As a free market supporter it is horrifying that protectionist sentiments reign supreme in the UK. Hopefully this does not foreshadow the US congressional and presidential elections in November.
It's actually a good thing for Free Market, since the UK will now be able to define what rules they want to play with, instead of having to rely on EU's bureaucrats.
For their internal markets maybe, but the EU is half of their exports. So either they stop exporting, or they follow the rules of the EU without having a say in them.
There are some good arguments for leaving, but this isn't one of them, IMO.
To be frank the EU was built on power centralization and socialism as key principles. It's been what, 15 years+ since the Eurozone and the Economy is still doing as bad as before, if not worse for most member states. Hardly a success model by ANY measure.
How does anyone expect growth in a developed country? You can't free market your way out of it without sacrificing your social obligations and protections.
What is success? High YOY GDP growth? Or quality of life? Look to America (my country) with very limited worker protections, almost no social safety nets, extremely high income and wealthy inequality; we still only eek out only ~2% GDP growth, and that's on the backs of the poor.
There are many measures of success, and if you want to talk about quality of life, by all means look at how bad the discontentment with the EU has been growing over the years, among all member states. Keeping everyone in the EU is not sustainable.
I'm not playing politics, but in my take any movement that distances you from a remote central power is positive in the end. Freedom should have been the basis for the EU, not Socialism. We all know where it's headed now.
Freedom is an investment. Of course the UK will be worse in short run, and I'm sure EU members will poit fingers and say "we told you so!". But in the long run they will be better off than the rest of Europe, where structural changes have proven impossible. Such decisions take dozens of years to give fruit.
GDP's not perfect, but that should hint at a number of things. Look also at Organic Inflation, and Debt Ratio. Unless the UK governments to come take much worse decisions than the EU bureaucrats, it should not be too difficult to do better.
Your economy can boom with all the citizens suffering. For example, if average wages go down, and the rich get richer, the overall economy grows, but is of little consequence to most people.
When countries grow powerful, they begin to forget about the "socio" part of socioeconomics, and just look at dollars.
I have yet to see any data that the Brexit is a net positive for the economical wellbeing of the British people. That is not what I'd define as "Enlightened".
No one has any data one way or the other, and will not for at least ten years. The UK entered uncharted territory. Your guess regarding what the future holds is about as good as anyone's, including those of the experts.
People are sick of biased crap and vague economic theory being touted as data telling them how good immigration and free trade is for them, while in their own lives only seeing things getting worse.
Because emotions aren't an objective measure of quality of life? Yeah! Success! We're out of the EU! Will they still be thrilled when trade dwindles and their social safety nets are cut?
You can educate someone. You can't fix willful ignorance.
> Gotta hand it to stupid people. They may not understand nuance, secondary effects, or the long term, but dammit, they know how to vote.
Isn't "objective quality of life" a semantic contradiction? Whose lives are you talking about, and who is a better judge of a person's quality of life than that very person?
E? Do you know what welfare does UK has? They are good with their socialism. It's not why they are leaving. And EU is much more than money, look at history of EU and look in which part of the history there was no wars in EU.
> which part of the history there was no wars in EU.
In case you have a short memory, before the EU there was the League of Nations between WW1 and WW2, to ensure wars would never happen again in Europe (and elsewhere). It did not work out too well.
The fact that we did not get any war in Europe after WW2 has really nothing to do with the EU being there or not. If anything, war did not break out because we were too busy preventing the Cold War from exploding in Europe and having Russia invade or coup every other country, like they did in the whole Eastern part of Europe.
They worked "preventing wars through collective security and disarmament and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration" which do not work look at UN and how many wars we still have. Democratic governments, rule of law and the most important: same values and connected markets and economies, euro zone - this is what prevented wars not some League of Nations with their dead agreements. Cold War ended what is keeping them busy from war now ?
> same values and connected markets and economies, euro zone
Same values, I beg to differ. The values of a Greek and of a German could be completely different as far as you know. Connected Markets? The EU has become a tariff-heavy zone, the opposite of a Free Market - look at how many trade agreements we have to regulate and impeach free markets. And the TPP, with the blessing of most EU members (in secret).
There's no recipe to avoid war, but political stability is certainly correlated with economic prosperity. The EU is not making this happen, so we should see it slowly desintegrate.
> Same values, I beg to differ. The values of a Greek and of a German could be completely different as far as you know.
Depend which values you are talking about but Greek signed European Convention on Human Rights, there is a LOT of values written there if you ask me which those countries you mention share.
> Connected Markets? The EU has become a tariff-heavy zone, the opposite of a Free Market - look at how many trade agreements we have to regulate and impeach free markets.
It's not true for most products, but some indeed are regulated because if you have 28 different countries you need to control some of the segments of markets or your country/other countries will suffer, that's why you have for example limits for milk producing etc. Show my any organization exactly like EU which doesn't regulate their common market.
> There's no recipe to avoid war
For sure there is no 100% certain recipe to avoid war but nothing was created closer to that recipe than EU. I live in country that was transformed from communism to democracy in 1989, trust me it can be a lot worse than it's now in EU, you can't imagine.
Such utter nonsense. How on earth is the EU a tariff heavy zone? And to say with such confidence the EU had no part to play in preventing further wars is ridiculous.
Correlation is not causation.
The fact no wars between EU members happened (yet) during the existence of the EU is note necessarily caused by the existence or the very nature of the EU.
Also given the recent proceedings in the course of the EU all member countries are better off with the whole house of cards collapsing. We can always build a new alliance, but this USSR style direction is not the least promising.
Take a look at the Greek, what a success the EU was for them. Take a look at the handling of the Greek dept problem, how well the EU reagated to that. Take a look at the migrant crisis: the western EU members criticized Hungary for defending its borders, which it is obliged to by the schengen treaty. The leaders did not play by the rules they have set, yet they talk about more centralization should do the trick.
The European Council is not elected by the people, and is not accountable. Also does not show ability to control this imbecile of a superpower.
This EU must die for its architectural problems. Just as the USSR had to die. I beleive this will also happen without violence, as there is no common military force under the control of the "leaders".
I also beleive, that the European people, even those voting leave, have a wish to be united. But maybe some beleive we are first British, and second European, and they do not wish to sacrafice their local values for some abstract European or global values. Yet they do not feel bad about the other Europeans.
Europe has longer, and different history than the USA, and most importantly, though often forgotten, most European nations have made huge saccrifices for their freedom, for their very existence as a nation.
In short, to save the EU: "everything must change so that everything can stay the same"
Look at Greek? You know why greeks were in situation in which they ended? Because this was their own fault, they had 18 gardeners employed in one of their local government building on payroll but only one was needed. They paid all government employees bonus for coming to work on time, bonus for washing hands, bonus for being all day in work. Then they made "creative books" which made this disaster from the eyes of others.
> The European Council is not elected by the people, and is not accountable.
European Council is not elected by people? Please read more about EU before claiming such things which are not true - "The European Council is the institution of the European Union (EU) that comprises the heads of state or government of the member states, along with President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission."
The Greek debt problem was not handled by the EU. The Greek have their part in that problem, but the EU is just as responsible, for letting the situation get there, and also for forcing the Euro and integration in a pace faster than organically happening.
The greek economy and books were audited by EU agencies.
If a bug slips through reviews and tests in a software project, than the bug is the responsibility of the author? I think only partly, actually many are involved, and the process is the main problem usually.
> European Council is not elected by people?
True, I have mistaken it for the European Commission.
You still write things that are not true. Using your analogy what happened is that they didn't gave them code with bug they gave them code to review that they didn't even use.
The worldwide economy isn't doing very well; it's not just the EU. Is there any evidence that leaving the EU will help this situation? I think there are a lot of people who agree with you, but this whole thing seems too poorly planned and justified to really understand the impact. People are voting based on how they feel instead of what will actually have the best outcome.
Well there's ample evidence that the EU is not doing any better than the rest of the world, and certainly worse that many developing countries and even worse than non-EU developed nations. There's litterally no data to support that the EU was a good thing on an economic point of view.
Very true, unfortunately, pooling money between a few economically well developed countries and quite a few economically bunk countries does not work well for those whose money was actually worth something in the first place.
Compared to just prior to joining the EU, the pound is down nearly 100%, since they were at about 2.50 USD the year they joined and that was prior to massive inflation.
I think the bigger picture is eluding some people in the face of shiny doomsday articles.
With Germany you always have to take the re-unification into account. The D-Mark wasn't bad before 1989 and the lift of the economy may as well being the East doing better rather than Euro effects.
I'm sorry to directly contradict you, but that's just factually untrue.
The EU was built on an explicit policy of focus on small treaties, and avoiding creating transnational institutions. This was specifically to ensure that member states kept as much sovereignty as possible. It's why even the largest EU institutions are generally incomplete and only operate with the ongoing cooperation of all the member states. Hence monetary union without fiscal union. Hence the lack of police and military cooperation. Hence no central border or immigration control. These are key functions of government, which the EU has never been able to centralize because of the practice of "small steps."
Its the way the US was supposed to work, only with even less power in the federal government. European federalism is free trade attached to a foreign policy body and a supranational court.
The EU is more than 50 years old, not 15. it was established as a free trade zone first, to "make war unthinkable and materially impossible" - in 1958. That's the core of the EU, and it works very well for the members by every material measure. I don't know what makes you think otherwise. The recession has created a growing movement of Euroskepticism, but that's associated with the extreme political right wing, and remains a minority - outside of Britain, it seems.
Is populism supposed to be bad? I just looked up the definition to make sure and it's basically the principle that ordinary people should have control over government rather than political insiders and wealthy elite. That sounds like democracy to me. Is there an aspect I'm missing?
It is supposed to, if you add fear mongering to it. Dictators usually believe in it, that's why they try to control every news outlet or public space there is and spread their propaganda
For me, the downside of populism is that the political insiders and wealthy elite just so happen to be the people who actually understand how economies and governments and international agreements work.
The common man may think he knows everything, but he really doesn't.
That and the populist vote doesn't vote rationally. They vote emotionally. This puts you in a state where charismatic leaders will appeal to and exploit emotional triggers in people.
Historical evidence suggests that such leaders tend to move towards to political extremes.
Populism is a political position which holds that the virtuous citizens are being mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. The elites are depicted as trampling in illegitimate fashion upon the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people.
The notion itself is quite subjective of course, but it is definitely very different from "democracy".
It is just as bad as oligarchy if left unchecked. There is such a thing as a tyranny of the majority. Or if you want to just look at the politics, if you tick off the wealthy elite or make it too difficult to do business, you end up with less control over things that matter since you're either poor because all the business you ticked off went somewhere else, or basically a colony state as the important decisions are made elsewhere.
The only reason why it seems more "democratic" is because for most of human history, the wealthy elite had way to much power compared to everyone else.
When you describe it this way, it sounds great. In practice populists are frowned up because they end up telling people nice things they want to hear, but aren't true or are appealing to their more basic instincts.
Imo it goes down to what your message is - both Trump ans Sanders are populists.
Populism rewards short-term thinking at the expense of long-term results, because the common person isn't always aware of the deeper issues in a given field. Put another way, would expect the average person in the street to have an informed opinion on the details of [banking|medical|energy|transport|agriculture] industries?
We already know how easy it is for yellow journalism to sway popular opinion; expecting direct democracy to be able to deal with the subtle nuances of governing a millions-strong society is nice in theory, but simply isn't practical.
It is bad because it never ends up being the case that the populist leader just does what the people want. The populist leader is always an opportunist. I cite pretty much ever single case in history as backup of my claim.
Democracy involves thinking about the citizens, both short term and long term.
Populism is just catering to the short term needs, even basic ones, just to get attention/votes/support.
Populist example from Romania: get an IMF loan in order to increase pensions. Text-book example of shooting yourself in the foot long term, but a very popular action among pensioners, which are a large voting demographic.
Yes populism is bad. That is what has destroy South America with people like Hugo Chavez e.g. Populism is about shameless pandering to the emotions of the masses, rather than having a grown up talk about the nuances of real life and real politics.
It's ironic to me that a site where people extol the virtues of consistent culture at startups is so down on people voting to free themselves from a body politic they don't believe shares their values.
I wonder how many people would change their mind now because of this. If the pound keeps tanking, perhaps the market will end up forcing a bremain. Once again the financial markets behaving like a psycho bitch. Do you remember that one girlfriend that you knew was a bad idea but you just couldn't help yourself?
Well, that rate also puts a floor under a lot of domestic manufacturing (see how it has worked for China?), so a little bit more complicated that "gee, Miami is so much more expensive now."
Not only manufacturing. It will become effectively cheaper to hire people in the UK from outside.
We had a (too) strong Swiss franc for years now, and it's been a bane for businesses/economy.
sadly it's also become much more difficult to hire people from outside. also, isn't more immigration the opposite of what the leave campaign voted for?
Yes, it is. If you're a manufacturing country. And the UK hasn't been one for quite a while now, most industry has moved out to other countries (former Soviet satellites and Asia).
80% of the cars made in exit-voting Sunderland are there for export to the EU. They will e subject to import barriers.
Do you imagine Nissan will be chanting "Rule Britannia" and eating that loss, or do you imagine they'll be moving the bulk of their manufacturing capacity to one of the Eastern European countries that already has a solid car making capability?
The thing to remember about currencies is that they don't move under the guidance of some magical force. Currency markets are literally people converting from one currency to another 24/7. Fear and uncertainty, whether warranted or not, is what rules the market, and makes it ripe for speculation. I haven't done Forex in quite some time but if I were, you bet your ass I would've been out there shorting the GBP like no tomorrow as the poll results started inching towards "leave" because of all the doom and gloom scenarios that have been floated about endlessly -- it logically follows that other people would be doing the exact same thing.
Remember, this won't even take effect for another two years or so. Literally nothing about UK or the GBP has fundamentally changed as of this moment, and yet the currency has been shorted as if the UK has simply snapped its fingers and is, as of this moment, no longer in the EU.
What you'll see in the coming days is an upward movement. Shorts are going to take their profits, which is going result in GBP buy orders, which is going to squeeze shorts, which will lead to more GBP buy orders. Will the GBP go back to its value as of yesterday? No. But it won't remain down 10% either. Bank on it.
It's hard to say. It could make Britain turn inward for labour. With the lost of less expensive external labour, the local market could rise as wages track demand. At the same time Britain may be loosing a lot of money soon. This could drive down demand since the EU will probably look to exclude the UK from contracts as a punitive measure, even if it's just a subconscious thing.
You might also see tech leave the country. Selling in the EU will be more costly. As a result, companies might start moving out or collapsing. Their former employees would then leave too.
It likely means less immigrants coming in to do tech work in the UK, but there would still be huge incentives to allow some form of immigration since the UK wants to be able to have its citizens get work abroad. If they go to a more Australian model, likely alot tech work would be under a protected class of worker that would be allowed to establish some kind of residency.
Well, the UK has always been a country that I had in view when thinking about working abroad. I think I can cross that off my list now. On the other hand, there is Ireland, wich I think will get a boom of tech companies migrating from the UK. And there is the possibility of an independent Scotland in the near future.
I heard from Adobe that they will close their headquarter near London and move to their main operation to the Paris office. The UK branch essentially becomes a sales office, nothing more.
Can I ask why? The public spoke in completely free and democratic manner, against everything so called "experts" said. I thought this was a staple of being British?
Not the OP, but as someone born in Britain, raised in Switzerland and now living in the US, I concur.
At least in my case think of it as my identity being some mix of Europe-in-general, Britain-somewhat, Switzerland-somewhat. Now Britain says "we're not Europe" (to horribly over-simplify). That doesn't make me think "oh well, now I'm less European", instead it makes me thing "oh well, now I'm less British".
>That doesn't make me think "oh well, now I'm less European", instead it makes me thing "oh well, now I'm less British".
I was born here and I've lived in England my whole life, but that's exactly how I feel.
I've always identified as both British and European. Now that the UK has decided to isolate itself from Europe it hasn't made me feel less European it's made me feel less British.
Recent history has just outlined to me how massive the gulf is between my own politics and philosophies are to the rest of the country.
Britain is right-wing, xenophobic, corrupt and utterly in the service of financial elites who direct everyones attention toward Johnny Foreigner in order to hide their own self-serving agendas.
Plus we're well on the way to becoming a police state now that we face a future without the tempering hand of the EU on our thoroughly right-wing, demagogue politicians.
I need to start seriously considering moving somewhere else because I have very little patience for the path this country is on.
I diddnt down-vote you as I dont have that power, however generalisations about groups of people based on country of origin, race, gender, financial status, whatever is a large part of what caused this exit, if you read your post you are falling into that same trap.
My retired parents voted out not because they are right-wing or xenophobic (their son is a New Zealander now with an Asian Wife) but because they read right wing media (which they do not believe is right-wing) and believe the hype of the politicians and journalists. When they wake up tomorrow it is not going to magically be the UK of the 1960's they remember and the journalists and politicians will find someone else to blame.
Trump is doing the exact same in America and politicians from the right and left wing are doing it in other countries too. Generalisations are what gets politicians off, the fact generalisations also cause conflict is neither here nor there to them so long as they get power.
Can't speak for OP but I'm British born and lived here all my life. I'm a supporter of the UK remaining in the EU. I lived under a delusion that most of my fellow countrymen were at heart sensible and forward looking, even if they grumble sometimes. Now it turns out that 52% of them are in fact short-sighted, xenophobic idiots. If that is what being British is, than I don't feel British.
Cultural self hatred is common in the UK, especially in the liberal and middle classes, its part of the reason the left didn't mount a strong defense against the populism of the Brexiteers.
I agree with this. There has to be some balance - it is not like EU membership lifts the economies that enter it, so it doesn't seem like it should be so bad to leave the EU. I also expect people to overstate the effects - like currency devaluing is both good and bad for the UK while people are acting like it is some kind of disaster. Stock markets also seem to largely be decoupled from the real economies these days.
Much of the UK gets a huge boost from the EU. Places like the north and midlands get massive amounts of money pumped in from renewal and development funds.
Truth is, the EU is not a perfect solution. Even if Europe were to become a "single nation" (like the United States) that wouldn't mean all parts of the Union would have the same economic development. Just look at the stark differences between places like New York, Massachusetts or California vs. Missouri and Luisiana.
Prima facie it's impossible to predict if the UK will be as severely affected as the Remain camp wants to paint it. Time will tell. If anything, I'm curious about all this (if painfully aware that it might affect the life of millions of people for the worst.)
"Oh, really? Take a look at Polish GDP growth before Poland entered the EU. You make it sound like it's so simple. The simple fact is that the greatest beneficiary of the EU is Germany because Germany is an export driven market. It needs the free trade zone to sell its products and to access cheap labor in the East on favorable terms. The idea that Germany is the generous benefactor of these countries is absurd. The German economy profits enormously from it. Furthermore, free trade benefits countries who are already rich far more than they benefit those that aren't. The US became an economic power not because of free trade but because of protectionism that shielded its economy from an influx of cheap products from wealthier countries and allowing it to develop (the US is to this day one of the most protectionist countries in the world). The economic power of a country isn't measured by the access consumers have to products. It's measured by its economic base. If Poles have access to every product in the EU at British, French, and German supermarkets while remaining a giant service center for Germany, then it is not a country with a strong economy. It is an annex. It also transfers jobs out of the country which is why resentment against the EU is seen across Europe. The EU, in its current crypto-imperialist form, is dead.
Because Britain had access to all the good things about the EU (common market, EU agencies located in the UK, free movement) without some of the worst (common currency). 44% of British exports are to the EU. A significant reason for Foreign investment in the UK is because companies have seen it as a convenient way to sell in Europe (helps that it's the only English speaking nation in the common market).
And they voluntarily gave all that away. And they've simultaneously made a lot of enemies amongst their largest trading partner and closest neighbors.
I simply don't see how this works well for the UK (or should we say England, since the possibilities of Scotland breaking away have also risen dramatically).
Free movement is awful for the working class and great for the elites, which is the main reason for brexit happening. We want control over our borders and control over our laws.
I'm talking about the British citizens, no doubt free movement is great for the EU migrants because Britain is such a great country, but the mass influx of low skilled labour brings down wages and quality of life.
It's really a minor factor compared to lack of investment due to austerity. This is the frustrating aspect of it, that the working class brexitors have been blaming immigration for many issues and the remain campaign have failed to make it clear that austerity is a far bigger contributor.
You may have failed to notice the British "mass influx of low skilled labour" in Europe. The uneducated immigrants are not only from the PIGS countries or from Eastern Europe. It turns out some are British too! But the Brits in the UK often forget that. Easier to see the straw in the eyes of others.
Should Spain and France implement a points & qualifications visa system for all those Brits in the South? After all, many are working in bars, estate agencies, construction, some even shock, shock are petty criminals [1] or lead criminal organizations [2].
What will the UK do if the EU sends back half a million Brits (that's like a new Manchester landing all of a sudden!).
I'm just trying to give a different perspective, but I'm completely in favour of more freedom of movement. I'm very happy to have more diversity in my countries (I have two European nationalities, have lived in 5 EU countries and feel like a world citizen with a European background).
I really hope we find a new solution of understanding and cooperation.
Despite what most people are claiming on social media and even here, the fact is no one actually knows what is going to happen. Even Nigel Farage, the leader behind the "Brexit" movement, has said he has "absolutely no idea what will happen..."
It is, it usually seems to be with referendums like this. I remember a similar situation with the Quebec referendum of 95. A lot of unresolved questions, vague ideas on how to essentially keep certain things the same and change others but no concrete plan. Brexit is obviously way worse given the global impact. It will take at least decades to fully resolve.
Noone knows really, it all comes down on how the EU is going to handle the Brexit itself. If EU shows stability after Brexit the international markets are going to be dropping but not as much, and the UK market is going to have issues. On the other hand if other members of the EU decide to go UK's way then the international markets are going to have big issues. But its all speculation for now, and when the priminister of the UK triggers article 50 the UK is going to enter nagotiations for 2 years. That is going to bring the markets up and down everytime a part of a deal is not successful or succesful, so ye noone can actual say what the implications will be. There will definitely be some short crisis in the UK and EU.
What does it mean? The Powers That Be have prognosticated every manner of doom should Brexit succeed. Despite that fear mongering, the threats and demands of all major political parties, many corporations and foreign leaders, the brave people of the UK have asserted their sovereignty. Over 72% of the entire electorate voted and produced a clear majority. That is monumental.
What happens next? Next is the shaming; the usual suspects will condemn the UK as an island full of racists. The political class will start trying to figure out how to achieve "Brexit-in-name-only." The BBC will come up with a story template they'll reuse annually telling how -- if they had it to do again -- a majority would vote stay. What happens next is the elites will figure out how to work around their subjects and nullify undesirable electoral outcomes, as they always do.
Is Scotland going to be exiting the UK next? Guess we'll see in a few years.
Hard to know what will happen here, but I suspect once the UK (or what's left of it) signs a trade deal with the EU, they'll get the same deal as Norway - all the compliance with EU regulations, with none of the say. I suppose people may be happy with that deal, as long as they can get to say they're "free".
I'm hoping this somehow leave the EU in better shape, perhaps more cohesive, perhaps reforming in ways to minimize chances of anyone else leaving. As a Bulgarian (not living in Europe) this makes me somewhat bitter - seems Englishmen can't accept belonging to a club we also belong to.
Norway and Switzerland pay for that deals to EU fund. Funny thing is that if UK will get the same deal which i highly doubt (not as good as others after leaving - EU leaders already said that you can't have cake and eat cake) they will pay only 8% less than they pay as members of EU now.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted. Even though they semi-recently voted to stay in the UK, they were by far the highest area to vote "Remain" - 95.91%
My post was not bringing much to the discussion - I edited it to clarify my thinking. As British as the people of Gibraltar may feel, I don't think their patriotism will prevail over the prospect of being stuck from the main landmass by a border garded by a revengeful EU... Revengeful being the operative word, since there was always a crossing since the UK is not part of Schengen; but at least they were part of the EU.
I don't know if you have ever been to Gibraltar, but I have friends who have worked there, and the line that separates it from Spain is (always have been) really porous. If customs are implemented again it will just going back to the really good old days of smuggling.
I have no doubt things will keep chugging along, but the time and energy wasted through customs for the commuter working in Spain would be a major pain.
I worked there. The lines sometimes took hours. Saw cars dismantled trying to find drugs/tobbaco. I left after 5 months as I couldn't stand the border anymore. Sure, if you need a visa, things will be harder, but really doubt the queues will be much worse since Spanish border control most of the days are spiteful as hell
It's too early to even say that. No-one has ever left the EU before, there aren't even any rules drawn up. Absolutely possible that they could include the ability for independent regions to retain membership.
Yes there are, it's Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Scotland, Gibraltar, or whatever other country/region, will be considered as new applications for EU membership as the previous application was by a "different" country. This was reiterated by the EU during the Scottish referendum, this is no different.
The EU is chock full of exceptions and asterisks and different arrangements for different territories. It is completely possible that in the withdrawal negotiations Gibraltar, for instance, could end up with some kind of unique status.
Any application to the EU can be vetoed by any member state. In the case of Gibraltar, given it is seen as tax heaven and it is a well-known smuggling hotspot, I really doubt Spain will accept it as an EU member. IMHO, Gibraltar is going to really suffer from Brexit.
Technically, this is no different. However, in practice I can understand if EU people had a motive to try to keep member countries in one piece (Catalonia is next in line). And if EU now decides to take its gloves off, it can "easily"[1] tell that Scotland or any other part of UK is very welcome to stay in EU if they so wish. It would be interesting times on the British side of the negotiation table once Scotland, Wales, North Ireland and City of London decide to split from UK and into EU...
[1] I am no lawyer nor politician, I have no idea how easy this would be from any practical point of view
the thought of the vast majority of EU countries approving EU membership for an independent Scotland and Spain vetoing it because of implications for its internal politics is an interesting one I hadn't thought of...
Venice want to become a city-state republic again, and the Italian islands also made moves about wanting independence.
Italy is very aware of this, and in the past last time someone tried a independence stunt (some guy built a artificial island and declared independence) Italy bombed the shit out it.
Italian and Spanish "estabilishment" politicians are probably panicking now, since independence movements might consider UK leaving the EU, and the potential for Scotland to leave UK, "inspiration" to make their own moves.
Wales is little England†, the Welsh voted overwhelmingly to leave. Check the stats again. You're right Scotland and Northern Ireland though. Also the City of London is the small Square Mile at the heart of London geographic area where all the finance happens, that big round thing roughly coinciding with the M25 orbital motorway is called Greater London or just London! :)
† This is not meant as a nationalist slur, or a conflation of identities - it is meant in terms of political sentiments and voting patterns. Scotland and Northern Ireland are far more devolved.
I think they would. From their point of view it would be an improvement over the current state of affairs. As the border controls would go down. (Even though I think that would be a remote possibility.)
I've driven past Gibraltar. My initial intention was to go visit, but they have a significant border. The UK is outside of the Schengen area, so Gibraltar is there checking passports just like they will be in a few years when out of the EU.
Ooh, good point. Gibraltar is a very interesting case. As far as I understand, they really strongly want to stay in the UK and not join Spain, but they also really strongly want to stay in the EU, presumably because of Spain.
That's a tough one. No idea how that will turn out. In my mind, I now see lots of bits and pieces of the UK becoming parts of Scotland.
This may revitalize Scottish independence, since one of the arguments to keep Scotland in the UK was spreading uncertainty about Scotland's ability to stay in the EU if it left the UK.
This part has REALLY irritated me over last few weeks. The "ooh you know, EU membership isn't guaranteed..." scaremongering is particularly grating now that we are guaranteed to be out now.
There's no hard and fast rule (in fact the last vote was a little controversial; some claimed that it wouldn't be binding on the UK as a whole). At the time people were saying at least 5 years and more like 10 until a new vote.
The SNP's absolute dominance slipped a little in the last Scottish election, making a quick followup referendum less likely. But this new result will put it right back on the agenda.
In fairness to the SNP they increased their number of votes. It's a quirk of the voting system that their seat share decreased.
If there is a second vote I imagine the tone will be a lot less positive. Last time it was all about being a small, wealthy nation with the desire to stand up and make its own name in the world. This time, the previously small but poisonous anti-English voices in the campaign will be emboldened. It will be a vote to leave in panic rather than in confidence.
Overall as a staunch supporter of Scottish independence this is nowhere close to what I want to see.
I have the same fear. The previous campaign were very clear and consistent with a sort of "separate but best friends" view on how they'd like to see the Scotland/UK relationship. I suspect it'll be a little more hostile this time round
The First Minister did make sure to point out today that they can still be friends with England, Wales and Northern Ireland if the indyref2 succeeds and Scotland exits the UK, though. So the SNP isn't being openly hostile yet, even if they are obviously confrontational.
I think that the EU will see the UK leave as a slap. So it will definitely slap back, especially Germany. I think with this result UK gave the ok to Germany to actually push UK's economy into a devaluation and then e.g Berlin can become the new London of Europe.
I don't think the UK is going to get the same deal as Norway or Switzerland especially since the UK doesn't want to get involved in the free movement.
I heard there are a lot of tech companies that already bought land in Ireland as a hedge against the Brexit, and that's where a lot of the tech jobs are going to be going. (Albeit that's only one industry, and I doubt that the financial industry would go in the same direction.)
They already have low paid customer service and ops in Ireland. They won't get engineers to move to there. Like finance guys and the promise of tax free living in Dubai - at the end of the day they don't twant o be in a backwater.
Dublin is by no means a 'backwater' - Google and Facebook's EU headquarters both sit in Dublin, as well as large outposts of a number of global financial institutions. There's a lot going on in Dublin, not to speak of its history, accessibility, and affordability compared to the canonical 'tech hubs'.
Let's not forget that there are many engineers who don't live in the Bay Area, NYC or London, for whom Dublin may be quite attractive. And while it may not be on the level of those three regions, it has a lot going for it in its' own right.
Whatever "formally" means, many US companies (Facebook and Microsoft are the best known examples) attribute their european earning to Ireland in order to enjoy a low tax bracket.
They do need the HQ for tax reasons but they wouldn't need to hire that many people (more than in London for example). They do that because they want to.
I work in IT in Dublin. There is a growing IT sector, but the larger companies here are a lot of support and infrastructure (Goog Amz etc).
Not saying there aren't plenty IT jobs, but you can't look at size/investment alone without looking at what kind of roles are actually there.
I'd also note that while companies get plenty tax breaks, actual income-tax is pretty high. Accommodation is pretty pricey near the centre too, though not as bad as London.
Apple's EU headquarters is based in Cork comprising some engineering as well as support, financials.
Dublin in particular is incredibly dynamic right now. And it's a lot better than where most London tech companies are e.g. Canary Wharf, Stockley Park etc.
It's not about getting revenge, more so about making an example out of the UK to send a clear signal to other countries where nationalist anti-EU movements [1] are on the rise. If the UK does not suffer serious consequences, other countries might get some ideas about maybe doing the same.
This is the dilemma, I don't think the EU does want the UK to suffer just out of spite, but they can't give them a generous deal considering EU stability.
By the way: Berlin and London Stock Exchange markets want to merge, the UK leaving the EU is more of a problem in that regard http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-16/lse-agrees... (though they said they want the deal to go along no matter the vote)
[1] Front national (FN) in France, Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) in Germany, Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) (Party for Freedom) in Netherlands, nationalist movements in Poland, Hungary, ... Election in Spain might also not turn out to result in a EU-friendly government... (seriously could go on...)
I don't think they threatened, they warned, they chose their words wisely and it's not just a problem for the UK, but also for Europe. It's normal that when you leave a single market of that size, basically abandon established trade agreements with such an important partner, that the consequences are severe.
That being said it's not so much about "unfair consequences" or "punishment" directly, it's more about "not giving special treatment", ... "out means out", interesting times ahead.
No they threatened. Obama threatened the UK of no trade deal. France threatened to flood eurotunnel with migrants. Germany threatened of no trade agreement. People, and Brits in particular, always respond to threats the same way: "fuck you!"
They don't have one, and they assumed they would get one. Why? Obama just clarified: you do not have it, and will not get it. Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because?
> Germany threatened of no trade agreement.
Same here
> France threatened to flood eurotunnel with migrants
France has a huge refugee camp in the border with the UK, which France is keeping out of the UK just because of the agreements that the UK has with the EU. Why should now France carry the cost of keeping those immigrants out of the UK? They obviously want to go to the UK, so let them.
Do you really think that the leaving the EU has no consequence? It is not punishment, it is just voluntarily deciding to renounce the benefits of a club.
When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
We shall see how these threats pan out. To me, they look like desperate attempts to prop up a failing institution, rather than serious statements of policy.
> Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because?
Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything.
> When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
> Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything.
You'll keep your special relationship. You'll simply not get a new trade agreement. There is already one with the EU, which you are leaving. You are also getting out of all the rest of the EU agreements.
But don't worry: maybe you get a trade agreement with the US after all: you are more than welcome to start negotiating dupes (or improved versions) for the agreements than you consider interesting, but it does not follow that your potential partners must agree, not even that they have any interest whatsoever in negotiating with you, which is what you are implying. Maybe they have, maybe not. For starters, a new agreement is definitely extra work, which some may just not want, or maybe even not be in a position to dedicate resources to.
You are now free to fight for your interests. The rest too.
> Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
The analogy applies at the tennis club level or the galactic empire level: out of a club is out of a club. It is not "out of the bad things but keeping the good things". The club got you those good things. Now go fight for them on your own. Hey, maybe you get an even better deal!
Actually, the migrant camp agreement is between UK and France, not UK and EU. (Hard to find the reference now since 90% of the results are related to brexit when you search and I don't have much time)
I know about that, which sorta validates the gp post. This isn't a EU thing but UK-France thing which shouldn't matter if the UK is or is not in the EU and France threaten to cancel the agreement if the Leave campaign wins.
It seems it matters. It seems that having a hugely conflicting refugee camp in your territory is something you are prepared to do for a close ally, but nothing you will risk for a comercial partner.
The EU was more than a market for the UK. You'll eventually see that.
How many other countries police their egress borders though? When I cross a country line, I fully expect to be greeted by the border guards of the country I'm entering, not the one I just left.
Exactly. That was a favour France was doing the UK as a sign of good will, internally risking huge amounts of political capital. It seems leaving the EU will reduce the amount of good will France is ready to spend for Britain.
The problem here is that most talking heads are demagogues piggybacking on popular sentiment and ignorance, unfortunately.
The British people didn't say "fuck you", they said "we don't really know what we want". I mean, 52-48 is not insignificant, but it's also not a "clear, strong message" for leaving - it's a message from a divided nation who is quite literally not sure what it wants. Just sit in a restaurant tonight and look around - whatever your opinion, half of the customers agree with you.
The issues at hand are very complex and quite simply too much so for most voters to even get an idea of what's at stake. As with any such referendum, the overwhelming majority of the votes are cast emotionally. You cannot get such a massive amount of people to think through the implications rationally - they go with their gut.
So again, the message here is "we have no idea what we really want", not "fuck you".
Being unsure would favour the statu quo. The statu quo is not what won. You have 52% who wanted to change the statu quo, and the 48% who would be divided between unsure and in favor of the EU.
Yes, to an extent. 52-48 is quite too close to mean anything other than "the Leave vote won". A lot of voters could have changed their minds either way had the vote been a week ago, tomorrow morning, or in a month.
It seems that the vote is actually not binding. The parliament might still decide to stay in. While this would be another hit against the trust in democracy, I wouldn't bet GB is actually leaving. Very similar to Switzerland and the "foreigners out" vote.
Which talking head demagogues - the ones scaremongering in support of Remain, or the ones favoring Leave?
And are you actually saying that such important decisions shouldn't be left up to voters? If so, then should choosing leaders be left up to voters?
It seems pretty clear that many (not all) of those who voted Leave were in fact telling the EU and the scaremongering demagogues for Remain, "Fuck you." And some other portion (the sets probably overlap) were saying something like, "This EU thing isn't working out like you said it would, so we want out." Not, "I don't know what I want."
I think the population has a right to vote. I just don't think most people are fit to vote on every particular issue. It's en emotional vote and it could have swung one way or the other. Interesting times!
"I mean, 52-48 is not insignificant, but it's also not a "clear, strong message" for leaving - it's a message from a divided nation who is quite literally not sure what it wants. Just sit in a restaurant tonight and look around - whatever your opinion, half of the customers agree with you."
Not entirely sure of your general opinions on voting, but for the most part, majority is majority when it comes to democracy. You can't now claim "oh but it isn't victory by a significant margin, therefore people didn't really know what they wanted to vote for." The message is: "52% of the voters at the time wanted X, therefore democracy-dictates we do X". If it's good-enough for electing our leaders, it's good enough for a referendum.
But does it matter what Obama threatens the UK with?
Because he's gone in five months. Assuming the UK doesn't leave Europe till the negotiations have been sorted out (so maybe a few months from now) then it's unlikely he'll be doing much negotiating in regards to a possible UK/US trade deal. Matters much more what Clinton or Trump thinks of the whole idea...
Show me a human institution that's not "better than nothing"; it'd be charitable to call the governing processes of the world's wealthiest and most stable countries "messy", on a good day.
> the EU should focus on actually making the EU work well.
The EU works pretty well. Just last week one of my Romanian work colleagues paid an Irish company (Ryanair) only $80 euros for a 2-person airplane trip to another European capital (Rome). All that would not have been possible without all of us being in the EU. For comparison, just look at how crazy expensive airfares are in the States for similar flights. And I could find other, numberless examples from the day to day life with which people have accustomed themselves, they have started to see them as granted, but which would have not been possible without the EU. UK's decision is sheer idiocy.
> For comparison, just look at how crazy expensive airfares are in the States for similar flights.
I assume you're referring to the cost of a comparable domestic flight within the US.
How can you credit the success of the EU for your $80 flight ticket and then compare this to the US? It obviously goes without saying that the US is a far more effective and integrated union than the EU (the EU is not even a fiscal union). I suspect the difference in flight costs has more to do with population sizes than "political unions".
It's because the powers-that-are in Brussels have actually fought against the airline industry's oligopoly, unlike what happens in DC. That's why we have more decent airplane prices compared to the States. That's why we have low-cost carriers being allowed to compete in the market, unlike what happens in the US (with one exception , I think). That's why I said EU is behind all this.
I looked up the distance from Bucharest to Rome it's 700 miles. The same distance as Minneapolis to Denver. The cheapest price I found quickly booking 2 months in advance was $34 (eu) and $90 (us) respectfully.
Interesting price difference. It seems after a little bit of research this has to do with reduced demand for air travel in the us. But if it were to be something the eu has done, which largely generally surrounds higher regulation and the suppression of competition. How has it done so?
If the EU behaves in that way, given its current state, it will break apart all the more quickly: you need an army to be able to bully your client states into submission.
Sorry that I have to say this, but that's very simplistic.
If two parties agree on any contract or trade agreement, the parties are not always of equal weight and do have their own interests at heart. The UK needs the EU more than the other way around, so the EU has more pull and will make use of it. So "bully your client states into submission" is not a fair description to use, to put it politely. You could say that about any deal where one party has an advantage.
In my opinion, the EU needs the UK more than vice versa: it has spent decades stumbling from failure to failure, both economically and politically, and has very few member states with support strong enough for it to count on. Attempting to punish the UK now would be suicide.
One reason the EU stumbled so much was that there was one large member country that opted out of many of the bigger EU projects. Maybe with the UK gone, it will be easier for the EU to get things done. But it's more likely to lead to a complete disintegration of the EU with more countries leaving.
At least one major investment bank has told its HR staff it is planning to move, and will start processing redundancies or staff transfers as soon as possible. The people and the money started preparing to move months ago - the question is just how much of it.
In any case, expect a lot of the money to pile into other currencies and not get spent as people try to ride this out.
The exchange is getting hammered, as expected, as equities are extremely liquid and the first thing that gets sold off during times of uncertainty/volatility.
I think a more interesting metric will be the price of land in London and the change in the rate of flows in/out of the property market in the coming weeks. Less liquid, less prone to volatility, more indicative of long-term economic trends for the city.
Because the anti-immigrant nature of the Leave campaign e.g. from UKIP suddenly makes the UK look a lot less inviting. If the Visa situation doesn't get a whole lot worse.
Look, it's not malicious or punitive, but just consequences. The UK has basically said "we don't want to pay the price for access to the common market". They had a pretty sweet deal. What incentive do the other countries have, who also pay for access in one way or another, to give the UK a better deal? None. The EU describing/following through the consequences of leaving isn't bullying - everybody knew what would happen.
Look. You're renting an apartment with four other people and you're all sharing the rent. Then one guy decides that he only wants to pay the rent for the square meters that represent his room, but he still wants to get access to the kitchen, living room, bathroom and have free access to the fridge and free use of the stove.
The FT is reckoning on a split across the Eurozone:
"But, as a small city with a population of less than 700,000 people, Frankfurt is seen as provincial and unpopular with staff. Dublin is English-speaking and attractive on tax grounds, but it is a relative backwater. The most likely outcome is that foreign banks with large operations in London will shift staff to a spread of eurozone locations where they already have operations — including Frankfurt, Dublin, Paris, Warsaw and Lisbon. That would fragment the financial services industry in Europe, potentially weakening the continent’s ability to compete internationally."
I can't say I'm afraid, I was told so in confidence by someone in HR at a major one. They'd already delayed salary reviews etc. over the last few weeks for this reason too.
The EU needs to move carefully now: it must not punish, or slap, or threaten. Just accept the result, making clear the benefits of EU membership to the rest of the members, including suspending the benefits that the UK had.
Calmly, but clearly.
This will be good for everybody: UK will be happy being free (a feeling which will trump any disadvantage they may be getting by leaving the EU), and the EU can proceed with greater political integration.
Sorry to hear that: UK has been bitching about the EU for a long time, so I hoped that getting out would just be something to be extremely excited about.
But my other point stands: I think this will definitely be good for the EU, if contagion can be avoided.
We were never not free, that is what is so sad about all this. That was nationalistic bullshit to whip up the less educated in support of Leave.
As a Brit I am in despair this morning.
I'm assuming you are in US. Imagine the feeling you will have the morning Trump wins the presidency. This is the same feeling. A gut punch. My Facebook feed is full of very upset friends. It's really depressing.
Interesting. Will this outcome have a profound impact on tangible aspects of your daily life? If so, what are it's most salient features?
Or are you mostly just lamenting your contrymen's xenophobic and isolationist attitudes, without necessarily foreseeing a particular measurable change in your life?
It will have a direct, negative affect on the economy in general and the service sector in particular for the next 5-7 years. Anyone in an occupation affected by international trade (not just with the EU but also where the UK was used as a conduit to the EU) will be affected. As well as students, farmers, public sector workers, pensioners. Amongst others.
It has had an immediate effect on me and my co-workers (been working since 4am). It is entirely possibel my job will move to continental Europe some time over the next few years (I may or may not go with it).
It is also entirely possible that it will cause a second Scottish referendum and possibly a Northern Irish one too. My current plan is to agitate for London to secede from the UK. Not sure that'll work though.
I feel with you my friend, but your (older?) countrymen have taken a very unpleasant decission, hoping that british exceptionalism will bring everybody ringing at your door. But we in the EU are getting a bit tired of hearing that you brits are so special, and that you deserve this treaty, and that exception, and that you will negotiate a better agreement, etc, etc.
Pretty sad and angry today, but you turned out indeed to be quitters.
People like you will be the ones suffering the consequences the most, so I wish you all the best!
> hoping that british exceptionalism will bring everybody ringing at your door
My guess is that they are hoping that the economic loss will be short lived and people will want to continue to trade with the 5th largest economy.
My objection isn't that somehow we'll turn into a banana republic. My guess is we'll drop 3-5% GDP. It's that building growth in a slow global economy is painful. We've spent the last 8 years going through that pain and we'll just have to do it again. It's like shooting yourself in the foot but without actually being on the front line.
Where I have a feeling my view diverge from yours is that the only good reason I see to be in the EU is economic. The single market has been a success and good for the UK. The rest, not so much. I think it's a mistake to leave the EU but not an unqualified one.
I think it probably will, but I'm not sure, and I certainly don't know how. That's why I asked.
I am very interested in hearing about the concrete manifestations of policy changes on economic activity, public health, national security, the environment, etc. I honestly have no idea what the implications of a Brexit will be with regard to these things.
In politics, though, such discussion is often drowned out by people's quests to self-identify as whatever kind of person (eg. liberal) and make note of cultural differences between themselves and the opposition (how they're uneducated or xenophobic or not globally-minded, in this case).
The GP seems confident that a Brexit is an extremely bad thing. I have no a priori reason to suppose otherwise, but it would be a lot more useful if they would explain what negative consequences they foresee.
For one, and by definition, broken agreements and extra burden to paimfully craft new ones. Work duplication. Petty fighting for minute details with each potential partner.
Next, broken trust. We have spent years negotiating with the UK, accedimg to ever increasing demands, accepting expansion of the EU to the east at your behest (and then complaining about too many poles), etc. Luckily we did mot accept Turkey (which I actually supported, but in the current situation would have been a further destabilizing factor) at your (and USA's) behest.
And now you quit. You shatter all we have built together. Not nice. Resentiment is bound to take hold of lots of europeans against britons. I for one do not welcome you anymore. I hope all agreements with the UK are declared void, students are not accepted in university exchange programs, that you have to pass screening processes (like all mon-EU people have) to enter and set shop in any EU country, that you have to prove cultural and language integration whenever you decide to permanently move to another EU country, that you are only allowed to move if you have a work permit and a work offer, etc.
In short, the EU should put back all red tape that belongs to any non-EU member. And each piece of red tape will be romeved, or not, after long negotiations, which the EU will agressively stear to defend our interests.
Is this retaliation? At all! YOU have decided this. The club you are leaving is all that, and much more. You are leaving ALL that behind.
Will this happen? Is this in the EU's interest? You bet. Maybe not strictly in our economic interest, but defenitely in a political sense.
We have been dealt an existential threat, and we need to show the remaining 27 members how cold it is outside.
The reactions of EU polititians have been cristal clear: we are cutting ties with the UK, fast and furious.
Boris can pretend to continue to be european, but we will not necessarily welcome it.
As a British citizen I have an EU passport and have the right to visa-less travel anywhere in the EU, and the right to live, work and study work anywhere in the EU without having to apply for paperwork or visas. I can just decide tomorrow to move to another EU country and that's it.
> "That was nationalistic bullshit to whip up the less educated in support of Leave."
I do wish people in the Remain camp would stop with this. Just because people voted to Leave, doesn't mean they were uneducated. I was on the fence about whether to stay or go for a long time, it was only after I put in research that I decided to vote to Leave. Despite what you see in the mainstream media, it's not just a bunch of racists voting to Leave. In fact, I really wish I could've voted to stay, but I didn't want to compromise my principals to do so.
If you want an educated voice that was in favour of leaving, watch this clip of Tony Benn...
There was pro-leave bullshit, but there was also pro-remain bullshit. Characterising anyone who disagrees with your position as ignorant, or less educated is the height of arrogance.
If you have so many pro-EU friends, it sounds as if you live in a bubble. You need to get out more. It is very depressing.
I was rather undecided, leaning towards remain, until I started examining the posts by my friends. I examined most of the quotes and figures they mentioned in each article. As a result, I think my 'leave' friends are insane, because I found all of the 'leave' articles were utterly disingenuous about their quotes. They repeatedly misquoted newspapers known for extremely poor (third rate) coverage, and some of the information was downright fabrication. On the other hand, the articles posted by my friends who supported the 'remain' camp frequently listed what I consider to be 'first rate' sources (The Office of National Statistics, etc.), and the quality of the information was much higher and truthful. I found only one or two misquotes, and no fabrications.
Obviously, that's purely anecdotal, but it seems to mirror the experiences that a lot of 'remain' voters have had.
Yes the statistics suggest that older, less educated voted more for Leave.
But aren't those also the ones who have been hit hardest by Globalization? Isn't that the big divide we're seeing here: the fact that high skilled and well educated have greatly benefited from the EU. Meanwhile the working class have faced stagnation.
Leaving the EU gives up power, economic might, and so on, but I don't find it so surprising that so many would risk such a decision in hopes of breaking away from the status quo.
The recession has hit the Whole world, not just the EU. countries outside the EU also have inequality problems, arguably more so.
You have decided to leave beleaving that being independent will improve your chances of facing global problems: globalization, immigratiin, inequality, tidal movements in the labor market due to technology disruption ... It is not a given that global problems can be better confronted by withdrawing from international organizations. Time will tell.
But even if you happen to ne succesful in that front, the political damage, for the UK and the EU is huge. The EU is much more than a market, and the UK is about to realize about it.
You can focus on global problems if you like, there is no guarantee the EU will help there, you've cherry-picked your concerns: what about non-global problems, what about global opportunities?
If the Scots were to leave now (which IMHO is much much more likely now), Churchill will be rolling in his grave. The Great island itself surviving virtually intact from WW2 only to break itself apart due to something like this.
Though one could of course, consider this part of the ongoing aftershocks from WW2 which Britain never fully recovered from (i.e. final nail in the coffin of the Empire, its virtual indebtedness to the US), which led to what are probably the most US-like, capitalist-minded policies of the entire EU. Policies which, although making London the financial powerhouse it is, have undoubtedly alienated its rural areas, and have led to the referendum result we are seeing now.
They have the right to be upset. The losers in any political system have the right to be upset. But they lost fair and square in a democratic system, and do not have the right to slander that system and its institutions.
Bottom line, UK citizens are represented in the European Parliament, and have a say in EU legislation. If there is a majority in a democratic parliament, well, so be it, democracy works this way... and if the Conservative party decided not to join the EPP, that's the party's decision.
It's a logical fallacy to say that "the country's laws were decided by politicians the people did not elect.", when indeed they are elected by the people.
Actually, the commission is multi-party, split between mostly EPP (Christian Democrats and the like), PES (in which Labor is a member), and, yes, one British Conservative Commissioner.
The UK has zero members in the EPP because the conservatives decided to go it alone; they still have votes, they've just decided to form their own parliamentary bloc, the AECR.
Unfortunately, this is the argument that won the day. 25 years of tabloid brainwashing has irreparably damaged UK public opinion.
Yes, there was a democratic deficit in the original EU structure. It was addressed in the 2009 treaty, and it keeps getting addressed with more and more decision-making powers slowly moving from Commission to Parliament. But it's too late, people think Bruxelles decides banana sizes and we can't have that.
Unsurprisingly, who was among the first journalists starting the whole "crazy bruxelles" meme? One Boris Johnson.
Ironically, there is also a democratic deficit in the UK. The House of Lords is not elected at all, and the district system ensures that minority opinions do not get represented in the House of Commons. As a result, UKIP is far bigger in the Europarliament than in the House of Commons.
There are elections. But how many MEPs can you name off the top of your head? I can't name a single one... I think that's the perceived issue with EU law making.
Apart from being wrong about how the EU is government, I think you might want to look into Churchills views on Europe.
Churchill argued for a European super-state. He was the architect of several of the early steps towards European integration, such as the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights, and he wanted a European army.
Correct me if I am wrong, but from what I have read of Churchill's thoughts on the matter (only his biography), he believed that Europe should be united but that the UK wasn't to be a part of it. Did I miss something?
It's unclear. I'm not sure if he said something explicit either way. In his speech proposing a Council of Europe and a Unite States of Europe, he says that Great Britain and the British Commonwealth of Nations and others should be friends of the new Europe, but when the Council of Europe was first created, and Churchill was actively part of that, the UK became part too.
He also at one point proposed outright union between the UK and France.
The important thing to consider, with respect to his United States of Europe speech though, is that when Churchill spoke of this, the UK still had an empire - it was a super-state, though one in decline, and the Commonwealth still meant something more than a loose association. He was speaking from a position where the UK was already "spoken for" so to speak.
Yet over the years afterwards he was one of the driving forces of European integration, including for the UK, but of course he did not see how far it was going.
That's the stupid thing. The high working class turnout to vote leave means that the EU labour laws can be repealed (work time directive, gender equality, etc.). Who do you think is likely to get hit hardest by that once the Tories start pushing through deregulation?
"The Anglo-American Loan Agreement was a post World War II loan made to the United Kingdom by the United States on 15 July 1946, and paid off in 2006. The loan was negotiated by John Maynard Keynes. The loan was for $3.75 billion (US$57 billion in 2015) at a low 2% interest rate; Canada loaned an additional US$1.19 billion"
Indeed aware of that loan. "Virtual indebtedness" in the sense that the amount was relatively small to the UK when it was eventually repaid, the terms of repayment were very generous, and the repayment itself was very much the fulfillment of a legal requirement, and not something anyone would think the US would have pressed if more time had been requested.
The interesting thing to consider is that although the repayment terms were generous given the general context of the Marshall Plan, the US should probably have had to go an extra mile given the UK's contribution of its Tube Alloys program [0]. This nascent R&D project was moved over to the US, expanded and upgraded - and nowadays we call it the Manhattan Project.
Wishful thinking the the EU will be "better off". There are a lot of nations far more critical of the EU than the Brits. The EU has serious problems (over-regulation, bureaucracy) and if they aren't addressed, more nations will want out if they feel they are getting played (whether the economic indicators support said opinion or not).
Which is exactly the same agreement they have now - except the refugees and asylum seekers, which have recently been regulated, but not implemented yet in most EU countries.
The great majority of foreigners in the UK are coming from non-EU countries, and they are not refugees. Leaving the EU will not change that.
Short term it is going to be bad for the UK. It will have to renegociate trade agreements, this will create lots of uncertainty which isn't good for the economy, and also lots of market volatility.
Long term the EU is going nowhere, it is dominated by socialist countries that will go the way of Argentina, a slow but steady decline (well under way). And the migrant crisis, which is likely only at its beginning (look at african demographic projections), combined with Brexit and the rise of populism all over Europe, will likely put such a strain on the EU that I think its days are numbered.
So on the long run, I think the UK has probably made a wise choice.
What socialist countries, pray tell? The German chancellor is from the right. Spanish PM, same. France has an extremely unpopular socialist president who will be voted out very soon. The Italian government is nominally centre-left but has moved to the right in recent years.
Socialism in Europe died in the '90s. What we have now are right-wing neoliberal elites trashing the place that social-democrats built in the '70s and '80s.
Calling France and Italy "neo liberal" economies I think is pretty far from the reality. They are very much anti-free market, regulations heavy, high taxes, high public spending, high public deficit countries. And with the unemployment and low growth that goes along.
Les députés européens socialistes français estiment que la victoire annoncée du Brexit est "l'échec d'une Europe exclusivement dédiée au marché intérieur"
Translation: the French socialist members of European parliament think that the victory of Brexit is the "failure of a Europe solely dedicated to free trade".
Free trade is the only thing UKIP or the euro-sceptic tories want to keep from the EU. There is a fundamental cultural gap between the UK and Continental Europe countries.
If the EU had been able to control its borders this would never have happened. Unfortunately it proved itself singularly incapable of dealing with even that task, having to cosy up to a dictator like Erdogan. There are too many bleeding hearts in European politics.
I'm not sure I agree. Rightly or wrongly, EU immigration, not african/middle-east migrants, was at the centre of the debate, Polish immigration in particular. I personally do not think that Polish immigration hurts the UK in any way, other than by increasing the strain on housing, and which has more to do with planning restrictions. But it is true that with close to a million Poles immigrating in less than 5 years, it is very much noticeable.
I do. Polish immigration is generally looked upon as favourable by those I speak to, people think they're hard workers and that many of them actually work in construction, building the houses we need.
I'd wager that the OP hit the nail on the head here. There are many large Pakistani communities in England in areas such as the Midlands, East London and Bradford that do not inter-marry, socialise or integrate outside their own culture, and when after two or three generations this remains unchanged the perception to the locals is that the cohesion of their communities have taken a real turn for the worse.
The EU's inability to manage middle eastern migrants in a controlled way, along with the belief that most will eventually hold EU passports and speak rudimentary English I think were major deciding factors in those communities, communities that have had demographic shifts not seen in Scotland and Northern Ireland & whose concerns are shut out and branded racist and xenophobic by both the media and the left.
What exactly does Commonwealth immigration have to do with EU membership? Do they think there will be some refugee quota saddling them with that many again amount of brown Muslim people or something?
There is a narrative currently in favor with a particular (very fringe, American) blogger that Africa is experiencing a population explosion that will surge across the Mediterranean and overrun Europe. This ignores the fact that as incomes rise in Africa, population growth plummets (see South Africa as an example of this).
I assume you're referring to Stefan Molyneux. He has some very interesting ideas and presents them articulately. However he gives off quite the "cult leader" vibe and tends to deride or mock counterarguments, rather than critically engage with them.
I am merely refering to UN projections, which suggest the population doubling over the next 30 years. I wish the African economy will be able to support this population growth but I wouldn't bet on it.
100% wrong because of one unavoidable fact: people are ageing.
Without young immigrants and their higher birth rates there simply won't be enough tax revenue to cover future social obligations. We know what this game looks like: Japan. A country looking at a steady and certain decline in quality of life. This is what the UK is going to be like.
The EU is absolutely going to be dominant in the future. Collectively it has an economy that is more varied and flexible and the single market is invaluable. As a startup or prospective exporter being able to try things out in your local market (of 500 million people no less) is the reason the US is so successful.
> And the migrant crisis, which is likely only at its beginning (look at african demographic projections)
African demographic projections which shows Africa's population growth slowly dropping? Coupled with economic projections which shows most African economies growing at far faster rates than Europe? With some African countries, like Nigeria, likely to overtake the UK in total GDP (not per capita) over the next 20-30 years? Largely as a result of massively improved stability and fewer wars over the last decade.
Africa has plenty of challenges, but they're mostly headed the right way. And they're also slowly but steadily moving towards a far more ambitious union project than the EU, with several of the African Union pillars (regional closer unions like ECOWAS serves as "first stage" integration) hard at work at monetary unions and extensive integration.
Of course things can change - nobody expected Syria to blow up the way it did and more than we expected Yugoslavia to collapse as violently as it did.
But at the moment, countries like Nigeria are seeing graduates etc. returning in droves from the UK because the opportunities there are immense, cost of living low (though housing prices in parts of places like Lagos can rival London) and growth at levels you can't hope for in the UK.
It's not an "if". It is being matched. I said growth is subsiding, not that their populations are not still growing. But the economic growth far outpaces the population growth most places.
> But if I was a young african male, I would try my luck in Europe.
If you were a young African male with the means of getting to Europe, there's at least half a dozen African countries where your economic prospects over the next 20-30 years would likely outstrip going to Europe unless you are in a tiny minority with skills that are in very high demand in Europe.
Of course something totally unexpected could happen overnight (well, it did), but when you have several dozen economies most of which have been experiencing extremely rapid growth for many years now, and decades of trends towards reducing poverty across most of the continent, it is fairly reasonable to assume that the trends will continue for a while.
As it stands, they'd need to see a total catastrophic collapse of the economy of most of the African continent, with no subsequent recovery, for economic growth to not outpace population growth over the next few decades.
I think the past few years of economic growth in Africa had much to do with QE, and since QE stopped expanding, we have seen all EM economies suffer. I am not sure you can extrapolate this growth for the next 30 years.
Where do you get that idea from? Africa's growth has been going since ~2000, really taking off in 2003-2005. Nigeria's GDP grew by about 520 billion USD, or about 1000% from 2000 to 2014. In 2015 it was hurt somewhat by lower oil prices, but is still growing.
I'm sure you can't extrapolate it and assume it will stay the same for the next 30 years. But you can make reasonably educated estimates assuming that the average change in velocity will be all that extreme, given that large part of these amounts are based on income from relatively stable industries with well understood risk profiles.
Largely the development of Africa at present boils down to whether or not we see further major wars disrupt the progress. If we do, then, yes, things may go the wrong way. If not, it will take unprecedented crises to prevent Africa from continuing to see massive growth.
Scotland coming back to the EU would be great, but not easy, since lots of EU countries would be willing to prevent it in order to make an example for their own separatist regions (Catalonia / Basque Country in Spain, for example)
Not with the UK leaving, it'd be a great boost for the EU if Scotland were to join it. The argument doesn't extend to Spain, because it's not leaving the EU. Besides with the last referendum, Spain already said it wouldn't block Scotland entering the EU.
Very believable to me. Sinn Fein has predictably already called for a vote in Northern Ireland. Calls are growing for a second referendum in Scotland. There are even those wanting independence for London...
Scottish independence is likely - the question is just how firm the polls need to be before the SNP go there again.
The Northern Ireland potentially rejoining The Irish Republic is a bit surprising to me. Does anyone know if there's actually any chance of that happening?
The chance is very low given the amount of unionists, but that won't stop this being used for what its worth to force re-assessments of agreements etc. Expect the Northern Ireland government to be given a slew of new devolved powers etc. over the next few years as concessions to prevent growing calls for it.
Depends on the number of unionists who are more pro-EU than pro-UK. It's not as likely as Scotland leaving (which is very likely), but I suppose it could happen.
It's not cynical at all. Look at the media reports coming out now from Scotland and Northern Ireland. Leaders are already talking it up and it's hard to deny the strength of their vote to remain within the EU.
In some countries the 2% votes to join different EU treaties and no one complained that 2% was to little to decided something that important. In most cases the people of the EU member countries was never even asked in they wanted to join the different treaties.
If the UK had voted to leave, with only a 2% margin, would you have complained that it was to little to determine something of this magnitude and called it ridiculous?
Regardless of the outcome, the EU needs to re-evaluate how it operates and if it needs to change drastically. I'm a fan of the idea of an EU, but in it's current form it's an almost unmitigated disaster and a role model for people wanting to circumvent democracy.
I think what was interesting was that in regional charts, I saw Scotland strongly favor staying with EU. I found that interesting. It probably played as a factor when they chose to stay with UK, because as such they also stayed as part of EU. Now that UK is not part of the EU, Scotland might think again about its decision to stay.
> Is Scotland going to be exiting the UK next? Guess we'll see in a few years.
It's possible. The same with northern ireland. But more interesting question is which european country will leave the EU next. Hungary? Greece? Finland?
The UK is a pillar of the EU ( 2nd largest economy and the 3rd most populous country ). Don't see the EU surviving without the UK.
These numbers only stand if you consider the current state of the UK. Without Scotland, no mines, no oil, less fish. England in itself, independent from the EU, cannot stand the test of time.
As long a Germany and France are on board, the EU will survive in some form. The UK has always been an obstacle to tighter integration, and that obstacle will likely be gone soon.
> As long a Germany and France are on board, the EU will survive in some form.
They won't be on board much longer. The EU is nonsense at its very core. It is a corrupt cesspool where a select group of unelected masters rule over the unwashed masses.
It is a farcical idealized fantasy. It doesn't exist the way the people idealized it to exist.
> The UK has always been an obstacle to tighter integration, and that obstacle will likely be gone soon.
Actually, the UK was a force for tighter integration. After all english and modern anglo culture is the dominant culture of the EU.
It is just shocking how naive people are. The problem with the EU is precisely france and germany. To have "integration", you have to have a common language, culture, history, etc. So will french or german be the language of the EU? That's just the basic first level aspect of a "union".
The only way the EU will ever work is if one dominant nation/ethnic group/etc conquers the whole thing and forcibly integrates the region. And that won't happen anytime soon.
Greece and Hungary are probably next to leave soon to be followed by everyone else.
I feel that the growth of Fascist sentiment worldwide can't possibly be a coincidence. Globalisation and it's benefits are being questioned.
People are disappointed. Even this vote , is actually a vote of dissatisfaction against the status quo. They just managed to direct enough of that anger against the EU.
I'd like to suggest the following three hypotheses and hear what you guys think :
1. As growth slows , liberal democracy ceases to be the status quo. It's much easier for a demagogue to whip up sentiments against the "other" when people feel that they have been left behind.
2. The media has always been a gatekeeper and helped keep the more extreme voices out of mainstream discourse. The internet breaks this dynamic and now disaffected majorities can coalesce across regional boundaries within a country.
3. The Western working class has realised that globalisation doesn't seem to be raising everyone's living standards. It's more of an equalisation where large numbers of people in Asia are lifted into the middle class while the western working class stagnates.
I disagree with #2. The media have always said they are the gatekeeper (or the fourth power or any other labels) but it's a self assessment. Yellow press, tabloids, etc. feed off of extreme or stupid opinions that get labeled as `politically incorrect but true`. This becomes the visible mainstream discourse but time and time again elections and referendums show this is just opinions and sale driven editorial politics.
The Internet didn't break this dynamic, it's just another media in the end (regarding the press) with a louder audience for the same ideas. Moreover the fragmentation of countries into regions doesn't follow from that. It comes from national politics. National politics that just get votes and support from following point #1. And inevitably leads to a blaming game (they are a lot of Nigel across Europe).
I might be wrong and I don't have time to word my opinions like I would, sorry. Just my 2ç in the wee hour of morning.
> Notice how the media tries to black out Trump's insanity...
Completely not true. They air hours upon hours of uncut press conferences. They could easily summarize the press conference in a 90 second piece ("Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump today..."), but they don't.
> Notice how the media tries to black out Trump's insanity but it gets so much attention on social media that they're forced to cover his tweets.
What? They love covering him because they get so many viewers. Hell, they're partially the reason he catapulted into the limelight--had they treated his antics the same as the other politicians' he'd have received far less air time than he has so far.
I agree with your assessment. I think I would remove #2 and swap #1 & #3 - i.e. The Western working class has realized that globalization hasn't raised their living standards resulting in (or as a result of) lower overall growth and this causes liberal democracy to cease to be the status quo.
The main voices for Leave where strongly pro-globalization. So it'll be interesting if they try to use this as a mandate to go even further on all this stuff.
Is the UK unique in having pro-immigration, anti-immigration parties? It boggles my mind, and doesn't get discussed much even in the UK. (I suppose Trumps incoherence, and lack of walking the talk, is actually very similar, now I think about it).
I agree with you 100%. What's sad is that airing sentiments like yours is now considered anti-status quo, and therefore invalid. I suspect much of the positive polling for so called "fascist" candidates stems from dissatisfaction with that same status quo that invalidates these arguments.
I especially agree with your #2, but I warn most people will disagree. It's so foolish to think the Internet does not mean anything. I'm so disappointed when I travel somewhere and people mock my desire to secure a SIM card as quickly as possible. Why is it so frowned upon to connect to the Internet?
Why should the citizens of a country be in favor of an economic policy that screws them in return for making the richest .001% of the population richer, and raising the standard of living for foreigners living in a mud huts to being slaves in a factory? This was apparent all along, but the people voicing these concerns were ignored or marginalized by the one sided economic voices in the media...
So to part 2:
The problem is that the economists you hear on the news telling you what needs to be done are wrong worse than 50% of the time (austerity, free trade with countries that don't have equivalent economies, you name it). In the US after Trump (who I mostly disagree with) started calling out Carrier for closing a US factory to offshore the production, I heard a couple economists taking about how if carrier didn't move all their production offshore no one would be able to afford an AC unit.
To which, I was frankly shocked. central AC units, which are mostly assembled from 3rd party components, many of which are already made in china/etc (unless you get lucky with a us built emerson/copeland compressor) are extremely high margin businesses. The assembly costs in the US are a tiny fraction of the installed price of a AC unit (which are dominated by your local AC installer). Worse, prices rarely decline when production is off-shored, rather the savings tend to go back to the execs and majority share holders. Or worse, are used to buy or block smaller more efficient competitors.
So, for a news organization to not vet this before allowing some doomsday economist to come on and talk about how the price of AC units are going to spike if carrier isn't allowed to fire a bunch of $20/hour employees in favor of a bunch of $5/hour ones, while playing tax games with the profits (aka book the majority of the profits outside of the US to avoid taxes) is just insane. Heck carrier has a gross profit margin of > 50% (its higher than Apple!).
Bottom line, I think pretty much everyone I know is now trained to disbelieve anything heard on the news from a self proclaimed economist.
> I blame the greed of the elites for (potentially) killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Greed is a powerful addiction.
The elites won't stop trying to concentrate more and more wealth at the top, even when they know it will increase the chance of something like Brexit actually happening (which cut their wealth, at least temporarily, considerably).
Not sure if you're aware, but WE are the global elite. If you earn more than $34k per year, you are in the global top 1%.
So next time you negotiate your salary, or try to make more bonus at the end of the year, I want you to think about your addiction to greed. You just want to concentrate more and more wealth at the top, even when you know it will increase the chance of something like Brexit. Clearly that's your motivator.
If that doesn't work for you, try coming up with a more realistic model or how wealth actually moves, and what motivates people. Parables about the seven deadly sins make for entertaining and convincing story telling, but are not good models for reality.
First, many many people make $34k/year in US. But do they feel like they can control their life and destiny? I doubt it.
And yes let's say I make $100,000/year. Would I or most others be happy with it? Surprisingly, no. They probably want to make a little more to get a boat, or even a bigger saving for their children.
The absolute amount a person is only loosely correlated with their standard of living. Especially when the amount of free time they have/etc is factored in.
Even in the US, 34K a year is a living wage in some parts of the country while in others its extremely hard to survive. Beside the obvious cost of living expenses for house, transportation, food, there is also the question of, how your making the 34k a year. If you can earn it in less than 40 hours a week you have time to supplement your income growing a garden, fixing your own car, or spending time tutoring your children. OTOH, if it takes 80 hours a week to earn that then you pretty much have to pay people to take care of all the little things you could be doing yourself.
People keep using the word "fascist" however that's incredibly hyperbolic. Conjecture and smears like this really make me disregard much left-wing analysis, seeing that is highly impartial.
* He wants small gov't
* He believes in democracy
* He does not support ccontinuing costly wars and meddling in other countries affairs
* I'm not sure he's suppressed any political groups
Both sides are acting on extreme emotions these days, and on the other side of the coin, the outsiders are people who disagree with liberal policies.
4) an economy built on borrow and spend (essentially betting on the future) now coming in terms with built up debt, aging population and slowing economy
Your characterization of conservatives as "fascist" or anti-democracy is an accusation without merit (as is the oft-made, and IMHO completely unjustified, comparison of Trump to Hitler).
As someone who grew up in the Rust Belt, I think #3 hits the nail on the head. For as long as I can remember, the area where I grew up has been struggling economically (it was hit hard by waves of factory closings starting in the 1980's). None of the politicians from either party seemed to care.
Now suddenly there's a politician who seems to care about this issue, has a real shot at being President, and is different enough from the usual run of politicians that he may be paying the issue more than lip service and may actually be able to effect change.
For a lot of people, this is a powerful motivation to get out and vote for him despite his obvious flaws, especially when his opponent is not only as "establishment" as they come, but her husband literally brought us NAFTA.
To (3) I would add a "prisoner's dilemma" dynamic -- theoretically it's better if every country "cooperates" and gives all their effort to putting the benefit of the world as a whole above the benefit of their country (that's the vision of globalization). But if some countries "defect" and focus on themselves first, then whoever "cooperates" feels exploited (and not wrongly so). A lot of people I know feel like some countries (especially China) are defectors in this game and we shouldn't be suckers, so despite the theory, the practical thing to do is look out for ourselves first.
> Your characterization of conservatives as "fascist"
Farage is clearly fascist, and has been for many years. His fascism was identified while he was at school and it hasn't decreased since then. (Albeit it he no longer marches through villages singing Hitler Youth songs.)
What's strange to me is that so many people seem upset about "stagnating" at such a high standard of living. Most of the people driving anti-globalization are flirting with the highest quality of life of any humans to live. But because it's not slightly better than that, they're flailing around trying to find someone to blame. I think this all has much more to do with a changing "way of life" than economic factors.
You need to connect it to the perceptions of growing inequality.
As long as your life is visibly improving , you don't mind that some people are doing insanely well. But it's much harder to stomach when you're struggling to get by.
I jokingly said to my friend that we could solve a handful of complex problems easily - England* declares independence from the UK and leaves the EU, the rest of us get to remain. Since we're already in fantasy land, London can remain if they like :)
* = I am assuming the Welsh vote was due to a few of the Welsh lads being too exited by the Euros to vote, so they get a pass on being narrowly "Leave" this time
I work in London at a startup with international markets. I believe in the ideal of free movement. I think the EU is a bit of a mess conceptually and mechanically, but in general a step forward for Europe.
This is really the beginning of a very long, tedious and ultimately unsatisfying couple of years of dissatisfaction and instability as we negotiate with the EU and the rest of the world.
>>> ... as we negotiate with the EU and the rest of the world.
HA! Negotiate. If Britain want to shoot itself in the foot and unsettle the world economy, it can do so on its own. The EU need not concede on anything. Why should they, given that Britain won't be a voting member in a couple years. If I were France I would start bricking up the chunnel tomorrow.
> If I were France I would start bricking up the chunnel tomorrow.
Depending on how things turn out in France in the near future, they may be busy fighting "Frexit" sentiments in their own country. Le Pen has already brought up the possibility (granted, I don't expect her to be in power, but the idea is out there).
Which is exactly why I think the EU will try to make Britain a lesson and not make any concessions. It would be in the EU's interests to really damage Britain even if it means they get hurt themselves, because if Britain is allowed to leave without much pain, there may not be an EU left.
Unless seeing how badly it goes for the brits convinces them to stay. Over the next two years everyone who can will be moving money, property and family out of Britain and into somewhere more stable. This could be a real boom for France and Spain.
How bad do you think this is going to be? The majority of trade for the UK is with commonwealth countries and the U.S. both of which are unrelated to the EU.
It will be as bad as France, Germany, Poland and everyone else wants it to be. Decisions as to how to tax/regulate and/or block trade with Britain are now out of Britain's hands.
Those commonwealth countries (Canada) also trade with the EU. Whether they will choose to favour britain or not is also open. We'll get back to you on that one.
Pretty sure trade agreements with the commonwealth remain unchanged. Basically, you don't choose to trade, if an agreement is in place the companies choose to do trade. With a weaker pound it would be cheaper to buy goods from the UK.
My bad, it was much closer than I thought. I do recall that the majority prior to joining the EU was with commonwealth nations.
Regardless, it's not like materials to trade disappears... my guess would be the UK negotiates with the EU to basically keep trade the same. If not the UK will be increase exports elsewhere.
France and Spain are "more stable"? How do you figure that? The UK has maintained the same basic form of government for centuries, and has been free of civil war since 1651. Spain was ruled by actual Fascists until 1975. France is on its fifth attempt at a republic (with intervening periods of monarchy, empire, reign of terror, and Nazi collaborationist regimes).
Probably not, the Swiss franc is already strong and its getting stronger. It hurts switzerlands exports quite hard. It would be better for switzerland if all those crysises would stop so the frank would get wealk and we could export more.
Exactly. The EU just needs to sit on their hands for 2 years, and that will mean an automatic tariff of 9% on 44% of British exports.
Although with the plummeting pound British stuff might still manage to be as cheap. Only now 4.5% of British exports will be going into European hands instead of British.
The French are already saying the current agreement on border checks will be renegotiated, so they can free up Calais. The Channel will become the next Mediterranean, with flimsy boats killing people by the hundreds every month. This will call for increased naval patrols, which means increased military spending and so on and so forth...
>If I were France I would start bricking up the chunnel tomorrow.
Why? Out of pique? Out of being disrespected? Out of a general tit for tat?
I don't agree with the UK voters today (from my safe spot of not being a UK voter) but it seems pretty silly for the EU or countries within the EU to treat this vote--assuming it goes ahead--as a petulant child would, damn the consequences. They should and probably will make a rational response based on their own interests whether or not they're "annoyed" or whatever the word is with the UK.
>> .. a rational response based on their own interests.
The EU was specifically meant to prevent countries taking actions in their own interest, to stop them from putting their own interests above those of other countries. Now that is done and France can act in France's interests, which probably aren't exactly the same as Britain's. They are now free to make the rational decision to, for example, place tariffs on British goods so as to protect French manufacturers.
So, what you are saying, is that France will put its own interests before the interests of the other EU countries that might benefit from trade with the UK?
As a non-French member of the EU, I will fully support France in their decision (and hope my nation takes a similar route).
The UK never believed in the EU and only wanted the good side of it. It's better for everyone that they'll be gone. There was no European Union if a selfish state didn't want to be united in the bad things too.
If the EU as a whole decides for a new trade agreement with the UK, that's fine (See? Unity), but I think they won't since the EU has strong motivation to slap back the UK.
That... isn't how any of this works. The reason you're negotiating in the first place is because each side is holding chips. If the weaker side had to give in to the stronger's every demand, it would not be called negotiation.
So which is better? Providing a social safety net for "everyone" where "everyone" is defined as "only citizens of this country," or allowing a much larger "everyone" (people from many or all countries) to move to whichever place they deem to have the greatest opportunities?
I currently favor models that go after "easy exit, hard entry". Freedom of movement without standards causes problems. We should be free to go where we please, but it's up to other nations to set the price.
Within a nation, tiered citizen privileges with some sane defaults should control the degree of social security. Keep human rights intact, keep a basic standard of living intact, but ensure that all work is productive and that the people receiving welfare have a plan to not be economic deadweight.
I'm just one miller on the content farm: if there's one thing that I'm going to take away from this, it's that my ratiocinations don't mean jack shit. I'm still curious as to what other people think.
That third option isn't as viable as you might think -- it leads to a dissatisfied, cohesive underclass that likes to agitate for big change, often returning to the "freebies for everyone" option.
It would deter immigrants who are coming for economic reasons and don't make it or are just coming for the benefits to begin with. There of course also should still be a pass to citizenship.
The social safety net is not he opportunity that I want immigrants to be looking for and I say that as a immigrant myself. If I had come to the US and ended up unemployed soon after my arrival, the US shouldn't have had to pay for me. If I don't like that, I can always go back where I came from. Of course it's easy for me to say since I would be going back to a wealthy European country with comfortable safety net and to middle class parents.
It has been known for years that immigrants are net contributors to the British welfare system. (For example http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21631076-rather-lot-ac..., and elsewhere too.) What's the point of repeating that old trope? It won't become any truer if more people say it.
That may be true in the present, but I think people are mainly concerned about the future. I strongly believe in a basic income, but implementing it in a country with open borders would be impossible. Same problem with the US, where no individual state can implement socialized health care, or they would be swarmed with sick people from every other state.
As for voters in the UK, I think they are concerned about future immigrants, not the current immigrant population.
> This is really the beginning of a very long, tedious and ultimately unsatisfying couple of years of dissatisfaction and instability as we negotiate with the EU and the rest of the world.
There is at least one positive point regardless of how you voted.
The referendum gets people talking about the issue and makes them more aware of the pros and cons. Over time they will find out if that was a good or bad move for the success of the UK.
An alliance against a common enemy (Russia). It doesn't exclude there won't ever be any contrast between members, which might result in military confrontation. History is full of alliances that ended for one reason or another.
It's a domino effect looking forward. Other nationalist parties in other nations e.g. France will look at this result and try to leave as well. Scotland could easily leave the UK given that they wanted overwhelmingly to stay. It'll be interesting to watch how foreign UK citizens will be impacted with their jobs in Europe.
Populism is seen as bad by people who want centralization of power (socialists of all borders in general, as well as fascists). So if you have been fed the socialist propaganda for years when living in the EU, you assume it's bad.
So Trumps populism is something good because what? Americans was taught that it's a good thing? What's your point here? USA has federal government = centralization of power so whats your point? I am living in EU, but i am not socialist and for sure i am not fascist so what you wrote is totally wrong.
EDIT: And next time think before saying that someone is in same shoes as fascists. My grand grandmother husband and son was killed fighting with fascists.
I'm pretty sure he just stated that both socialists and fascist want centralization of power. I'm pretty sure that's not a debatable stance. It doesn't imply that if you're a socialist then you must be fascist. That'd be a logical fallacy.
Just as if I said, "soccer moms and skin-heads both breathe air". Should soccer moms feel attacked? Am I name calling? Of course not.
Populism is seen as bad by people who think "Let's beat those guys up, not necessarily because they did something bad or deserve it, but just because we're angry and want to beat someone" is a bad idea.
That's quite untrue, and a bit an impetuous conclusion to jump to. We work hard at doing our job professionally, including not moderating HN for ideological reasons.
Of course we have biases, but (a) we consciously work at suspending them, (b) they're probably not what you think they are, and (c) one cannot accurately assess another's bias by consulting one's own passions.
You know what? Some of us are sick of regulations from Brussels, of unelected bureaucracy, of CE Marks of approval, of socialism, of rampant immigration, of refugees, of Russian prostitutes, of Polish kielbasa shops in London, of feeling like foreigners in our own land.
That's what it sounds like. I mean, if you raised the issue of different rules for shops, vegan ideas, of anything else, then we could think you have issues with actual politics. But you only mentioned the Polish and sausage components. And I since you didn't mention British butcher shops... (same with Russian prostitutes)
So, your argument against charges of racism is that you voted to leave the EU simply because you felt there were too many kielbasa places in London?!? Kind of an overreaction, don't you think?
I'm not British so I can't comment directly, but I find it troubling that "leave" supporters are being broadly labeled as racist. Why should UK citizens be forced to allow Brussels to change the demographics of their country?
Before you vote me down, you should know I'be had to change countries twice and have been of the receiving end of some nasty nationalism (mostly in the EU ironically, almost none in the US).
I heard a quote the other day along the lines of "not all those that are voting leave are racists, but all racists are voting leave". Subjectively speaking, I've largely found this to be true.
It's a revising chamber ( - can extend discussion on difficult issues) whose decisions can be ultimately overridden by the House of Commons. There are many problems with the way it's populated but it's hardly in the same category as an institution as byzantine and undemocratic as the EU.
Out of curiosity, does the UK have a rules making bureocracy and is it elected? I guessed that any country with a long enough history has agencies and departments that do more or less what they want because they survive through different governments. I concede that the EU case is special because it's one layer more remote from citizens, by design because national governments don't want to surrender their authority to a central one. There is a big difference between Washington and Brussels but, to be fair, also between Europe and the USA. Europe is not one nation.
Yeah, leaving the EU is totally going to unseat socialism in the UK and remove the unelected bureaucracy that Yes, Minister made so famous in the early '80s...
... and I'm not sure how Brexit will affect the Russian-ness of the UK's prostitutes, give that Russia is not part of the EU, EEC, Schengen, or even EFTA...
This is such a bad HN comment and so blatant a violation of the site guidelines that we'd normally ban the account that posted it, but I hate to ban accounts that people have had for years. If you post anything like this again, though, we will ban you. Civil and substantive comments from now on, please, or none at all.
Edit: I just noticed how many other inflammatory comments you've posted to this site against its rules. Please don't do that any more.
You've been pretty busy moderating the past few hours I imagine, I hope it doesn't wear you out or make you think about quitting. I guess one can be glad I no longer moderate any discussion forums: if I was the moderator, this whole submission would be nuked well before it got to even 100 totally useless comments, for my own benefit and desire of laziness and for the health of the community. Well, I flagged, but I felt like bringing it up more directly on an already unlinked thread for the off chance when things quiet down you can link me to (if you've written one) a reason why HN governance sees fit to very frequently ignore what I find the key guideline to HN off-topic: "If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
This is an obviously historic event, it's worth discussing if we can keep the discussion from becoming too vitriolic, and experience has shown that when something like this happens, there's no keeping it off HN anyhow.
I just hope the discussion doesn't degrade too hopelessly over the next few hours, because it's too late to keep doing this over here.
I'm tired of this unelected trope. MEPs are elected, and they have final say on legislation. Commissioners PROPOSE legislation (which is then amended by Parliament committees, usually), are nominated BY THE GOVERNMENTS YOU ELECTED, and can be dismissed by the Commission President, who answers to the ELECTED European Parliament.
The failure to make people understand Lisbon 2009 reforms is what is killing the EU.
You forgot to mention she has no executive power at all and this is symbolized at the start of every parliamentary session in the the Black Rod ritual. Check it out!
Yes, Britain has a revising upper chamber populated by people who've made some kind of distinguished contribution to British society during their careers. As with all human enterprises, mistakes occur & some members (peers) have questionable qualifications and corruptive practices do sometimes surface as everywhere else. Sometimes political cronies are appointed. This does not mean we throw the bath water out with the baby.
The upper house provides a venue for extended discussion of laws put forward by the lower house but ultimately has no power to overturn decisions made in the lower house. Most members of the House of Lords (often experts in various subjects) have no or minimal vested interests in the issues brought before them and can therefore offer totally independent opinions since they do not have to answer to an electorate.
Being unelected does not necessarily always equate to a zero qualification for a limited role in law making.
Not quite true. All UK legislation must be signed by the Queen (or her proxy) before it becomes all law. Therefore monarch has final veto over any legislation by refusing to sign.
It's rarely invoked and if it were to happen on a serious piece of legislation then Britain would in all likelihood become a republic shortly thereafter.
The British "constitution" is largely based around checks and balances based around mutually assured destruction should any party stray from their expected role. This is one such example.
The UK and the US really head the current hegemony that is currently instilling so much war in the world. I believe the EU does share this responsibility, but I also really hope the UK leaving the EU helps the rest of Europe in in pushing back against these covertly back wars in Syria and elsewhere.
British citizens may not be able to world and live throughout the EU any more either. People already abroad may lose their work status on nations without reciprocal fall-back agreements.
This is a pretty big change, but I don't think it's a bad one.
I still have severe doubts this will happen. It will take many years to renegotiate and most treaties will be in effect until then.
My guess is very little changes, it's more of a sign that people want their country sovereign as opposed to being ruled by a committee in another country.
Now this is an interesting comment. Does anyone have specifics about the timeline with respect to the treaties already binding the UK to other EU members?
This is a non binding referendum, so nothing HAS to happen at all. But all the party leaders have promised to abide by the result, with varying definitions of "immediately."
Once the PM formally starts the process, it must be completed in 2 years according to the Lisbon treaty. The end of that period is when the trade deals expire. There will clearly be preparation before they formally pull the trigger, but it's anybody's guess just how long it will be. There may be a change in UK leadership over this, and there are upcoming elections in France and Germany to consider. The Leave campaign has talked about 2020 as a good date to end the separation.
For all the treaties that will expire, trade will fall back to the WTO rules, which (to my understanding) are like the benches at train stations. They're arguably better than nothing, but very uncomfortable to sit on for any length of time.
IMO the market to watch is finance. Losing the free movement of money is an enormous blow to London as a global financial hub. Especially since the London and European stock exchanges are merging, it's possible the big investment banks will simply move to Frankfurt. The financial sector contributes 84bn to GDP (of 2.8tn), so there's a lot at risk there. So if any treaties get signed quick, it'll be the financial ones.
One longer-term risk is that it will destabilize the whole EU. If the UK doesn't collapse, other countries will ask for the same deal, and the EU will just fall apart bit by bit.
To extend your argument, maybe that wouldn't actually change much in the grand scheme of things! But EU regulations have a pretty big impact, so I think the breakup of the EU would actually be a big deal.
If we don't leave the EU, it will completely destroy the conservative party. Very unlikely that they will risk their jobs. If they do, chances are a eurosceptic party would get elected in 2020 if a general election isn't called before.
It is not legally binding, so nothing. But who would take responsibility of organizing that, disregarding the opinion of the majority of the British people? And what do you suggest, having a non-binding referendum until Remain wins?
I don't know, that's not exactly what happened in Ireland with the Lisbon Treaty. When the first referendum didn't get the results "expected", they forced a second referendum after much campaigning and the results were different. Democracy at work? Bureaucracy at work? Who knows.
2,633 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 494 ms ] threadThere are some good arguments for leaving, but this isn't one of them, IMO.
What is success? High YOY GDP growth? Or quality of life? Look to America (my country) with very limited worker protections, almost no social safety nets, extremely high income and wealthy inequality; we still only eek out only ~2% GDP growth, and that's on the backs of the poor.
Freedom has a cost, and it seems that the UK populace who voted to leave does not fully understand that cost.
In the US, those are all going the opposite directions.
When countries grow powerful, they begin to forget about the "socio" part of socioeconomics, and just look at dollars.
Clearly a very, very large portion of the country felt underserved by the model.
Nassim taleb sums it up well: http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/15/nassim-taleb-the-global-re...
How about measuring by success by the preferences of the people in the country? Apparently a majority of UK voters preferred leaving.
You can educate someone. You can't fix willful ignorance.
> Gotta hand it to stupid people. They may not understand nuance, secondary effects, or the long term, but dammit, they know how to vote.
https://twitter.com/rolldiggity/status/746195269390196736
I'd argue you might be able to have a generous social safety net if you adopted a high tax, low regulation approach.
EU is high tax high regulation, US is medium tax medium regulation.
In case you have a short memory, before the EU there was the League of Nations between WW1 and WW2, to ensure wars would never happen again in Europe (and elsewhere). It did not work out too well.
The fact that we did not get any war in Europe after WW2 has really nothing to do with the EU being there or not. If anything, war did not break out because we were too busy preventing the Cold War from exploding in Europe and having Russia invade or coup every other country, like they did in the whole Eastern part of Europe.
Same values, I beg to differ. The values of a Greek and of a German could be completely different as far as you know. Connected Markets? The EU has become a tariff-heavy zone, the opposite of a Free Market - look at how many trade agreements we have to regulate and impeach free markets. And the TPP, with the blessing of most EU members (in secret).
There's no recipe to avoid war, but political stability is certainly correlated with economic prosperity. The EU is not making this happen, so we should see it slowly desintegrate.
Depend which values you are talking about but Greek signed European Convention on Human Rights, there is a LOT of values written there if you ask me which those countries you mention share.
> Connected Markets? The EU has become a tariff-heavy zone, the opposite of a Free Market - look at how many trade agreements we have to regulate and impeach free markets.
It's not true for most products, but some indeed are regulated because if you have 28 different countries you need to control some of the segments of markets or your country/other countries will suffer, that's why you have for example limits for milk producing etc. Show my any organization exactly like EU which doesn't regulate their common market.
> There's no recipe to avoid war
For sure there is no 100% certain recipe to avoid war but nothing was created closer to that recipe than EU. I live in country that was transformed from communism to democracy in 1989, trust me it can be a lot worse than it's now in EU, you can't imagine.
Also given the recent proceedings in the course of the EU all member countries are better off with the whole house of cards collapsing. We can always build a new alliance, but this USSR style direction is not the least promising.
Take a look at the Greek, what a success the EU was for them. Take a look at the handling of the Greek dept problem, how well the EU reagated to that. Take a look at the migrant crisis: the western EU members criticized Hungary for defending its borders, which it is obliged to by the schengen treaty. The leaders did not play by the rules they have set, yet they talk about more centralization should do the trick.
The European Council is not elected by the people, and is not accountable. Also does not show ability to control this imbecile of a superpower.
This EU must die for its architectural problems. Just as the USSR had to die. I beleive this will also happen without violence, as there is no common military force under the control of the "leaders".
I also beleive, that the European people, even those voting leave, have a wish to be united. But maybe some beleive we are first British, and second European, and they do not wish to sacrafice their local values for some abstract European or global values. Yet they do not feel bad about the other Europeans.
Europe has longer, and different history than the USA, and most importantly, though often forgotten, most European nations have made huge saccrifices for their freedom, for their very existence as a nation.
In short, to save the EU: "everything must change so that everything can stay the same"
> The European Council is not elected by the people, and is not accountable.
European Council is not elected by people? Please read more about EU before claiming such things which are not true - "The European Council is the institution of the European Union (EU) that comprises the heads of state or government of the member states, along with President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission."
The greek economy and books were audited by EU agencies. If a bug slips through reviews and tests in a software project, than the bug is the responsibility of the author? I think only partly, actually many are involved, and the process is the main problem usually.
> European Council is not elected by people?
True, I have mistaken it for the European Commission.
https://twitter.com/DavidInglesTV/status/746192676085600256
> This is something we've never seen, chances are you'll never see again Pound just collapses 13% vs. the Yen #Brexit
https://twitter.com/MatthewPhillips/status/74618964684197888...
> Wow. The £ is down 8.4%. Currencies are not supposed to do that. (1% move is considered massive.)
I think the bigger picture is eluding some people in the face of shiny doomsday articles.
The EU was built on an explicit policy of focus on small treaties, and avoiding creating transnational institutions. This was specifically to ensure that member states kept as much sovereignty as possible. It's why even the largest EU institutions are generally incomplete and only operate with the ongoing cooperation of all the member states. Hence monetary union without fiscal union. Hence the lack of police and military cooperation. Hence no central border or immigration control. These are key functions of government, which the EU has never been able to centralize because of the practice of "small steps."
Its the way the US was supposed to work, only with even less power in the federal government. European federalism is free trade attached to a foreign policy body and a supranational court.
The EU is more than 50 years old, not 15. it was established as a free trade zone first, to "make war unthinkable and materially impossible" - in 1958. That's the core of the EU, and it works very well for the members by every material measure. I don't know what makes you think otherwise. The recession has created a growing movement of Euroskepticism, but that's associated with the extreme political right wing, and remains a minority - outside of Britain, it seems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_market
The common man may think he knows everything, but he really doesn't.
[1] http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS...
Historical evidence suggests that such leaders tend to move towards to political extremes.
Populism is a political position which holds that the virtuous citizens are being mistreated by a small circle of elites, who can be overthrown if the people recognize the danger and work together. The elites are depicted as trampling in illegitimate fashion upon the rights, values, and voice of the legitimate people.
The notion itself is quite subjective of course, but it is definitely very different from "democracy".
[1] http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FPPS%2FPPS...
The only reason why it seems more "democratic" is because for most of human history, the wealthy elite had way to much power compared to everyone else.
Imo it goes down to what your message is - both Trump ans Sanders are populists.
We already know how easy it is for yellow journalism to sway popular opinion; expecting direct democracy to be able to deal with the subtle nuances of governing a millions-strong society is nice in theory, but simply isn't practical.
Populism is just catering to the short term needs, even basic ones, just to get attention/votes/support.
Populist example from Romania: get an IMF loan in order to increase pensions. Text-book example of shooting yourself in the foot long term, but a very popular action among pensioners, which are a large voting demographic.
Do you imagine Nissan will be chanting "Rule Britannia" and eating that loss, or do you imagine they'll be moving the bulk of their manufacturing capacity to one of the Eastern European countries that already has a solid car making capability?
Remember, this won't even take effect for another two years or so. Literally nothing about UK or the GBP has fundamentally changed as of this moment, and yet the currency has been shorted as if the UK has simply snapped its fingers and is, as of this moment, no longer in the EU.
What you'll see in the coming days is an upward movement. Shorts are going to take their profits, which is going result in GBP buy orders, which is going to squeeze shorts, which will lead to more GBP buy orders. Will the GBP go back to its value as of yesterday? No. But it won't remain down 10% either. Bank on it.
You might also see tech leave the country. Selling in the EU will be more costly. As a result, companies might start moving out or collapsing. Their former employees would then leave too.
Scotland had a pretty clear Remain vote.
At least in my case think of it as my identity being some mix of Europe-in-general, Britain-somewhat, Switzerland-somewhat. Now Britain says "we're not Europe" (to horribly over-simplify). That doesn't make me think "oh well, now I'm less European", instead it makes me thing "oh well, now I'm less British".
I was born here and I've lived in England my whole life, but that's exactly how I feel.
I've always identified as both British and European. Now that the UK has decided to isolate itself from Europe it hasn't made me feel less European it's made me feel less British.
Britain is right-wing, xenophobic, corrupt and utterly in the service of financial elites who direct everyones attention toward Johnny Foreigner in order to hide their own self-serving agendas.
Plus we're well on the way to becoming a police state now that we face a future without the tempering hand of the EU on our thoroughly right-wing, demagogue politicians.
I need to start seriously considering moving somewhere else because I have very little patience for the path this country is on.
My retired parents voted out not because they are right-wing or xenophobic (their son is a New Zealander now with an Asian Wife) but because they read right wing media (which they do not believe is right-wing) and believe the hype of the politicians and journalists. When they wake up tomorrow it is not going to magically be the UK of the 1960's they remember and the journalists and politicians will find someone else to blame.
Trump is doing the exact same in America and politicians from the right and left wing are doing it in other countries too. Generalisations are what gets politicians off, the fact generalisations also cause conflict is neither here nor there to them so long as they get power.
Fuck this country.
The default seems to be non eu-membership. So why should Britain stay in the EU? People are commenting on this as though it's really obvious.
Truth is, the EU is not a perfect solution. Even if Europe were to become a "single nation" (like the United States) that wouldn't mean all parts of the Union would have the same economic development. Just look at the stark differences between places like New York, Massachusetts or California vs. Missouri and Luisiana.
Prima facie it's impossible to predict if the UK will be as severely affected as the Remain camp wants to paint it. Time will tell. If anything, I'm curious about all this (if painfully aware that it might affect the life of millions of people for the worst.)
And they voluntarily gave all that away. And they've simultaneously made a lot of enemies amongst their largest trading partner and closest neighbors.
I simply don't see how this works well for the UK (or should we say England, since the possibilities of Scotland breaking away have also risen dramatically).
Should Spain and France implement a points & qualifications visa system for all those Brits in the South? After all, many are working in bars, estate agencies, construction, some even shock, shock are petty criminals [1] or lead criminal organizations [2].
What will the UK do if the EU sends back half a million Brits (that's like a new Manchester landing all of a sudden!).
I'm just trying to give a different perspective, but I'm completely in favour of more freedom of movement. I'm very happy to have more diversity in my countries (I have two European nationalities, have lived in 5 EU countries and feel like a world citizen with a European background).
I really hope we find a new solution of understanding and cooperation.
[1] http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/espana/2016/04/28/deten...
[2] http://www.abc.es/sociedad/abci-detenidos-seis-miembros-band... / http://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/andalucia/2016-05-15/ma...
Ireland? Malta? Cyprus?
I think I read an article earlier today about Blackrock shorting like 50% of their european holdings or something?
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/nigel-farage...
Like getting a divorce and then work out custody and share of assets after.
Oh well, at least he won't be best remembered for face-fucking a pig.
I personally think it will sort itself out just fine - even IFF (and that is a very big IF) the UK parliament follows the non-binding vote...
What happens next? Next is the shaming; the usual suspects will condemn the UK as an island full of racists. The political class will start trying to figure out how to achieve "Brexit-in-name-only." The BBC will come up with a story template they'll reuse annually telling how -- if they had it to do again -- a majority would vote stay. What happens next is the elites will figure out how to work around their subjects and nullify undesirable electoral outcomes, as they always do.
Hard to know what will happen here, but I suspect once the UK (or what's left of it) signs a trade deal with the EU, they'll get the same deal as Norway - all the compliance with EU regulations, with none of the say. I suppose people may be happy with that deal, as long as they can get to say they're "free".
I'm hoping this somehow leave the EU in better shape, perhaps more cohesive, perhaps reforming in ways to minimize chances of anyone else leaving. As a Bulgarian (not living in Europe) this makes me somewhat bitter - seems Englishmen can't accept belonging to a club we also belong to.
Yes there are, it's Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Scotland, Gibraltar, or whatever other country/region, will be considered as new applications for EU membership as the previous application was by a "different" country. This was reiterated by the EU during the Scottish referendum, this is no different.
[1] I am no lawyer nor politician, I have no idea how easy this would be from any practical point of view
Italy is also having problems with separatists.
Venice want to become a city-state republic again, and the Italian islands also made moves about wanting independence.
Italy is very aware of this, and in the past last time someone tried a independence stunt (some guy built a artificial island and declared independence) Italy bombed the shit out it.
Italian and Spanish "estabilishment" politicians are probably panicking now, since independence movements might consider UK leaving the EU, and the potential for Scotland to leave UK, "inspiration" to make their own moves.
† This is not meant as a nationalist slur, or a conflation of identities - it is meant in terms of political sentiments and voting patterns. Scotland and Northern Ireland are far more devolved.
http://www.ondacero.es/programas/mas-de-uno/audios-podcast/e...
That's a tough one. No idea how that will turn out. In my mind, I now see lots of bits and pieces of the UK becoming parts of Scotland.
The SNP's absolute dominance slipped a little in the last Scottish election, making a quick followup referendum less likely. But this new result will put it right back on the agenda.
If there is a second vote I imagine the tone will be a lot less positive. Last time it was all about being a small, wealthy nation with the desire to stand up and make its own name in the world. This time, the previously small but poisonous anti-English voices in the campaign will be emboldened. It will be a vote to leave in panic rather than in confidence.
Overall as a staunch supporter of Scottish independence this is nowhere close to what I want to see.
I don't think the UK is going to get the same deal as Norway or Switzerland especially since the UK doesn't want to get involved in the free movement.
I heard there are a lot of tech companies that already bought land in Ireland as a hedge against the Brexit, and that's where a lot of the tech jobs are going to be going. (Albeit that's only one industry, and I doubt that the financial industry would go in the same direction.)
Let's not forget that there are many engineers who don't live in the Bay Area, NYC or London, for whom Dublin may be quite attractive. And while it may not be on the level of those three regions, it has a lot going for it in its' own right.
Now Ireland has both: human capital and tax reasons.
Not saying there aren't plenty IT jobs, but you can't look at size/investment alone without looking at what kind of roles are actually there.
I'd also note that while companies get plenty tax breaks, actual income-tax is pretty high. Accommodation is pretty pricey near the centre too, though not as bad as London.
Dublin in particular is incredibly dynamic right now. And it's a lot better than where most London tech companies are e.g. Canary Wharf, Stockley Park etc.
This is the dilemma, I don't think the EU does want the UK to suffer just out of spite, but they can't give them a generous deal considering EU stability.
By the way: Berlin and London Stock Exchange markets want to merge, the UK leaving the EU is more of a problem in that regard http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-16/lse-agrees... (though they said they want the deal to go along no matter the vote)
[1] Front national (FN) in France, Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) in Germany, Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) (Party for Freedom) in Netherlands, nationalist movements in Poland, Hungary, ... Election in Spain might also not turn out to result in a EU-friendly government... (seriously could go on...)
No wonder everybody hates it.
That being said it's not so much about "unfair consequences" or "punishment" directly, it's more about "not giving special treatment", ... "out means out", interesting times ahead.
They don't have one, and they assumed they would get one. Why? Obama just clarified: you do not have it, and will not get it. Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because?
> Germany threatened of no trade agreement.
Same here
> France threatened to flood eurotunnel with migrants
France has a huge refugee camp in the border with the UK, which France is keeping out of the UK just because of the agreements that the UK has with the EU. Why should now France carry the cost of keeping those immigrants out of the UK? They obviously want to go to the UK, so let them.
Do you really think that the leaving the EU has no consequence? It is not punishment, it is just voluntarily deciding to renounce the benefits of a club.
When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything.
> When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
You'll keep your special relationship. You'll simply not get a new trade agreement. There is already one with the EU, which you are leaving. You are also getting out of all the rest of the EU agreements.
But don't worry: maybe you get a trade agreement with the US after all: you are more than welcome to start negotiating dupes (or improved versions) for the agreements than you consider interesting, but it does not follow that your potential partners must agree, not even that they have any interest whatsoever in negotiating with you, which is what you are implying. Maybe they have, maybe not. For starters, a new agreement is definitely extra work, which some may just not want, or maybe even not be in a position to dedicate resources to.
You are now free to fight for your interests. The rest too.
> Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
The analogy applies at the tennis club level or the galactic empire level: out of a club is out of a club. It is not "out of the bad things but keeping the good things". The club got you those good things. Now go fight for them on your own. Hey, maybe you get an even better deal!
> “We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if Britain is no longer in the European Union.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/calais-borde...
The EU was more than a market for the UK. You'll eventually see that.
We are simply not in the same camp anymore.
The British people didn't say "fuck you", they said "we don't really know what we want". I mean, 52-48 is not insignificant, but it's also not a "clear, strong message" for leaving - it's a message from a divided nation who is quite literally not sure what it wants. Just sit in a restaurant tonight and look around - whatever your opinion, half of the customers agree with you.
The issues at hand are very complex and quite simply too much so for most voters to even get an idea of what's at stake. As with any such referendum, the overwhelming majority of the votes are cast emotionally. You cannot get such a massive amount of people to think through the implications rationally - they go with their gut.
So again, the message here is "we have no idea what we really want", not "fuck you".
And are you actually saying that such important decisions shouldn't be left up to voters? If so, then should choosing leaders be left up to voters?
It seems pretty clear that many (not all) of those who voted Leave were in fact telling the EU and the scaremongering demagogues for Remain, "Fuck you." And some other portion (the sets probably overlap) were saying something like, "This EU thing isn't working out like you said it would, so we want out." Not, "I don't know what I want."
I think the population has a right to vote. I just don't think most people are fit to vote on every particular issue. It's en emotional vote and it could have swung one way or the other. Interesting times!
Not entirely sure of your general opinions on voting, but for the most part, majority is majority when it comes to democracy. You can't now claim "oh but it isn't victory by a significant margin, therefore people didn't really know what they wanted to vote for." The message is: "52% of the voters at the time wanted X, therefore democracy-dictates we do X". If it's good-enough for electing our leaders, it's good enough for a referendum.
Because he's gone in five months. Assuming the UK doesn't leave Europe till the negotiations have been sorted out (so maybe a few months from now) then it's unlikely he'll be doing much negotiating in regards to a possible UK/US trade deal. Matters much more what Clinton or Trump thinks of the whole idea...
even the remain arguments seem to be, yeah sure it's not great but it's still better than nothing.
what a ringing endorsement.
The EU works pretty well. Just last week one of my Romanian work colleagues paid an Irish company (Ryanair) only $80 euros for a 2-person airplane trip to another European capital (Rome). All that would not have been possible without all of us being in the EU. For comparison, just look at how crazy expensive airfares are in the States for similar flights. And I could find other, numberless examples from the day to day life with which people have accustomed themselves, they have started to see them as granted, but which would have not been possible without the EU. UK's decision is sheer idiocy.
I assume you're referring to the cost of a comparable domestic flight within the US.
How can you credit the success of the EU for your $80 flight ticket and then compare this to the US? It obviously goes without saying that the US is a far more effective and integrated union than the EU (the EU is not even a fiscal union). I suspect the difference in flight costs has more to do with population sizes than "political unions".
Interesting price difference. It seems after a little bit of research this has to do with reduced demand for air travel in the us. But if it were to be something the eu has done, which largely generally surrounds higher regulation and the suppression of competition. How has it done so?
If two parties agree on any contract or trade agreement, the parties are not always of equal weight and do have their own interests at heart. The UK needs the EU more than the other way around, so the EU has more pull and will make use of it. So "bully your client states into submission" is not a fair description to use, to put it politely. You could say that about any deal where one party has an advantage.
By the logic of your parent posters the UK wouldn't have left because of Greece, which has been used to set an example last year.
It's not about the technology, it's about the people and the money, which is all in London.
In any case, expect a lot of the money to pile into other currencies and not get spent as people try to ride this out.
I think a more interesting metric will be the price of land in London and the change in the rate of flows in/out of the property market in the coming weeks. Less liquid, less prone to volatility, more indicative of long-term economic trends for the city.
Because the anti-immigrant nature of the Leave campaign e.g. from UKIP suddenly makes the UK look a lot less inviting. If the Visa situation doesn't get a whole lot worse.
If the EU really wants to go that way, it will only make more people wonder whether they want to be part of a transnational bully.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...
Greenland and Algeria left the EEC (EU precursor)
If you refuse, are you the bully?
But whatever the response of the EU, it will decided by power politics that appear very distant from the control of the voter.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f00c4a58-384a-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8e...
The FT is reckoning on a split across the Eurozone:
"But, as a small city with a population of less than 700,000 people, Frankfurt is seen as provincial and unpopular with staff. Dublin is English-speaking and attractive on tax grounds, but it is a relative backwater. The most likely outcome is that foreign banks with large operations in London will shift staff to a spread of eurozone locations where they already have operations — including Frankfurt, Dublin, Paris, Warsaw and Lisbon. That would fragment the financial services industry in Europe, potentially weakening the continent’s ability to compete internationally."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d576b0-386a-11e6-a780-b48ed7b612...
Calmly, but clearly.
This will be good for everybody: UK will be happy being free (a feeling which will trump any disadvantage they may be getting by leaving the EU), and the EU can proceed with greater political integration.
Plus, you know, either way roughly 50% of the population is going to be unhappy by the outcome of this referendum.
But my other point stands: I think this will definitely be good for the EU, if contagion can be avoided.
As a Brit I am in despair this morning.
I'm assuming you are in US. Imagine the feeling you will have the morning Trump wins the presidency. This is the same feeling. A gut punch. My Facebook feed is full of very upset friends. It's really depressing.
Fear, hate and ignorance won.
Or are you mostly just lamenting your contrymen's xenophobic and isolationist attitudes, without necessarily foreseeing a particular measurable change in your life?
It has had an immediate effect on me and my co-workers (been working since 4am). It is entirely possibel my job will move to continental Europe some time over the next few years (I may or may not go with it).
It is also entirely possible that it will cause a second Scottish referendum and possibly a Northern Irish one too. My current plan is to agitate for London to secede from the UK. Not sure that'll work though.
Pretty sad and angry today, but you turned out indeed to be quitters.
People like you will be the ones suffering the consequences the most, so I wish you all the best!
My guess is that they are hoping that the economic loss will be short lived and people will want to continue to trade with the 5th largest economy.
My objection isn't that somehow we'll turn into a banana republic. My guess is we'll drop 3-5% GDP. It's that building growth in a slow global economy is painful. We've spent the last 8 years going through that pain and we'll just have to do it again. It's like shooting yourself in the foot but without actually being on the front line.
Where I have a feeling my view diverge from yours is that the only good reason I see to be in the EU is economic. The single market has been a success and good for the UK. The rest, not so much. I think it's a mistake to leave the EU but not an unqualified one.
I am very interested in hearing about the concrete manifestations of policy changes on economic activity, public health, national security, the environment, etc. I honestly have no idea what the implications of a Brexit will be with regard to these things.
In politics, though, such discussion is often drowned out by people's quests to self-identify as whatever kind of person (eg. liberal) and make note of cultural differences between themselves and the opposition (how they're uneducated or xenophobic or not globally-minded, in this case).
The GP seems confident that a Brexit is an extremely bad thing. I have no a priori reason to suppose otherwise, but it would be a lot more useful if they would explain what negative consequences they foresee.
For one, and by definition, broken agreements and extra burden to paimfully craft new ones. Work duplication. Petty fighting for minute details with each potential partner.
Next, broken trust. We have spent years negotiating with the UK, accedimg to ever increasing demands, accepting expansion of the EU to the east at your behest (and then complaining about too many poles), etc. Luckily we did mot accept Turkey (which I actually supported, but in the current situation would have been a further destabilizing factor) at your (and USA's) behest.
And now you quit. You shatter all we have built together. Not nice. Resentiment is bound to take hold of lots of europeans against britons. I for one do not welcome you anymore. I hope all agreements with the UK are declared void, students are not accepted in university exchange programs, that you have to pass screening processes (like all mon-EU people have) to enter and set shop in any EU country, that you have to prove cultural and language integration whenever you decide to permanently move to another EU country, that you are only allowed to move if you have a work permit and a work offer, etc.
In short, the EU should put back all red tape that belongs to any non-EU member. And each piece of red tape will be romeved, or not, after long negotiations, which the EU will agressively stear to defend our interests.
Is this retaliation? At all! YOU have decided this. The club you are leaving is all that, and much more. You are leaving ALL that behind.
Will this happen? Is this in the EU's interest? You bet. Maybe not strictly in our economic interest, but defenitely in a political sense.
We have been dealt an existential threat, and we need to show the remaining 27 members how cold it is outside.
The reactions of EU polititians have been cristal clear: we are cutting ties with the UK, fast and furious.
Boris can pretend to continue to be european, but we will not necessarily welcome it.
This vote tore all that up.
I do wish people in the Remain camp would stop with this. Just because people voted to Leave, doesn't mean they were uneducated. I was on the fence about whether to stay or go for a long time, it was only after I put in research that I decided to vote to Leave. Despite what you see in the mainstream media, it's not just a bunch of racists voting to Leave. In fact, I really wish I could've voted to stay, but I didn't want to compromise my principals to do so.
If you want an educated voice that was in favour of leaving, watch this clip of Tony Benn...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0wFii8klNg
Jeremy Corbyn also had serious misgivings about the EU too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXTvsqUphMc
From what I've seen, neither of them were/are susceptible to jingoism. Do you see why they wanted to leave?
Sorry, but sour-grape bullshit.
There was pro-leave bullshit, but there was also pro-remain bullshit. Characterising anyone who disagrees with your position as ignorant, or less educated is the height of arrogance.
If you have so many pro-EU friends, it sounds as if you live in a bubble. You need to get out more. It is very depressing.
Sorry, but the figures show that those who voted remain were not only older, but also less educated.
(https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/yougov-referendum-model...)
And most of the evidence for the 'right choice' is clearly in the remain camp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8 (A bit uncouth, but the evidence he presents is pretty clear)
I was rather undecided, leaning towards remain, until I started examining the posts by my friends. I examined most of the quotes and figures they mentioned in each article. As a result, I think my 'leave' friends are insane, because I found all of the 'leave' articles were utterly disingenuous about their quotes. They repeatedly misquoted newspapers known for extremely poor (third rate) coverage, and some of the information was downright fabrication. On the other hand, the articles posted by my friends who supported the 'remain' camp frequently listed what I consider to be 'first rate' sources (The Office of National Statistics, etc.), and the quality of the information was much higher and truthful. I found only one or two misquotes, and no fabrications.
Obviously, that's purely anecdotal, but it seems to mirror the experiences that a lot of 'remain' voters have had.
But aren't those also the ones who have been hit hardest by Globalization? Isn't that the big divide we're seeing here: the fact that high skilled and well educated have greatly benefited from the EU. Meanwhile the working class have faced stagnation.
Leaving the EU gives up power, economic might, and so on, but I don't find it so surprising that so many would risk such a decision in hopes of breaking away from the status quo.
You have decided to leave beleaving that being independent will improve your chances of facing global problems: globalization, immigratiin, inequality, tidal movements in the labor market due to technology disruption ... It is not a given that global problems can be better confronted by withdrawing from international organizations. Time will tell.
But even if you happen to ne succesful in that front, the political damage, for the UK and the EU is huge. The EU is much more than a market, and the UK is about to realize about it.
Though one could of course, consider this part of the ongoing aftershocks from WW2 which Britain never fully recovered from (i.e. final nail in the coffin of the Empire, its virtual indebtedness to the US), which led to what are probably the most US-like, capitalist-minded policies of the entire EU. Policies which, although making London the financial powerhouse it is, have undoubtedly alienated its rural areas, and have led to the referendum result we are seeing now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_...
so the statement is accurate
It's like Northen Irish people voting Sinn Fein were complaining that they don't actually sit in Westminster.
the situation is identical
Congratulations, you will see the United Kingdom disappear in your lifetime.
Please don't post flamewar-style comments here, especially in divisive threads.
It's a logical fallacy to say that "the country's laws were decided by politicians the people did not elect.", when indeed they are elected by the people.
The UK has zero members in the EPP because the conservatives decided to go it alone; they still have votes, they've just decided to form their own parliamentary bloc, the AECR.
Yes, there was a democratic deficit in the original EU structure. It was addressed in the 2009 treaty, and it keeps getting addressed with more and more decision-making powers slowly moving from Commission to Parliament. But it's too late, people think Bruxelles decides banana sizes and we can't have that.
Unsurprisingly, who was among the first journalists starting the whole "crazy bruxelles" meme? One Boris Johnson.
Churchill argued for a European super-state. He was the architect of several of the early steps towards European integration, such as the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights, and he wanted a European army.
He's pretty much one of the fathers of the EU.
He also at one point proposed outright union between the UK and France.
The important thing to consider, with respect to his United States of Europe speech though, is that when Churchill spoke of this, the UK still had an empire - it was a super-state, though one in decline, and the Commonwealth still meant something more than a loose association. He was speaking from a position where the UK was already "spoken for" so to speak.
Yet over the years afterwards he was one of the driving forces of European integration, including for the UK, but of course he did not see how far it was going.
It wasn't just virtual.
"The Anglo-American Loan Agreement was a post World War II loan made to the United Kingdom by the United States on 15 July 1946, and paid off in 2006. The loan was negotiated by John Maynard Keynes. The loan was for $3.75 billion (US$57 billion in 2015) at a low 2% interest rate; Canada loaned an additional US$1.19 billion"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-American_loan
The interesting thing to consider is that although the repayment terms were generous given the general context of the Marshall Plan, the US should probably have had to go an extra mile given the UK's contribution of its Tube Alloys program [0]. This nascent R&D project was moved over to the US, expanded and upgraded - and nowadays we call it the Manhattan Project.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys
Including immigration? That seemed to be a big factor in the Leave vote.
Including Poles, Romanians, all those people the far right despises.
They wouldn't have to let war refugees and asylum seekers in, though.
The great majority of foreigners in the UK are coming from non-EU countries, and they are not refugees. Leaving the EU will not change that.
Other EU states would give them citizenship (or residency) though
Long term the EU is going nowhere, it is dominated by socialist countries that will go the way of Argentina, a slow but steady decline (well under way). And the migrant crisis, which is likely only at its beginning (look at african demographic projections), combined with Brexit and the rise of populism all over Europe, will likely put such a strain on the EU that I think its days are numbered.
So on the long run, I think the UK has probably made a wise choice.
Socialism in Europe died in the '90s. What we have now are right-wing neoliberal elites trashing the place that social-democrats built in the '70s and '80s.
Les députés européens socialistes français estiment que la victoire annoncée du Brexit est "l'échec d'une Europe exclusivement dédiée au marché intérieur"
Translation: the French socialist members of European parliament think that the victory of Brexit is the "failure of a Europe solely dedicated to free trade".
Free trade is the only thing UKIP or the euro-sceptic tories want to keep from the EU. There is a fundamental cultural gap between the UK and Continental Europe countries.
I'd wager that the OP hit the nail on the head here. There are many large Pakistani communities in England in areas such as the Midlands, East London and Bradford that do not inter-marry, socialise or integrate outside their own culture, and when after two or three generations this remains unchanged the perception to the locals is that the cohesion of their communities have taken a real turn for the worse.
The EU's inability to manage middle eastern migrants in a controlled way, along with the belief that most will eventually hold EU passports and speak rudimentary English I think were major deciding factors in those communities, communities that have had demographic shifts not seen in Scotland and Northern Ireland & whose concerns are shut out and branded racist and xenophobic by both the media and the left.
http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_proj_continent.aspx
Without young immigrants and their higher birth rates there simply won't be enough tax revenue to cover future social obligations. We know what this game looks like: Japan. A country looking at a steady and certain decline in quality of life. This is what the UK is going to be like.
The EU is absolutely going to be dominant in the future. Collectively it has an economy that is more varied and flexible and the single market is invaluable. As a startup or prospective exporter being able to try things out in your local market (of 500 million people no less) is the reason the US is so successful.
African demographic projections which shows Africa's population growth slowly dropping? Coupled with economic projections which shows most African economies growing at far faster rates than Europe? With some African countries, like Nigeria, likely to overtake the UK in total GDP (not per capita) over the next 20-30 years? Largely as a result of massively improved stability and fewer wars over the last decade.
Africa has plenty of challenges, but they're mostly headed the right way. And they're also slowly but steadily moving towards a far more ambitious union project than the EU, with several of the African Union pillars (regional closer unions like ECOWAS serves as "first stage" integration) hard at work at monetary unions and extensive integration.
Of course things can change - nobody expected Syria to blow up the way it did and more than we expected Yugoslavia to collapse as violently as it did.
But at the moment, countries like Nigeria are seeing graduates etc. returning in droves from the UK because the opportunities there are immense, cost of living low (though housing prices in parts of places like Lagos can rival London) and growth at levels you can't hope for in the UK.
http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_proj_continent.aspx
Now if it is matched by an unprecedented growth, it may turn out OK. But if I was a young african male, I would try my luck in Europe.
> But if I was a young african male, I would try my luck in Europe.
If you were a young African male with the means of getting to Europe, there's at least half a dozen African countries where your economic prospects over the next 20-30 years would likely outstrip going to Europe unless you are in a tiny minority with skills that are in very high demand in Europe.
As it stands, they'd need to see a total catastrophic collapse of the economy of most of the African continent, with no subsequent recovery, for economic growth to not outpace population growth over the next few decades.
I'm sure you can't extrapolate it and assume it will stay the same for the next 30 years. But you can make reasonably educated estimates assuming that the average change in velocity will be all that extreme, given that large part of these amounts are based on income from relatively stable industries with well understood risk profiles.
Largely the development of Africa at present boils down to whether or not we see further major wars disrupt the progress. If we do, then, yes, things may go the wrong way. If not, it will take unprecedented crises to prevent Africa from continuing to see massive growth.
Northern Ireland will unify with the Republic.
FTSE 100 will open down 12-19%, which probably wipes out ISAs all over the place.
This is history in the making. Decided by something like 1 million people as of right now.
Just an absolute disaster.
Scottish independence is likely - the question is just how firm the polls need to be before the SNP go there again.
If the UK had voted to leave, with only a 2% margin, would you have complained that it was to little to determine something of this magnitude and called it ridiculous?
Regardless of the outcome, the EU needs to re-evaluate how it operates and if it needs to change drastically. I'm a fan of the idea of an EU, but in it's current form it's an almost unmitigated disaster and a role model for people wanting to circumvent democracy.
I'm not sure I get this part. Are you just counting the difference in votes? How about the millions that voted for Brexit?
This was decided by %50+ of the populace. If you didn't agree to the terms, why did you come to the voting?
Not true. The electorate was 46,501,241 and the leave vote was 17,410,742, so about 37%. You're forgetting to take into account those who didn't vote.
I didn't agree to the terms, I didn't vote for Cameron and I still voted (remain). Why wouldn't I?
Those who didn't vote but could of effectively decided "I don't care enough to participate. You decide for me".
If they were too lazy go out in the rain, mark a piece of paper with a pencil or use a postal vote then they can't really complain after the fact.
I'm sorry if I sound a bit annoyed, this is not directed specifically at you, I just don't like the result.
The issue was important and the voting procedure for those eligible to vote was not onerous.
It's possible. The same with northern ireland. But more interesting question is which european country will leave the EU next. Hungary? Greece? Finland?
The UK is a pillar of the EU ( 2nd largest economy and the 3rd most populous country ). Don't see the EU surviving without the UK.
England has canada, australia, new zealand and of course the US. England is part of the anglosphere. England will be fine.
Also, the "mines", "oil" and "fish" make up a tiny portion of england's economy. England is mostly a financial center, not a oil or a mining center.
As long a Germany and France are on board, the EU will survive in some form. The UK has always been an obstacle to tighter integration, and that obstacle will likely be gone soon.
They won't be on board much longer. The EU is nonsense at its very core. It is a corrupt cesspool where a select group of unelected masters rule over the unwashed masses.
It is a farcical idealized fantasy. It doesn't exist the way the people idealized it to exist.
> The UK has always been an obstacle to tighter integration, and that obstacle will likely be gone soon.
Actually, the UK was a force for tighter integration. After all english and modern anglo culture is the dominant culture of the EU.
It is just shocking how naive people are. The problem with the EU is precisely france and germany. To have "integration", you have to have a common language, culture, history, etc. So will french or german be the language of the EU? That's just the basic first level aspect of a "union".
The only way the EU will ever work is if one dominant nation/ethnic group/etc conquers the whole thing and forcibly integrates the region. And that won't happen anytime soon.
Greece and Hungary are probably next to leave soon to be followed by everyone else.
People are disappointed. Even this vote , is actually a vote of dissatisfaction against the status quo. They just managed to direct enough of that anger against the EU.
I'd like to suggest the following three hypotheses and hear what you guys think :
1. As growth slows , liberal democracy ceases to be the status quo. It's much easier for a demagogue to whip up sentiments against the "other" when people feel that they have been left behind.
2. The media has always been a gatekeeper and helped keep the more extreme voices out of mainstream discourse. The internet breaks this dynamic and now disaffected majorities can coalesce across regional boundaries within a country.
3. The Western working class has realised that globalisation doesn't seem to be raising everyone's living standards. It's more of an equalisation where large numbers of people in Asia are lifted into the middle class while the western working class stagnates.
This diagram shows a clear class divide in the voting: http://i.imgur.com/SneDXWa.png
I don't have much more data to back these up so I'd be interested hearing any thoughts / anecdotes about such things around where you live.
The Internet didn't break this dynamic, it's just another media in the end (regarding the press) with a louder audience for the same ideas. Moreover the fragmentation of countries into regions doesn't follow from that. It comes from national politics. National politics that just get votes and support from following point #1. And inevitably leads to a blaming game (they are a lot of Nigel across Europe).
I might be wrong and I don't have time to word my opinions like I would, sorry. Just my 2ç in the wee hour of morning.
Ah. Strikes everywhere in Belgium today.
You can say anything online and that widens the scope of what is considered acceptable discourse.
Notice how the media tries to black out Trump's insanity but it gets so much attention on social media that they're forced to cover his tweets.
I think you'll find this book interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/09/net-delusion-m... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/books/review/Siegel-t.html...
https://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp...
> But the internet allows people on the so called fringe to see that they may not be the fringe after all.
Not really, the internet also has that loudest voice syndrom.
> You can say anything online and that widens the scope of what is considered acceptable discourse.
Or you get drowned in an endless sea of information, a dot in the noisegraph.
> Notice how the media tries to black out Trump's insanity but it gets so much attention on social media that they're forced to cover his tweets.
Can't comment on that as I don't live in the US :/ but it's an interesting point. How effecient can they really be at hiding something vs ignoring it.
Completely not true. They air hours upon hours of uncut press conferences. They could easily summarize the press conference in a 90 second piece ("Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump today..."), but they don't.
What? They love covering him because they get so many viewers. Hell, they're partially the reason he catapulted into the limelight--had they treated his antics the same as the other politicians' he'd have received far less air time than he has so far.
Is the UK unique in having pro-immigration, anti-immigration parties? It boggles my mind, and doesn't get discussed much even in the UK. (I suppose Trumps incoherence, and lack of walking the talk, is actually very similar, now I think about it).
I especially agree with your #2, but I warn most people will disagree. It's so foolish to think the Internet does not mean anything. I'm so disappointed when I travel somewhere and people mock my desire to secure a SIM card as quickly as possible. Why is it so frowned upon to connect to the Internet?
Why should the citizens of a country be in favor of an economic policy that screws them in return for making the richest .001% of the population richer, and raising the standard of living for foreigners living in a mud huts to being slaves in a factory? This was apparent all along, but the people voicing these concerns were ignored or marginalized by the one sided economic voices in the media...
So to part 2:
The problem is that the economists you hear on the news telling you what needs to be done are wrong worse than 50% of the time (austerity, free trade with countries that don't have equivalent economies, you name it). In the US after Trump (who I mostly disagree with) started calling out Carrier for closing a US factory to offshore the production, I heard a couple economists taking about how if carrier didn't move all their production offshore no one would be able to afford an AC unit.
To which, I was frankly shocked. central AC units, which are mostly assembled from 3rd party components, many of which are already made in china/etc (unless you get lucky with a us built emerson/copeland compressor) are extremely high margin businesses. The assembly costs in the US are a tiny fraction of the installed price of a AC unit (which are dominated by your local AC installer). Worse, prices rarely decline when production is off-shored, rather the savings tend to go back to the execs and majority share holders. Or worse, are used to buy or block smaller more efficient competitors.
So, for a news organization to not vet this before allowing some doomsday economist to come on and talk about how the price of AC units are going to spike if carrier isn't allowed to fire a bunch of $20/hour employees in favor of a bunch of $5/hour ones, while playing tax games with the profits (aka book the majority of the profits outside of the US to avoid taxes) is just insane. Heck carrier has a gross profit margin of > 50% (its higher than Apple!).
Bottom line, I think pretty much everyone I know is now trained to disbelieve anything heard on the news from a self proclaimed economist.
And yes , the citizens of a country should not be in favour of a policy that transfers the lions share of the gains to the 0.01 %.
But overall , a liberal global order has been a good thing.
I blame the greed of the elites for (potentially) killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Greed is a powerful addiction. The elites won't stop trying to concentrate more and more wealth at the top, even when they know it will increase the chance of something like Brexit actually happening (which cut their wealth, at least temporarily, considerably).
Addition is powerful because it's addictive.
So next time you negotiate your salary, or try to make more bonus at the end of the year, I want you to think about your addiction to greed. You just want to concentrate more and more wealth at the top, even when you know it will increase the chance of something like Brexit. Clearly that's your motivator.
If that doesn't work for you, try coming up with a more realistic model or how wealth actually moves, and what motivates people. Parables about the seven deadly sins make for entertaining and convincing story telling, but are not good models for reality.
And yes let's say I make $100,000/year. Would I or most others be happy with it? Surprisingly, no. They probably want to make a little more to get a boat, or even a bigger saving for their children.
Even in the US, 34K a year is a living wage in some parts of the country while in others its extremely hard to survive. Beside the obvious cost of living expenses for house, transportation, food, there is also the question of, how your making the 34k a year. If you can earn it in less than 40 hours a week you have time to supplement your income growing a garden, fixing your own car, or spending time tutoring your children. OTOH, if it takes 80 hours a week to earn that then you pretty much have to pay people to take care of all the little things you could be doing yourself.
> rather the savings tend to go back to the execs and majority share holders.
If so, start your own AC company and undercut them since there's so much margin. As for me, I don't believe it for a second.
Also , acting on emotion rather than reason and whipping up extreme sentiments against outsiders are the harbingers of fascism.
Can you even give a definition without looking it up?
* He wants small gov't * He believes in democracy * He does not support ccontinuing costly wars and meddling in other countries affairs * I'm not sure he's suppressed any political groups
Both sides are acting on extreme emotions these days, and on the other side of the coin, the outsiders are people who disagree with liberal policies.
1) What's the significance of circles? Do they represent voting districts or something like that?
2) What does the size of a circle represent? Is it the population of a district, perhaps on logarithmic scale?
3) Does the position on the x-axis represent how strongly that district was for remain or leave?
Of course, you could give the link to the original source too, Google Image Search shows nothing yet.
5) this is a correction.
As someone who grew up in the Rust Belt, I think #3 hits the nail on the head. For as long as I can remember, the area where I grew up has been struggling economically (it was hit hard by waves of factory closings starting in the 1980's). None of the politicians from either party seemed to care.
Now suddenly there's a politician who seems to care about this issue, has a real shot at being President, and is different enough from the usual run of politicians that he may be paying the issue more than lip service and may actually be able to effect change.
For a lot of people, this is a powerful motivation to get out and vote for him despite his obvious flaws, especially when his opponent is not only as "establishment" as they come, but her husband literally brought us NAFTA.
To (3) I would add a "prisoner's dilemma" dynamic -- theoretically it's better if every country "cooperates" and gives all their effort to putting the benefit of the world as a whole above the benefit of their country (that's the vision of globalization). But if some countries "defect" and focus on themselves first, then whoever "cooperates" feels exploited (and not wrongly so). A lot of people I know feel like some countries (especially China) are defectors in this game and we shouldn't be suckers, so despite the theory, the practical thing to do is look out for ourselves first.
Farage is clearly fascist, and has been for many years. His fascism was identified while he was at school and it hasn't decreased since then. (Albeit it he no longer marches through villages singing Hitler Youth songs.)
http://www.channel4.com/news/nigel-farage-ukip-letter-school...
About as relevant as Cameron's pig fucking...
I post a link to his past because his present - leading a fascist party using fascist tactics - is so obvious it doesn't need linking.
Where is your evidence that he "really did" this?
Before you say "Did you read the article I linked to!" - yes, I did.
As long as your life is visibly improving , you don't mind that some people are doing insanely well. But it's much harder to stomach when you're struggling to get by.
I can see an Independence Referendum 2.0 being pushed through...
* = I am assuming the Welsh vote was due to a few of the Welsh lads being too exited by the Euros to vote, so they get a pass on being narrowly "Leave" this time
Looking at the majority of each constituency is misleading - it's a popular vote. There both strong pro-EU in numbers.
[0]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028
Roll on London Independence Party!
</half-joking>
Edit: Calls for London declaration of independence on change.org
https://www.change.org/p/sadiq-khan-declare-london-independe...
I work in London at a startup with international markets. I believe in the ideal of free movement. I think the EU is a bit of a mess conceptually and mechanically, but in general a step forward for Europe.
This is really the beginning of a very long, tedious and ultimately unsatisfying couple of years of dissatisfaction and instability as we negotiate with the EU and the rest of the world.
HA! Negotiate. If Britain want to shoot itself in the foot and unsettle the world economy, it can do so on its own. The EU need not concede on anything. Why should they, given that Britain won't be a voting member in a couple years. If I were France I would start bricking up the chunnel tomorrow.
Depending on how things turn out in France in the near future, they may be busy fighting "Frexit" sentiments in their own country. Le Pen has already brought up the possibility (granted, I don't expect her to be in power, but the idea is out there).
Those commonwealth countries (Canada) also trade with the EU. Whether they will choose to favour britain or not is also open. We'll get back to you on that one.
Non-EU Exports for April 2016 were £13.0 billion. EU Exports for April 2016 were £12.0 billion.
Non-EU Imports for April 2016 were £21.9 billion. EU Imports for April 2016 were £19.1 billion.
Regardless, it's not like materials to trade disappears... my guess would be the UK negotiates with the EU to basically keep trade the same. If not the UK will be increase exports elsewhere.
It's far from clear that the UK will be able to sort this out easily.
Switzerland's the real winner in this one
Although with the plummeting pound British stuff might still manage to be as cheap. Only now 4.5% of British exports will be going into European hands instead of British.
This is a lose-lose. Everyone suffers. Trade with the UK will go down, and both the EU and the UK will be poorer.
Difference is that the EU has 10 times the population of the UK. And the EU has political disincentives to keep this breakup civil.
The "migrants" are already working on it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3651956/Hundreds-mig...
Why? Out of pique? Out of being disrespected? Out of a general tit for tat?
I don't agree with the UK voters today (from my safe spot of not being a UK voter) but it seems pretty silly for the EU or countries within the EU to treat this vote--assuming it goes ahead--as a petulant child would, damn the consequences. They should and probably will make a rational response based on their own interests whether or not they're "annoyed" or whatever the word is with the UK.
The EU was specifically meant to prevent countries taking actions in their own interest, to stop them from putting their own interests above those of other countries. Now that is done and France can act in France's interests, which probably aren't exactly the same as Britain's. They are now free to make the rational decision to, for example, place tariffs on British goods so as to protect French manufacturers.
French know this will happen, so they don't do that.
Wait until Berlin replaces London as an economic hub.
Economic war will ensue and we'll all lose.
Great for European unity, I see.
The UK never believed in the EU and only wanted the good side of it. It's better for everyone that they'll be gone. There was no European Union if a selfish state didn't want to be united in the bad things too.
If the EU as a whole decides for a new trade agreement with the UK, that's fine (See? Unity), but I think they won't since the EU has strong motivation to slap back the UK.
When negotiating, you never let a position of power go to waste.
Within a nation, tiered citizen privileges with some sane defaults should control the degree of social security. Keep human rights intact, keep a basic standard of living intact, but ensure that all work is productive and that the people receiving welfare have a plan to not be economic deadweight.
I'm just one miller on the content farm: if there's one thing that I'm going to take away from this, it's that my ratiocinations don't mean jack shit. I'm still curious as to what other people think.
There can still be social safety nets for citizens without the need to support free movers.
As for voters in the UK, I think they are concerned about future immigrants, not the current immigrant population.
There is at least one positive point regardless of how you voted.
The referendum gets people talking about the issue and makes them more aware of the pros and cons. Over time they will find out if that was a good or bad move for the success of the UK.
Countries have engaged in trade for thousands of years - Brexit won't change that.
Welcome back to the Hobbesian jungle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism
>"When goods cannot cross borders, armies will."
I think it would be interesting to see how many protectionist schemes have lead to wars vs. free trade.
Brexit will change that.
The consequences are huge.
EDIT: And next time think before saying that someone is in same shoes as fascists. My grand grandmother husband and son was killed fighting with fascists.
Just as if I said, "soccer moms and skin-heads both breathe air". Should soccer moms feel attacked? Am I name calling? Of course not.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966245 and marked it off-topic.
Of course we have biases, but (a) we consciously work at suspending them, (b) they're probably not what you think they are, and (c) one cannot accurately assess another's bias by consulting one's own passions.
And we might not be in the minority anymore.
(...Poe's law strikes back...)
Before you vote me down, you should know I'be had to change countries twice and have been of the receiving end of some nasty nationalism (mostly in the EU ironically, almost none in the US).
Any immigration schemes proposed by LEAVE would probably see a rise, not fall, in immigration.
This is one example of the dishonesty of leave campaign.
And apparently anti-sex worker.
And sausages.
you're just implying there's no good reason for brits to vote to leave other than racism which is clearly bs.
You mean the house of lords? It stays even without EU ;)
So while the Civil Service is run by permanent employees they are basically at the whim of whoever happens to be in power at the time.
... and I'm not sure how Brexit will affect the Russian-ness of the UK's prostitutes, give that Russia is not part of the EU, EEC, Schengen, or even EFTA...
Why do you need separate shops for kielbasa? Here in the US east coast, kielbasa is sold in normal supermarkets along with other sausages.
Edit: I just noticed how many other inflammatory comments you've posted to this site against its rules. Please don't do that any more.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is an obviously historic event, it's worth discussing if we can keep the discussion from becoming too vitriolic, and experience has shown that when something like this happens, there's no keeping it off HN anyhow.
I just hope the discussion doesn't degrade too hopelessly over the next few hours, because it's too late to keep doing this over here.
The failure to make people understand Lisbon 2009 reforms is what is killing the EU.
Yes, Britain has a revising upper chamber populated by people who've made some kind of distinguished contribution to British society during their careers. As with all human enterprises, mistakes occur & some members (peers) have questionable qualifications and corruptive practices do sometimes surface as everywhere else. Sometimes political cronies are appointed. This does not mean we throw the bath water out with the baby.
The upper house provides a venue for extended discussion of laws put forward by the lower house but ultimately has no power to overturn decisions made in the lower house. Most members of the House of Lords (often experts in various subjects) have no or minimal vested interests in the issues brought before them and can therefore offer totally independent opinions since they do not have to answer to an electorate.
Being unelected does not necessarily always equate to a zero qualification for a limited role in law making.
It's rarely invoked and if it were to happen on a serious piece of legislation then Britain would in all likelihood become a republic shortly thereafter.
The British "constitution" is largely based around checks and balances based around mutually assured destruction should any party stray from their expected role. This is one such example.
No, its not. The British monarch, as the saying goes, reigns but does not rule.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966234 and marked it off-topic.
British citizens may not be able to world and live throughout the EU any more either. People already abroad may lose their work status on nations without reciprocal fall-back agreements.
This is a pretty big change, but I don't think it's a bad one.
My guess is very little changes, it's more of a sign that people want their country sovereign as opposed to being ruled by a committee in another country.
EDIT: As mentioned elsewhere, here's an interesting summary with projected timelines: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
Once the PM formally starts the process, it must be completed in 2 years according to the Lisbon treaty. The end of that period is when the trade deals expire. There will clearly be preparation before they formally pull the trigger, but it's anybody's guess just how long it will be. There may be a change in UK leadership over this, and there are upcoming elections in France and Germany to consider. The Leave campaign has talked about 2020 as a good date to end the separation.
For all the treaties that will expire, trade will fall back to the WTO rules, which (to my understanding) are like the benches at train stations. They're arguably better than nothing, but very uncomfortable to sit on for any length of time.
IMO the market to watch is finance. Losing the free movement of money is an enormous blow to London as a global financial hub. Especially since the London and European stock exchanges are merging, it's possible the big investment banks will simply move to Frankfurt. The financial sector contributes 84bn to GDP (of 2.8tn), so there's a lot at risk there. So if any treaties get signed quick, it'll be the financial ones.
To extend your argument, maybe that wouldn't actually change much in the grand scheme of things! But EU regulations have a pretty big impact, so I think the breakup of the EU would actually be a big deal.
Look at things the British people love: The NHS. We've seen huge cuts in the NHS, and the conservatives still get elected.
Out is out.
This result seems to be 52/48 so it's incredible that such a monumentally important decision is to be made from this interpretation of a majority.
This decision feels very much like it's on the wrong side of history, but perhaps that's just the denial.
We'll start feeling the riples of this in a couple of years. What a huge mistake!