A 2021 article from ‘Briefings for Britain’ is still being shared, where it makes several claims about the impact of Brexit on the UK concerning the economy and trade.  

Their claims were over-optimistic at the time and, in the context of the past two years, are not a fair commentary on the impact of Brexit. Following a look at the key claims, we look at a breakdown of some of the classic populist, nationalist propaganda techniques used in the article.

Claim: Brexit has not had a negative impact on the UK economy.

Fact Check: The claim that Brexit has not negatively impacted the UK economy is inaccurate. A recent study by Gasiorek and Tamberi (2023) found that the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) signed by the UK and the EU in December 2020 significantly impacted UK-EU trade in goods. The study found that while UK exports to the EU recovered quickly after a sharp drop of around 41% in January 2021, UK imports from the EU were negatively impacted throughout 2021, with a cumulative loss over the first year of implementation between -24% and -28%. 

Research conducted by the think tanks the Centre for European Reform and UK in a Changing Europe indicates that Brexit has led to a reduction of 330,000 workers in the UK. While this represents just 1% of the workforce, industries like transport, hospitality, and retail have experienced a particularly significant impact.

Claim: UK exports to the EU have not been significantly affected by Brexit.

Fact Check: Looking at exports to the EU, In 2019, they stood at a healthy £298bn. By 2021, they had slumped by £30bn to £268bn, but even that was a huge lift from the £259bn they had tumbled to in 2020, in the immediate aftermath of Brexit.

 As mentioned above, Gasiorek and Tamberi (2023) found that UK exports to the EU did recover quickly after an initial drop in January 2021. However, a study by Naimy et al. (2023) found that the volatility of the GBP/EUR exchange rate harmed the volume of UK exports to the Eurozone in both the long and short run. This suggests that while the overall volume of exports may have recovered, the profitability of these exports has not.

Claim: The UK has been able to strike beneficial trade deals with other countries post-Brexit.

 Fact Check: While the UK has technically ‘been able’ to negotiate trade deals post-Brexit, the benefits of these deals have not appeared. The oven-ready deal was a lie, the US trade deal has not happened, and the first deal struck with Australia and New Zealand has not been beneficial.

The UK-Australia trade deal saw Australia secure a seven-fold increase in tariff-free access to the UK market for beef and lamb exports but has been met with significant criticism for undermining the interests of British farmers and lowering food standards for consumers. 

Consumer Food safety groups, including the Pesticide Action Network, have raised alarms over the absence of provisions requiring Australian produce to comply with stricter British standards. 

Even one of the Brexiteers who partly negotiated the deal: George Eustice, has denounced the agreement as one-sided and not in the UK’s favour. He blames former Secretary of State for International Trade Liz Truss for rushing the agreement to boost the image of then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government.

This criticism of the UK-Australia trade deal suggests that the British government’s approach to negotiating future trade agreements needs to strike a better balance between consumers’ and farmers’ interests. It also highlights the need to scrutinise these agreements to ensure they uphold British standards and protect key domestic industries.

The UK has regained control over its laws and borders post-Brexit.

 Fact Check: This claim is partially true. One of the main arguments for Brexit was that it would allow the UK to regain control over its laws and borders. Post-Brexit, the UK is no longer subject to EU law and has greater control over its immigration policy. However, it’s worth noting that this increased control comes with trade-offs, including increased trade barriers with the EU impacts on the rights of UK citizens living in the EU. The ‘take back control’ narrative is a populist argument that partly relies on misleading people about how little control they have. 

Claim: The UK’s departure from the EU has not led to a break-up of the UK.

Fact Check: While it’s true that the UK has not broken up post-Brexit, the impact of Brexit on the unity of the UK is still a topic of ongoing debate. Brexit has exacerbated tensions in Northern Ireland, has put the border down the Irish Sea that liar Boris Johnson promised it definitely would not,   and has kept the corpse of Scottish Independence twitching long after it started to smell and should have been interred. 

These were some of the key claims, there are others that are just as inaccurate: for example the bold claim that Brexit has not caused border delays.

There have been several reports of border delays and disruptions in the immediate aftermath of Brexit. These disruptions were attributed to new customs procedures and paperwork requirements. For instance, in January 2021, there were reports of trucks being delayed because of confusion over paperwork, leading to queues at ports like Dover.

So the article from 2021 was inaccurate at the time and is discredited by the facts now: yet it is still being shared as a ‘gotcha’ to ‘remainers.’

Propaganda and Misinformation Techniques Being Used

The article from Briefings for Britain uses several typical nationalist/populist propaganda and misinformation techniques:

Cherry-Picking Data

The article selectively presents data and examples that support its arguments while ignoring or downplaying data and examples that contradict it. For example, it highlights the recovery of UK exports to the EU post-Brexit but does not mention the negative impact on UK imports from the EU.

Emotional Oratory 

Like most nationalist propaganda, this looks to circumvent people’s logic and credulity with a direct pathos-loaded appeal to emotion. The article uses emotive language and appeals to nationalistic sentiments to make its arguments more persuasive. For example, it emphasises the UK’s regained control over its laws and borders post-Brexit, appealing to a sense of national sovereignty.

Gross Oversimplification

The article simplifies complex issues, such as the economic impact of Brexit and the negotiation of trade deals, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. For example, it presents the negotiation of trade deals as an unambiguously positive outcome of Brexit without acknowledging the complexities and potential downsides of these deals or that they were negotiated by people unqualified to get the best deal and with suspect motivations: working towards headlines rather than outcomes. 

Misrepresentation of Facts

The article presents some claims as facts without providing sufficient evidence or context. For example, it claims that Brexit has not had a negative impact on the UK economy without adequately addressing the various studies and data that suggest otherwise.

The articles’ analysis of the impact of Brexit on the UK is incomplete, outdated and misleading. Jacob Rees Mogg is on record saying any benefits of Brexit might take 50 years to take shape. In that reframing, he may be looking to set expectations of benefits not appearing soon. 

Had Enough of Experts

The article ends by attacking all the sources that say Brexit has been problematic.

“You cannot rely on the government, civil service, academics, international organisations or even supposed industry ‘experts’ to provide impartial debates… …voters may wish to reflect on the extent to which they can trust the claims of government and other ‘experts’ in other policy areas ”

Briefings for Britain

This insidious strawman attack on, well, pretty much every kind of reliable or official source up to and including anyone who is an expert in their field is designed to make you doubt the credibility of everything you hear. It’s a classic manipulation technique of creating doubt.

References

Gasiorek, M., & Tamberi, N. (2023). The effects of leaving the EU on the geography of UK trade. Economic Policy. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiad018

Naimy, V. Y., Khoury, R., Montero, J., & Souk, J. (2023). Post-Brexit exchange rate volatility and its impact on UK exports to eurozone countries: A bounds testing approach. Oeconomia Copernicana. https://dx.doi.org/10.24136/oc.2023.004

Shkulipa, L. (2023). Political and Economic Aspects of Brexit Impact on Accounting Legislation in the UK – New Directions in Standards (GAAP UK and IFRS). Danube: Law and Economics Review. https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/danb-2023-0001

Deng, B. (2022). The Impact of Brexit on UK Economic Development in Trade and Foreign Direct Investment. Business and Management Research. https://dx.doi.org/10.54691/bcpbm.v23i.1420

The Week. (n.d.). Brexit. Retrieved June 20, 2023, https://www.theweek.co.uk/brexit-0

BBC News. (n.d.). Title not available. Retrieved June 20, 2023, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-59741804

Rawlinson, K. (2022, June 25). What have we done? Six years on, UK counts the cost of Brexit. The Guardian. Retrieved June 20, 2023, from https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/25/what-have-we-done-six-years-on-uk-counts-the-cost-of-brexit

Forrest, A. (2023, March 10). Brexit controls causing huge lorry queues at Dover and delays will get longer, warns union. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-dover-lorry-queues-delays-b2002005.html