Shrug. Who even cares any more. The U.K. can abandon everything they want, and any business or person with a brain or eyes to see will abandon them. I did. I’m far from alone. What’s the U.K. going to do when there’s nothing left but idiots and seagulls?
This also seems like a great opportunity to find any interesting U.K. patents you can, and steal them. What are they going to do, write a letter? They’re leaving all mutual enforcement agreements, too.
That's a good point. Patents tend to be applied in several geographical areas though (although I'm no expert), but I suppose there's always a possibility that there are patents that only apply in the UK now.
Likewise, but that cause is lost. They’ll be leaving the UN Security Council in the next few years most likely, in the name of control and sovereignty. I’d get out while you can.
I can't see the UK voluntarily leaving the UN Security Council and as we usually act as the sidekick of the US I can't imagine they'd want the UK to leave either.
On the other hand, I can see the other more powerful Security Council countries leaving and setting up something else (to which the UK, now a rather middling power, will not be invited).
India is 5th largest GDP and also a nuclear power, it is not a permanent member and does not have veto power on the SC. Germany/Japan are higher than both India and U.K. and still not part of council for obvious historical reasons. GDP and nuclear arsenal are just two aspects to power, lot more to it than just that.
When France and UK became part initial members the SC. They were still colonial powers controlling a lot of the world, and won the war, they are no longer have that kind of strength or influence.
If a new council were created in the somewhat near future it would be because power dynamics have shifted far enough that the current council is no longer useful, from the current members UK and France are most likely to ones for that shift and not enjoy similar rights. New powers at the table could be EU as a whole, India, Brazil perhaps Japan and Germany etc.
Germany and Japan have functioning militaries; they have legal restrictions on their use, but those restrictions don't, IIRC, obstruct their participation in anything that the Security Council would decide.
And the U.K. had unprecedented power and control within Europe, and were willing to walk away.
The press in the U.K. is attacking UN agencies daily - it would not surprise me in the slightest if the U.K. decided the SC was too constraining, their veto not big enough.
Same goes for NATO - the ERG want out, and feel the contributions are an unfair burden. They are right now opaquely “streamlining” the military. How that helps meet the NATO commitment, not clear.
Everyone said {the many things that have come to pass over the past few years} would never happen, that it would be an insane choice.
At this point, the insane choice is the inevitable choice, so I’d put money (actually, I have, I am shorting sterling, hard, as a hedge) on them leaving both the UN and NATO.
>At this point, the insane choice is the inevitable choice
At this point I am beginning to wonder what is behind the pattern.
Are we witnessing the failure of governments acting in the best national interests because they have finally become fully subverted from within by selfish forces? A common pattern to the madness in the US and the madness in the UK is that an inner circle stand to get very rich from all the goings-on.
Maybe it has something to do with the EU? What I see missing in a lot of this discussions is always a honest critique of the flaws of the EU that may have caused Brexit.
The EU has a serious democratic deficit and this will never be resolved.
> The EU has a serious democratic deficit and this will never be resolved.
Somewhat true, but so does the UK with its unelected upper house! Having Ian Botham made a permanent legislator because of his "loyalty" to the Party is not really the stuff of a democratic country.
The EU does have flaws, but that's not the basis on which Brexit was fought.
Considering the head of the Commission and all the Commissioners are chosen by the governments of the EU nations and voted on by the Parliament this is a bit disingenuous.
It's a bit like saying that the UK in undemocratic because the civil service drafts the laws.
That's a tu quoque fallacy. Just because the UK has an unelected upper house doesn't mean that this justifies the EU having a democratic deficit.
Two wrongs don't make one right.
>The EU does have flaws, but that's not the basis on which Brexit was fought.
This is the whole point of my initial comment. You can't just dismiss all criticism of the EU as racist and xenophobic. That just causes more divisiveness and bad will.
As a non-british who has had a great deal of experiences in Britain, I say you will likely still be ok.
I think there is a lot of 'good riddance' feelings in the EU population towards the UK right now but that is mostly driven by the way the media creates this black and white, us vs them divisive messages, none of which has any basis in reality.
The UK had for many years served as the ironclad under which more budget conservative countries protected themselves in EU negotiations. The UK got all the hate and the stereotype of the 'difficult' person in the room and all the other countries got there defensive stand preserved.
With the UK now leaving it's likely that the Netherlands or the 'New Hanseatic league' will probably fill the role of the 'difficult' person in the room.
Irrespective of all the sanguine media, the UK still has a great deal of positive points that make it attractive for businesses when compared with other EU countries:
- Flexible Labour law (e.g. France would be a counter-example)
- Functioning/Expedient Legal system
- Competitive tax framework
- Access to VC levels of funding for startups mostly biased towards London, but still
- The volume of funding available for University research and spin-offs (when comparing with other EU countries)
- Network effects with the US.
- An internal 60mil people consumer market, with a fairly high median disposable income (specially when compared with the EU27 median) and credit-friendly.
The EU project has a lot of ideals and visions sliding along a spectrum. There should never be a situation where if you do not agree with me than you are against me, that is reductionist and will never work in a EU wide project with some many heterogenous countries and cultures. In my opinion we cannot artificially accelerate what is likely a multi-generational mind shift (slow creep towards an EU federation) with process-driven reforms.
If I dare making a prediction I don't think the UK will be in a scenario of having to ration insuline medication or riots in the street as some describe, I also don't think the UK will be business as usual as some conservatives describe. It will mostly likely be somewhere in between because as with most things in reality this situation is nuanced and complex.
Well, it's no so much 'good riddance' (we really want you to stay) as we're all glad the awkward political tug of war is over and we all know where we stand. Even if it isn't where we would have liked to, at least we can try and move on. As for the UK: A large part of their economy is based on a service industry, compounded by being the traditional gateway between the US and Europe. The rise of China, the stumbling of the US, the isolationist movement of the UK, draconian internet legislature and the EU being forced to pull together by Covid19 all undermine this classic business hub model.
> I don't think the UK will be in a scenario of having to ration insuline medication or riots in the street as some describe
UK seems very riot-resistant, I guess we have to see what the wreckage of the economy looks like after Covid. The best prediction I've heard was that we'll simply forget that the UK used to be a richer country than Ireland. Although that may be driven into sharper relief by a border poll ...
Wow, a nuanced argument about Brexit? Have an upvote. Very refreshing.
There are so many aspects to this whole thing, and due to the media being very one sided a lot of the nuance of the leave side are completely unknown to most people, as can be seen in this thread.
What nuance? There is only one brexit happening, a very hard brexit, and its apparently what you knew you were voting for. Or are you from a different reality?
As to “the liberal remainer mainstream media” - gtfo. What do you watch, one america news network?
And yes - there are leavers from many backgrounds - but when you lend your support to a fascist project and ideology, you are a fascist, and that’s kinda the end of it.
> Flexible Labour law (e.g. France would be a counter-example)
That's only nice on short term. Easily being able to fire people is fun, until there's too much of a difference between top and low earning. Eventually it'll just lead to huge problems. You avoid loads of issues by ensuring there's not a gigantic difference between top earners and low earners. E.g. it should NOT be ok that people work multiple jobs, or can barely scrape by.
IMO less inequality will eventually be better for a country; tax income could be higher, more influence as result. Similarly, if people think they have no good future, why follow things like do no crime.
See e.g. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I... (income increases on bottom 20% of earners result in GDP growth):
> This suggests that policies need to be country specific but should focus on raising the income share of the poor, and ensuring there is no hollowing out of the middle class.
I genuinely hope we can get rid of VAT once we leave the EU as it won't be mandated anymore, but that's wishful thinking on my part. We're probably too dependent on it now. :(
Right, but they’ll inevitably leave the EPO too - I’d say this was the shot across the bows.
It’s easy to predict - just consider what the worst,
most self-destructive course of action available is, and voila, you know what the British government will do next.
the government is pulling out of anything where the ECJ has jurisdiction, which you might not agree with, but is perfectly consistent with leaving the EU's institutional control
> The UK joined Euratom when it joined the EEC in 1973. It is a separate legal entity from the EU, but is tied up with its laws and institutions, and subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
you may want to revisit essentially everything you've posted here, because most of it is just flat out wrong
Now, more than ever, it should be clear that further political integration in the EU would be an absolutely terrible idea. Look over the pond to see what a disaster it has been in the US. You can't effectively run a country of 325 million people with widely divergent viewpoints in a top-down fashion.
When people imagine a more politically integrated EU, I bet they don't imagine that government run by whoever they consider the kookiest people in the body politic. Imagine that EU integration proceeded apace, and Duda, or Orban, or Johnson became the popularly-elected President of the EU. (The current EU executive structure would never be adequate, of course, in a more politically integrated future.)
Remind me, how many times have Michigan and Illinois gone to war with each other since joining the union?
Federalism, in principle, is no bad thing - but it should keep to regulation and overarching legislation while letting states largely self govern (i.e. the EU model) rather than top-down tactical governance, which is where the US has ended up.
Ultimately, it’s a question of identity. Americans call themselves Americans. Europeans call themselves French, Dutch, Greek. That shared identity is the key to preventing war - everything else is just a means to that end.
> Federalism, in principle, is no bad thing - but it should keep to regulation and overarching legislation while letting states largely self govern (i.e. the EU model) rather than top-down tactical governance, which is where the US has ended up.
The US couldn’t maintain federalism, and the EU will ultimately end up in the same place. There is no additional structural protection in the EU, there just hasn’t been enough time to erode the sovereignty of the individual member states yet. In some respects, the EU is actually structurally worse. For example, the EU has no equivalent to our anti-Commandeering principle, so the central government can force the member states to execute EU legislation using the apparatus of the domestic governments.
Handing over significant degrees of sovereignty to unelected EU organisations in the Treaty of Lisbon without popular consent - in fact - directly against popular consent (France, Netherlands etc), was by far the most 'self destructive' act in modern politics.
The dint on the UPC and other EU organisations due to this, is a function of the existentially problematic manner in which the EU was formed.
Europe would work much better with a series of consistent bilateral treaties on issues such as patents and regulations, instead of trying to be a Federal Superstate led by the Chancellor of Germany ... who incidentally chose Urusula Von Der Leyen, not the electors, who didn't even know who she was literally at the time they voted. If that fact alone is not cause enough for revolution.
You evidently do not understand the purpose of the European Union, and your populist nationalism is showing - do up your fly.
The EU has one purpose, and one purpose alone: obviate the possibility of war in Europe. I’ll take a bit of bureaucracy over killing fields and concentration camps, but hey, I guess that’s just me.
Good luck with the negotiations. I guess Albania and North Macedonia have a always had lot more goodwill on the EU side, ever since the idea of them joining the EU was floated, than the UK will ever have again.
Nah, they'll want the budget contributions back. Also, as much as I think Brexit is a complete waste, it doesn't have to be a disaster either - although this govt. seems hellbent on making it one. By the time the UK comes to reconsider joining or similar, things will have moved.
> Nah, they'll want the budget contributions back.
Also: "The German car industry will demand it", "The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU", etc. All of this has been falsified in the last four years. The integrity of the single market and of the European project is turning out to be much more valuable to EU member states than the highly rebated UK contributions.
As I said, I'm on the side against brexit, but what you're saying is not true. The EU is struggling massively with this current budget round and the loss of the UK contribution seems to legitimately be causing problems.
The shit about BMW's and Prosecco was just nationalist bollocks, but that doesn't mean that the loss of the UK budget contribution isn't real. Likely end outcome is EU budget struggles a bit for a few years, then UK rejoins as an associate or whatever new category they come up with.
The European Council is made of the democratically elected Heads of State of each Member State. The European Council nominates the president of the European Comission, which again has one member per Member State. The European Parliament, which is composed of MEPs directly elected by the citizens of each member state, must ratify all nominations. The directly elected European Parliament has veto power on European Comission decisions, and so has every Member State.
A state can only join the EU by virtue of a democratic decision according to the constitution of the Member State itself, and there are strong requirements on prospective Member States to be themselves proper democracies with separation of powers in order to be allowed to join.
Granted, these requirements have been slightly overlooked when it came to the UK: the House of Lords is undemocratic, one could say outdated, and would almost certainly not be tolerated in any other candidate state.
So, the EU might be complex, but in what sense exactly is it undemocratic?
> how does the normal citizen vote for the president of the European Commission? How do we vote them out if we dont like their governance anymore?
As is the case with the chief executive in most parliamentary systems, by voting for an MP (in the case, MEP) of the party which backs their preferred (or opposes their opposed) candidate for leader.
ok so we have an MEP in parliament. But MEPs, can't initiate legislation, only approve it. The EU parliament is arguably the only parliament in the world where members of parliament are not allowed to make laws or initiate legislation. The institution that actually makes the laws in the EU is not the democratically elected members of parliament, but the unelected European Commissioners. This is the issue with the EU. Its a special club at the top, and the people who we can vote for don't really have any say in any of it. That alone is the best reason for it to go!
You've just shifted the goalpost here. You asked how to control who's the head of the Comission not how to initiate legislation.
But since you asked look at how little power a British MP has to get a private member's bill through to a vote. In actual fact the only private member's bills that get a vote let alone pass are those with government support.
Wait, the U.K. isn’t a democracy, the queen is no longer the head of state, and the House of Lords no longer has a role in legislature or government? That’s news to me.
Also the House of Common's isn't really democratic in any meaningful sense of the word. It took 886,400 votes to get 1 Green MP but only 25,900 votes per SNP MP. Similarly 38,300 per Conservative MP to 336,000 per LibDem MP. That's an order of magnitude difference between votes to power.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound aggressive against you, even if you were of a different opinion. I am a bit tired of all the disinformation on this topic, I highly value the European project -- it is not perfect but my life would be so much poorer without it -- so I can get a bit emotional.
I have also been an anglophile since I can remember, so I am quite disappointed with the UK. I think I'm not alone in this.
Regarding the budget round: my impression is that the struggle comes from the situation caused by covid more than anything else. Brexit became a niche interest in the EU, most people are not paying attention or really care about it anymore.
Notice that the contribution of the UK after rebates amounted to 9 billion euros, in comparison to a yearly EU budget of about 165 billion euros, which is in itself 1% of the EU's GDP. While I am sure that the EU misses that contribution, I find it hard to believe that it is a huge problem.
Loss of UK means 10 euro a year less per every person left in eu27. You wildly overstating UKs contribution. It's peanuts compared to what Covid has caused
It doesn't work like that. EU state populations overwhelmingly like rich countries over poor ones. Including poor countries is a geostrategic decision with little low-level support from people.
Switzerland, Norway, Iceland would be welcome with open arms, they just don't want to join.
The baggage caused by the UK will dissipate in 5-10 years or so and at the end of the day, the UK is comparatively rich by EU standards.
> The baggage caused by the UK will dissipate in 5-10 years or so
This is quite optimistic. I'm not sure if you live in the EU, but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states. In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.
More objectively: if you study the history of the EU, you will see that this "baggage" is quite old. For quite some time in the 70s vetoed UK's accession (to the then EEC), precisely because it feared that the UK was only interested in economic benefits and would sabotage any other aspect of the European project. That is more or less what happened when the UK eventually joined, and the EU had to build around the UK (Schengen, Euro, etc.). It is true that the EU likes rich countries, but it is also true that things are far from being as simple as you describe.
Interesting detail: you mention Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. They are members of EFTA. EFTA was created by the UK during the time that they were not able to join the EEC. After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused. So being rich is not enough once you become sufficiently toxic.
Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things, and it was given extraordinary rebates for its contributions to the EU budget. Should the UK wish to rejoin, it would have to accept Schengen, the Euro, no more rebates and the "ever closer union" political commitment spelled out in the treaties. I find it very hard to believe that the UK would accept such things in our lifetimes, and I find it very hard to believe that the EU would be willing to put up with the current circus that is UK politics and media in the forseable future.
The UK government is now talking about not honoring the Withdrawal Agreement if there is no Free Trade Deal. Well, this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This means the return of violence to that region. Even if the UK honors the WA, it is quite likely that the situation will degrade to a point that this border comes back. That was the crux of the negotiations for the last 4 years between the EU and the UK, that everyone is now forgetting about. There are also other issues, like Gibraltar. I am afraid that heavier baggage will necessarily accumulate before it can even start to dissipate.
> In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.
pull the other one, if the UK relented they'd jump at the opportunity
realpolitik always wins
> After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused.
this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either
the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires
> Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things,
it was never "given" special treatment, the UK accepted the full acquis communautaire at the point it joined
when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed
> the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires
Perhaps, but nevertheless they were preemptively rejected, as you can read in the above article.
> when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed
They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. That kind of special privilege is gone. By the way, the initial treaty that the UK signed already spelled out the goal of an "ever closer union", but then the UK politicians and media make Pikachu face when they rediscover this goal, and claim that they were deceived and that "it was just a trade agreement, never a political project".
And the rebates also existed, and had nothing to do with vetoes or treaties. It was outright special treatment. And still the UK kept complaining about its "contributions".
> Senior Norwegian politicians and business figures have rejected Norway-plus
so not the Norwegian government
> The rejection is a blow to an influential cross-party group led by the Tory MP Nick Boles
so not the UK government
> They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK.
the euro did not exist at the point the UK joined and accepted the acquis
if you go and actually read the TFEU you'll see the legal mechanism that states clearly that the UK negotiated that it would not have to join, in return for not vetoing the treaty
> This is quite optimistic. I'm not sure if you live in the EU, but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states. In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.
I'm European and I've been following the news quite closely. Keep in mind that if you're the kind of person active on HN, you're probably in a media bubble.
Regular people, except for the French (maybe, even that is debatable), still like the UK.
> but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states
The Germans consider the Brits a v useful hedge against French socialism, the French against German hegemony, North Europe against French and German expensive grand designs, South Europe against French and German snootiness, Eastern Europe against French and German Russophilia and so on and so forth. The UK has 800 years of helping keep the balance of power in Europe, and being largely a reasonable neighbour (and certainly compared to the French or Germans).
Isn't this a bit too much historical/wishful thinking perspective? I don't think people in Europe see UK as some kind of helper agent in maintaining balance of power/order in continental and northern Europe. UK is simply not relevant now. Those threats from close neighbors are largely gone. The questions that concern people today are different - too much power of EU bodies and bureaucrats, which UK can't help with, some external threats (migrants, terrorists) which UK can't help with, economic recession in whole West which UK can't help with, China influence which UK can't help with. For the eastern countries, Russia is a concern which UK can't help with. Also, nobody in their right mind would rely on UK in this respect (remember Chamberlain and Munich 1938). If any invasion happens in Europe, the relevant factors will be local forces and Americans, UK may choose to help but probably not a substantial factor.
> Well, this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
Hi, I live in that region. I thought I might be able to give a little more insight in the situation here.
> This means the return of violence to that region.
It's kind of funny you guys assumed it stopped... It's reduced, but it's not stopped. When the Good Friday agreement came in, it gave Northern Ireland the option to leave the UK when it wants. It turns out that the general public that live here do not want to leave the UK, which diminished the influence unionists and separatists had over people... Turns out having a democratic option made it hard to convince people to join a fight on either side.
Further, most people are more practical, self interested than ideological currently. For many, the Republic looks like a worse future for NI, with less money to go around than if it stays in the UK. The Republic government of course also views NI to be a horrible drain on their resources, so have repeatedly stated over the years that "now is not the right time".
While this has been happening, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have lost significant populations of natives. The Republic has had a massive increase in immigration, so much to the point that the nationalism and that sort of ideology has declined, reducing that want for conflicts even further.
None of the politicians in Northern Ireland have a desire and cannot be compelled to create a physical border between the Republic of Ireland. This of course does not sit well with the EU. The UK parliament does not actually give much of a shit about Northern Ireland outside of how much we spend and leaves NI to its' own autonomy out of fear of violence in the mainland UK.
At this point, I am convinced that if a border is going to be imposed, it will be from the Republic's side. The Republic government doing this of course would put the Republic and EU into a very negative light. So of course, the Republic is very unhappy about this and has voiced this in confidence a few times.
Taking the temperature here, there is a lot of uncertainty, but, I think regardless of what happens, Northern Ireland is probably likely going to benefit more through this. It will be the only UKish territory (ignoring Gibraltar) that shares a border with an EU country that retains easy access to Great Britain, which will make it either a special trading partner, or a special back door. Whether the UK and EU like it or not. I do not think the violence in Northern Ireland will be increasing much more than it is now; they do not seem to have the people or the resources.
The UK parliament of course has made some new acts so that the people of Northern Ireland can control our own fate in face of brexit after a deal is made, democraticing what is happening here.
The UK and EU in my opinion are both trying to use Northern Ireland to get a better trade agreement.
Eh being from Ireland if anyone puts up a border it be Irish farmers. Last thing they want is northern Ireland being used as a backdoor into Europe with UK dumping questionable gm or chlorinated food destroying their livelihoods.
I'm not so sure. If I wanted N. Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England to rejoin the EU (separately and in that order) then I'd be doing pretty much what the government is doing right now.
NI, Scotland and Wales leaving would make England one of the richest countries in Europe (by capita), which would vastly increase its EU budget contributions
We're already 20-30% worse off because of the fall in currency and perhaps a hundred billion £ worse off because of Brexit, and we haven't begun the full amputation of our trading relations yet. We'll see anyway. Chin up, hope for the best and all that!
A bit more than that actually: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/uk-signific... We don't really know what the second-order effects will be, such as the brightest people moving abroad and companies permanently closing or leaving, as well as the general loss of influence.
I expect that we'll regain the 20% fairly quickly once the virus threat abates, but the Brexit loses are a permanent drag.
Anyway as I said in my comment above, we don't fully know, but we're sure going to find out soon enough.
> We don't really know what the second-order effects will be, such as the brightest people moving abroad and companies permanently closing or leaving, as well as the general loss of influence.
so what do you think they were modelling? nothing at all?
> I expect that we'll regain the 20% fairly quickly once the virus threat abates, but the Brexit loses are a permanent drag.
a reduction in growth is not a overall loss, sorry
You can still be poorer with constant GDP if the exchange rates have moved against you. That holiday in France I'm about to book got more expensive as a direct consequence of Brexit. The same goes for everything else we import (which is a lot).
> any business or person with a brain or eyes to see will abandon them. I did. I’m far from alone. What’s the U.K. going to do when there’s nothing left but idiots and seagulls?
Right! Apart from being the 6th largest economy, a nuclear power, a permanent member of the security council, a member of FVEY, the home of two of the best universities in the world, home to London, being a cultural powerhouse for several centuries, home to one of the most established and trusted legal systems in the world, and printer of the pound sterling, the UK is basically completely irrelevant now.
... Brexit is a shit-show and probably a bad idea, but perhaps let’s keep the hyperbole to a minimum, eh?
We are a bit of a second-rate nuclear power though - we are completely dependent on the US for delivery systems (Trident missiles) and, apparently, for the design of warheads.
If the US decided it didn't want the UK to be a nuclear power then I don't think we'd be able to maintain the capability for very long.
Britain was the third nuclear power, can’t imagine they just threw the plans away... Also the French are managing to maintain theirs independently just fine.
I don't think a 1960's weapon design (if we ever really had them - there is some debate as to whether the UK conned the US into giving us proper multi-stage weapon designs) is going be that useful on a Trident missile.
>home to one of the most established and trusted legal systems in the world
I live in England and I have very little faith in the legal system, either in its laws or in the prison system. In fact, between criminalizing posession of some pornographic cartoons and the Snooper's Charter, not to mention the mandate that ISPs keep your history metadata for 9 months now, I have lost all faith in the English legal system. The populace that is apathetic to encroachments on rights, freedoms, and privacy, much like how it is currently trending in the US, is even worse given that there is no constitution to protect those rights, and we have to trust this government to create a 'bill of rights'. I can't be the only one incredibly cynical about what that would entail.
It's really a shame for all the small business in the UK what's happening right now. I'm really going to miss them. Lots of hard working people building cool things.
From Ireland, been looking at shenanigans in UK for last 4 years while scratching my head at the madness which seems to have taken over.
Almost daily get contacts on linkedin for jobs both relocation and remote in UK (London and Belfast) and each time I politely point out to the recruiter that (beside the already lower salaries which have not kept up with fall in pounds value) it would not be a wise move to attach one to UK at this time due to all the uncertainty, also there has been a rush of companies setting up here opening up many opportunities while remaining in Europe.
I would have agreed with you up to few years ago, but now Dublin has a vibrant jobs market in tech with salaries that are equal to higher than London with a less crazy (tho still crazy) cost of living.
Like I said the fall of pound has been spectacular in last 4-5 years.
* Engineer London 2020 - £95K ~€105K (5K gbp increases per year)
Both engineers start at same pay 5 years ago, both of them think they are moving up in the world with reasonable pay increases per year. One of them is being screwed by falling value of pound against just about every major currency due to Brexit and all the uncertainty.
It's only 'being screwed' (or just an unfortunate decision on your part) if your participation in Euro economy is weighted high enough vs. the local economy.
i.e. the same increase looks better if you live in London than if you work remotely from Dublin. But.. I don't think it's surprising that London salaries aren't optimised for remote workers in Dublin?
(This may well change of course! Will be interesting to see what happens if remote work gets significantly more widespread.)
London is more expensive to live in than Dublin, by raw property prices, but London is much easier to commute in from distances.
Until the pandemic Dublin had become impossible to rent in due to reallocation to AirBnB.
I'm currently still comfortable in Edinburgh, where I get slightly less money than London but a much cheaper house. My current employer is not exposed to much Brexit risk, but Dublin is very high up on my exit strategy choices list.
What a coincidence. I'm currently in London but have been given permission to relocate to Edinburgh if I wanted (keeping London salary).
It's really tempting. The thought of being a hour or so's drive from wilderness is very appealing. My main concern is being stuck up there if things really go to shit. That and the poorer weather!
One thing I would recommend if you do consider moving to Edinburgh is moving to a place just outside of Edinburgh that is on a rail line. After living the centre of Edinburgh for ~30 years we moved across to a rural location in Fife and it's the best of both worlds - getting into Edinburgh by train is easy and actually quite a pleasant journey (the Forth Bridge!) and you are a good bit closer to the Highlands (where I go most weekends).
My commute is about 50 mins door to door - 10 min drive, 30 on train and 10 minute walk. Mind you even pre-coronavirus I was only going into the office 2 or 3 days a week, working from home the rest of the time. The train trip is actually quite nice as you go along the coast then across the Forth Bridge.
Property is much cheaper in Fife than a comparable property in Edinburgh. We got a nice 5 bedroom house in a rural area with a large garden and fantastic views for about a third less than a 4 bedroom flat in Edinburgh.
Even without driving there's so much green space up here. And the weather isn't that bad. The east coast from Edinburgh to Dundee is in this weird spot in Scotland that gets significantly less rain than most other areas. It's just a bit colder.
Yeah, I'm also in Edinburgh. I honestly don't see the London appeal these days. There are a few cheap northern cities with solid tech scenes, little competition and cheap cost of living. Edinburgh's the best one, but I've heard tons of great stuff about Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham. Even accounting for salary (and those have been going up in Edinburgh recently) you're still better off due to cost of living. Plus green space!
Thats the other problem with Brexit, you might not be able to take advantage of remote if you are in UK as EU has fairly strict data protection laws regarding its citizens.
As a EU citizen i would be horrified if any non EU company gets its hands on my personal data.
From our point of view UK is now in same league of "3rd countries" as Russia or India
Funnily enough a good chunk of the food UK eats comes from Ireland and other neighbouring EU countries.
During this covid virus lockdown working remotely from home with a massive farm size garden growing fruit and veggies in rural Ireland has proven to be better for my mental/physical health than being locked into a tiny apartment in a city
My routine for normal week days hasn’t changed. I’m still inside in front of a computer for most of the day. I still jog most mornings and go for a walk most evenings.
Not hanging out with people as much and other similar things would’ve presumably been impacted the same in most places.
Anecdotally, I mostly know middle and upper middle class people. A few have moved or are going to move into bigger and farther away places from their current apt. But still within their current city limits.
I’m sure you enjoy your location and house size. It appears people who are enjoying larger and more rural living spaces always preferred them pre-corona too. Perhaps I am missing a trend of many people who can work remote now, moving out of cities. I know I see a lot of chatter on ‘trendy’ social sites, but it’s not always representative.
Depends. I can see a great Xmas season in UK retail ("get stuff before the gates are closing"), and a wealth of new im-/export businesses in the time after (and running such businesses isn't out of character for Londoners I guess). I know I'd be looking into these kinds of opportunities right now.
The cost of living in London eats up any salary benefit. Once you factor in actually having to live in London, or a murderous commute, there is almost no benefit to living in London unless you're young or work in finance. If you're young there are opportunities in London you can't find elsewhere in English speaking Europe if you're willing to live like a pauper for a bit.
If this COVID stuff has taught me anything it's that London can be made far less expensive if you want. The amount of money I've saved since March is astounding, purely from not buying coffees, lunches and pints, which are things I only really did because I had to commute to work.
The real benefit of living in London is that it'd be far easier to get another job if things truly went south.
> The cost of living in London eats up any salary benefit.
Does it actually though? Genuine question having grown up here. I live with my partner, our monthly outgoings living on the zone 1/2 border are ~£800 each for mortgage, bills, car insurance, etc. Last year I earned ~£90k before tax. I don't think I would have earned anything like that amount working in another part in the UK. Even if my cost of living was halved I'd only be saving around £5k a year.
I'm relatively young I suppose and I don't love everything about London, but I see lots of benefits to living here outside of the income, too. I can also be in the (proper) countryside in an hour or so drive at the weekends if I want a change of scenery.
When did you buy? I get the distinct impression from friends that even well off techies are struggling to get a big deposit together for a London property nowadays.
Late 2018. I got a big income bump in early 2017 and both my partner I and were able to save for a deposit by living frugally for a couple of years. I wouldn't have been able to do it alone though, I think you realistically need two incomes to buy in London.
Deposit it not the problem, it's the disappointing quality of the properties in London that stops me buying. Why spend £700-800k for a 2-3 bedroom place which has finishing like it's £250k flat.
> London's different. If the world economy falls apart I'd rather be in London than Dublin for job seeking purposes.
If the word economy falls apart, cities that are disproportionately engaged in finance and especially international finance like London and New York are going to be the worst places to be for jobs in the short-term.
A little while after the initial chaos and collapse, they'll be great places for rebuilding jobs, though.
If you're a talented senior-level developer you'll lose tens of thousands of Euros by choosing to work in a much colder market. In retirement, this could mean you'll lose half a million euros or more (with compounding investments).
There are plenty of options that are half in/half out. Any of them would be more appropriate than what we are heading towards given how close the vote was.
None of the half & half options are as good as membership (by design). So Brexiteers won't accept them because they would mean admitting they were wrong. They'll insist on being completely "out", then when we have nothing it will be everyone else's fault for "picking on us" by not letting us have whatever we want.
You can't argue with them. They're all suffering a group hallucination...
> You can't argue with them. They're all suffering a group hallucination...
What's better, the EU or rest of world?
When you look at GDP growth, markets, trade... Rest of the world looks a lot better than EU nationalism/protectionism. The choice provided for every half-in option is to give up the rest of the world in that matter, but it turns out, that the EU in seemingly every comparison always comes short compared to the rest of the world.
This is exactly what I am talking about when I said "you can't argue with them".
The EU is how we negotiate with the rest of the world. When we leave, we don't just lose access to the EU, we lose access to 72 other countries with EU trade deals.
And that's without actually examining the Brexiteer position: If we can't accept EU membership rules in exchange for EU market access, why would we be able to accept any other trade-for-sovereignty deal? Everyone else wants more sovereignty for less trade.
The Brexiteer position is crazy and doesn't match reality. More reality won't persuade them. All they have is weird slogans like "What's better, the EU or rest of world?" and when you explain why it's nonsense, they stick to it because it sounds good and who needs inconvenient truths?
> This is exactly what I am talking about when I said "you can't argue with them".
I'm opening myself up to discussion, you are the one dismissing it.
> The EU is how we negotiate with the rest of the world.
Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.
> When we leave, we don't just lose access to the EU, we lose access to 72 other countries with EU trade deals.
The problem you're not perceiving is a bad deal is a bad deal. For example, the UK has had 50 years of common fisheries policy issues (and note there are many others with the AGP, EEP etc.) and the EU won't fix those, they were so bad that Greenland left it shortly after formation. It led to the destruction of some fishing waters through overfishing and destroying fishing towns and industries across the UK. Now, this is not necessarily the worst, because the benefits may outweigh the losses, right?
The way the CFP arrangement was made is that it requires an unanimous agreement from all countries involved, it is not a majority vote. Unfortunately, no agreement is made because there are parties to the deal who distinctly benefit from the particular rules. This is being confused further as the parts that have flexibility involve the budget and maritime fund, which give the illusion that change actually occurs in these arrangements, they do not. As a fisherman forced out of fishing, this impacts me greatly.
Overall, the EU has been responsible for amplifying economic depressions in the EU, the poor monetary policy in Europe as well. It is hard to forget when the ERM was imposed on the UK because it kept the pound, it is hard to forget the terrible mismanagement of Greece, which the EU government knew ahead of time was a problem and ignored procedures. Then, because they couldn't trust the Greeks, put in foreign banks to manage the money that was 'given' to the Greeks. Of course, the money was mismanaged by the banks and then the Greeks were blamed, while the unaccountable Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commision (which overrode parliamentary decisions in the EU when it came to monetary policies and also is the exclusive organisation to propose new legislation in parliament) now works for Goldman Sachs which for some reason, was able to profit immensely from the decisions made on Greece? It made the EU poorer.
Normally when a country’s economy is overvalued, their currency value is decreased through controlled printing of money, this in turn makes the country cheaper on international markets for services and products and leads to more income during a downtime that allows a country to recover. The EU denied Greece this option. The EU was further meant to protect the EU from entities like China gaining economic control, however, guess who bought a port and expanded it to be the largest shipping port in the EU. In doing so, their economic investment is the primary reason why Greece is in a better position now than before. Now Greece is defending Chinese interests in the EU parliament. The most ridiculous thing is that the EU failed in it’s protectionism and its ability to negotiate or manage economic trade.
I don't expect most people of Britain to have even researched this far, they are unhappy because both the EU and the UK government have failed them and that has lead to wide-spread unhappiness, which is what led to the vote.
> And that's without actually examining the Brexiteer position: If we can't accept EU membership rules in exchange for EU market access, why would we be able to accept any other trade-for-sovereignty deal?
The EU prevents the creation of any alternative trade deals with other countries that do not go through it, you do not see that in other trade deals typically. Other trade deals are typically setting the standards of trade between the two entities and not preventi...
I think this is another perfect example of brexiteer mentality.
In the original comment you made a simply, wrong claim. I disproved it with a fact including a citation.
This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion". But if all were doing is spewing crap, doesn't that harm actual discussion? Isn't that exactly the sort of fact free, reality rejecting, cultism that I claimed originally? You're sort of making my point for me.
So what happens next, maybe there is a point here with some content?
>Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.
OK, so you're saying we can get a better deal without the EU? That isn't what you said before so you're changing position, but maybe there is something in that.
So what is so great about Icelands deal with China vs the EU one? No comment on that. I suspect that's because that would involve facts and details and involve some comparison of the UK (a larger service economy) and Iceland (a tiny economy that mainly exports fish and aluminium).
Then its on to the fishing trade deal on fisheries. Which wasn't part of our EU membership, and isn't a trade deal. This is a bad deal and you do give reasons: it allowed to much fishing damaging fisheries and it didn't allow enough fishing destroying British towns. You're ability to have these contradictions in the same paragraph is further evidence that you've left reality. You believe we can get a "better deal", but that deal would have to increase and decrease fishing at the same time. Great. You've also missed that the fisheries deal was negotiated not to be perfect, but to better than the free for all previously imposed. Or that the multiple UK governments have repeatedly refused to reopen the matter or to use any of the protection permitted under the deal.
This is the whole brexit case in a microcosm: you're unhappy about something that isn't the EUs fault, you don't have a solution because there isn't one, so we have to leave the EU, because you want the people who setup the system you don't like to have less oversight from Brussels.
Also, FYI, Greenland isn't a nation, its part of Denmark and (for trade purposes) the EU. Again, facts bro!
> In the original comment you made a simply, wrong claim. I disproved it with a fact including a citation.
I don't see how? The current EU membership demands CFP, AGP among other things. This is why Greenland is not in the EU and is actually one of the big reasons why Iceland refuses to become a member.
> This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion".
I'm no intellectual, so you can stick your assumptions on my knowledge of etiquette where the sun doesn't shine.
You're right that I address the wider audience rather than you directly. I apologize if that seems rude. There are a few reasons for this:
* First, it's not personal. I am sure you're a lovely person. Addressing the audience instead of you makes it easier to keep that in mind. And they are the ones who will be convinced or not by anything either of us say.
* Second, this isn't about brexit as a subject. It's about people's justification of brexit. That's what my first comment said. I didn't say brexit was right or wrong, I said people supported it for illogical reasons. Go back and look. Your comments are literally evidence of that from your own mouth. So what am I meant to say? I provided simple rebuttal with citation. You replied with very familiar brexiter discussion strategies:
* You didn't cite anything, you just made claims (Greenland is a nation?)
* You added subjects that were not under discussion (Greece and Goldmans?)
* You wrote at great length (a whole paragraph on fisheries, without addressing my question: how will brexit let us fish more without fishing more?)
So what am I meant to do? Keep pointing out that Greenland is not a nation and does fall under EU trade law (citation below)? And then work through all the other issues? Including anymore you add to the list (sovereignty, immigration, CAP)? Plus all the articles you piled in as sources (4 articles about greek debt and goldman sachs)? Or assume that you are trying to "bury me in paperwork"? What is anyone to do faced with all this? I could reasonably call this disingenuous but I don't (see later in this comment).
I am not offended by any of this, nor do I imagine you will change your mind or that if I did we could somehow prevent brexit. I think you're clearly reasonable, you write well, you do NOT seem to be trolling or otherwise acting disingenuously. Quite the opposite: I think you honestly believe what you said ("What's better, the EU or rest of world?") despite evidence to the contrary. I think your rational capable brain is pursuing the bullet points above as a defense mechanism against being proven wrong ("losing" an argument is such a crap phrase because there is nothing too lose on here is there?)
So how does a reasonable person come to this position? How are beliefs formed and what makes them stick in the face of evidence? Is this facit of the human mind being abused (Cambridge analytics etc)? what does it mean for democracy and our society, based on the assumption of rational decision making? That's what I am addressing. That's why I am asking open questions. I've had this exact same discussion before. The same feeling comes when I watch a junior politician defend a party position he argued against last week or when Jehovah's witnesses come to my door or trump supporters railing against Obama. What drives people to need to believe something they don't really believe?
I am sure that most if not all of the countries are in the WTO and have a framework for trading. Another inconvenient truth is that not everyone will agree with you.
Everyone and their dog says WTO isn't enough but you're "sure". No source for that surety, you don't even know enough about the WTO to know how many countries are members. But it's fine, we can trust you. And I'm the bad guy for not being agreeable enough.
This is exactly what is so interesting about brexit, even fundamentalist cults don't have these sort of delusions.
I would read some articles on here https://briefingsforbritain.co.uk/ to try and understand the "cult" that you are so quick to vilify. The tribalism around brexit does no one any favours. This account will soon be useless on here, given the amount of down votes for daring to have a different opinion to the majority of the people on here.
briefingsforbritain is a pro brexit site that pretends not to be. Their whole Advisory Committee are hardcore brexiteers as are the editors etc.
This is another CLASSIC case of Brexiteer-ism. A very bias source pretending it's not. I'm honestly struggling to think of or find an honest, Pro-Brexit source at this point.
> Rest of the world looks a lot better than EU nationalism/protectionism.
The EU has literally the least nationalism and protectionism in the world. To an extent so extreme most of its people wish we'd go back to more reasonable levels.
> The choice provided for every half-in option is to give up the rest of the world in that matter
That's absolutely untrue. The UK could be part of the EFTA and have any kind of bilateral agreement with the rest of the world it wants.
Anyway don't worry, you'll have a deal worse than Ukraine or Turkey, since it's what you want.
> The EU has literally the least nationalism and protectionism in the world.
When people immigrate, we don't judge people by their skills, their criminality in the EU, just their geographic nationality. It's one rule for EU and a different rule for everyone else. We could have the same immigration policy for everyone instead of this racism/bigotry.
> To an extent so extreme most of its people wish we'd go back to more reasonable levels.
The only reason you say that is because the EU's policy is considered to be unsustainable, I'm for equality.
> That's absolutely untrue. The UK could be part of the EFTA and have any kind of bilateral agreement with the rest of the world it wants.
EFTA is European, but not EU, not a half-in option with the EU, and I also agree, it could definately be an option.
> Anyway don't worry, you'll have a deal worse than Ukraine
Are you trying to say that us having an alternative deal, much like when Ukraine moved to change its' existing one would cause a war and partial occupation as happened with the Russo-Ukrainian war due to the EU? If you aren't familar, I'd highly recommend reading: https://www.worldcat.org/title/ukrainian-crisis-the-role-of-...
I don't think this is a great timing. I also think the brexit was bad timing overall.
UK's engineering/scientific corp is good with electronics and biomed especially, areas where patents are really important, and having a voice on unifying EU patent without a doubt would have helped them.
They already need to import civil, construction and production engineers, and Brexit will probably end with a no Deal when the country is trying on giant infrastructures with a bit of central planning smell (and great job Corbyn&Friends on that by the way).
Yeah, let’s blame the guy who had no actually power (remember the tories were in charge), and was targeted by a smear campaign about anti-semitism, while the Tories erected and celebrated a statue of a nazi-sympathizer with both Theresa May and Boris Johnson in attendance.
I would love to understand from anyone, what it is about the European patent system that we're unhappy with and leaving, and what we're doing to overcome the chilling effect on innovation in the UK.
UK is a rich country. They can get higher productivity by simply hiring laborers from Europe and not giving them same standards of work and life which EU demands from member states.
That's enough for UK manufacturing to bounce back again.
152 comments
[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 187 ms ] threadThis also seems like a great opportunity to find any interesting U.K. patents you can, and steal them. What are they going to do, write a letter? They’re leaving all mutual enforcement agreements, too.
When France and UK became part initial members the SC. They were still colonial powers controlling a lot of the world, and won the war, they are no longer have that kind of strength or influence.
If a new council were created in the somewhat near future it would be because power dynamics have shifted far enough that the current council is no longer useful, from the current members UK and France are most likely to ones for that shift and not enjoy similar rights. New powers at the table could be EU as a whole, India, Brazil perhaps Japan and Germany etc.
The press in the U.K. is attacking UN agencies daily - it would not surprise me in the slightest if the U.K. decided the SC was too constraining, their veto not big enough.
Same goes for NATO - the ERG want out, and feel the contributions are an unfair burden. They are right now opaquely “streamlining” the military. How that helps meet the NATO commitment, not clear.
Everyone said {the many things that have come to pass over the past few years} would never happen, that it would be an insane choice.
At this point, the insane choice is the inevitable choice, so I’d put money (actually, I have, I am shorting sterling, hard, as a hedge) on them leaving both the UN and NATO.
At this point I am beginning to wonder what is behind the pattern.
Are we witnessing the failure of governments acting in the best national interests because they have finally become fully subverted from within by selfish forces? A common pattern to the madness in the US and the madness in the UK is that an inner circle stand to get very rich from all the goings-on.
The EU has a serious democratic deficit and this will never be resolved.
Somewhat true, but so does the UK with its unelected upper house! Having Ian Botham made a permanent legislator because of his "loyalty" to the Party is not really the stuff of a democratic country.
The EU does have flaws, but that's not the basis on which Brexit was fought.
the (elected) EU parliament cannot initiate legislation, only the (unelected) commission can
EU: the elected parliament is a rubber stamp on the unelected commission's agenda
UK: the unelected house is a rubber stamp on the elected house's agenda
It's a bit like saying that the UK in undemocratic because the civil service drafts the laws.
Two wrongs don't make one right.
>The EU does have flaws, but that's not the basis on which Brexit was fought.
This is the whole point of my initial comment. You can't just dismiss all criticism of the EU as racist and xenophobic. That just causes more divisiveness and bad will.
Got a citation for that? My impression is euroskeptics love America and NATO.
again, based on what?
half of your posts here are speculation based on no substance whatsoever
what did the UK ever do to you?
I think there is a lot of 'good riddance' feelings in the EU population towards the UK right now but that is mostly driven by the way the media creates this black and white, us vs them divisive messages, none of which has any basis in reality.
The UK had for many years served as the ironclad under which more budget conservative countries protected themselves in EU negotiations. The UK got all the hate and the stereotype of the 'difficult' person in the room and all the other countries got there defensive stand preserved.
With the UK now leaving it's likely that the Netherlands or the 'New Hanseatic league' will probably fill the role of the 'difficult' person in the room.
Irrespective of all the sanguine media, the UK still has a great deal of positive points that make it attractive for businesses when compared with other EU countries:
- Flexible Labour law (e.g. France would be a counter-example)
- Functioning/Expedient Legal system
- Competitive tax framework
- Access to VC levels of funding for startups mostly biased towards London, but still
- The volume of funding available for University research and spin-offs (when comparing with other EU countries)
- Network effects with the US.
- An internal 60mil people consumer market, with a fairly high median disposable income (specially when compared with the EU27 median) and credit-friendly.
The EU project has a lot of ideals and visions sliding along a spectrum. There should never be a situation where if you do not agree with me than you are against me, that is reductionist and will never work in a EU wide project with some many heterogenous countries and cultures. In my opinion we cannot artificially accelerate what is likely a multi-generational mind shift (slow creep towards an EU federation) with process-driven reforms.
If I dare making a prediction I don't think the UK will be in a scenario of having to ration insuline medication or riots in the street as some describe, I also don't think the UK will be business as usual as some conservatives describe. It will mostly likely be somewhere in between because as with most things in reality this situation is nuanced and complex.
UK seems very riot-resistant, I guess we have to see what the wreckage of the economy looks like after Covid. The best prediction I've heard was that we'll simply forget that the UK used to be a richer country than Ireland. Although that may be driven into sharper relief by a border poll ...
There are so many aspects to this whole thing, and due to the media being very one sided a lot of the nuance of the leave side are completely unknown to most people, as can be seen in this thread.
As to “the liberal remainer mainstream media” - gtfo. What do you watch, one america news network?
And yes - there are leavers from many backgrounds - but when you lend your support to a fascist project and ideology, you are a fascist, and that’s kinda the end of it.
That's only nice on short term. Easily being able to fire people is fun, until there's too much of a difference between top and low earning. Eventually it'll just lead to huge problems. You avoid loads of issues by ensuring there's not a gigantic difference between top earners and low earners. E.g. it should NOT be ok that people work multiple jobs, or can barely scrape by.
IMO less inequality will eventually be better for a country; tax income could be higher, more influence as result. Similarly, if people think they have no good future, why follow things like do no crime.
See e.g. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Staff-Discussion-Notes/I... (income increases on bottom 20% of earners result in GDP growth): > This suggests that policies need to be country specific but should focus on raising the income share of the poor, and ensuring there is no hollowing out of the middle class.
I genuinely hope we can get rid of VAT once we leave the EU as it won't be mandated anymore, but that's wishful thinking on my part. We're probably too dependent on it now. :(
It’s easy to predict - just consider what the worst, most self-destructive course of action available is, and voila, you know what the British government will do next.
based on what?
the government is pulling out of anything where the ECJ has jurisdiction, which you might not agree with, but is perfectly consistent with leaving the EU's institutional control
the EPO is not under the control of the ECJ
afraid not: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-4057...
> The UK joined Euratom when it joined the EEC in 1973. It is a separate legal entity from the EU, but is tied up with its laws and institutions, and subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
you may want to revisit essentially everything you've posted here, because most of it is just flat out wrong
When people imagine a more politically integrated EU, I bet they don't imagine that government run by whoever they consider the kookiest people in the body politic. Imagine that EU integration proceeded apace, and Duda, or Orban, or Johnson became the popularly-elected President of the EU. (The current EU executive structure would never be adequate, of course, in a more politically integrated future.)
Federalism, in principle, is no bad thing - but it should keep to regulation and overarching legislation while letting states largely self govern (i.e. the EU model) rather than top-down tactical governance, which is where the US has ended up.
Ultimately, it’s a question of identity. Americans call themselves Americans. Europeans call themselves French, Dutch, Greek. That shared identity is the key to preventing war - everything else is just a means to that end.
The US couldn’t maintain federalism, and the EU will ultimately end up in the same place. There is no additional structural protection in the EU, there just hasn’t been enough time to erode the sovereignty of the individual member states yet. In some respects, the EU is actually structurally worse. For example, the EU has no equivalent to our anti-Commandeering principle, so the central government can force the member states to execute EU legislation using the apparatus of the domestic governments.
The dint on the UPC and other EU organisations due to this, is a function of the existentially problematic manner in which the EU was formed.
Europe would work much better with a series of consistent bilateral treaties on issues such as patents and regulations, instead of trying to be a Federal Superstate led by the Chancellor of Germany ... who incidentally chose Urusula Von Der Leyen, not the electors, who didn't even know who she was literally at the time they voted. If that fact alone is not cause enough for revolution.
The EU has one purpose, and one purpose alone: obviate the possibility of war in Europe. I’ll take a bit of bureaucracy over killing fields and concentration camps, but hey, I guess that’s just me.
Also: "The German car industry will demand it", "The EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU", etc. All of this has been falsified in the last four years. The integrity of the single market and of the European project is turning out to be much more valuable to EU member states than the highly rebated UK contributions.
The shit about BMW's and Prosecco was just nationalist bollocks, but that doesn't mean that the loss of the UK budget contribution isn't real. Likely end outcome is EU budget struggles a bit for a few years, then UK rejoins as an associate or whatever new category they come up with.
A state can only join the EU by virtue of a democratic decision according to the constitution of the Member State itself, and there are strong requirements on prospective Member States to be themselves proper democracies with separation of powers in order to be allowed to join.
Granted, these requirements have been slightly overlooked when it came to the UK: the House of Lords is undemocratic, one could say outdated, and would almost certainly not be tolerated in any other candidate state.
So, the EU might be complex, but in what sense exactly is it undemocratic?
As is the case with the chief executive in most parliamentary systems, by voting for an MP (in the case, MEP) of the party which backs their preferred (or opposes their opposed) candidate for leader.
But since you asked look at how little power a British MP has to get a private member's bill through to a vote. In actual fact the only private member's bills that get a vote let alone pass are those with government support.
Also the House of Common's isn't really democratic in any meaningful sense of the word. It took 886,400 votes to get 1 Green MP but only 25,900 votes per SNP MP. Similarly 38,300 per Conservative MP to 336,000 per LibDem MP. That's an order of magnitude difference between votes to power.
I have also been an anglophile since I can remember, so I am quite disappointed with the UK. I think I'm not alone in this.
Regarding the budget round: my impression is that the struggle comes from the situation caused by covid more than anything else. Brexit became a niche interest in the EU, most people are not paying attention or really care about it anymore.
Notice that the contribution of the UK after rebates amounted to 9 billion euros, in comparison to a yearly EU budget of about 165 billion euros, which is in itself 1% of the EU's GDP. While I am sure that the EU misses that contribution, I find it hard to believe that it is a huge problem.
Switzerland, Norway, Iceland would be welcome with open arms, they just don't want to join.
The baggage caused by the UK will dissipate in 5-10 years or so and at the end of the day, the UK is comparatively rich by EU standards.
This is quite optimistic. I'm not sure if you live in the EU, but the UK severely tainted its image and destroyed all good-will with most powerful EU member states. In less than 5 years, it went from being a highly respected member and culture, with a reputation for pragmatism and seriousness, to a sad joke and an object of scorn with a bad after-taste of good old-fashioned xenophobia.
More objectively: if you study the history of the EU, you will see that this "baggage" is quite old. For quite some time in the 70s vetoed UK's accession (to the then EEC), precisely because it feared that the UK was only interested in economic benefits and would sabotage any other aspect of the European project. That is more or less what happened when the UK eventually joined, and the EU had to build around the UK (Schengen, Euro, etc.). It is true that the EU likes rich countries, but it is also true that things are far from being as simple as you describe.
Interesting detail: you mention Switzerland, Norway and Iceland. They are members of EFTA. EFTA was created by the UK during the time that they were not able to join the EEC. After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused. So being rich is not enough once you become sufficiently toxic.
Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things, and it was given extraordinary rebates for its contributions to the EU budget. Should the UK wish to rejoin, it would have to accept Schengen, the Euro, no more rebates and the "ever closer union" political commitment spelled out in the treaties. I find it very hard to believe that the UK would accept such things in our lifetimes, and I find it very hard to believe that the EU would be willing to put up with the current circus that is UK politics and media in the forseable future.
The UK government is now talking about not honoring the Withdrawal Agreement if there is no Free Trade Deal. Well, this means a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This means the return of violence to that region. Even if the UK honors the WA, it is quite likely that the situation will degrade to a point that this border comes back. That was the crux of the negotiations for the last 4 years between the EU and the UK, that everyone is now forgetting about. There are also other issues, like Gibraltar. I am afraid that heavier baggage will necessarily accumulate before it can even start to dissipate.
pull the other one, if the UK relented they'd jump at the opportunity
realpolitik always wins
> After Brexit was decided, the UK tried to rejoin EFTA, and they were refused.
this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either
the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires
> Due to the situation after WWII, the UK was given special treatment. It was allowed to opt-out of most things,
it was never "given" special treatment, the UK accepted the full acquis communautaire at the point it joined
when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed
The Brexit project placed a huge bet on that, and it seems they are losing.
> this is news to me, and I can't find any evidence of it either
It was widely reported at the time. Here you go:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p...
> the UK government has never had any interest in remaining in the EEA, which the EFTA requires
Perhaps, but nevertheless they were preemptively rejected, as you can read in the above article.
> when future treaty modifications occurred the UK did not veto the changes (its right), and permitted the changes, remaining under the rules the members had previously agreed
They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK. That kind of special privilege is gone. By the way, the initial treaty that the UK signed already spelled out the goal of an "ever closer union", but then the UK politicians and media make Pikachu face when they rediscover this goal, and claim that they were deceived and that "it was just a trade agreement, never a political project".
And the rebates also existed, and had nothing to do with vetoes or treaties. It was outright special treatment. And still the UK kept complaining about its "contributions".
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-p...
have you actually read the article?
> Senior Norwegian politicians and business figures have rejected Norway-plus
so not the Norwegian government
> The rejection is a blow to an influential cross-party group led by the Tory MP Nick Boles
so not the UK government
> They did not only "permit the changes", they signed the treaties. Including the obligation to join the Euro, something that the UK never intended to do and everyone overlooked because they were the UK.
the euro did not exist at the point the UK joined and accepted the acquis
if you go and actually read the TFEU you'll see the legal mechanism that states clearly that the UK negotiated that it would not have to join, in return for not vetoing the treaty
I'm European and I've been following the news quite closely. Keep in mind that if you're the kind of person active on HN, you're probably in a media bubble.
Regular people, except for the French (maybe, even that is debatable), still like the UK.
The Germans consider the Brits a v useful hedge against French socialism, the French against German hegemony, North Europe against French and German expensive grand designs, South Europe against French and German snootiness, Eastern Europe against French and German Russophilia and so on and so forth. The UK has 800 years of helping keep the balance of power in Europe, and being largely a reasonable neighbour (and certainly compared to the French or Germans).
That's not true.
Hi, I live in that region. I thought I might be able to give a little more insight in the situation here.
> This means the return of violence to that region.
It's kind of funny you guys assumed it stopped... It's reduced, but it's not stopped. When the Good Friday agreement came in, it gave Northern Ireland the option to leave the UK when it wants. It turns out that the general public that live here do not want to leave the UK, which diminished the influence unionists and separatists had over people... Turns out having a democratic option made it hard to convince people to join a fight on either side.
Further, most people are more practical, self interested than ideological currently. For many, the Republic looks like a worse future for NI, with less money to go around than if it stays in the UK. The Republic government of course also views NI to be a horrible drain on their resources, so have repeatedly stated over the years that "now is not the right time".
While this has been happening, both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have lost significant populations of natives. The Republic has had a massive increase in immigration, so much to the point that the nationalism and that sort of ideology has declined, reducing that want for conflicts even further.
None of the politicians in Northern Ireland have a desire and cannot be compelled to create a physical border between the Republic of Ireland. This of course does not sit well with the EU. The UK parliament does not actually give much of a shit about Northern Ireland outside of how much we spend and leaves NI to its' own autonomy out of fear of violence in the mainland UK.
At this point, I am convinced that if a border is going to be imposed, it will be from the Republic's side. The Republic government doing this of course would put the Republic and EU into a very negative light. So of course, the Republic is very unhappy about this and has voiced this in confidence a few times.
Taking the temperature here, there is a lot of uncertainty, but, I think regardless of what happens, Northern Ireland is probably likely going to benefit more through this. It will be the only UKish territory (ignoring Gibraltar) that shares a border with an EU country that retains easy access to Great Britain, which will make it either a special trading partner, or a special back door. Whether the UK and EU like it or not. I do not think the violence in Northern Ireland will be increasing much more than it is now; they do not seem to have the people or the resources.
The UK parliament of course has made some new acts so that the people of Northern Ireland can control our own fate in face of brexit after a deal is made, democraticing what is happening here.
The UK and EU in my opinion are both trying to use Northern Ireland to get a better trade agreement.
However, that depends a lot on what happens in the intervening decade to failing intra-Europe states such as Hungary and Poland.
now that the opt-outs are gone it'll never happen
rejoin died on 31st Jan 2020
this makes Leave's argument better, not worse
or around 0.35% a year, which isn't going to make the UK into a poor nation (and if Scotland, NI and Wales left it then England's would skyrocket)
meanwhile, in reality: the virus has knocked 20% off actual GDP in 4 months
I expect that we'll regain the 20% fairly quickly once the virus threat abates, but the Brexit loses are a permanent drag.
Anyway as I said in my comment above, we don't fully know, but we're sure going to find out soon enough.
> We don't really know what the second-order effects will be, such as the brightest people moving abroad and companies permanently closing or leaving, as well as the general loss of influence.
so what do you think they were modelling? nothing at all?
> I expect that we'll regain the 20% fairly quickly once the virus threat abates, but the Brexit loses are a permanent drag.
a reduction in growth is not a overall loss, sorry
Right! Apart from being the 6th largest economy, a nuclear power, a permanent member of the security council, a member of FVEY, the home of two of the best universities in the world, home to London, being a cultural powerhouse for several centuries, home to one of the most established and trusted legal systems in the world, and printer of the pound sterling, the UK is basically completely irrelevant now.
... Brexit is a shit-show and probably a bad idea, but perhaps let’s keep the hyperbole to a minimum, eh?
If the US decided it didn't want the UK to be a nuclear power then I don't think we'd be able to maintain the capability for very long.
There's more than just two! Admittedly only Oxbridge are consistently top 10 but there are a disproportionate number of other UK unis in the top 200.
Sure, the salaries are higher, but the expenses eat up most of it.
And people don't have the option of cheap countryside, living off their own land.
I love the UK, but it's got some serious problems.
But yeah, at least on the world stage, it's not completely irrelevant.
I live in England and I have very little faith in the legal system, either in its laws or in the prison system. In fact, between criminalizing posession of some pornographic cartoons and the Snooper's Charter, not to mention the mandate that ISPs keep your history metadata for 9 months now, I have lost all faith in the English legal system. The populace that is apathetic to encroachments on rights, freedoms, and privacy, much like how it is currently trending in the US, is even worse given that there is no constitution to protect those rights, and we have to trust this government to create a 'bill of rights'. I can't be the only one incredibly cynical about what that would entail.
> At their trial the judge told the defendants, "If hanging were still an option you would have been executed."
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Conlon
Considering the amount of cases in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Overturned_conviction... I would not put too much trust in the UK legal system.
Almost daily get contacts on linkedin for jobs both relocation and remote in UK (London and Belfast) and each time I politely point out to the recruiter that (beside the already lower salaries which have not kept up with fall in pounds value) it would not be a wise move to attach one to UK at this time due to all the uncertainty, also there has been a rush of companies setting up here opening up many opportunities while remaining in Europe.
Like I said the fall of pound has been spectacular in last 4-5 years.
* Engineer Dublin 2015 - €100K ~£70K
* Engineer Dublin 2020 - €125K ~£112K (5K eur increases per year)
* Engineer London 2015 - £70K ~€100K
* Engineer London 2020 - £95K ~€105K (5K gbp increases per year)
Both engineers start at same pay 5 years ago, both of them think they are moving up in the world with reasonable pay increases per year. One of them is being screwed by falling value of pound against just about every major currency due to Brexit and all the uncertainty.
i.e. the same increase looks better if you live in London than if you work remotely from Dublin. But.. I don't think it's surprising that London salaries aren't optimised for remote workers in Dublin?
(This may well change of course! Will be interesting to see what happens if remote work gets significantly more widespread.)
Until the pandemic Dublin had become impossible to rent in due to reallocation to AirBnB.
I'm currently still comfortable in Edinburgh, where I get slightly less money than London but a much cheaper house. My current employer is not exposed to much Brexit risk, but Dublin is very high up on my exit strategy choices list.
It's really tempting. The thought of being a hour or so's drive from wilderness is very appealing. My main concern is being stuck up there if things really go to shit. That and the poorer weather!
Property is much cheaper in Fife than a comparable property in Edinburgh. We got a nice 5 bedroom house in a rural area with a large garden and fantastic views for about a third less than a 4 bedroom flat in Edinburgh.
- a garage in London
- a small flat in central Edinburgh
- a medium sized house in Edinburgh outskirts
- a large house in Edinburgh commuter belt
- a mansion if you're prepared to drive more than an hour
- or a small island in the middle of nowhere
As a EU citizen i would be horrified if any non EU company gets its hands on my personal data.
From our point of view UK is now in same league of "3rd countries" as Russia or India
During this covid virus lockdown working remotely from home with a massive farm size garden growing fruit and veggies in rural Ireland has proven to be better for my mental/physical health than being locked into a tiny apartment in a city
Not hanging out with people as much and other similar things would’ve presumably been impacted the same in most places.
Anecdotally, I mostly know middle and upper middle class people. A few have moved or are going to move into bigger and farther away places from their current apt. But still within their current city limits.
I’m sure you enjoy your location and house size. It appears people who are enjoying larger and more rural living spaces always preferred them pre-corona too. Perhaps I am missing a trend of many people who can work remote now, moving out of cities. I know I see a lot of chatter on ‘trendy’ social sites, but it’s not always representative.
The real benefit of living in London is that it'd be far easier to get another job if things truly went south.
Does it actually though? Genuine question having grown up here. I live with my partner, our monthly outgoings living on the zone 1/2 border are ~£800 each for mortgage, bills, car insurance, etc. Last year I earned ~£90k before tax. I don't think I would have earned anything like that amount working in another part in the UK. Even if my cost of living was halved I'd only be saving around £5k a year.
I'm relatively young I suppose and I don't love everything about London, but I see lots of benefits to living here outside of the income, too. I can also be in the (proper) countryside in an hour or so drive at the weekends if I want a change of scenery.
When did you buy? I get the distinct impression from friends that even well off techies are struggling to get a big deposit together for a London property nowadays.
The cost of living in Dublin is not much different from London though.
> there is almost no benefit to living in London unless you're young or work in finance.
What is the benefit to living in Dublin?
If the word economy falls apart, cities that are disproportionately engaged in finance and especially international finance like London and New York are going to be the worst places to be for jobs in the short-term.
A little while after the initial chaos and collapse, they'll be great places for rebuilding jobs, though.
I guess, if you can live with the hundreds of thousands of desperate/jobless/starving/homeless people you'll be seeing every day.
I mean, FFS, you're talking the world economy falling apart, that very likely means 1800's London, quite a terrible place to live in.
Ireland: €37,741
London: €51,686
Software Developer jobs on Indeed.
All of Ireland: 1,016
Just London: 5,650
Software Developer roles listed at over 90k EUR.
All of Ireland: 27
Just London: 1,033
If you're a talented senior-level developer you'll lose tens of thousands of Euros by choosing to work in a much colder market. In retirement, this could mean you'll lose half a million euros or more (with compounding investments).
-------------
Software Engineer 50K eur Dublin / 50K gbp London
https://www.linkedin.com/salary/search?countryCode=ie&geoId=...
https://www.linkedin.com/salary/search?countryCode=gb&geoId=...
-------------
Senior Software Engineer 70K eur Dublin / 68K gbp London
https://www.linkedin.com/salary/search?countryCode=ie&geoId=...
https://www.linkedin.com/salary/search?countryCode=gb&geoId=...
-------------
Principal Software Engineer 85K eur Dublin / 80K gbp London
https://www.linkedin.com/salary/search?countryCode=ie&geoId=...
https://www.linkedin.com/salary/search?countryCode=gb&geoId=...
-------------
Needless to say your money goes a bit further than London outside of London
And having a large home + garden is better than being locked into a tiny apartment with everything closed
You'd think living on this island, I'd know someone with a big home and garden in Dublin. But, anyone I know that does, doesn't live in Dublin.
You can't argue with them. They're all suffering a group hallucination...
What's better, the EU or rest of world?
When you look at GDP growth, markets, trade... Rest of the world looks a lot better than EU nationalism/protectionism. The choice provided for every half-in option is to give up the rest of the world in that matter, but it turns out, that the EU in seemingly every comparison always comes short compared to the rest of the world.
The EU is how we negotiate with the rest of the world. When we leave, we don't just lose access to the EU, we lose access to 72 other countries with EU trade deals.
And that's without actually examining the Brexiteer position: If we can't accept EU membership rules in exchange for EU market access, why would we be able to accept any other trade-for-sovereignty deal? Everyone else wants more sovereignty for less trade.
The Brexiteer position is crazy and doesn't match reality. More reality won't persuade them. All they have is weird slogans like "What's better, the EU or rest of world?" and when you explain why it's nonsense, they stick to it because it sounds good and who needs inconvenient truths?
EU trade deals: https://fullfact.org/election-2019/ask-fullfact-trade-deals/
I'm opening myself up to discussion, you are the one dismissing it.
> The EU is how we negotiate with the rest of the world.
Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.
> When we leave, we don't just lose access to the EU, we lose access to 72 other countries with EU trade deals.
The problem you're not perceiving is a bad deal is a bad deal. For example, the UK has had 50 years of common fisheries policy issues (and note there are many others with the AGP, EEP etc.) and the EU won't fix those, they were so bad that Greenland left it shortly after formation. It led to the destruction of some fishing waters through overfishing and destroying fishing towns and industries across the UK. Now, this is not necessarily the worst, because the benefits may outweigh the losses, right?
The way the CFP arrangement was made is that it requires an unanimous agreement from all countries involved, it is not a majority vote. Unfortunately, no agreement is made because there are parties to the deal who distinctly benefit from the particular rules. This is being confused further as the parts that have flexibility involve the budget and maritime fund, which give the illusion that change actually occurs in these arrangements, they do not. As a fisherman forced out of fishing, this impacts me greatly.
Overall, the EU has been responsible for amplifying economic depressions in the EU, the poor monetary policy in Europe as well. It is hard to forget when the ERM was imposed on the UK because it kept the pound, it is hard to forget the terrible mismanagement of Greece, which the EU government knew ahead of time was a problem and ignored procedures. Then, because they couldn't trust the Greeks, put in foreign banks to manage the money that was 'given' to the Greeks. Of course, the money was mismanaged by the banks and then the Greeks were blamed, while the unaccountable Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commision (which overrode parliamentary decisions in the EU when it came to monetary policies and also is the exclusive organisation to propose new legislation in parliament) now works for Goldman Sachs which for some reason, was able to profit immensely from the decisions made on Greece? It made the EU poorer.
Normally when a country’s economy is overvalued, their currency value is decreased through controlled printing of money, this in turn makes the country cheaper on international markets for services and products and leads to more income during a downtime that allows a country to recover. The EU denied Greece this option. The EU was further meant to protect the EU from entities like China gaining economic control, however, guess who bought a port and expanded it to be the largest shipping port in the EU. In doing so, their economic investment is the primary reason why Greece is in a better position now than before. Now Greece is defending Chinese interests in the EU parliament. The most ridiculous thing is that the EU failed in it’s protectionism and its ability to negotiate or manage economic trade.
I don't expect most people of Britain to have even researched this far, they are unhappy because both the EU and the UK government have failed them and that has lead to wide-spread unhappiness, which is what led to the vote.
> And that's without actually examining the Brexiteer position: If we can't accept EU membership rules in exchange for EU market access, why would we be able to accept any other trade-for-sovereignty deal?
The EU prevents the creation of any alternative trade deals with other countries that do not go through it, you do not see that in other trade deals typically. Other trade deals are typically setting the standards of trade between the two entities and not preventi...
I think this is another perfect example of brexiteer mentality.
In the original comment you made a simply, wrong claim. I disproved it with a fact including a citation.
This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion". But if all were doing is spewing crap, doesn't that harm actual discussion? Isn't that exactly the sort of fact free, reality rejecting, cultism that I claimed originally? You're sort of making my point for me.
So what happens next, maybe there is a point here with some content?
>Which is great if it worked, but the reality is that a small nation like Iceland can whack out a better trade deal with China and the US than the EU can in less time, it doesn't leave much confidence.
OK, so you're saying we can get a better deal without the EU? That isn't what you said before so you're changing position, but maybe there is something in that.
So what is so great about Icelands deal with China vs the EU one? No comment on that. I suspect that's because that would involve facts and details and involve some comparison of the UK (a larger service economy) and Iceland (a tiny economy that mainly exports fish and aluminium).
Then its on to the fishing trade deal on fisheries. Which wasn't part of our EU membership, and isn't a trade deal. This is a bad deal and you do give reasons: it allowed to much fishing damaging fisheries and it didn't allow enough fishing destroying British towns. You're ability to have these contradictions in the same paragraph is further evidence that you've left reality. You believe we can get a "better deal", but that deal would have to increase and decrease fishing at the same time. Great. You've also missed that the fisheries deal was negotiated not to be perfect, but to better than the free for all previously imposed. Or that the multiple UK governments have repeatedly refused to reopen the matter or to use any of the protection permitted under the deal.
This is the whole brexit case in a microcosm: you're unhappy about something that isn't the EUs fault, you don't have a solution because there isn't one, so we have to leave the EU, because you want the people who setup the system you don't like to have less oversight from Brussels.
Also, FYI, Greenland isn't a nation, its part of Denmark and (for trade purposes) the EU. Again, facts bro!
I don't see how? The current EU membership demands CFP, AGP among other things. This is why Greenland is not in the EU and is actually one of the big reasons why Iceland refuses to become a member.
> This apparently is "dismissing discussion" while your random uncited claims are "opening discussion".
I'm no intellectual, so you can stick your assumptions on my knowledge of etiquette where the sun doesn't shine.
Iceland: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/17/the-m... Funny Goldman sachs dealings: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greek-debt-c... https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/goldmans-greek-gam... Barroso: https://www.goldmansachs.com/media-relations/press-releases/... CFP: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en ERM: https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth... Greece: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10110.pdf https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22791248 https://www.wsj.com/articles https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/breaking-greece... /SB10001424127887324299104578527202781667088 https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/02/04/a-very-europea... China: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-greece-china/china-greece... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/26/world/europe/greece-china... https://www.ekathimerini.com/253122/opinion/ekathimerini/com... https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2020/06/18/china-greece-rel...
* First, it's not personal. I am sure you're a lovely person. Addressing the audience instead of you makes it easier to keep that in mind. And they are the ones who will be convinced or not by anything either of us say. * Second, this isn't about brexit as a subject. It's about people's justification of brexit. That's what my first comment said. I didn't say brexit was right or wrong, I said people supported it for illogical reasons. Go back and look. Your comments are literally evidence of that from your own mouth. So what am I meant to say? I provided simple rebuttal with citation. You replied with very familiar brexiter discussion strategies: * You didn't cite anything, you just made claims (Greenland is a nation?) * You added subjects that were not under discussion (Greece and Goldmans?) * You wrote at great length (a whole paragraph on fisheries, without addressing my question: how will brexit let us fish more without fishing more?)
So what am I meant to do? Keep pointing out that Greenland is not a nation and does fall under EU trade law (citation below)? And then work through all the other issues? Including anymore you add to the list (sovereignty, immigration, CAP)? Plus all the articles you piled in as sources (4 articles about greek debt and goldman sachs)? Or assume that you are trying to "bury me in paperwork"? What is anyone to do faced with all this? I could reasonably call this disingenuous but I don't (see later in this comment).
I am not offended by any of this, nor do I imagine you will change your mind or that if I did we could somehow prevent brexit. I think you're clearly reasonable, you write well, you do NOT seem to be trolling or otherwise acting disingenuously. Quite the opposite: I think you honestly believe what you said ("What's better, the EU or rest of world?") despite evidence to the contrary. I think your rational capable brain is pursuing the bullet points above as a defense mechanism against being proven wrong ("losing" an argument is such a crap phrase because there is nothing too lose on here is there?)
So how does a reasonable person come to this position? How are beliefs formed and what makes them stick in the face of evidence? Is this facit of the human mind being abused (Cambridge analytics etc)? what does it mean for democracy and our society, based on the assumption of rational decision making? That's what I am addressing. That's why I am asking open questions. I've had this exact same discussion before. The same feeling comes when I watch a junior politician defend a party position he argued against last week or when Jehovah's witnesses come to my door or trump supporters railing against Obama. What drives people to need to believe something they don't really believe?
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Political_system
> However, EU law largely does not apply to Greenland except in the area of trade.
This is exactly what is so interesting about brexit, even fundamentalist cults don't have these sort of delusions.
I would read some articles on here https://briefingsforbritain.co.uk/ to try and understand the "cult" that you are so quick to vilify. The tribalism around brexit does no one any favours. This account will soon be useless on here, given the amount of down votes for daring to have a different opinion to the majority of the people on here.
This is another CLASSIC case of Brexiteer-ism. A very bias source pretending it's not. I'm honestly struggling to think of or find an honest, Pro-Brexit source at this point.
The BBC and WTO both have pages on this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41859691
The WTO have one too:
https://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/countries_e/united_king...
Not good...
The EU has literally the least nationalism and protectionism in the world. To an extent so extreme most of its people wish we'd go back to more reasonable levels.
> The choice provided for every half-in option is to give up the rest of the world in that matter
That's absolutely untrue. The UK could be part of the EFTA and have any kind of bilateral agreement with the rest of the world it wants.
Anyway don't worry, you'll have a deal worse than Ukraine or Turkey, since it's what you want.
When people immigrate, we don't judge people by their skills, their criminality in the EU, just their geographic nationality. It's one rule for EU and a different rule for everyone else. We could have the same immigration policy for everyone instead of this racism/bigotry.
> To an extent so extreme most of its people wish we'd go back to more reasonable levels.
The only reason you say that is because the EU's policy is considered to be unsustainable, I'm for equality.
> That's absolutely untrue. The UK could be part of the EFTA and have any kind of bilateral agreement with the rest of the world it wants.
EFTA is European, but not EU, not a half-in option with the EU, and I also agree, it could definately be an option.
> Anyway don't worry, you'll have a deal worse than Ukraine
Are you trying to say that us having an alternative deal, much like when Ukraine moved to change its' existing one would cause a war and partial occupation as happened with the Russo-Ukrainian war due to the EU? If you aren't familar, I'd highly recommend reading: https://www.worldcat.org/title/ukrainian-crisis-the-role-of-...
For Britain, the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_opt-outs_from_E...
Brexit is like the Aesop's fable of the greedy dog dropping its bone into the water in the attempt to grab its reflection.
I love this. It feels very apt (said from a UK expat, watching his country slowly unravel from afar)
UK's engineering/scientific corp is good with electronics and biomed especially, areas where patents are really important, and having a voice on unifying EU patent without a doubt would have helped them.
They already need to import civil, construction and production engineers, and Brexit will probably end with a no Deal when the country is trying on giant infrastructures with a bit of central planning smell (and great job Corbyn&Friends on that by the way).
That's enough for UK manufacturing to bounce back again.