It is amazing how we have been enjoying healthy growth and improvements everywhere in the last 100 years and people still think there is something to fight against "neoliberism". You don't trust a system where multiple agents are free to decide with capitalism, but you think everything will be solved with 1 agent ruling them all with a super Leviathan state. He doesn't want to be compared to fascists, but that's exactly along the lines a fascist would think. I don't know, personally, I am going to try and get German citizenship, at least those guys are somewhat reliable and don't do pointless referendums (because you think something is going to change? No, all will stay exactly the same, but at least you can feel happy at the thought of not being a EU state, I guess).
Sometimes not being an EU state is not something to be happy about. For example now Poland is being taken over by right-wing party, which reduces citizen rights, violates constitution, oppresses minorities, removes the separation of the state and church. There are voices that we should leave the EU. But European Union and its framework is the only institution that from time to time keeps them at bay. When we leave EU, we are lost, the regime will be able to do anything.
It only took 30 years for Poland to forget the most expensive lessons that were ever learned. I really hope it will end well but there is a good chance that it will not. Polish politics has been quite strange in the last 5 years or so.
Yeah, the sad truth is that people mostly forgotten how it was under communist rule and now they are pushing their country into the hands of other authoritarian politicians.
It's also disheartening to see how authoritarian supposedly free market countries are becoming, one's that have never been under the control of authoritarian communism.
Funny, two years ago everyone here was calling them a left-wing party.
>reduces citizen rights, violates constitution
They haven't done anything that the previous party didn't, but since the previous party lost this election the very same people who did it for the previous 8 years suddenly act like they have the moral high ground.
>oppresses minorities
Not wanting uncontrolled immigration is not "oppressing minorities".
>removes the separation of the state and church
This has never been as severe as people like to claim, even back in 2006.
So you don't want what your country benefited dramatically from in the last 15 years, when Polish people moved to UK to work, sending home additional capital and reducing demographic pressure. I apologize if this sounds inflammatory, it's not meant to but: it is, objectively, a very hypocritical position.
The EU parliment had a meeting where basically what was said was "this is a huge issue, everyone should help by taking some" and then Polish government decided to get on a high horse and not accept anyone. It flies directly in the face of united Europe and I really hate what they(the government) are doing.
Are you really surprised that the when there are so many reports about immigrants causing problems for the countries that take them in? No one here wants an another Cologne.
And I find it really amusing that you talk about "united Europe" in the context of non-European immigrants. It is not okay for one country to cause a huge wave of immigration and then basically going "we can't take these people in so you have to and do it unconditionally" - which only encourages even more immigration.
Those people arrive at EU shores, therefore they are EU's problem. If they arrived at Polish shores(as unlikely as that is) Poland would be asking for support of the rest of EU as well.
>Those people arrive at EU shores, therefore they are EU's problem.
Can't argue with that, but this doesn't mean EU has to take these people in, neither it gives them the right to enter the EU. Several dozen years ago these people would get their boats sunk.
And 100 years ago they maybe would even be shot - problem solved! Fortunately we live in a civilization that is much better and we don't treat people in need like shit. At least I hope we don't. If someone is genuinely escaping from war, they should be given shelter, I hope there is no discussion about this.
The "genuinely escaping" is the key word here. Many of them had an option to stay in Turkey and they didn't because they thought that in Europe they will get more things for free.
I really recommend watching "With Open Gates" on Youtube and listening to what the immigrants have to say. If the picture of immigrants in the video is the reality, then the government made a very good decision by not taking these people in.
Maybe Polish parliament is less afraid to express what their people want. In Germany, there's on average 1 violent attack (beatings, burning of refugee centers) against immigrants per day. Yet the government acts as if there should be no debate.
A separate isssue is just a feasibility of Poland taking in immigrants. Before the most recent mass wave of refugees and migrants started, Poland had voluntarily taken some refugees from Syria. Since then, every last one of them left - mostly for rich Western European countries. How does the EU intend to prevent the refugees and migrants from leaving Poland?
It depends on how you view it, many of the party members say things that can be classified as right wing, but then their actions and how the actually rule the country are pretty left-wing in my opinion.
>> " right-wing party, which reduces citizen rights, violates constitution, oppresses minorities, removes the separation of the state and church."
These are just big fat lies that are being spread by the politicians that lost last elections. None of this is actualy happening in Poland.
Minorities are just fine, no action has been taken against any of them, citizen rights are in fact better than in most EU countries (no "political correctness") and the separation of church and state is ensured by the fact that 90% of Polish citizens don't treat their religion seriously anyway.
The one thing that makes some sense is accusation of constitution violation, but this has more to do with the fact that Polish constitution is poorly written than with any actions of PiS.
And, as a side note, PiS (ruling party in Poland) is of left-wing, socialist affiliation:)
The constitutional crisis has everything to do with the actions of PiS. They deliberately disregarded previous ruling of the CT, and President Duda refused to swear in three judges correctly elected by the Parliament.
Zbigniew Ziobro, the Minister of Justice, also serves as the Attorney General and under the new law he can interfere with the work of District Attorneys (he can essentially stop any prosecutorial case if he wishes to do so). This is an enormous threat to citizen's rights.
The new government has already made several decisions which help the Catholic Church. The most important one concerns the sale of the farmland, which will benefit the church financially.
On top of that there's the increase in taxation and a massive spending increase on welfare, but I suppose that's just run-of-the-mill fiscal irresponsibility.
> reduces citizen rights, violates constitution, oppresses minorities, removes the separation of the state and church
Can you give example of these (except the "violates constitution", which in itself is nothing new, consitution was also violated by previous governments)? Which minorities are opressed? Which citizen rights are reduced? How the separation of state and church is removed? I live in Poland and am seriously confused by your post.
In the last 100 years yes, there is no debate on this. However, since the mid-80s / 90s, the middle class has been completely crushed to a no return point (in most developed countries, not only the UK) and pretending the system is still working is at best dishonest. We are not even in a financial crisis right now but the system never recovered at all from 2008, in almost 10 years now. I can only guess what will happen on the next crisis... Having a jobless society where all the stability and balance of power is based on jobs is obviously not working very well at the moment.
But that has nothing to do with the EU! It's a global trend, completely orthogonal, and will manifest itself even stronger in a Britain outside of the EU! This is the tragedy about this whole ordeal - it's those that have voted 'leave' with the most conviction that will be hit hardest by the consequences, because they can not discern macro trends that are and are not caused and/or influenced by the Parliament and Commission.
Maybe. Maybe not. Developed countries have been largely centralizing power over the last twenty years. It's possible that has effects on the middle class. So Brexit could be a particular reaction to that.
It has everything to do with the EU. It is globalism that has caused this, and the EU is a massive globalist force, pushing globalist policies on people against their will. A nation having the ability to defend itself against economic warfare is the only way to do anything about it.
You know what's an even bigger globalist force? Technology. Everything from your computer to your car is stuffed full of specialized parts and materials from a huge number of countries, many of which can't be produced locally at all or require factories that are economically infeasible without a global market. Saying no to globalism is also saying no to almost all the technological advances of the past few decades.
You don't rule your way out of not adding value. If you have millions of people jobless, that's a problem with or without EU, with or without capitalism. And no, basic income is not a solution. First, there is no money to maintain millions of people that do nothing. Second, it creates very perverse incentives, especially if those people vote. Hint: they will vote politicians that promise to increase basic income, even if that means destroying the part of the country that produces value (if you want to see an example of this scenario, look at Italy and its pension system which is a sort of basic income for certain privileged classes).
"there is no money to maintain millions of people that do nothing". You underestimate how technological advances boost productivity. Consider driverless trucks: As soon as they are legal, companies will adopt them very quickly because of the obvious savings. Naturally, millions of truck drivers will be unemployed but the overall production stays the same (or even rises slightly). Thus it WILL be possible to pay all of these truck drivers a basic income without damaging anyone else's livelihood. Extrapolate this trend to other industries and you will see that in a few decades, it is completely possible to automate away most work while still paying the former workers approximately what they were earning before.
More fundamentally, you are making the mistake of thinking of work scarcity as a fundamental problem when technological advances are rendering work less and less scarce every year.
It's amazing that you think the economic improvements of the last 100 years are purely attributable to neoliberalism, a term which only acquired its current meaning around the 1980s.
The neoliberals bash Keynes saying he advocates busy work to stimulate the ecomony, yes these guys are advocating artificial market inefficiency to stimulate the economy.
I think what people are missing is that the result of income inequality is not "more poor people" but more people who feel disenfranchised and left out, even if they're objectively better off than they were before. This is the end result of that. Globalization has been great for economic growth but in developed nations the benefit has disproportionately gone to the top 5%. Now the other 95% are restless and willing to vote for whomever promises them puppies and unicorns since existing leadership has failed to deliver.
AFAIK, Brexit has won the votes, but that doesn't mean it will happen.
>Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of "No" for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign.[0]
I think it won't be, the margins are too close, only 2% or so. so basically you are ignoring 48% of the people over 52% of the people... if it was something like 30/70 that would be suicide
You're ignoring the fact that among these 48% there are people who strongly believe in democracy and if you undermine that you suddenly can have the 30/70 scenario you're talking about.
many people only consider it undemocratic when it's working against their point of view. The 48% would not argue against their own point of view with democracy, when it clearly benefits them!
The only conceivable way that a UK government can ignore this result is if the EU comes back with a substantial offer of change including a significant compromise on free movement. That could be used as a reason to trigger a second referendum.
I can't see that happening though and all the rhetoric from the EU and EU nations has been "goodbye and thanks for all the fish".
I expect the government to drag its heels for a while before it invokes Article 50 while it sorts itself out but industry will be clamouring for clarity so it won't drag on indefinitely.
> if the EU comes back with a substantial offer of change including a significant compromise on free movement
That's not going to happen - not because of the "gooodbye" rhetoric, but rather because freedom of movement has been embodied as one of the core principles of the EU. Free movement of goods and people are inseparable. This is even laid down in the bilateral agreements with Switzerland and Norway. The Swiss just tested the waters with the latest referendum on curbing EU-immigration but they haven't followed through. The EU has drawn a line in the sand here and I seriously don't expect them to concede this point.
>Free movement of goods and people are inseparable.
Only when talking about people as goods, i.e. as human resources. When talking about people as humans, the borders inside EU are closed real quick when there's a G8 summit et.al. and politicians want to keep protestors from other countries out.
I don't agree that free movement of goods and people are necessarily inseparable but I completely agree that this is the line in the sand that the EU won't cross under any circumstances.
The flip side is that it's the main reason for the exit vote so I can't see how we could join EFTA, for example.
That sounds like an idea, alright, but the swing issue (despite the focus of the press on UKIP, etc.) was very probably the EU Tobacco Products Directive and the impact that had on the UK's ability to set its own public health agenda based on actual science and harm reduction. Xenophobes and jingoists will always be there, and their numbers will wax and wane by times, but if you give millions of people a single, huge, seemingly time-critical issue on which to base a vote, they'll vote the single issue.
Follow through with what though? With removing "red tape", with cutting immigration, with not being part of a European Superstate? The text of the vote was about being a member of the EU, but you'd need to discern why people actually voted that way to keep them happy, as, for example, following the Norway model would be out of the EU (at least in name), but still have uncapped immigration, the requirement to follow lots of EU regulation, paying money to the EU, et..
I think those kinds of plots only make sense when you lay more or less in the middle. A political position is not just how you position yourself in an objective predeterminate political space but also how you define that political space.
> The basic idea is that there are two axises, not one (social and financial).
Not only this but also the main divide is not left and right but liberal and conservative. In the UK, what I see most often is a divide between socially liberal but fiscally conservative and those that are socially conservative but fiscally liberal.
In my view, it's why early New Labour was successful (socially liberal but fiscally conservative) then lost it by loosening up fiscally and going to war.
Similarly, UKIP has been equally effective in taking support from blue collar workers on both left and right because they push a socially conservative, fiscally liberal agenda.
It's not the whole story. SNP have used national identity well although, interestingly their actual policies are more in keeping with this split than their rhetoric.
The EU referendum debate seems to be almost perfectly along a line between fiscally conservative and socially conservative.
I foresee political parties changing much more this way over the next few years.
Those aren't the two axis political compass uses. The axis they use are equality (left vs right) and liberty (authoritarian vs libertarian). This still faces the same issue where many people are authoritarian about some things and libertarian about others, such as social questions vs financial questions.
- The statists that centralize power, and benefit from it (Bureaucrats and employees of state-dependent or regulated industry like banks, finance, pharmacy, media)
- The people who believe in the state.
- The people who distrust the establishment, banks, politicians
- The anarchists wanting to decentralize
They are all on the same centralization vs decentralization spectrum but the majority has no pronounced opinion and either faith or distrust in the establishment.
The anarchists are not organized and have far less influence, but since 2007/8 people have gradually increased their distrust against the establishment.
They could if existing members all agree to it, but it's doubtful England would get anything close to the plethora of exceptions and special provisions that the UK got. Seeing the long history of UK-related pain points, it's a miracle that the EU hadn't kicked them out long ago. If/when they'll come back, they'll do so with a tail in between the legs: all rules will apply, no ifs no buts, no exceptions, and no special treatments.
> A large section of the working class, concentrated in towns and cities that have been quietly devastated by free-market economics, decided they’d had enough.
As if if the UK had not been an EU member the last 30 years the situation would have been better.
At least so far they had some advantages (presence of the financial district, easy access to a large market), those will disappear too.
The end result could very well be a much worse situation for those voting 'leave' when the ones voting 'remain' will see a relatively small effect.
As an european I think the Brexit is actually beneficial for us in the middle/longterm.
- International companies will move from GB to ireland/continent, germany is in a good position to capture the financial industry (Frankfurt), Berlin already is a great startup hub.
- the brexit is a strong signal for the other EU states to get their shit together and fix obvious problems.
- its in the interest of all EU states to be as hard as possible when negotiating with britain and outright damage them when possible. No politican will say this loud, though, but it will happen. "Out is out". Harsh consequences will make other states think twice before considering an exit, too. thus, stability.
- The british economy will collapse completely, they are by far not that important globally. The pound already goes down dramatically, trade partners have been EU states mostly who will get doctrined from brussels to punish GB. We do not need anything that must be imported from the UK. Short-term EU companies operating on GB will suffer, though. But this will be overshadowed through the international focus on continental europe instead of UK/London after a while.
- the US already said that the UK isn't very important and are not very eager to make deals separately. And we do no longer have to deal with "special care" for british wishes, which often are the cause of endless discussions and bureaucracy.
- Scotland and n.Ireland may "exit" the UK, further minorizing the role of the UK in the world. Might be possible that they join the EU independently.
So all in all, this may be good news for the EU, even when we sacrifice a generation of UK citizens for our benefit. Maybe in a few decades a demolished, isolated england will try to get into the EU again.
Still, it makes me said, since I really enjoyed my stays in London and would prefer a big, strong, united europe.
Yes, I also think this is a chance to strengthen the rest of the EU.
It may also be a start of countries leaving, but if the rest of the EU comes together and says "hey, we need to double down on this or else what the hell are we even doing" they may do the former.
Which is a good thing imo, but a lot of people don't think so...
The UK imports a lot of stuff from the mainland, they'll probably end up in the economic area (with all the strings attached) but with no say in the EU... maybe don't let the masses vote next time heh
I read this post coming from a German, since you promoted Frankfurt and Berlin.
As an Englishman, let me tell you somethings from an opposing view.
- International companies won't be moving to ireland/continent. The UK at one point wasn't as integrated and was doing quite well. It will do again.
The financial industry will not leave London. It's not going to happen. There are many reasons why. Keep dreaming.
London is the best startup in Europe currently.
- Sure the EU can be hard as possible, but then so can the UK. There are many EU countries which export to the UK. It's not just a one way thing.
- The British economy will not collapse. How you can think that I have no idea. Yes the pound did go down, it's gone down many times in history. But it will recover again. The Bank of England, already accounted for this. There is no panic.
- The US said the UK is not that important? Says Obama because his dad is from Kenya hates the UK. But in reality it actually is. Germany, Spain, all other countries of EU are not as important as the UK.
- Scotland will most likely want to exit. They are 4 million people after all. But when they do exit. All the British companies currently there, will leave to go to London. They'll join as another country like Estonia or worse off. I don't know if Europe will have them lol.
- N. Ireland won't exit. They are deeply patriotic people and see themselves as British.
Sorry. But I really don't think you know what you are talking about!
Yes, we have deeply opposing views here, obviously. I can clearly see where you're coming from and follow the logic.
Having said that, I strongly disagree, see my initial post. Only the future will tell who will be right (or none of us?). Political Power Play is a gamble, and I bet strongly on a more united europe. Others do different bets, as seen in the brexit vote. All sides contain competent and educated people finally.
> I read this post coming from a German, since you promoted Frankfurt and Berlin.
Probably right.
> International companies won't be moving to ireland/continent. The UK at one point wasn't as integrated and was doing quite well. It will do again.
Yes, but back then the EU was a lot less strong than it is today, even without the UK as a part of it.
> The financial industry will not leave London. It's not going to happen. There are many reasons why. Keep dreaming.
250 Billion worth of capital has already fled judging by the drop of the pound, and more is likely to follow. Yes, the financial hub of Europe will shift its COG to Frankfurt. That's something that a re-entry in the EU of England at a later date will not be able to recover.
> London is the best startup in Europe currently.
I assume you left out 'centre' or 'hub', and it was so until today. But if I were starting a start-up I'd definitely think twice now about whether or not to do this in the UK, and London specifically.
> ure the EU can be hard as possible, but then so can the UK. There are many EU countries which export to the UK. It's not just a one way thing.
The relative sizes of the parties dictate the likely outcome of such negotiations. Already there are some pretty clear lines drawn and those will only become more stark in time. This was an 'own goal' if there ever was one.
> The US said the UK is not that important? Says Obama because his dad is from Kenya hates the UK. But in reality it actually is. Germany, Spain, all other countries of EU are not as important as the UK.
This is mis-informed. The UK is important as a country within the EU. Once the UK leaves (and especially if the UK then breaks up even further) it is no longer that important a country.
> Scotland will most likely want to exit. They are 4 million people after all. But when they do exit. All the British companies currently there, will leave to go to London. They'll join as another country like Estonia or worse off. I don't know if Europe will have them lol.
I'm not sure if 'lol' is something that you'd want to use about anything today. And Scotland is definitely a viable country and would most likely be very welcome in the EU.
And all the British companies there might actually see Scotland as the backdoor to remain in the EU, and I would not be surprised if they more than anything else would push to achieve this.
> N. Ireland won't exit. They are deeply patriotic people and see themselves as British.
That one is a toss-up, but not hugely important for the EU, though it would be hugely important to the UK, if they wish to keep that 'U'.
In other words: the UK has made itself a bit player overnight and chances are that only England will remain at the end of all this, with a substantially reduced economy and a very tiny market to sell into. It will hurt all those who voted 'exit' the hardest, and it will be studied for decades to come as an example of how an electorate can be manipulated to vote against its own interests.
> International companies won't be moving to ireland/continent.
Probably true, but they will certainly strengthen their position on the mainland.
> The financial industry will not leave London.
Also true. The reasons mostly being lack of regulation and corruption :P
> The British economy will not collapse.
True. (I hope.)
> The US said the UK is not that important? Says Obama because his dad is from Kenya hates the UK.
WTF
> Germany, Spain, all other countries of EU are not as important as the UK.
Germany has a higher GDP than the UK. Never mind the combined GDP of some of the bigger EU member states. I'm not sure why you think the UK is that important.
> this may be good news for the EU, even when we
> sacrifice a generation of UK citizens for our benefit.
As a British citizen, I'm appalled by the sentiment expressed here. It flies in the face of the ideas and values upon which the EU was founded. I'm not going to say anything beyond that.
It's very unfortunate that you won't be going with them. You are close to them and have the same language. It just makes sense, but sadly the old disputes over religion (looking silly now) have led to today's lack of unified islands.
What doesn't make sense is having a commonwealth/fiveeyes country bolted on the side of the EU.
Mate if you're talking about Ireland then with respect you don't know what you're on about. For starters Ireland is neither a commonwealth country or (as far as I know) a five eyes country. Secondly Ireland is one of the countries with the highest EU approval ratings. And for good reason, the EU has been overwhelmingly good for Ireland. There is literally not a chance in hell of us leaving. Although the relationship between Ireland and Britain is strong, and certainly much better than it use to be, I think most people would be wary of becoming to dependent on them without the EU as a counterbalance given our history.
I mean the UK. The UK is a commonwealth country and a fiveeyes country. It makes no sense for the UK to be in the EU.
The fact that Ireland has high EU approval ratings is immaterial to the fact that it's not logical to have it be apart from the UK. This is a tragic artifact of history. Ideally this would be fixed, but I agree it isn't likely to happen.
You wouldn't need a counterbalance if things were done right, which is to have the larger chunks (today's England, Scotland, Republic of Ireland) be split into more similar-sized chunks. Having a couple dozen chunks (called what you like: parish, county, state, province...) is probably sane.
non-native english. Of course I do not mean that bloody stuff like in ancient times. More in terms of a strategic move for which I don't know a better wording.
Yes. Every divorce here in germany is basically love and flowers and based on constructive respect. Sure.
We do not actively "sacrifice" them. They voted for themselves to go out, they believe it's better to them. Okay. But why should the EU not do what it can the make the best of the situation? Do not answer with european spirit, the vote was against this, for the hope of a little better financial situation (aka: selfishness).
I really support everyone who needs help whenever I can, but I can't stand this behaviour, expecting mercy for their own selfishness. And as it seems, we have more important problems where real lifes are on stake, syrian immigrants for example.
There are a lot of people across the EU who are essentially totalitarian in nature. They believe remaking Europe into a new EU country is civilisation itself, and relish the prospect of a trade war with the UK which they are convinced they will win.
I believe this has to do with the globalization and the problem it brings for local people. To be relevant in the world, one should be strong, united and of reasonable size (economically, ...). If the EU would collapse now into individual states, each of them (esp eastern europe) would suffer greatly and maybe has to deal with russia. How much of a help the NATO is? just ask ukraine.
Who gives a shit about "relevance" in the world? Politicians care about "relevance", ordinary people care about quality of life. And there are plenty of small countries outside the EU or other large trading blocs that have high quality of life.
I'm from Eastern Europe, have lots of friends who live and work in the UK. To see how important the anti-immigrant, anti-Eastern European discourse was as part of the "Leave" campaign was a real kick in the balls, so to speak. Hence the "the accusations of racism, the anger, and the outright attacks on the British"
Yes, the outright attacks are not ok but if you look at the more vocal parts of the British Brexit voters a lot clearly have racist motivations. People I considered almost friends posted on Facebook about throwing all Muslims out after brexit, blaming foreigners in general for a lot that is wrong. Things like: 'it has gone too far, I feel like I live in Islamabad here! OUT!'. These people voted for the Brexit to refuse and throw out foreigners. In their minds anyway. So it is not strange as that is what people see.
There are many who voted for other reasons but those are far less vocal.
It was expected that racists would vote for brexit loudly anyway. The problem is why everyone else, and especially what you would consider moderate people voted against EU (which is not really a vote against immigration; and it will barely stop it)
> It's dumb beyond understanding, but it's a nice insight in how much of the lessons learned during the last two world wars have been forgotten.
It's a cycle - every 3 generations like clockwork. The generation that goes to war comes back swearing "never again", their children grow up hearing war stories, but everything is going well around them as they grow up. Their children's' children have long forgotten the lessons of conflict, and proceed to uproot the trees their grandparent planted. Rinse and repeat.
To be fair, we continental Europeans have been at the butt end of patronizing hogwash and armchair economical and ethical advise from our Imperial friends from the island, so a bit of a role reversal is appropriate.
As an american you should realize that nationalist sentiments are stronger in europe. It's like baptists or racists or antifeminists lashing out against others in america. The problem is that nationalist sentiments are a lot more dangerous. The saddest of all is that there was barely any talk of talking out a deal instead of separation.
OTOH i think most europeans do not consider britain racist relative to some continental countries.
Unfortunately, unintelligent & selfish people to put it kindly are quite more vocal; that's probably a reason why extreme options can seem more attractive to some. Anyway, please ignore.
As a citizen of another EU country, it pains me to she what's happening, some people just want to blame all their problems to a common "enemy" and at that point, demagogues use that for their own gain, I've seen it and keep seeing it on my country in a grand scale.
My hope is that somehow a good deal between UK & EU comes off that which the least amount of change, but I'm probably wishfully thinking.
Which is unlikely. If UK walks out of all this, with all the perks it asks for and even less responsibility, just for kindness, then EU will inch towards to be a bigger failure.
Of course things are going to change. As a good outcome, changes should be neutral, not punishment, but noticeable. So in other words, still hurts.
> As a British citizen, I'm appalled by the sentiment expressed here. It flies in the face of the ideas and values upon which the EU was founded.
Isn't that the point, though? UK just said "no" to half a century of following these principles - making sure there are consequences means protecting EU ideals, not harming them.
Sure, in practice there will be plenty of replacement treaties - but for EU _and_ for those principles it's quite ok if UK ends up 6th or 7th economy instead of 5th. We're not talking about bankrupting anybody here.
The argument could be made that the 30% that did not vote deserve what they have coming for not bothering to take part in such a monumental national decision. Not voting means "I don't care", so you let other people decide and then you live with the consequences.
> As a British citizen, I'm appalled by the sentiment expressed here. It flies in the face of the ideas and values upon which the EU was founded. I'm not going to say anything beyond that.
This is basically a divorce -- and those things generally are filled with hurt feelings, lashing out, clearly competing interests and a scramble for the valuable assets. It is likely going to be more problematic on the weaker party (the UK) than it is on the stronger party (the EU.)
Really? We just decided to not be part of the EU and now you expect them to treat us with reverence? We just told them that their club was shit so now they are saying “if the club is shit you won't want all these things the club provides and we will now concentrate on looking after out club members at your expense“.
The loss to our economy is going to go some where, manufacturing jobs lost in Sunderland will go to Greece or Lithuania where they will welcome the employment, the same will happen to service industry too. The EU has a responsibility to its member states not to us anymore.
I voted remain, but your list is a farce. It's a list of the absolute worse case scenarios.
Obama's gone, the US isn't going to follow through on that threat. It was just fear mongering because they liked the status quo. It was actually a massive misjudgement of the British psyche by Obama. He threatened us thinking it would help the Remain camp! That's not how Brits think, he probably convinced more people to vote Leave with that threat then anyone else, it was a stupid thing to do.
The EU won't be too crazy as it needs access to the UK's market to keep their own economies afloat. It's in the interests of some EU politicians + bureaucrats, not in the interest of the actual states or companies in those to economically alienate the UK now. There's a lot of anti-EU feeling in a lot of other countries and attacking the UK using the unelected bureaucrats of the EU will fuel that, not reduce it.
NI won't leave as it might start another civil war.
The UK economy won't "collapse completely". Not important globally? The 5th or 6th biggest economy is "not that important globally". That's simply not true.
EDIT: Also, what's actually happening in the EU at the moment? You might argue that they're attacking US companies. Data privacy laws. Google anti-trust laws. And the UK is leaving that? But somehow we'd be at the back of the queue...
It's a ridiculous comment in many ways but there is an interesting glimpse there of how people are thinking about this.
As for Google and Amazon and their datacenters in Ireland, as well as all the tax deals there I think that tax advisors are right now working overtime on how to limit the damage to their Irish clientele.
Maybe a good time to buy land around Frankfurt a/M.
I can't talk for Spain but Italy leaving is not going to happen. The current government is weak, with a big constitutional referendum planned for September. If they win, they're basically locked into power for another 3 years minimum; if they lose, there won't be new elections right away because everyone agrees the resulting electoral law is not fit for purpose. A temporary executive would never even dream of making things even worse by calling an EU referendum.
Only IF the current government loses in September AND a new electoral law can be agreed AND an euroskeptic party wins a full majority (there is currently only one with a realistic shot at majority) THEN a referendum might be considered, and tbh it would be pretty low on the agenda anyway. The fastest this could happen, realistically, is sometime in 2018, and a lot of things can happen in 2 years.
Besides, Italy was an EU founder and public opinion is strongly pro-EU by tradition, unlike the UK. This position was only dented by the Euro problems, with a couple of fixes (like Eurobonds) things would be totally fine.
>> "NI won't leave as it might start another civil war."
I think the complete opposite. This gives NI a real debate on independence. We now all face issues bigger than the usual partisan/sectarian nonsense. Border controls will effect a lot of people. That coupled with the many other problems could potentially lead to people putting their usual differences to one side as there are bigger fish to fry. And stop with the 'civil war' hyperbole. We are past that.
How do you mean 'hyperbole'? As far as I know there are still killings and bombs even today. Do you feel a reunification campaign wouldn't escalate into a civil war? You might know better than me, but it sounds like wishful thinking.
The DUP was campaigning for leave and several counties, ones not on the border, returned an overall leave majority.
So I'm surprised you believe the unionists will allow what they've been fighting against for a century to just happen in a peaceful referendum? I'd love to be wrong, I have no insight to how the more extreme elements of each side think these days, are the troubles completely behind the country?
>> "How do you mean 'hyperbole'? As far as I know there are still killings and bombs even today"
There are but on a small scale. Off the top of my head I can think of 1 shooting and 2 or 3 'successful' bombs in the past 5 years targeted at security services. Obviously not common in most countries but nothing on the scale of the past. Shootings tend to be punishment style attacks within communities, usually involving drugs. None of these acts get support from anyone these days.
I think the DUP was the only party out of the 5 or 6 main parties advocating for leave. It's also not great for them that they hold the first minister position, advocated for leave, and within Northern Ireland people voted to remain. Similar position to the one Cameron is left in if you ask me.
>> "So I'm surprised you believe the unionists will allow what they've been fighting against for a century to just happen in a peaceful referendum? I'd love to be wrong, I have no insight to how the more extreme elements of each side think these days, are the troubles completely behind the country?"
The troubles are very much in the past. There are obviously still those who cling to the past but they tend to be concentrated in a few small communities with zero support outside those communities. Even when you look at the average person who would consider themselves nationalist all they really care about is keeping the peace we have. I think overall the climate is there with the people to have a debate about it - with the politicians not so much. When we have tactics in place that allow politicians to say no to even debating some social issues (gay marriage, abortion etc.) it's difficult to imagine them debating an issue as serious as this. I believe there are provisions in the peace agreement for a border poll so if those are met then it doesn't require anyone to allow the debate, it's automatically in the public arena where I believe an honest debate could occur.
> The british economy will collapse completely, they are by far not that important globally.
The UK has the worlds fifth largest economy by GDP and the second largest economy in the EU (Germany is larger, France is smaller) [1]. To claim that they're 'not that important globally' is, frankly, asinine. Do you really think that the EU won't also get hurt by the UK leaving? If you think it won't then it's worth asking why EUR/USD has also gone sharply down today...
UK benefits mostly from the financial industry afaik. Does anyone really think that this sector will stay 100% in this situation? Bankers are already planning the migration to Frankfurt. This might as well lead to a spiral. We'll see.
And yes, France is now a bigger economy than britain, and it's just been a few hours now.
The only thing that has changed as of this vote of the three things you listed is the "stability" aspect. Maybe that is sufficient to cause an exodus, but I am not sure.
The perception of London being the doorstep of the EU has just changed to London being outside of the EU, it would make zero sense for the EU financial center to be technically outside of it.
> What is the reason for moving banking to Frankfurt? Is there regulatory issues?
London is one of the biggest (or rather the biggest) hub for EUR-denominated trading and AFAIK they're only allowed to do so because they're EU member. There's also the practice called passporting: Bonds, Insurances etc that are regulated in one EU country are allowed to be sold in all EU countries. The UK had the most favorable regulations for those bonds, so a lot of them moved to London. Now that London might soon not be part of the EU any more, the banks at least need a residence in a EU member state. Some might consider to substantially reduce their London operations.
As another commenter already noted, the common market covers goods, people and services, including financial services. So in order to sell financial services, you need to be located in the EU. That just changed in the case of London, with obvious consequences:
— Ben Thompson (@BBCBenThompson)
June 24, 2016
Sources at Morgan Stanley tell BBC it's already begun process of moving 2,000 London based investment banking staff to Dublin or Frankfurt
We slipped, yes, but the FTSE100 is close to 80% recovered from this morning whilst the GBP to USD exchange rate is currently where it was at in February of this year.
Our televised news hosts like to dramatise, it seems.
Meanwhile, the Spanish market is down is down 11%, Belgian one is down 5.5%, France down 7%, Germany down 6%.
It's looking like Europe is hurting more from this announcement than Britain at the moment.
UK has a high debt load and is now more isolated than it was. Those are problematic when they are tied together. But I think that what is a major bonus for the UK is that they control their own currency and possibly their debt is issued in UK Pounds (is it?) -- that could be very useful in making their exports attractive if shit hits the fan.
If their debt is not in UK Pounds, it will limit their economic flexibility severely, and I think could lead to a default if things go bad (which we are currently quite far away from right now.)
Thus is the UK debt in UK Pounds? Or is it mostly denominated in Euros, Yen or USD?
From what I was reading during the last Scottish independence vote, if Scotland goes independent then they take almost all of the UK's oil and gas industries and a surprising amount of the economy with them. If Scotland goes independent and joins the EU, it definitely sounds like Britain's economy could collapse under the pressure of British companies having to spend EU market fees to trade with their subsidiaries that lease Scottish oil fields, alone.
We are living in interesting times, it would seem.
> the brexit is a strong signal for the other EU states to get their shit together and fix obvious problems
As a fellow European I thought about this too, as I was trying to see a silver lining in all this. And then I went to read the comments on the French paper's Le Figaro website and got depressed again. Most of the people commenting in there really believed that the EU is to be accused of everything that's been going wrong with the French economy. If we do get a French referendum and if France leaves then the EU will just die. It pains me to put this down in words, but it's a valid possibility.
Well, what will happen in the UK in the next couple of weeks/months/years might just be enough to show by example what the good bits of being a part of the EU are.
The big mistake the brexit voters made is that they thought that the UK as it was before the EU would have been a better place to be in today if the EU had never happened. Contrary to their belief the sum is a lot more than the parts but explaining that to the electorate is a challenge that modern politics (soundbites and tweets) is badly equipped to deal with.
Much easier to push the emotional buttons of xenophobia and economic malaise due to 'others'.
Today's EU is like America prior to the ratification of the US constitution. It's not suitable for long-term functionality.
You probably ought to convince Switzerland (an enclave) and Norway to join. You probably ought to convince Greece to leave. You then need federal taxes, a unified military command, a head of state, a single EU citizenship, and all the other trappings of a real country.
> A "collapsed economy" is fertile ground for fascism and aggression. Be careful about what you're wishing for here.
Of course, this is the opposite of what Boris Johnson and Farage would want, right? You might be forgetting that no one outside of the UK could have changed this - the UK will reap what it (the majority of voters) has sown.
That's one perverse curiosity question answered for me; the final one will be answered in the US in November! Good luck to the denizens on both sides of the pond.
Agreed. The "back of the queue" comment made by President Obama was merely posturing by the administration and doesn't necessarily reflect the views of Americans as a whole or even American politicians as a whole.
The US has free trade agreements with a lot of South American states due to them being linked by land, but even then it wasn't a fast process. I can certainly believe that the UK isn't high on the priority list.
There is a higher chance of the EU collapsing completely than for the UK economy to collapse and for it to turn into a demolished and isolated state.
The general sentiments of your reply are exactly what people used to convince so many UK voters to vote for exit.
The UK and the BrExit isn't a sacrificial lamb for you to gloat over.
For whatever it's worth, as a European who has some reservations about the EU, even if it brings many good things too. I'll just say that if they start "punishing" the UK for leaving, my support for the EU will drop significantly. The need to keep member states in the union by threats would be a complete joke, and I would rather just call it a day.
Well said. There's a big difference between "want to stay" and "afraid to leave". If the EU isn't working for the people, then it's pretty hard to support.
I 'm afraid it is going to become a common trope to frame everything that happens from now on upon whether it "punishes" the UK or not. The EU is now an economic area that is much more aligned to be honest, and the UK is a competitor. E.g. the euro is now a direct competitor to the GBP. The strong EU countries have greater coordination , and i expect that they will use it to their benefit, with the weaker economies following them, not because they are afraid to leave, but because they believe its success as a more cohesive union.
Unlikely. More likely is that they will remain in the European Economic Area ("the internal market"). This means keeping their trade relations the same as they are, including all the EU regulations, but without a way to influence how the regulations evolve. In return they will save some membership fees (a net amount of about 80 Euros per person per year, IIRC). It's what Norway has done for decades, and what Norway has decided to keep doing in two or three referendums. Seems to be working OK for them.
Of course this doesn't "fix" perceived problems with immigration, because the EEA includes the "four freedoms": free movements of goods, persons, services, and capital. But it seems that even a lot of Leave supporters find the single market more important than xenophobia.
But that won't happen, partly because we don't want to punish the people living there. Partly because the UK is important after all. Partly because firms want to keep trading with the UK and want to keep there centers there, instead of moving around.
And at the end, they are the ones calling the shots.
> the US already said that the UK isn't very important and are not very eager to make deals separately. And we do no longer have to deal with "special care" for british wishes, which often are the cause of endless discussions and bureaucracy.
No Donald Trump said he was happy about and it would broke better deals with them as a result. He is going to be the US.
I'm from Ireland. The potential reinstating of "the border" in the north of Ireland, effectively rebuilding a physical wall based on the outcome of this brexit, is a concern. The psychological effect it will have on Ireland as a people will be tectonic.
I recall having very heated disagreements with a friend years ago; she believed Ireland would unite in our lifetime, I believed the idea itself was too young for anyone to take seriously. Maybe this is the catalyst needed to advance the conversation.
A United Ireland in our lifetime would be heart-explodingly amazing; however just as the UK voted Leave, Northern Ireland could well vote Stay.
>> "Maybe this is the catalyst needed to advance the conversation."
I've said this in another comment but I think it is. We now have an issue that will effect all the people in the North and is more important than the usual sectarian divide. If border controls come into place and it starts to effect people's daily lives (e.g. People living in border counties and working on the other side) there's actual a real debate to be had for once. A border poll has already been called for this morning but of course the secretary of state has dismissed it. I think Scotland will need to vote for independence before Ireland has a shot at it.
Ireland's already independent.. Just perhaps not all of her ;)
The sad thing about the possibility of a real debate is that those proposing the unification still have literal blood on their hands. The conversation morphs from those proposing unification to being about those proposing the idea, and how they've been involved in horrific violence not-so-many years ago. The point of the debate is lost in the mire from that point on.
I believe it'll take a generation removed of the troubles to be capable of grasping the possibility. But I would LOVE to be proved wrong!
I'm not entirely sure how what is being discussed in the article has anything to do with the EU. Surely that same problem applies in the absence of the EU and its replacement just as much.
I wonder what this will mean for the London tech scene. A LOT of people there are from other EU countries. I will affect the American giants too. Google and others have big development centres in London where it is easy to attract top talent from around Europe. They could re-focus to Ireland or Germany, but it will be harder to make people move there for a job.
At a guess because during the referendum for Scottish independence from the UK the line was 'stay because otherwise you'll not be in the EU anymore'. So for the Scots to find themselves out of the EU now by force is probably not what they wanted to wake up to.
Wouldn't it be great to have 3 more referendums for Wales, Scotland, Ireland to let them vote once more time? And then have them join the EU separately?
At a guess, they do. And democracy with 'simple majority required for huge changes' may not be the best recipe to get buy-in from those that are dragged along.
So I fully understand the anger, if it weren't for the recent Scottish referendum that would be a different situation, but that did happen and for the Scots this must be extremely bitter right now.
Which means greater majority of Scots wanted to remain compared to a much smaller majority of the whole UK that wanted to leave. If a 51% vote to leave is relevant enough to warrant the UK leaving the EU then a 60% vote to remain is relevant.
A referendum that the government has yet to make a law since the EUs stance is that all bilateral contracts from the first round of negotiations hinge on the freedom of movement. After the EU statement things became all quiet on that front.
And a bit ironically, the EU declined to even negotiatiate with Switzerland, because any concessions would have helped the Brexit camp, and nobody wanted to risk a Brexit.
Yeah and we don't know what happened, Google made a strong move into the UK over the past 2 years and this year it opened a huge complex with a new HQ.
It could've been just because of that and them not expecting a yes vote on the BrExit.
That said tech companies never had many issues recruiting workers under Tier 2 general visas it's just more expensive for them.
But you can bet your arse on the fact that none of the multinational corporations is happy now.
I'm still thinking about Amazon they are registered in Luxembourg over 40% of the items I order ship overnight from the mainland (France/Germany) a lot of things will have to change.
Probably won't happen anything that have been said in the last hours, no rush to Berlin, Dublin, Frankfurt or Paris. The exit has 2 years ahead to happen, in this period there's time to make deals, agreements and keep almost everything like it's now, slowly changing what doesn't work. Moving people is really hard, plus London has a business mentality that is hard to find anywhere else in Europe on the tech/startup scene. Anyway, time will tell what's going to happen. Switzerland lived the exact same situation in the '90s with the fear of having companies and corporation leaving the country in favour of the EU, well, with a hard work and agreements, that have been avoided. I know not joining is far different from quitting, but still, predicting the outcome is absolutely impossibile, UK might become the hottest country for business as can fall and die, both scenarios are equally possibile.
As you mention Switzerland as an example. There was the Referendum to join the EEC in 92 which was lost. It took about ten years until the bilateral treaties with the EU were ratified. Also, I don't remember the nineties as a time, where the swiss economic boomed... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_U...
Google just opened new Headquarters @ Kings Cross (2 buildings 1 HQ + 1 for DeepMind) and Amazon was set to move into it's new HQ in liverpool street also.
I really wonder how happy they are after spending couple of Bln's considering the London real estate market now.
They will not want to, but right now those skilled immigrants can easily come here to work, however if there was a lot of visa work to sort out then they may choose Germany or France over the UK. For an employer in London such as google it means dealing with many visa applications from many countries whereas if they were based in frankfurt or Dublin then they just need to deal with visas for UK applicants.
They will not want to, but right now those skilled immigrants can easily come here to work, however if there was a lot of visa work to sort out then they may choose Germany or France over the UK. For an employer in London such as google it means dealing with many visa applications from many countries whereas if they were based in frankfurt or Dublin then they just need to deal with visas for UK applicants.
> Why can't the UK have open borders to skilled immigrants and not so open to unskilled immigrants?
You would have the extra friction of proving to the UK government that you are skilled. There would probably be a requirement for formal education, so self-taught programmers are in trouble.
I admit I am speaking in my own interest here, as a Swedish person living and working in the UK. When I got a job here I just packed up my stuff and moved. I showed my passport to the border machine and that was it.
If I needed a skilled worker visa, I would probably have had to pay a certified translator to translate my diploma, send in both translation and original, and hope they send them back. Do the same thing for a dozen other documents. The employer would need to submit something, which may be fine for Google but harder for a startup. Then wait for months, because the home office has no incentive to be quick.
The UK (and the EU) programming salaries have been ridiculously low compared to the US for quite a while. In the US I can relatively easy get $100-140 per hour, $150+ with some luck. In the EU I mostly see jobs in the 80k euro range (senior web dev positions).
could anyone elaborate why exactly the referendum was mostly a vote on migration? I myself think that view (which is the basis of the article) is too limited
The pro-leaving group supposedly used a lot of anti-immigration sentiment to win over voters. I infer from this that being part of the EU forced immigration upon the UK that the people of the UK did not want. I could be wrong.
I don't see why people are thinking businesses would move. With a weaker pound, a UK office is cheaper to run, investment will go further and exporting UK based products/services to the EU or US will be more competitive. If anything UK might be more attractive for a business.
The downsides might be freedom of travel for employment but hopefully there won't be much difference for skilled migrants. I don't believe it would get as hard as the US.
> I don't see why people are thinking businesses would move.
Because of all the fear-mongering and threats from the EU.
Think about it, the UK could keep all policies exactly as they are right now, but the EU has threatened to "punish" them because they are not part of the group any more.
I do not think the UK is going to restrict movement of skilled immigrants.
This will put the EU in the unenviable position of saying to the UK, "We are not going to do business with you because you will not accept our unskilled immigrants!"
The market panic is just investor withdrawal until they can see what is going to happen. As soon as the uncertainty passes, and it is obvious that the UK isn't going to rock the boat with "Trump-like" initiatives, the money will come right back.
No one is saying that foreign businesses and trade will completely disappear from the UK overnight.
With Brexit, London is no longer seen as a [english-speaking] doorway to the EU. Foreign companies will more likely prefer Dublin over London. For businesses, it also makes more financial sense to focus more energy on selling their product to an entire continent, instead of a tiny island. They will still have offices in the UK, and trade with the UK, but there is better ROI in trading with the EU.
Any idea how many EU multinational headquarters and logistics centers the UK has, versus Switzerland or Norway? Right...
What about financial centers?
Make no mistake. This will have a significant impact. Even my small laser cutting service company in Riga, Latvia (<shameless plug>https://lusis.eu</shameless plug>) has to charge non-EU clients extra because of the real barriers exporting outside of the EU.
It may sound silly, but here's a few:
* extra customs checks, even if there is no customs rate
* different VAT procedures from the common market
* courier and postal services delivering strictly within the EU, or charging a premium for dealing with the barriers of delivering outside of it
Apart from that, anecdotally, even within the EU, we noticed that UK customers were strangely much less informed about SEPA bank transfers (between € accounts, within EFTA) than even non-EU EFTA members.
WOW! GB left the EU and they did not even need to elect a communist party or have Varoufakis mouthing off. Maybe Greece should grow a pair and go now too. Maybe join GB.
It baffles me to say it's negative to be hypocritical in that regard.
My position in these cases is simple: I want what's best for me and my people and fuck the rest.
Europe has had a history of pointless and toxic altruism that has lead us to this point. Think of the refugee crisis for example. The "all humans are equal regardless of where they were born" and the "please I'd do whatever it takes so people don't label me as a racist" rubbish has ruined our culture.
From a French perspective, I'd like to state again that everybody is talking about the economical EU, but forget it's only one of the side of it.
For me the main benefit is that my grand father has a tatoo with a number on his wrist, but my brother is in a loving relationship with a blue-eye blond german.
No matter how you slice it, peace is a very nice think too have in an instable world with so many different people living so close to each others.
While I'm strongly of the opinion that this decision is a bad one for the United Kingdom, and mostly because of the economic havoc just about every expert foresees, we shouldn't forget two things:
a) Experts are sometimes wrong. Economic experts are usually wrong. (Personally I think they happen to be right in this case)
b) Some Brexit supporters also see the economic risks and accept them, because of democracy, sovereignty etc. pp.
And while I'm a pragmatic who would weigh economic consequences heavily, God damn!, I can totally respect that!
233 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 284 ms ] threadFunny, two years ago everyone here was calling them a left-wing party.
>reduces citizen rights, violates constitution
They haven't done anything that the previous party didn't, but since the previous party lost this election the very same people who did it for the previous 8 years suddenly act like they have the moral high ground.
>oppresses minorities
Not wanting uncontrolled immigration is not "oppressing minorities".
>removes the separation of the state and church
This has never been as severe as people like to claim, even back in 2006.
So you don't want what your country benefited dramatically from in the last 15 years, when Polish people moved to UK to work, sending home additional capital and reducing demographic pressure. I apologize if this sounds inflammatory, it's not meant to but: it is, objectively, a very hypocritical position.
And I find it really amusing that you talk about "united Europe" in the context of non-European immigrants. It is not okay for one country to cause a huge wave of immigration and then basically going "we can't take these people in so you have to and do it unconditionally" - which only encourages even more immigration.
Can't argue with that, but this doesn't mean EU has to take these people in, neither it gives them the right to enter the EU. Several dozen years ago these people would get their boats sunk.
I really recommend watching "With Open Gates" on Youtube and listening to what the immigrants have to say. If the picture of immigrants in the video is the reality, then the government made a very good decision by not taking these people in.
A separate isssue is just a feasibility of Poland taking in immigrants. Before the most recent mass wave of refugees and migrants started, Poland had voluntarily taken some refugees from Syria. Since then, every last one of them left - mostly for rich Western European countries. How does the EU intend to prevent the refugees and migrants from leaving Poland?
These are just big fat lies that are being spread by the politicians that lost last elections. None of this is actualy happening in Poland.
Minorities are just fine, no action has been taken against any of them, citizen rights are in fact better than in most EU countries (no "political correctness") and the separation of church and state is ensured by the fact that 90% of Polish citizens don't treat their religion seriously anyway.
The one thing that makes some sense is accusation of constitution violation, but this has more to do with the fact that Polish constitution is poorly written than with any actions of PiS.
And, as a side note, PiS (ruling party in Poland) is of left-wing, socialist affiliation:)
Law and Justice, abbreviated to PiS, is a right-wing national-conservative political party in Poland.
Zbigniew Ziobro, the Minister of Justice, also serves as the Attorney General and under the new law he can interfere with the work of District Attorneys (he can essentially stop any prosecutorial case if he wishes to do so). This is an enormous threat to citizen's rights.
The new government has already made several decisions which help the Catholic Church. The most important one concerns the sale of the farmland, which will benefit the church financially.
On top of that there's the increase in taxation and a massive spending increase on welfare, but I suppose that's just run-of-the-mill fiscal irresponsibility.
Can you give example of these (except the "violates constitution", which in itself is nothing new, consitution was also violated by previous governments)? Which minorities are opressed? Which citizen rights are reduced? How the separation of state and church is removed? I live in Poland and am seriously confused by your post.
Maybe. Maybe not. Developed countries have been largely centralizing power over the last twenty years. It's possible that has effects on the middle class. So Brexit could be a particular reaction to that.
More fundamentally, you are making the mistake of thinking of work scarcity as a fundamental problem when technological advances are rendering work less and less scarce every year.
>Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of "No" for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign.[0]
[0]: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdo...
I can't see that happening though and all the rhetoric from the EU and EU nations has been "goodbye and thanks for all the fish".
I expect the government to drag its heels for a while before it invokes Article 50 while it sorts itself out but industry will be clamouring for clarity so it won't drag on indefinitely.
That's not going to happen - not because of the "gooodbye" rhetoric, but rather because freedom of movement has been embodied as one of the core principles of the EU. Free movement of goods and people are inseparable. This is even laid down in the bilateral agreements with Switzerland and Norway. The Swiss just tested the waters with the latest referendum on curbing EU-immigration but they haven't followed through. The EU has drawn a line in the sand here and I seriously don't expect them to concede this point.
Only when talking about people as goods, i.e. as human resources. When talking about people as humans, the borders inside EU are closed real quick when there's a G8 summit et.al. and politicians want to keep protestors from other countries out.
The flip side is that it's the main reason for the exit vote so I can't see how we could join EFTA, for example.
Social left and worker left.
traditionalist right and financial right.
EU has been a boon for financial right, by flagging it as a project for european peace and understanding to the social left.
But this has alienated social left from worker left, who they were close allies with after WW2.
So instead the worker left has teamed up with traditionalist right, who share their distrust of EU but for different reasons.
The basic idea is that there are two axises, not one (social and financial).
Not only this but also the main divide is not left and right but liberal and conservative. In the UK, what I see most often is a divide between socially liberal but fiscally conservative and those that are socially conservative but fiscally liberal.
In my view, it's why early New Labour was successful (socially liberal but fiscally conservative) then lost it by loosening up fiscally and going to war.
Similarly, UKIP has been equally effective in taking support from blue collar workers on both left and right because they push a socially conservative, fiscally liberal agenda.
It's not the whole story. SNP have used national identity well although, interestingly their actual policies are more in keeping with this split than their rhetoric.
The EU referendum debate seems to be almost perfectly along a line between fiscally conservative and socially conservative.
I foresee political parties changing much more this way over the next few years.
- The statists that centralize power, and benefit from it (Bureaucrats and employees of state-dependent or regulated industry like banks, finance, pharmacy, media)
- The people who believe in the state.
- The people who distrust the establishment, banks, politicians
- The anarchists wanting to decentralize
They are all on the same centralization vs decentralization spectrum but the majority has no pronounced opinion and either faith or distrust in the establishment.
The anarchists are not organized and have far less influence, but since 2007/8 people have gradually increased their distrust against the establishment.
If Scotland and London secedes, I'd vote for it. Unfortunately I think the EU would welcome Scotland but not sure about London.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11968742 and marked it off-topic.
As if if the UK had not been an EU member the last 30 years the situation would have been better.
At least so far they had some advantages (presence of the financial district, easy access to a large market), those will disappear too.
The end result could very well be a much worse situation for those voting 'leave' when the ones voting 'remain' will see a relatively small effect.
The phyrric victory possible here is that Brexit leads the way for other exits, sundering the EU resulting in worse economies everywhere.
- International companies will move from GB to ireland/continent, germany is in a good position to capture the financial industry (Frankfurt), Berlin already is a great startup hub.
- the brexit is a strong signal for the other EU states to get their shit together and fix obvious problems.
- its in the interest of all EU states to be as hard as possible when negotiating with britain and outright damage them when possible. No politican will say this loud, though, but it will happen. "Out is out". Harsh consequences will make other states think twice before considering an exit, too. thus, stability.
- The british economy will collapse completely, they are by far not that important globally. The pound already goes down dramatically, trade partners have been EU states mostly who will get doctrined from brussels to punish GB. We do not need anything that must be imported from the UK. Short-term EU companies operating on GB will suffer, though. But this will be overshadowed through the international focus on continental europe instead of UK/London after a while.
- the US already said that the UK isn't very important and are not very eager to make deals separately. And we do no longer have to deal with "special care" for british wishes, which often are the cause of endless discussions and bureaucracy.
- Scotland and n.Ireland may "exit" the UK, further minorizing the role of the UK in the world. Might be possible that they join the EU independently.
So all in all, this may be good news for the EU, even when we sacrifice a generation of UK citizens for our benefit. Maybe in a few decades a demolished, isolated england will try to get into the EU again.
Still, it makes me said, since I really enjoyed my stays in London and would prefer a big, strong, united europe.
Such good news/s
It may also be a start of countries leaving, but if the rest of the EU comes together and says "hey, we need to double down on this or else what the hell are we even doing" they may do the former.
Which is a good thing imo, but a lot of people don't think so...
The UK imports a lot of stuff from the mainland, they'll probably end up in the economic area (with all the strings attached) but with no say in the EU... maybe don't let the masses vote next time heh
As an Englishman, let me tell you somethings from an opposing view.
- International companies won't be moving to ireland/continent. The UK at one point wasn't as integrated and was doing quite well. It will do again.
The financial industry will not leave London. It's not going to happen. There are many reasons why. Keep dreaming.
London is the best startup in Europe currently.
- Sure the EU can be hard as possible, but then so can the UK. There are many EU countries which export to the UK. It's not just a one way thing.
- The British economy will not collapse. How you can think that I have no idea. Yes the pound did go down, it's gone down many times in history. But it will recover again. The Bank of England, already accounted for this. There is no panic.
- The US said the UK is not that important? Says Obama because his dad is from Kenya hates the UK. But in reality it actually is. Germany, Spain, all other countries of EU are not as important as the UK.
- Scotland will most likely want to exit. They are 4 million people after all. But when they do exit. All the British companies currently there, will leave to go to London. They'll join as another country like Estonia or worse off. I don't know if Europe will have them lol.
- N. Ireland won't exit. They are deeply patriotic people and see themselves as British.
Sorry. But I really don't think you know what you are talking about!
IMO
Plenty of companies will move to Ireland/Germany.
I think the EU/UK will reach agreements that are more or less the same as they are now (making Leave a bit pointless).
The economy will not collapse, but it will be worse off short term.
I don't think US cares more about either the EU/UK. Equal for all.
If Scotland goes - why would those companies not move to the EU, since it would be about the same difficulty wise?
Having said that, I strongly disagree, see my initial post. Only the future will tell who will be right (or none of us?). Political Power Play is a gamble, and I bet strongly on a more united europe. Others do different bets, as seen in the brexit vote. All sides contain competent and educated people finally.
You lost me here.
Probably right.
> International companies won't be moving to ireland/continent. The UK at one point wasn't as integrated and was doing quite well. It will do again.
Yes, but back then the EU was a lot less strong than it is today, even without the UK as a part of it.
> The financial industry will not leave London. It's not going to happen. There are many reasons why. Keep dreaming.
250 Billion worth of capital has already fled judging by the drop of the pound, and more is likely to follow. Yes, the financial hub of Europe will shift its COG to Frankfurt. That's something that a re-entry in the EU of England at a later date will not be able to recover.
> London is the best startup in Europe currently.
I assume you left out 'centre' or 'hub', and it was so until today. But if I were starting a start-up I'd definitely think twice now about whether or not to do this in the UK, and London specifically.
> ure the EU can be hard as possible, but then so can the UK. There are many EU countries which export to the UK. It's not just a one way thing.
The relative sizes of the parties dictate the likely outcome of such negotiations. Already there are some pretty clear lines drawn and those will only become more stark in time. This was an 'own goal' if there ever was one.
> The US said the UK is not that important? Says Obama because his dad is from Kenya hates the UK. But in reality it actually is. Germany, Spain, all other countries of EU are not as important as the UK.
This is mis-informed. The UK is important as a country within the EU. Once the UK leaves (and especially if the UK then breaks up even further) it is no longer that important a country.
> Scotland will most likely want to exit. They are 4 million people after all. But when they do exit. All the British companies currently there, will leave to go to London. They'll join as another country like Estonia or worse off. I don't know if Europe will have them lol.
I'm not sure if 'lol' is something that you'd want to use about anything today. And Scotland is definitely a viable country and would most likely be very welcome in the EU.
And all the British companies there might actually see Scotland as the backdoor to remain in the EU, and I would not be surprised if they more than anything else would push to achieve this.
> N. Ireland won't exit. They are deeply patriotic people and see themselves as British.
That one is a toss-up, but not hugely important for the EU, though it would be hugely important to the UK, if they wish to keep that 'U'.
In other words: the UK has made itself a bit player overnight and chances are that only England will remain at the end of all this, with a substantially reduced economy and a very tiny market to sell into. It will hurt all those who voted 'exit' the hardest, and it will be studied for decades to come as an example of how an electorate can be manipulated to vote against its own interests.
Probably true, but they will certainly strengthen their position on the mainland.
> The financial industry will not leave London.
Also true. The reasons mostly being lack of regulation and corruption :P
> The British economy will not collapse.
True. (I hope.)
> The US said the UK is not that important? Says Obama because his dad is from Kenya hates the UK.
WTF
> Germany, Spain, all other countries of EU are not as important as the UK.
Germany has a higher GDP than the UK. Never mind the combined GDP of some of the bigger EU member states. I'm not sure why you think the UK is that important.
> Scotland will most likely want to exit.
Yup.
> N. Ireland won't exit.
No idea, but it sounds reasonable.
GB was occasionally blocking some EU proposals based on no significant evidence they are that bad to be blocked.
What doesn't make sense is having a commonwealth/fiveeyes country bolted on the side of the EU.
The fact that Ireland has high EU approval ratings is immaterial to the fact that it's not logical to have it be apart from the UK. This is a tragic artifact of history. Ideally this would be fixed, but I agree it isn't likely to happen.
You wouldn't need a counterbalance if things were done right, which is to have the larger chunks (today's England, Scotland, Republic of Ireland) be split into more similar-sized chunks. Having a couple dozen chunks (called what you like: parish, county, state, province...) is probably sane.
We do not actively "sacrifice" them. They voted for themselves to go out, they believe it's better to them. Okay. But why should the EU not do what it can the make the best of the situation? Do not answer with european spirit, the vote was against this, for the hope of a little better financial situation (aka: selfishness).
I really support everyone who needs help whenever I can, but I can't stand this behaviour, expecting mercy for their own selfishness. And as it seems, we have more important problems where real lifes are on stake, syrian immigrants for example.
There are a lot of people across the EU who are essentially totalitarian in nature. They believe remaking Europe into a new EU country is civilisation itself, and relish the prospect of a trade war with the UK which they are convinced they will win.
I believe this has to do with the globalization and the problem it brings for local people. To be relevant in the world, one should be strong, united and of reasonable size (economically, ...). If the EU would collapse now into individual states, each of them (esp eastern europe) would suffer greatly and maybe has to deal with russia. How much of a help the NATO is? just ask ukraine.
Also, I found countries keeping rich royals around a bit suspicious to begin with.
There are many who voted for other reasons but those are far less vocal.
The attacks on the 'British' are just as dumb, since a lot of people (50%, plus a majority of the Scots and the Irish) are being dragged into this.
It's dumb beyond understanding, but it's a nice insight in how much of the lessons learned during the last two world wars have been forgotten.
It's a cycle - every 3 generations like clockwork. The generation that goes to war comes back swearing "never again", their children grow up hearing war stories, but everything is going well around them as they grow up. Their children's' children have long forgotten the lessons of conflict, and proceed to uproot the trees their grandparent planted. Rinse and repeat.
To be fair, we continental Europeans have been at the butt end of patronizing hogwash and armchair economical and ethical advise from our Imperial friends from the island, so a bit of a role reversal is appropriate.
OTOH i think most europeans do not consider britain racist relative to some continental countries.
As a citizen of another EU country, it pains me to she what's happening, some people just want to blame all their problems to a common "enemy" and at that point, demagogues use that for their own gain, I've seen it and keep seeing it on my country in a grand scale.
My hope is that somehow a good deal between UK & EU comes off that which the least amount of change, but I'm probably wishfully thinking.
Of course things are going to change. As a good outcome, changes should be neutral, not punishment, but noticeable. So in other words, still hurts.
Isn't that the point, though? UK just said "no" to half a century of following these principles - making sure there are consequences means protecting EU ideals, not harming them.
Sure, in practice there will be plenty of replacement treaties - but for EU _and_ for those principles it's quite ok if UK ends up 6th or 7th economy instead of 5th. We're not talking about bankrupting anybody here.
This is basically a divorce -- and those things generally are filled with hurt feelings, lashing out, clearly competing interests and a scramble for the valuable assets. It is likely going to be more problematic on the weaker party (the UK) than it is on the stronger party (the EU.)
The loss to our economy is going to go some where, manufacturing jobs lost in Sunderland will go to Greece or Lithuania where they will welcome the employment, the same will happen to service industry too. The EU has a responsibility to its member states not to us anymore.
We hackernews folks will be OK. As always, the vulnerable will suffer most.
- The Euro collapses as countries leave
- Spain and Italy leave the EU
- the EU collapses completely within 20 years
Look, we can all make wild claims!
I voted remain, but your list is a farce. It's a list of the absolute worse case scenarios.
Obama's gone, the US isn't going to follow through on that threat. It was just fear mongering because they liked the status quo. It was actually a massive misjudgement of the British psyche by Obama. He threatened us thinking it would help the Remain camp! That's not how Brits think, he probably convinced more people to vote Leave with that threat then anyone else, it was a stupid thing to do.
The EU won't be too crazy as it needs access to the UK's market to keep their own economies afloat. It's in the interests of some EU politicians + bureaucrats, not in the interest of the actual states or companies in those to economically alienate the UK now. There's a lot of anti-EU feeling in a lot of other countries and attacking the UK using the unelected bureaucrats of the EU will fuel that, not reduce it.
NI won't leave as it might start another civil war.
The UK economy won't "collapse completely". Not important globally? The 5th or 6th biggest economy is "not that important globally". That's simply not true.
EDIT: Also, what's actually happening in the EU at the moment? You might argue that they're attacking US companies. Data privacy laws. Google anti-trust laws. And the UK is leaving that? But somehow we'd be at the back of the queue...
As for Google and Amazon and their datacenters in Ireland, as well as all the tax deals there I think that tax advisors are right now working overtime on how to limit the damage to their Irish clientele.
Maybe a good time to buy land around Frankfurt a/M.
Ah, I thought some of them were North of the border. Foresight at work!
Most tech on the island is south of the border due to that.
Only IF the current government loses in September AND a new electoral law can be agreed AND an euroskeptic party wins a full majority (there is currently only one with a realistic shot at majority) THEN a referendum might be considered, and tbh it would be pretty low on the agenda anyway. The fastest this could happen, realistically, is sometime in 2018, and a lot of things can happen in 2 years.
Besides, Italy was an EU founder and public opinion is strongly pro-EU by tradition, unlike the UK. This position was only dented by the Euro problems, with a couple of fixes (like Eurobonds) things would be totally fine.
I think the complete opposite. This gives NI a real debate on independence. We now all face issues bigger than the usual partisan/sectarian nonsense. Border controls will effect a lot of people. That coupled with the many other problems could potentially lead to people putting their usual differences to one side as there are bigger fish to fry. And stop with the 'civil war' hyperbole. We are past that.
The DUP was campaigning for leave and several counties, ones not on the border, returned an overall leave majority.
So I'm surprised you believe the unionists will allow what they've been fighting against for a century to just happen in a peaceful referendum? I'd love to be wrong, I have no insight to how the more extreme elements of each side think these days, are the troubles completely behind the country?
There are but on a small scale. Off the top of my head I can think of 1 shooting and 2 or 3 'successful' bombs in the past 5 years targeted at security services. Obviously not common in most countries but nothing on the scale of the past. Shootings tend to be punishment style attacks within communities, usually involving drugs. None of these acts get support from anyone these days.
I think the DUP was the only party out of the 5 or 6 main parties advocating for leave. It's also not great for them that they hold the first minister position, advocated for leave, and within Northern Ireland people voted to remain. Similar position to the one Cameron is left in if you ask me.
>> "So I'm surprised you believe the unionists will allow what they've been fighting against for a century to just happen in a peaceful referendum? I'd love to be wrong, I have no insight to how the more extreme elements of each side think these days, are the troubles completely behind the country?"
The troubles are very much in the past. There are obviously still those who cling to the past but they tend to be concentrated in a few small communities with zero support outside those communities. Even when you look at the average person who would consider themselves nationalist all they really care about is keeping the peace we have. I think overall the climate is there with the people to have a debate about it - with the politicians not so much. When we have tactics in place that allow politicians to say no to even debating some social issues (gay marriage, abortion etc.) it's difficult to imagine them debating an issue as serious as this. I believe there are provisions in the peace agreement for a border poll so if those are met then it doesn't require anyone to allow the debate, it's automatically in the public arena where I believe an honest debate could occur.
fwiw, Northern Ireland consists of just six counties. Only one does not share a border and only it returned an overall leave majority.
The UK has the worlds fifth largest economy by GDP and the second largest economy in the EU (Germany is larger, France is smaller) [1]. To claim that they're 'not that important globally' is, frankly, asinine. Do you really think that the EU won't also get hurt by the UK leaving? If you think it won't then it's worth asking why EUR/USD has also gone sharply down today...
[1] http://money.cnn.com/news/economy/world_economies_gdp/index....
And yes, France is now a bigger economy than britain, and it's just been a few hours now.
People do not just moving businesses for purely political reasons, there has to be concrete economic reasons.
I actually think that the UK may be less regulated than EU exchanges and that may stay in order to keep the UK more attractive.
If you do not list any real economic reasons, I think this is just scare talk.
Stability plus the fact that Frankfurt is already a major financial hub, and that Germany is a major driver of the EU economy.
London is one of the biggest (or rather the biggest) hub for EUR-denominated trading and AFAIK they're only allowed to do so because they're EU member. There's also the practice called passporting: Bonds, Insurances etc that are regulated in one EU country are allowed to be sold in all EU countries. The UK had the most favorable regulations for those bonds, so a lot of them moved to London. Now that London might soon not be part of the EU any more, the banks at least need a residence in a EU member state. Some might consider to substantially reduce their London operations.
lack of a free trade agreement with europe comes to mind.
— Ben Thompson (@BBCBenThompson) June 24, 2016
Sources at Morgan Stanley tell BBC it's already begun process of moving 2,000 London based investment banking staff to Dublin or Frankfurt
Funny how the leave voters of fear and spite are now here talking about punishing the uk out of spite :)
He knows nothing....
Sorry couldn't resist.
Our televised news hosts like to dramatise, it seems.
Meanwhile, the Spanish market is down is down 11%, Belgian one is down 5.5%, France down 7%, Germany down 6%.
It's looking like Europe is hurting more from this announcement than Britain at the moment.
If their debt is not in UK Pounds, it will limit their economic flexibility severely, and I think could lead to a default if things go bad (which we are currently quite far away from right now.)
Thus is the UK debt in UK Pounds? Or is it mostly denominated in Euros, Yen or USD?
But whether or not that is an advantage is hard to establish, that all depends on how much of an export position the UK will have post brexit.
We are living in interesting times, it would seem.
It won't but it will shrink significantly.
> even when we sacrifice a generation of UK citizens for our benefit.
Is the kind of language that has no place here or in any other discussion.
Keep in mind that a good portion of the UK citizens voted 'remain' and that we do not do any sacrificing at all, since that includes me.
They have just committed suicide.
As a fellow European I thought about this too, as I was trying to see a silver lining in all this. And then I went to read the comments on the French paper's Le Figaro website and got depressed again. Most of the people commenting in there really believed that the EU is to be accused of everything that's been going wrong with the French economy. If we do get a French referendum and if France leaves then the EU will just die. It pains me to put this down in words, but it's a valid possibility.
The big mistake the brexit voters made is that they thought that the UK as it was before the EU would have been a better place to be in today if the EU had never happened. Contrary to their belief the sum is a lot more than the parts but explaining that to the electorate is a challenge that modern politics (soundbites and tweets) is badly equipped to deal with.
Much easier to push the emotional buttons of xenophobia and economic malaise due to 'others'.
You probably ought to convince Switzerland (an enclave) and Norway to join. You probably ought to convince Greece to leave. You then need federal taxes, a unified military command, a head of state, a single EU citizenship, and all the other trappings of a real country.
Of course, this is the opposite of what Boris Johnson and Farage would want, right? You might be forgetting that no one outside of the UK could have changed this - the UK will reap what it (the majority of voters) has sown.
That's one perverse curiosity question answered for me; the final one will be answered in the US in November! Good luck to the denizens on both sides of the pond.
Unlikely. More likely is that they will remain in the European Economic Area ("the internal market"). This means keeping their trade relations the same as they are, including all the EU regulations, but without a way to influence how the regulations evolve. In return they will save some membership fees (a net amount of about 80 Euros per person per year, IIRC). It's what Norway has done for decades, and what Norway has decided to keep doing in two or three referendums. Seems to be working OK for them.
Of course this doesn't "fix" perceived problems with immigration, because the EEA includes the "four freedoms": free movements of goods, persons, services, and capital. But it seems that even a lot of Leave supporters find the single market more important than xenophobia.
The dogma of ever closer EU integration and the creation of a superstate is just as bad as the dogma of those who voted to withdraw from the EU
But that won't happen, partly because we don't want to punish the people living there. Partly because the UK is important after all. Partly because firms want to keep trading with the UK and want to keep there centers there, instead of moving around.
And at the end, they are the ones calling the shots.
No Donald Trump said he was happy about and it would broke better deals with them as a result. He is going to be the US.
Off the top of your head, what do you think the odds of this turning into a United Ireland would be?
Surely both sides of the border would rather unify than go along with this madness? Or am I dreaming?
A United Ireland in our lifetime would be heart-explodingly amazing; however just as the UK voted Leave, Northern Ireland could well vote Stay.
I've said this in another comment but I think it is. We now have an issue that will effect all the people in the North and is more important than the usual sectarian divide. If border controls come into place and it starts to effect people's daily lives (e.g. People living in border counties and working on the other side) there's actual a real debate to be had for once. A border poll has already been called for this morning but of course the secretary of state has dismissed it. I think Scotland will need to vote for independence before Ireland has a shot at it.
The sad thing about the possibility of a real debate is that those proposing the unification still have literal blood on their hands. The conversation morphs from those proposing unification to being about those proposing the idea, and how they've been involved in horrific violence not-so-many years ago. The point of the debate is lost in the mire from that point on.
I believe it'll take a generation removed of the troubles to be capable of grasping the possibility. But I would LOVE to be proved wrong!
If the English want to destroy themselves they're entitled to do so, but not drag the rest of us down with them.
So I fully understand the anger, if it weren't for the recent Scottish referendum that would be a different situation, but that did happen and for the Scots this must be extremely bitter right now.
Switzerland has an FMP agreement with the EU which is something that clearly the UK doesn't want hence the BrExit.
I'm still thinking about Amazon they are registered in Luxembourg over 40% of the items I order ship overnight from the mainland (France/Germany) a lot of things will have to change.
I really wonder how happy they are after spending couple of Bln's considering the London real estate market now.
I do not believe the UK is going to crack down on tech engineers and phds that want to work in their country.
When the UK finally leaves then yes that could be how immigration is managed.
We won't make any rash decisions but I think my partner and me are going to leave medium term despite us having great and interesting jobs.
That's not a decision based on economics but on "soft" feelings.
You would have the extra friction of proving to the UK government that you are skilled. There would probably be a requirement for formal education, so self-taught programmers are in trouble.
I admit I am speaking in my own interest here, as a Swedish person living and working in the UK. When I got a job here I just packed up my stuff and moved. I showed my passport to the border machine and that was it.
If I needed a skilled worker visa, I would probably have had to pay a certified translator to translate my diploma, send in both translation and original, and hope they send them back. Do the same thing for a dozen other documents. The employer would need to submit something, which may be fine for Google but harder for a startup. Then wait for months, because the home office has no incentive to be quick.
I hope this is going to change now.
The downsides might be freedom of travel for employment but hopefully there won't be much difference for skilled migrants. I don't believe it would get as hard as the US.
Because of all the fear-mongering and threats from the EU.
Think about it, the UK could keep all policies exactly as they are right now, but the EU has threatened to "punish" them because they are not part of the group any more.
I do not think the UK is going to restrict movement of skilled immigrants.
This will put the EU in the unenviable position of saying to the UK, "We are not going to do business with you because you will not accept our unskilled immigrants!"
The market panic is just investor withdrawal until they can see what is going to happen. As soon as the uncertainty passes, and it is obvious that the UK isn't going to rock the boat with "Trump-like" initiatives, the money will come right back.
With Brexit, London is no longer seen as a [english-speaking] doorway to the EU. Foreign companies will more likely prefer Dublin over London. For businesses, it also makes more financial sense to focus more energy on selling their product to an entire continent, instead of a tiny island. They will still have offices in the UK, and trade with the UK, but there is better ROI in trading with the EU.
What about financial centers?
Make no mistake. This will have a significant impact. Even my small laser cutting service company in Riga, Latvia (<shameless plug>https://lusis.eu</shameless plug>) has to charge non-EU clients extra because of the real barriers exporting outside of the EU.
Apart from that, anecdotally, even within the EU, we noticed that UK customers were strangely much less informed about SEPA bank transfers (between € accounts, within EFTA) than even non-EU EFTA members.
My position in these cases is simple: I want what's best for me and my people and fuck the rest.
Europe has had a history of pointless and toxic altruism that has lead us to this point. Think of the refugee crisis for example. The "all humans are equal regardless of where they were born" and the "please I'd do whatever it takes so people don't label me as a racist" rubbish has ruined our culture.
That's the traditional way. It usually leads to war. We're about to relearn some painful lessons in this century.
Sorry, but this shit right here is what's ruining your culture.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11968956 and marked it off-topic.
For me the main benefit is that my grand father has a tatoo with a number on his wrist, but my brother is in a loving relationship with a blue-eye blond german.
No matter how you slice it, peace is a very nice think too have in an instable world with so many different people living so close to each others.
a) Experts are sometimes wrong. Economic experts are usually wrong. (Personally I think they happen to be right in this case)
b) Some Brexit supporters also see the economic risks and accept them, because of democracy, sovereignty etc. pp.
And while I'm a pragmatic who would weigh economic consequences heavily, God damn!, I can totally respect that!