Brexit Economic Loss 4% Annually… 55% Favor Rejoining EU

The OBR, the UK government's official fiscal forecasting body, assumed that Brexit would lead to a long-term reduction of approximately 15% in UK exports and imports.

The OBR estimated that the UK's GDP is losing about 4% annually compared to a scenario without Brexit, while other research institutions like NIESR estimated the loss to be between 5% and 8%.

This is contrary to public opinion at the time Brexit was pushed through and is analyzed as a shift in public perception due to actual economic damage.

Changes in the UK's political landscape have emerged, with both right-wing and left-wing parties, such as the Reform Party and the Green Party, making significant gains in the recent local elections.

The Labour Party appears to be making a political calculation to counter this shift to the right by expanding its pro-EU front and broadening its room for maneuver through discussions on EU membership.

After Brexit, EU immigration decreased, but non-EU immigration surged because the British economy found it difficult to meet essential labor needs without immigrants.

In particular, immigrants from non-EU countries such as India, Nigeria, Pakistan, and China increased significantly, leading to a record high net migration of 900,000 in the UK in 2023.

This is analyzed as an unavoidable influx of immigrants to maintain factory operations and essential social services.

This, combined with dissatisfaction that hard work did not bring benefits and negative perceptions of foreigners, significantly influenced the casting of their votes.

Immigrants contributed to the economy by paying taxes and national insurance, and also created jobs in various sectors such as real estate and the restaurant industry.

Immigrants from Eastern European countries like Poland were primarily concentrated in working-age groups. According to a UCL survey, they fulfilled the residency requirements and tax obligations demanded by the UK welfare system, acting as net taxpayers who paid more in taxes than they received in public services.

Specifically, Eastern European immigrants, including Poles, were mostly of working age, and this is analyzed to be due to the UK's welfare system requiring certain periods of residency and tax contributions.

While immigrant influx has positive effects on national finances, there is a time lag in infrastructure expansion. Practical inconveniences, such as increased waiting times at local hospitals or a higher proportion of foreign students in schools, were key factors felt by the public.

This manifested as longer waiting times at local hospitals and an increase in the proportion of foreign students in schools, suggesting that objective evidence supporting the claims made during Brexit is insufficient.

After the withdrawal, they became subject to the same eligibility checks as other foreigners, resulting in differentiated treatment regarding access to welfare.

However, after Brexit, EU citizens are treated like other foreigners, experiencing significant discrimination and difficulties in accessing welfare benefits.

This represents one of the major changes brought about by Brexit, meaning that social security rights previously enjoyed by citizens of EU member states have been substantially curtailed.

England's Poor Law was first enacted in 1601 during the reign of Elizabeth I, focusing then on helping the poor while also addressing vagrancy.

Early poor laws were based on the Anglican Church system, collecting poor rates at the parish level to relieve local paupers, and establishing differentiated relief principles based on ability to work.

From 1906 to 1914, the Liberal government shifted welfare principles from individual proof of poverty to a universal principle where the community shared social risks.

In particular, the Beveridge Report, published in 1942, advocated for eradicating the five giants of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor, and Idleness, marking a turning point in welfare paradigm.

Administrative systems like Universal Credit caused long waiting times of 5 weeks after application, creating welfare blind spots. The 'Digital Only' policy reduced accessibility to administrative procedures for the elderly and digitally marginalized, making it difficult to receive welfare benefits.

Due to administrative delays, with payments taking 5 weeks after application, those struggling financially suffered, a plight vividly depicted in the film 'I, Daniel Blake.'

Subsequently, the policy shifted to 'Digital First,' allowing for paper or in-person applications, but the digital divide remains a barrier to welfare access.

Entrusting the supply of new public housing to private developers has led to a persistent supply shortage due to declining profitability.

Although public housing for low-income individuals existed in central London, much of it was privatized, and the supply of new public housing, also entrusted to private developers, continues to struggle with profitability issues.

This creates a structural contradiction where even government subsidies are spent on high rents, exacerbating housing instability issues.

As daily inconveniences mounted due to energy and railway privatization, calls grew louder that austerity was not the panacea.

Representative examples include delays in medical treatment due to outdated equipment and staff attrition in the National Health Service (NHS), and increased daily inconveniences from energy and railway privatization.

One of the main reasons for the instability in the European economy is cited as the absence of high-profit, next-generation industries.

A lesson can be learned that national innovation efforts are needed to prevent productivity decline and discover high-profit industries that will be the drivers of future generations, in order to maintain continuous welfare and social stability.