In the OJ House, it seemed that this could indeed be evaluated conclusively. However, local citizens of course will only find out in a few years. The basis for this conclusion is what has always given the citizens of this country so much joy in recent years: an exemplary account. In this case, it’s from an “intellectual institution”, an unprotected term perhaps meant to inspire respect, but it never works. Incidentally, the word sounds similar to “research center” or “fish factory”.
The aforementioned organization bears the name “Centre for European Reform”. On his website, he states that he considers European integration to be greatly beneficial (“We consider European integration to be very beneficial‘), which is of course not frowned upon.
However, this message is also not meaningful, because criticisms of the European Union and the British exit in the end are not based on a rejection of economic and political cooperation. Rather, among other things, the shortcomings of European institutions, the excessive influence of Brussels, the sometimes bizarre over-regulation, the lack of transparency, and not quite democratic structures when filling positions, which also cause obvious resentment in other countries.
In the German media, the understandable arguments of those in favor of exit are usually treated with indifference, often with cynicism out of ignorance and often without much interest in the topic. Likewise lacking in depth is a look at the modeling used by the aforementioned “think tank” to compare the real situation in Great Britain to what it would be like without Brexit.
So the designer describes his approach as follows (translated from English):
“As in previous modeling exercises, I compose a ‘pair’ – each basket of countries whose economic performance is very similar to that of the UK before the Brexit referendum and the end of the transition period. They represent a counterfactual variant of the United Kingdom, which has not left the European Union. I estimate multiples of GDP, investment (gross fixed capital formation), total trade in services (exports plus imports), and total trade in goods.”
So you grab a few countries that performed similarly to the UK before Brexit, and then look at how they performed compared to the UK after it left. Just a few decades ago, you would have been expelled from the university because of it. But the main thing is what is done.
The author of “Manager’s Journal” refers to this model and describes a few lines ago “Britain’s exit from the European Union” as such “One of the most important nonsense projects in modern historyThe author obviously likes the word “bullshit” because he mentioned the philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s essay “On Bullshit,” which is really worth reading. This vocabulary will be diligently incorporated into the text from now on. It says something like “Johnson was and still is bullshit“, as well as in the title”Boris and the nonsense of Britain’s exit from the European UnionNice vocabulary should not be missing. However, this word was not used in describing the above form.
Out of sheer joy in the newly incorporated vocabulary, there was seemingly little time to step away from the world of models and look at the reality. The following illustration shows some of the key economic numbers for Great Britain and the Eurozone. Some look better here, some there. No large relative booth can be seen.
Comparison with current figures from Germany and their changes do not indicate a particularly weak development in Great Britain. Some of the values are likely to make viewers frown at the German economy.
A look at the evolution of GDP in various European countries also shows that there are no negative structural anomalies in the British economy. Deeper dip here, stronger recovery there. To pick out individual bars from such drawings and create a “disaster” based on them is nonsense.
In general, individual data points, but also periods of a few years, are of little importance when evaluating an event such as Brexit. This is especially true at the stage of intensive state intervention and the consequences for economic development and its fluctuations.
But all the data shown serves a purpose. It shows the folly of hasty judgments about the long-term effects of Brexit. Regardless, we must remember who decided to leave. It was the British voters who decided this first in a referendum and then confirmed this decision years later by a clear vote in the parliamentary elections.
But what would Harry Frankfurt, mentioned in “The Manager’s Journal”, have to say? He says in his article:
“Nonsense is inevitable when circumstances force someone to speak without knowing what they are talking about. Therefore, the production of nonsense is encouraged when another person’s obligations or opportunities to speak on a subject outweigh his or her knowledge of facts relevant to that subject.”
The following section illustrates large parts of the world of media and the political establishment:
“The lack of any significant connection between a person’s views and his perception of reality is, of course, more dangerous for one who feels it is his duty to be a conscious moral agent who evaluates events and conditions throughout the world.
Furthermore, many who consider themselves conscious moral agents even want to take stock of events and circumstances around the world; If there is a lack of factual knowledge, nonsense is inevitable here as well.”
Trying to judge the consequences of Great Britain’s exit on dubious models and individual data points is nonsense. Additionally, classifying Brexit as a “disaster” ignores other critical points that were important to those who advocated leaving. In light of developments in the European Union, there is no reason to be cynical about the desire for more transparency and more independence. Therefore, some may have judged Brexit under the impression that they had just lost one of the EU’s most militarily and economically relevant members. But the following candidates already have the handle in their hands. We look forward to the corresponding model accounts. Then finally it rises again, right?
If you get “studies” or “model accounts” or find them online, make sure you know who’s responsible and what the underlying assumptions are. This is usually done quickly and always beneficially. Otherwise, stick with Harry Frankfurt and beware of people who see themselves as “acting morally conscious.”
“Alcohol buff. Troublemaker. Introvert. Student. Social media lover. Web ninja. Bacon fan. Reader.”