“We could stay as we are. That’s definitely an option, if people think this is the right place to stay,” he told [BBC Radio 4’s Today programme].

“We could look at what [former Chancellor] George Osborne has said about a customs union, we could look at what the Liberal Democrats said at their conference about the single market, or we could go all the way.”

If you watch the video in the article, he also said this:

Brexit has caused more harm than good, and I think around 60% of the British public agree with that statement.

Do you like these statements from Burnham or not? I think these statements are good.

I don’t see the point in cutting ties with our European allies, causing harm to our economy, just so we can wave little Union Jacks and pretend that we’re so much better than other European countries.

  • deHaga@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Me select? You’re comparing 1 country versus the average of 26 lol.

    Your other graph is a synthetic counter factual made from bullshit doppelganger models and surveys.

    France is our doppelganger. They didn’t leave the EU, we did.

    All that happened is we swapped dirty polluting goods trade for high margin clean services exports

    • sunbeam60@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      If you believe France is a useful single doppelgänger you honestly need to read a bit more.

      Before 2016 the UK was more open and more finance-heavy (about 7% of output vs 4%), it ran a current-account deficit of about 5% of GDP (France was near balance), and its labour market was more flexible (about 74% employment vs 64%).

      France was also in the euro, more state-cushioned (public spending about 57% of GDP vs 40%) and more EU-oriented in its trade.

      On almost every channel Brexit worked through (sterling, investment, services trade, migration), France would have responded differently.

      I think you’re picking data to suit your opinions. And you’re diverging from the vast majority of economists when attempting to compare the counter-factual case. That alone should give you pause.