[2020-06-14]能否区分英国脱欧和新冠疫情对经济和社会的影响？我们将如何判断英国脱欧是否“有用”？

Paul M Calvert Author of Imperium Betrayal, Londoner, inquisitive soul
So many whiny answers to this question.
Brexit worked because we left the EU. If, however, you mean how will we tell if we had been better off remaining in the EU because of the effects Covid will have on our economy, the proper answer is that it's going to be very difficult to determine in the short-term. This pandemic has thrown economic forecasts and rulebooks out of the window. Both the EU, UK, and indeed the rest of the world, is in uncharted waters.
However, to be fair, for many people (and I suspect this will apply to a majority) who supported leaving the EU, economics was always of secondary importance, coming far behind the issue of sovereignty. For these people, the debate about whether the UK is better or worse off financially is irrelevant. Now, people can argue all they like about the rights and wrongs of this view, so I can only speak for myself, but this was my main reason for wanting to leave. Simply sovereignty. I didn't want to be subsumed into a Federal superstate and have Parliament reduced in status to that of a Parish council. Nor was it about immigration, that MSM trope rolled out to infer Leavers were/are racists. Anyone with a brain could look at immigration figures and see that non-EU numbers (which we had full control over) were often on par with those from the EU, the majority of which were Christian and white! Stop those coming in but allow everyone else? When you look at it logically it never added up.

回答1：《帝国背叛》的作者，伦敦人，好奇的精神
这个问题的答案太多了。
我们确实脱离了欧盟。然而，如果你的意思是，我们如何判断由于新冠疫情对我们的经济产生的影响，我们留在欧盟会不会更好，正确的答案是，在短期内很难确定。这场大流行已经把经济预测和规则手册抛到了九霄云外。欧盟、英国乃至世界其他地区都处于未知的处境。
然而，公平地说，对于许多支持脱欧的人(我怀疑这适用于大多数人)来说，经济总是次要的，远远落后于主权问题。对这些人来说，关于英国财政状况是好是坏的争论无关紧要。现在，人们可以就这种观点的是非对错争论不休，所以我只能为自己说话，但我认为脱欧的主要原因仅仅是主权问题。 我不想英国被归入为联邦的超级大州，议会的地位被降低到教区议会的水平。这也不是关于移民，主流媒体平台上推断脱欧者是种族主义者。任何有头脑的人都可以看看移民数字，发现非欧盟国家的数字(我们完全控制了)往往与欧盟国家的数字相当，而其中大多数人是基督徒和白人！ 阻止这些进入，但允许其他人进入？ 一点也不符合逻辑。

At the moment, it is far too early to say or accurately predict, especially with Covid, how things will pan out, not least because there are far too many variables. For example, will we get an FTA with the EU or not, will those countries who already have an FTA with the EU roll them over for the UK, will the Euro splinter due to the recent German court case, will Italy forgive and forget the lack of EU solidarity over PPE, how long will it take to sign FTA’s with other nations etc, etc
Finally, go through the other answers here to this question and look at just how many have been answered with a bias that will tell you which side of the Brexit debate they were on. Nobody knows for certain is the real answer. No-one.

目前，准确地预测事情如何发展还为时过早，尤其是新冠疫情，因为变量太多了。例如，我们是否会与欧盟签订自由贸易协定，那些已经与欧盟签订自由贸易协定的国家是否会将自由贸易协定移交给英国，欧元是否会因为最近的德国法庭案件而分裂，意大利是否会原谅和忘记欧盟在个人防护装备上缺乏团结，与其他国家签订自由贸易协定需要多长时间等等。
最后，浏览一下这个问题的其他答案，看看有多少答案带有偏见，这将告诉你他们是站在英国脱欧辩论的哪一边。 没有人真正知道切确的答案。没有人。

Rupert Baines human, been ill
Well, Covid is a brilliant excuse for Brexiters who certainly will claim it is impossible and all ill-effects are due to Covid.
And it is true that the effect of Covid will be larger than Brexit.
But Brexit ill-effects will be longer term.
We will be able to see how UK recovers from Covid compared to other countries: Brexit will be a part of that but not the only part, sio it will be hard to separate them in statistics.
But we will have evidence in the experiences and will see the impact of Brexit.
* We will be able to see the tariffs we now have to pay, the red tape that we now have and the 50,000 extra customs officers we have to pay taxes for.
* EWe will see the queues for lorries as they cross border and need to wait for clearance. And the increased costs as a result.

回答2：人类，生病了
新冠疫情是英国脱欧者的绝佳借口，他们肯定会说这是不可能的，所有的不良影响都是新冠疫情造成的。
的确，新冠疫情的影响将大于英国脱欧的影响。
但英国退欧的负面影响将是长期的。
与其他国家相比，我们将能够看到英国是如何从新冠疫情复苏的: 英国脱欧将是其中的一部分，但不是唯一的，很难在统计数据中区分开来。
但我们会在经验中得到证据，并将看到脱欧的影响。
* 我们将能够看到我们现在必须支付的关税，我们现在的繁文缛节，以及我们必须为之纳税的额外5万名海关官员。
* 当货车过境时，会出现车龙等候通关的情况。以及因此而增加的成本。

* When we go on holiday we will notice the annoyance of getting international drivers licenses, thst EHIC cards don’t work and needing to get health insurance. And having to wait longer in “Other passport” lines at airports.
* We will hear about businesses who used to trade with Europe going bust because with tariffs, red tape and out of Single Market there can no longer profitably sell there.
* We can see how many free trade agreements we have, and if there are as good as the ones that the EU has.
* And, in turn, how well British exporters do compared to EU exporters with their FTAs
* We can see what happens to imports, exports and balance of payments.
* And, of course, we will see Blue Passports. Nothing to do with Covid.
None of those are influenced by Covid.

* 当我们去度假的时候，我们在获得国际驾驶执照上会有烦恼，欧洲健康保险卡不能用，需要购买健康保险。在机场的“其他护照”窗口排队，等候时间更长。
* 我们将听到曾经与欧洲进行贸易的企业破产的消息，因为关税、繁文缛节和单一市场已经无法在欧洲销售产品。
* 我们可以看到我们有多少自由贸易协定，是否有像欧盟那样好的协定。
* 反过来，英国出口商与欧盟出口商的自由贸易协定相比表现如何。
* 我们可以看到进出口和国际收支的变化。
* 当然，我们会看到蓝色护照。与新冠疫情无关。
这些都不会受到新冠疫情的影响。

So while it will be hard to point to GDP numbers and separate Brexit from Covid, there will be plenty of other ways to asses the cost of Brexit.
Incidentally, this one reason I do not think there will be an extension. Boris & Cummings want the excuse of “it is covid” for all ill-effects. Never let a crisis go to waste, having an excuse is desirable even if it has a cost in GDP and jobs (other people who lose their jobs).
By the way, most analysis suggests that UK economy as of end 2019 (ie pre Covid) was about 3% smaller than it would have been if we had voted to stay in EU.
3% of GDP = £55billion that we are are ALREADY worse off than we would gave been. The losses going forward, even if hard to calculate, will be bigger.

因此，尽管很难指出国内生产总值数字，并将英国脱欧的影响与新冠疫情分开，但还有很多其它方法可以评估脱欧的成本。
顺便说一句，这是我认为鲍里斯不会有延期的一个原因。鲍里斯和卡明斯想要以“这是新冠疫情的原因”为所有的不良影响找到借口。永远不要让危机白白浪费掉，找个借口也是可取的，即使危机造成国内生产总值和就业(其他失业者)的损失。
顺便说一下，大多数分析表明，截至2019年底，英国经济(即前疫情时期)可能会比如果我们投票留在欧盟的情况小3%左右。
国内生产总值的3% = 5500亿英镑，我们的处境已经比我们想象的更糟糕了。即使很难计算，未来的损失也会更大。

Zsolt Hermann studied Integral, Natural Systems at Bnei Baruch (2020)
This is the problem with evolving into a globally interconnected and interdependent world. One cannot separate local, national issues, events from the general, global ones.
Moreover, the whole global socio-economic system was already collapsing even before Brexit and Covid-19. The Brits wanted to jump off the sinking ship of the EU, which after its initial success started to consume itself, even if its most ardent supporters still refuse to see it. (In a way the Brexit is a positive action as it helps the inevitable disintegration of the EU that was built on false foundations and has become harmful for everybody)

回答5：布内伊·巴鲁克自然系统研究中心(2020)
这是一个全球相互联系和相互依存的世界问题。人们不能把地方性、国家性的问题和事件与全球性的问题分开。
此外，早在英国脱欧和新冠疫情爆发之前，整个全球社会经济体系就已经崩溃了。英国人想要跳下沉没的欧盟之船，在它取得最初的成功之后，就开始自我消耗了，即使最热心的支持者仍然拒绝看到这点。(从某种程度上来说，英国退欧是一种积极的行动，因为它有助于欧盟注定的解体，而欧盟是建立在错误的基础上的，对所有人都有害。)

No self-serving, self-justifying, individual, local, national decisions, actions can be successful in Nature’s fully integrated system, as by that we break the “iron laws” that sustain balance and homeostasis in the system. Especially not ones that are built for the exploitation of others for the benefit, the profit of the few.
Everything we observe in the world today is driven by our inherently selfish, individualistic, nationalistic, and exploitative nature, this is why we all keep sinking into a deepening, unsolvable crisis.
Humanity is an integral part of Nature, we have to follow the same laws our own cells, organs follow in our biological bodies in order to remain healthy whether we want it or not.

在大自然完全整合的系统中，任何自私自利、自我辩护、个人、地方、国家的决定和行动都不可能成功，因为我们打破了维持系统平衡和动态平衡的“铁律”。尤其是那些为了他人的利益和少数人的利益而行动的。
我们今天在世界上观察到的一切都是由我们内在的自私、个人主义、民族主义和剥削的本性驱动的，这就是为什么我们都一直陷入一个不断加深、无法解决的危机。
人类是大自然一个不可分割的组成部分，无论我们想不想，为了保持健康，我们的细胞、器官也必须遵循同样的法则。

James Hutchings
The most determined Leavers are going to manage to find it impossible.
The rest of us will look at the predictions that the Leave campaign made, and ask “would the likelihood of this prediction coming true have been changed by the coronavirus?”
“The UK can have a better deal with the EU outside than in”—no.
“The German car industry will force the EU to give the UK the deal it wants”—if anything, the economic downturn caused by the coronavirus should have made the EU more desperate for a deal.
“It will be quick and easy to make a deal with the EU”—as above.

回答6：
最坚决的脱欧者也会发现这是不可能的。
我们其他人会看着脱欧阵营做出的预测，然后问“这个预测实现的可能性会被新冠疫情改变吗? ”
“与欧盟内部相比，英国在外部可以得到更好的协议”——不会。
“德国汽车业将迫使欧盟向英国提供它想要的协议”——如果说有什么区别的话，那就是新冠疫情引发的经济低迷应该会让欧盟更加渴望达成协议。
“与欧盟达成协议将会迅速且容易”——如上所述。

“The Commonwealth, or at least Canada, Australia and New Zealand, will be eager to enter into a close relationship with the UK on the UK’s terms”—as above.
“Brexit will be the beginning of the end. The Republic of Ireland, probably followed by Italy and Greece, will follow the UK’s lead”—if anything, coronavirus should have made the EU more likely to collapse.
“The UK will be able to make better deals with countries outside the EU than they had as an EU member”—no.
As you can see, the coronavirus would, if anything, have made it more likely that Leaver’s predictions would come true.
None of them have come true. Therefore, Brexit has not worked, and will not work.

“英联邦，或者至少是加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰，将渴望按照英国的条件与英国建立密切关系”——如上所述。
“英国退欧将是结束的开始。爱尔兰共和国(可能紧随其后的是意大利和希腊)将效仿英国的做法。”——如果说有什么不同的话，那就是新冠疫情应该会增加欧盟解体的可能性。
“与欧盟成员国相比，英国将能够与欧盟以外的国家达成更好的协议”——不会。
正如你所看到的，新冠疫情可能会让脱欧者的预测更有可能实现。
然而所有这些都没有实现，所以，英国脱欧没有用，以后也不会有用。

The question is correct in that, when looking at (say) higher unemployment, it will be difficult to know if half of the increase is because of coronavirus and half because of Brexit, or one third one and two thirds the other.
It will be difficult or impossible to say what percentage of the UK’s bad situation is caused by Brexit and what by coronavirus.
But it will be easy to say that the UK’s bad situation is partly caused by Brexit, and partly by coronavirus.
The argument—at least the argument between people who are not blindly promoting an agenda that they themselves probably don’t believe—will be about the exact damage caused by the failure of Brexit, not about whether Brexit failed.
If you jump off a cliff in a dangerous hailstorm and subzero temperatures, it might be impossible to say how much of your resulting condition is caused by the jump, and how much by hail and exposure. But the people begging you not to jump off the cliff are still correct.

这个问题没错，因为当我们看到(比如)更高的失业率时，我们很难知道增长的一半原因是新冠疫情，一半原因是脱欧，还是三分之一和三分之二的原因。
很难或者不可能说出英国糟糕的形势中有多大比例是由英国脱欧造成的，又有多大比例是由新冠疫情造成的。
但是很容易得出，英国的糟糕状况部分是由英国脱欧造成的，部分是由新冠疫情造成的。
这场争论，至少是那些没有盲目宣传自己可能也不相信的议程的人之间的争论——将是关于脱欧失败所造成的确切损害，而不是关于英国退欧是否失败。
如果你在一场危险的冰雹和零度以下的气温中从悬崖上跳下，你或许不可能知道所造成的结果，有多少是由于跳下悬崖造成的，有多少是由于冰雹和寒冷造成的。但那些恳求你不要跳下悬崖的人仍然是正确的。

David Cann former Engineer
They can be separated, but many will make political claims that costs and slowing of growth can be attributed in the way which will suit their particular position. The predictions about the economy made at the run up to the Brexit referendum give an idea of the future range of analyses.
Brexit has ‘worked’, there’s now the option of a trade agreement with the EU being discussed, which may or may not happen. Either way, the advantages of trade agreements are vastly exaggerated except when totalitarian regimes are involved. You have something to sell at the right price and people will buy it, in the EU or elsewhere. If they don’t, they are the losers.
The evidence that Brexit is positive for the economy could be seen as soon as the dire economic projections hysterically touted by Osborne were ignored by the majority of the country, and the rest of the world. It will take a while to settle commerce into the new, free world but any change has a cost at implementation. Socially, it is irrelevant to all but the over excitable.

回答7：前工程师
它们可以区分开，但许多人会提出政治主张，认为成本和增长放缓可以按照适合其特定立场的方式来计算。英国脱欧公投前夕对经济的预测，为未来的分析范围提供了一个思路。
英国已经脱欧了，现在可以选择与欧盟签订贸易协定，但这也许会发生，也许不会发生。不管怎样，除非涉及到极权主义政权，否则贸易协定的优势被极大地夸大了。你有东西以合适的价格出售，人们就会购买，不管是在欧盟还是其他地方。如果他们不这样做，他们就会失败。
只要英国大多数人和世界其他地区忽视了奥斯本疯狂鼓吹的可怕经济预测，英国脱欧对经济的有利证据就会被看到。让商业融入新的、自由的世界需要一段时间，但任何改变都要付出实施的代价。在社会方面，除了那些过度兴奋的人之外，它与所有人都无关。

The virus is a different problem. There is still poor data on the effectiveness of control, whether immunity is obtained post infection or can be induced and if an effective treatment is possible. Socially, the impact may be severe but short term or long term depending on developments in control and treatment, but there will be long term impacts on parts of the community in either case, with job losses and education disrupted.
Economically, the associated costs will also be higher than the costs of implementing Brexit and so will take longer to negate, they will also have an extended impact on business, education and government planning and expenditure.

新冠疫情是一个不同的问题。关于控制的有效性、是否在感染后会获得免疫，或是否可以诱导免疫，以及是否有可能进行有效治疗，仍然缺乏数据。在社会方面，影响可能很严重，但是短期或长期的影响取决于控制和治疗技术的发展，但是在任何情况下，都会对社会的某些部分产生长期的影响，导致失业和教育中断。
在经济上，相关成本也将高于英国退欧的实施成本，因此需要更长的时间来消除影响，它们还将对商业、教育和政府规划与支出产生更深远的影响。

Misha Hoo
We have seen affected industries and companies stop investing and some collapsing already, and Brexit effect was always denied, by claiming ‘other factors’. There is hardly any failure by a specific firm, company, or industry that can be attributed to a sole factor. And so long as it is not only Brexit, it is an open gaol for populists to just keep throw in as many factors as possible to confuse the issue and leave it in doubt. And doubt is all they need, to keep supporters excusing failure to others as well as to themselves. The faithfuls are not going to do the little research of cross referencing and find the common factor, when such an exercise will conclude Brexit is damaging, would they?
Covid-19 is an excuse on different scale, different magnitude. But, it will be a common factor. Every company that compete with others will have to overcome it. The winners and the losers. However, when one straggles any additional challenge can be fatal. This is where Brexit will come in. It will be the final nail. Even in a marathon, 1 sec is all it takes to differentiate between the winner and the loser. A better analogy, than a race is that Brexit will be the extra 100ml of blood loss, after the body lost close to the critical 2 litres.

回答8：
我们已经看到受影响的行业和公司停止投资，一些公司已经崩溃，英国脱欧的影响总是被人们否认，声称是“其他因素”。几乎没有一个特定的企业、公司或行业的失败可以归咎于一个单一的因素。只要不仅是英国脱欧，对于民粹主义者来说，这是一个开放的监狱，他们只是不断地加入尽可能多的因素来混淆这个问题，让问题变得不确定。他们需要的就是怀疑，让支持者为他人和自己的失败找借口。当这种做法得出英国脱欧有害的结论时，忠实的信徒们不会做一些相互参照的研究，然后找出其中的共同因素，是吧？
新冠疫情是一个不同规模、不同程度的借口。但是，这会是一个共同的因素。每一个与其他公司竞争的公司都必须克服它。赢家和输家。然而，当一个人掉队时，遇到任何挑战都可能是致命的。这就是英国脱欧将面对的情况。这将是最后一根钉子。 即使在马拉松比赛中，区分输赢也只需要1秒钟。一个比赛跑更好的比喻是，在身体失血接近关键的两升之后，英国脱欧将导致多流了100毫升的血液。

Earnest Farr
The only way to estimate the impact of Brexit will be to judge how well of UK is relative to EU countries before and after. That’s all we have, and all we’ve ever had. The pandemic doesn’t change that at all.
There’s a similar “but the pandemic…” game arising in the US. It is not an excuse. US elected profoundly incompetent and corrupt people who are causing real harm, and the pandemic has made the situation much worse. My sense is that UK’s mistake in leaving the EU will also end up causing more harm than it would have otherwise. Time will tell, but we cannot extract the pandemic from the equation, nor should we.

回答9：
要评估英国脱欧的影响，唯一的方法就是判断在此之前和之后，英国相对于欧盟国家的表现如何。这就是我们所拥有的，也是我们曾拥有的。疫情根本改变不了这一点。
美国也出现了类似的“但疫情...”游戏。这不是借口。美国选举出的极度无能和腐败的人，正在造成真正的伤害，而疫情已经让情况变得更加糟糕。我认为，英国退出欧盟的错误，最终也会造成更大的伤害。时间会告诉我们答案，但我们不能也不应该从方程式中排除疫情因素。

Saz Dosanjh Trader (2010-present)
This was clear from the outset. Even without Covid there was no way of measuring The Brexit Dividend - another sound bite with nothing behind it.
The world is constantly changing and any time an outcome is not what the politicians said it would be they create a list of things that upset their brilliant plan. Cameron's referendum was an easy victory for Remain until Boris switched sides. Cameron will tell you he did everything right and UKIP was defeated, Boris was campaigning on his leadership not Brexit.
Now, any uptick in GDP, unemployment, etc is claimed by both sides as proving their case and that's how it will be. The key to politics is that it isn't about being right, it's about winning. Boris won the election, therefore he is right, that's democracy. We retain the right to disagree with him on almost everything he does, that's also democracy. Michael Gove blames the EU, everyone else blames Michael Gove. What for? It doesn't matter.
It happened on 31 Jan, it's over, there's nothing to gain by squabbling over a few fish and the location of HSBCs European head office. Move on.

回答10：贸易商(2010年至今)
这从一开始就很清楚。 即使没有新冠疫情，也没有办法衡量英国脱欧的红利——这又是一句毫无根据的话。
世界是不断变化的，任何时候的结果都不是政客们所说的那样，他们会创造一张的清单，列出那些打乱了他们辉煌计划的事情。在鲍里斯改变立场之前，卡梅伦的全民公投对留欧派来说是轻而易举的胜利。卡梅伦会告诉你他所做的一切都是正确的，英国独立党被击败了，鲍里斯的竞选目标是他的领导权，而不是英国脱欧。
现在，任何国内生产总值、失业率等等的上升，双方都宣称证明了他们的观点，就是这样。政治的关键不在于正确与否，而在于成功与否。鲍里斯赢得了选举，所以他是对的，这就是民主。我们保留对他所做的几乎所有事情提出异议的权利，这也是民主。迈克尔 · 戈夫指责欧盟，而其他所有人都指责迈克尔 · 戈夫。为什么要这样？没关系的。
脱欧是发生在1月31日，都过去了，为几条鱼和汇丰银行欧洲总部的地点而争吵没有什么好处。继续前进吧。

Ray Comeau Decades working in analyzing risk and plotting strategy
Thanks for request
Yes it is possible to get a reasonably reliable measurement of Covid-19 vs Brexit.
Brexit has not really happened as yet. Boris’s deadline for trade agreement with the EU is Dec 31st. You would want to measure the impact of Brexit for at least a minimum of 10 years to know if is hurting or benefiting the UK. Any shorter measurement is unreliable.
One thing to remember is that Brexit is guided by a set of legal, regulatory and taxation changes. Any economic changes (from before to after) linked to any of those elements should be allocated to Brexit.
We also have the EU’s impact from Covid-19 as a marker and historically can measure how much the UK track deviates economically with certain EU countries over the prior and next decade. It can measure changes in economic trajectory over time, that largely negates the affect of Covid-19.
There are many proxies and measuring points that can serve as a measuring sticks. All you need is to choose the right data and avoid all political involvement in the process and measurement.

回答11：几十年来致力于风险分析和策划战略
谢邀。
是的，我们有可能得到一个合理可靠的衡量新冠疫情与英国脱欧的标准。
在英国还没有真正脱欧那时。鲍里斯与欧盟签署贸易协定的最后期限是12月31日。你应该至少用10年的时间来衡量英国脱欧的影响，以了解这对英国是有害还是有益。任何较短期的测量都是不可靠的。
需要记住的一点是，英国脱欧是在一系列法律、监管和税收方面指引下进行的。任何与这些要素有关的经济变化(从之前到之后)都应分配到英国脱欧上。
我们也可以把新冠疫情对欧盟的影响作为一个标志，从历史上可以衡量英国在过去和未来十年与某些欧盟国家在经济上的偏离程度。这可以测量随着时间的推移，经济轨迹的变化，这在很大程度上排除了新冠疫情的影响。
有许多指标和测量点可以作为量尺。所有你需要做的，就是选择正确的数据，避免一切政治参与过程和测量。