U.K. to Trigger Brexit March 29, Starting Two Years of Talks(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
U.K. to Trigger Brexit March 29, Starting Two Years of Talks
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-20/u-k-to-submit-formal-brexit-notice-to-eu-on-march-29-pm-s-spokesman
269 comments
q.v. earlier analysis, the filing's been delayed precisely to avoid this and other anniversaries.
Von_Jones(1)
Wasn't the Treaty of Rome the one that de Gaulle successfully lobbied to keep the UK out of? I'm no Brexiteer but this seems entirely appropriate.
The filter bubble/group think is incredible in this thread! You'd think people are fleeing the UK in droves and driven to despair all round based on some of the comments here.
In reality, none of the dire predictions for the economy have come to pass and people are getting on with their lives. None of my friends (all educated, well-off remain voters) are talking about leaving.
Some people in this thread still seem to be in denial about the situation and completely ignore the flaws of the EU. Yes there are costs of leaving, but there are also potential upsides. e.g. having a more interventionist national economic strategy while pursuing more international trade deals. And it's likely that any trade tariffs imposed by the EU will be more than offset by the currency depreciation we've seen since the referendum.
There are risks for the UK going forward but I'm more worried about the EU at the moment. If it doesn't reform, we'll continue to see rising extremism on the continent - look at Holland, Italy, France, Austria where extreme (and anti EU) parties all receive more votes than UKIP does in the UK.
In reality, none of the dire predictions for the economy have come to pass and people are getting on with their lives. None of my friends (all educated, well-off remain voters) are talking about leaving.
Some people in this thread still seem to be in denial about the situation and completely ignore the flaws of the EU. Yes there are costs of leaving, but there are also potential upsides. e.g. having a more interventionist national economic strategy while pursuing more international trade deals. And it's likely that any trade tariffs imposed by the EU will be more than offset by the currency depreciation we've seen since the referendum.
There are risks for the UK going forward but I'm more worried about the EU at the moment. If it doesn't reform, we'll continue to see rising extremism on the continent - look at Holland, Italy, France, Austria where extreme (and anti EU) parties all receive more votes than UKIP does in the UK.
The most immediate prediction of a big FX sell-off has come to pass - and it has already lowered living standards and will continue to do so for the next few years. (Those few hundred quid that I have left over at the end of the month suddenly aren't enough for a holiday in Lanzarote or a new Macbook anymore. Gotta learn to love holidays in Blackpool or Brighton...)
As to living in a filter bubble and "none of my friends are talking about leaving"... It doesn't even take our EU friends leaving to get a shortage of talent. Shortages will occur even if new EU talent stops coming - as is evident in areas like nursing where that sort of thing is tracked [1]. The NHS nurse/doctor shortage is bad and it will get worse and worse year by year due to Brexit.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/25/number-eu-nurs...
As to living in a filter bubble and "none of my friends are talking about leaving"... It doesn't even take our EU friends leaving to get a shortage of talent. Shortages will occur even if new EU talent stops coming - as is evident in areas like nursing where that sort of thing is tracked [1]. The NHS nurse/doctor shortage is bad and it will get worse and worse year by year due to Brexit.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/25/number-eu-nurs...
I'm friends with a couple CS professors at a Russel Group university, and they said that since last year the number of EU students applying for funded PhD positions went from hundreds to nearly zero this year - and several students who were going to start studying this year have pulled their applications, quoting brexit concerns. At our company we are trying to recruit for about 10-12 programming positions, and we had two programmers from EU who were deep into the recruitment process and they both resigned citing that they don't want to commit to living in the UK because of brexit.
The process is not even fully defined yet, and it's already scaring people away - but things like less PhD students won't be damaging until 3-4 years from now, and then everyone will blame whatever else but brexit. Things might not be going down the drain right now, but there's no way it will turn into anything positive for years.
The process is not even fully defined yet, and it's already scaring people away - but things like less PhD students won't be damaging until 3-4 years from now, and then everyone will blame whatever else but brexit. Things might not be going down the drain right now, but there's no way it will turn into anything positive for years.
I agree. I am in the UK as an EU national, and I am not worried about my residency situation. We have a moderate government who I am confident will not make rash decisions and I am intelligent enough not to equate Europe or European civilisation with something as political as the EU.
Kudos to the Brits for doing what they think is best for them (if only the Greek government did the same). Even after the gnashing of teeth and wailing in Brussels & Strasbourg has died down, the Brits will still remain European.
Kudos to the Brits for doing what they think is best for them (if only the Greek government did the same). Even after the gnashing of teeth and wailing in Brussels & Strasbourg has died down, the Brits will still remain European.
This is very true, in many respects (apart from the part about the government, but let's not touch that).
The Brits have always been, and will always be European. The difficulty is that lots of the integration that's happened over the past 50 years was predicated on the single market, and disentangling all of that in two years is a very difficult prospect. For instance, what happens to Open Skies? And what happens if Ryanair reduce services (which they may have to, if Open Skies goes away)?
Suddenly some of that stuff starts falling apart, and people are no longer casually exposed to difference, and the learnings that come from that.
And of course none of the young people have the right to live in the EU anymore, which kinda sucks for them.
The Brits have always been, and will always be European. The difficulty is that lots of the integration that's happened over the past 50 years was predicated on the single market, and disentangling all of that in two years is a very difficult prospect. For instance, what happens to Open Skies? And what happens if Ryanair reduce services (which they may have to, if Open Skies goes away)?
Suddenly some of that stuff starts falling apart, and people are no longer casually exposed to difference, and the learnings that come from that.
And of course none of the young people have the right to live in the EU anymore, which kinda sucks for them.
I'd like to disagree. I work in advertising in London and about 50% of people I work with are from the EU. They're annoyed that they are being used as a bargaining chip for EU discussions. Many of my colleagues are already discussing / planning moving to Amsterdam, Berlin or Madrid. London is expensive enough to live in as it is, now no one feels welcome. And that's just advertising, then there's the NHS.
I don't really understand the 'bargaining chip statement'. The UK government has said publicly, privately, and repeatedly that it would like an agreement on EU citizens' rights ASAP and could do it before article 50. The EU rejected this. In addition, no EU country has unilaterally offered British citizens abroad rights. So the UK has not acted worse in this regard than any other EU country. And it has acted better than those that rejected a deal on this earlier than article 50 (i.e. Germany).
Ok, look. I'm a Polish citizen living in the UK. I don't have any interest living anywhere else, this is my home, I don't like Poland, I don't want to move back there, I don't want to have anything to do with their government or their ideas.
I pay my taxes in the UK - hence, I want the UK government to guarantee my rights to stay here, to openly say that yes, my work here is appreciated and will be protected.
I do not agree with the sentiment that UK should wait until EU guarantees the same thing for UK citizens - because that's exactly what's turning me into a bargaining chip.
Either I am welcome here, or I am not - it cannot be a conditional thing.
My other concern is that the Polish government has repeatedly expressed hopes that all Poles would come back and work in their home country - so there is a real concern they will be dicks when it comes to offering rights to UK citizens, in hope that UK retaliates and doesn't give Poles in the UK rights to stay.
I pay my taxes in the UK - hence, I want the UK government to guarantee my rights to stay here, to openly say that yes, my work here is appreciated and will be protected.
I do not agree with the sentiment that UK should wait until EU guarantees the same thing for UK citizens - because that's exactly what's turning me into a bargaining chip.
Either I am welcome here, or I am not - it cannot be a conditional thing.
My other concern is that the Polish government has repeatedly expressed hopes that all Poles would come back and work in their home country - so there is a real concern they will be dicks when it comes to offering rights to UK citizens, in hope that UK retaliates and doesn't give Poles in the UK rights to stay.
I totally understand. But there's also a british person living in Poland saying the complete opposite. I.e. don't guarantee them rights and leave me to the whims of the Polish government!
The government has to look after both groups.
The government has to look after both groups.
Yes, and the way to do that is to not Brexit but that ship appears to have sailed.
The current government shot down an amendment to the Brexit bill that would have guaranteed the rights of EU nationals currently in the UK. I don't think the onus is on the EU at this point to protect UK citizens. No discussions can be made until Article 50 has been triggered.
Also, you need to take anything the UK government says with a grain of salt. Once upon a time, what looked like a promise to invest 350M into the NHS after Brexit appeared to be nothing but a political ploy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/10/brexit-camp...
Also, you need to take anything the UK government says with a grain of salt. Once upon a time, what looked like a promise to invest 350M into the NHS after Brexit appeared to be nothing but a political ploy.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/10/brexit-camp...
> I don't think the onus is on the EU at this point to protect UK citizens.
Why not? Why do people expect the UK to act unilaterally but not EU countries? It's a double-standard.
> Also, you need to take anything the UK government says with a grain of salt.
I do. None of the EU leaders (or foreign press) has contested the UK's accounting of this. i.e. the UK has tried to have this sorted before article 50, but elements of the EU said no.
Why not? Why do people expect the UK to act unilaterally but not EU countries? It's a double-standard.
> Also, you need to take anything the UK government says with a grain of salt.
I do. None of the EU leaders (or foreign press) has contested the UK's accounting of this. i.e. the UK has tried to have this sorted before article 50, but elements of the EU said no.
> Why not? Why do people expect the UK to act unilaterally but not EU countries? It's a double-standard.
No, it is not a double standard. The UK is the one that will trigger unilaterally the Article 50 and they want the cake and eat it.
> None of the EU leaders (or foreign press) has contested the UK's accounting of this
Why they should? They are not the ones leaving the EU
No, it is not a double standard. The UK is the one that will trigger unilaterally the Article 50 and they want the cake and eat it.
> None of the EU leaders (or foreign press) has contested the UK's accounting of this
Why they should? They are not the ones leaving the EU
Well, most of the dire economic predictions of Brexit would never pan out until Brexit actually happens anyway, so it's way too early to expect that. It's not like things were going to collapse immediately upon the result of the vote (although the drop in Sterling in the immediate aftermath was pretty impressive).
Yes, there are downsides to the EU, but the idea that we can do better by going it alone just seems absurd to me.
Yes, there are downsides to the EU, but the idea that we can do better by going it alone just seems absurd to me.
We will not know for a while yet but the sample size of this event is 0. We have no historical precedent to learn from.
What we do know is that the specific growth predictions from the government, thinktanks, Bank of England, and independent economists for the immediate aftermath of the referendum turned out to be completely wrong.
What we do know is that the specific growth predictions from the government, thinktanks, Bank of England, and independent economists for the immediate aftermath of the referendum turned out to be completely wrong.
Many of my European friends have left or are thinking about leaving. For them the UK is a much less friendly place since the referendum and is seeming less and less like a place where they would want to raise a family.
I myself left a few years ago and Brexit has only solidified my decision to never return. Unlike most Britons in the EU who are being left in limbo, I am lucky enough to also hold an Irish passport.
I myself left a few years ago and Brexit has only solidified my decision to never return. Unlike most Britons in the EU who are being left in limbo, I am lucky enough to also hold an Irish passport.
Agreed. I don't even know any europeans talking about leaving.
I'm moving from Birmingham UK to northern Italy at the end of the year. I will work remotely for the same employer, life is cheaper down there, and actually quality of life is higher in terms of healthcare, transportation, and services.
I didn't imagine the last part before I moved here, but a few years dealing with both the NHS and private health providers, plus poor bus transportation and street safety in Birmingham, changed my mind.
I have a similar opinion of the healthcare in the US, where I also lived for some time. Central Europe provides surprisingly good healthcare and even the private option is far cheaper.
I actually was looking for a house outside of Birmingham, but I decided to wait until after the referendum. After that I had little doubt I'd leave. The net effect for the UK will be that I'll pay taxes to another country. I'm not even complaining about paying more taxes.
I didn't imagine the last part before I moved here, but a few years dealing with both the NHS and private health providers, plus poor bus transportation and street safety in Birmingham, changed my mind.
I have a similar opinion of the healthcare in the US, where I also lived for some time. Central Europe provides surprisingly good healthcare and even the private option is far cheaper.
I actually was looking for a house outside of Birmingham, but I decided to wait until after the referendum. After that I had little doubt I'd leave. The net effect for the UK will be that I'll pay taxes to another country. I'm not even complaining about paying more taxes.
I hear you. People are harping on about potentially positive outcomes, but right now, things are quite rubbish, and it's the present that I'm finding the problem, not a theoretical outcome. I lived through a previous round of all this in the 1970s and 80s, and I really don't think I should do it again when I have a choice.
I don't understand how they can still go through with this. As far as I've been following the analytics, news and coverage on this, the outcomes for UK are only negative. Can please someone enlighten me the good outcomes that will come out of this? Or is this really just about pride and stupidity?
Which outcomes - economic?
I'm not from the UK, but my impression was that for many it wasn't about economic optimization, it was also about the notion of freedom - being less intertwined with the EU (and thus its regulations, economics, security concerns, etc.). Immigration was probably an issue as well.
If freedom was the issue, you get the freedom and work out the consequences later. Some people would rather feel like their nation has more control over their destiny, even if that destiny isn't as comfortable as it could have been under someone else's control.
I would also contend that as long as Brexit hasn't happened, there are plenty of forces that would want to keep the status quo and would therefore try to project as much negativity as possible.
Also, I'm not an economist, futurist, or a stockbroker (so one can correct me if I'm wrong), but humans aren't always great at predicting things in these areas. So it's not fair to assume that there is no positive outcome.
I'm not from the UK, but my impression was that for many it wasn't about economic optimization, it was also about the notion of freedom - being less intertwined with the EU (and thus its regulations, economics, security concerns, etc.). Immigration was probably an issue as well.
If freedom was the issue, you get the freedom and work out the consequences later. Some people would rather feel like their nation has more control over their destiny, even if that destiny isn't as comfortable as it could have been under someone else's control.
I would also contend that as long as Brexit hasn't happened, there are plenty of forces that would want to keep the status quo and would therefore try to project as much negativity as possible.
Also, I'm not an economist, futurist, or a stockbroker (so one can correct me if I'm wrong), but humans aren't always great at predicting things in these areas. So it's not fair to assume that there is no positive outcome.
...it was also about the notion of freedom - being less intertwined with the EU (and thus its regulations, economics, security concerns, etc.)
That is an illusory kind of freedom because you can't turn the clock back. Reducing trade with the EU would be a loss for everyone. If the UK breaks from EU norms and enacts its own regulatory frameworks, that just means more overhead for companies that want to operate there... And so on.
The English habit of blaming Europe for regulations has always puzzled me, because pre-EU Britain was in many ways a bureaucrats' paradise. The number of civil servants peaked in the mid-1970s and has been declining since.
From what I've heard, just getting a telephone line in '70s England could be a nightmare. There's a lot of things that are so much better today thanks to a pan-European competitive environment and free trade. Imagine if Britain had created its own mobile phone standard instead of going with the European GSM. That would have been more "independent", but to no benefit at all.
A lot of things post-Brexit will end up like that: it's just easiest for everyone if Britain tags along with the EU standards rather than reinvents the wheel -- only Britain won't have a say in the processes anymore.
That is an illusory kind of freedom because you can't turn the clock back. Reducing trade with the EU would be a loss for everyone. If the UK breaks from EU norms and enacts its own regulatory frameworks, that just means more overhead for companies that want to operate there... And so on.
The English habit of blaming Europe for regulations has always puzzled me, because pre-EU Britain was in many ways a bureaucrats' paradise. The number of civil servants peaked in the mid-1970s and has been declining since.
From what I've heard, just getting a telephone line in '70s England could be a nightmare. There's a lot of things that are so much better today thanks to a pan-European competitive environment and free trade. Imagine if Britain had created its own mobile phone standard instead of going with the European GSM. That would have been more "independent", but to no benefit at all.
A lot of things post-Brexit will end up like that: it's just easiest for everyone if Britain tags along with the EU standards rather than reinvents the wheel -- only Britain won't have a say in the processes anymore.
This is a funny one. The economic argument was principally a Remain argument, and was for the most part ignored. I think this was for two reasons 1) there's plenty of people who just didn't buy it, there was enough smoke thrown for many believe it wasn't settled, but I think more powerfully 2) a lot of people don't really think their economic well-being is linked to the country's economic well-being. In particular, there's a belief that a worse economy will principally affect London. (Sadly, it appears the opposite is the case.)
Anecdotally, I've spoken to a number of Leavers who talk about taking back control (most of them also believe immigration is a problem). They tend to be working class and feel that the government doesn't listen to them. I really seriously doubt this vote will make a blind bit of difference on that front.
Anecdotally, I've spoken to a number of Leavers who talk about taking back control (most of them also believe immigration is a problem). They tend to be working class and feel that the government doesn't listen to them. I really seriously doubt this vote will make a blind bit of difference on that front.
It's still my feeling the underlying powerful reason for people voting for Brexit was immigration.
The rest was just a smokescreen to pretend like that wasn't their only reason.
The rest was just a smokescreen to pretend like that wasn't their only reason.
According to Dominic Cummings (who ran Vote Leave) it was absolutely the case that immigration was the No 1 driver for the vote to leave the EU. So much so that they had to explicitly set aside 15 minutes at the beginning of every focus group to let people rant about immigration before they could get them to move on to anything else at all.
Anecdotally, this is also what my parents found on the doorstep.
Anecdotally, this is also what my parents found on the doorstep.
The sad fact there being that immigration being an issue rather than a net benefit itself was a distraction perpetuated by the Murdoch press.
Fear of 'the other' is a timeless scapegoating tactic when you really want to distract people from the real causes of their problems.
In the case of the UK those problems are entrenched and systemic classism and privilege, a financial services industry rife with fraud and cowboy behaviour and our own sycophantic career politicians that compared to the EU, have done very little for the working poor and other disadvantaged demographics in society.
Fear of 'the other' is a timeless scapegoating tactic when you really want to distract people from the real causes of their problems.
In the case of the UK those problems are entrenched and systemic classism and privilege, a financial services industry rife with fraud and cowboy behaviour and our own sycophantic career politicians that compared to the EU, have done very little for the working poor and other disadvantaged demographics in society.
Lead Leave campaigner Dominic Cummings has a (long) article on this in which he claims that the "£350m for the NHS" statement was the core of the campaign after extensive focus-grouping:
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexi...
(We really need a good word for "forward-looking statements that are really unlikely to be true"; not quite lies, but very highly misleading. If Brexit was a form of insurance it would be the mis-selling scandal of the century.)
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/dominic-cummings-brexi...
(We really need a good word for "forward-looking statements that are really unlikely to be true"; not quite lies, but very highly misleading. If Brexit was a form of insurance it would be the mis-selling scandal of the century.)
I think we can all see what is happening: the Bulkhead-ing of nations. Yes, Brexit may be freedomcentric, or boomer-centric, or racist, or whatever. But the trend is a larger one that is happening across the west and the 'developed' world in general. Nations are responding to the changing world (AI, the coming CRISPR revolution, IoT doomsdays, etc, and climate-change taking the lion's share) by closing themselves down to globalization and immigration and trying to bulkhead their people against the waves of change. I am on the fence as to if it will 'work' as a method. Maybe for some countries it will, maybe not for others or smaller groups of others. But I think we can all see it starting to happen in many countries.
To be honest I never understood that responsibility argument. In my worldview, countries have to take responsibility for the externalities they produce. Meaning for example environment destruction is an issue that needs global attention.
But citizens of countries are adults and have to live with the consequences of their dealing. When a country is poor it is not the responsibility of other country to feed it but of the people to change their government.
But citizens of countries are adults and have to live with the consequences of their dealing. When a country is poor it is not the responsibility of other country to feed it but of the people to change their government.
Because most people, when they look at a starving child in a warzone and was forced into child-soliderdom, respond with compassion for that other human. Not by berating their parents for not taking 'responsibility' and allowing a tyrannical warlord to slaughter said parents for being from a different tribe of some sort or another.
Politics. Pride and stupidity are better names for it though.
The two objectives the government are aiming to please "the will of the people" with are limiting immigration from the EU and to regain sovereignty.
The deceit is that immigration provides more benefits to the UK than costs (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-...) and our parliament is already sovereign (the ironic proof being that they're the ones deciding we're leaving the EU).
The two objectives the government are aiming to please "the will of the people" with are limiting immigration from the EU and to regain sovereignty.
The deceit is that immigration provides more benefits to the UK than costs (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-...) and our parliament is already sovereign (the ironic proof being that they're the ones deciding we're leaving the EU).
There's a solid base of racist idiots in the UK - proud "patriots" who don't understand how to invest in the future, but do understand tribal flag waving and imperial nostalgia.
They think politics is a football match. Their team won the match and now they're oh so happy.
May is playing to that base. But she's using them to pursue far-right extremist Tory policy - which means the end of the welfare state, the end of affordable public health insurance, the end of free education, and so on.
A small cabal of business insiders, including not a few US corporations, stand to profit mightily from all this, even though it will leave most of the population in permanent financial insecurity and/or catastrophic debt.
Of course it's nonsense, and will turn the UK into some kind of fascist North Korea for a decade or so.
The EU is the only organisation that has some interest, no matter how patchy (sorry Greece...), in maintaining humane government and corporate oversight across most of the region.
With the EU out of the picture, the radical neoliberalisation of England can proceed at full speed. (Scotland will probably leave, Ireland will turn back into a mess, Wales is making noises about leaving, so is London, and so to a much lesser extent are some of the regions.)
Most of the people who voted for Brexit will be horribly damaged by this, but by the time they realise they've been conned it will be too late.
They think politics is a football match. Their team won the match and now they're oh so happy.
May is playing to that base. But she's using them to pursue far-right extremist Tory policy - which means the end of the welfare state, the end of affordable public health insurance, the end of free education, and so on.
A small cabal of business insiders, including not a few US corporations, stand to profit mightily from all this, even though it will leave most of the population in permanent financial insecurity and/or catastrophic debt.
Of course it's nonsense, and will turn the UK into some kind of fascist North Korea for a decade or so.
The EU is the only organisation that has some interest, no matter how patchy (sorry Greece...), in maintaining humane government and corporate oversight across most of the region.
With the EU out of the picture, the radical neoliberalisation of England can proceed at full speed. (Scotland will probably leave, Ireland will turn back into a mess, Wales is making noises about leaving, so is London, and so to a much lesser extent are some of the regions.)
Most of the people who voted for Brexit will be horribly damaged by this, but by the time they realise they've been conned it will be too late.
> There's a solid base of racist idiots in the UK - proud "patriots" who don't understand how to invest in the future, but do understand tribal flag waving and imperial nostalgia.
I've lived in the UK 30 years and I've never heard any nostalgia for the empire at all
> But she's using them to pursue far-right extremist Tory policy - which means the end of the welfare state, the end of affordable public health insurance, the end of free education, and so on
I must have missed these parts of the tory manifesto, can you point out where any of these things are promised, or being acted upon?
> Wales is making noises about leaving, so is London
both completely unrealistic
this sort of hysteria helps no-one, and only undermines any genuine points you may have
I've lived in the UK 30 years and I've never heard any nostalgia for the empire at all
> But she's using them to pursue far-right extremist Tory policy - which means the end of the welfare state, the end of affordable public health insurance, the end of free education, and so on
I must have missed these parts of the tory manifesto, can you point out where any of these things are promised, or being acted upon?
> Wales is making noises about leaving, so is London
both completely unrealistic
this sort of hysteria helps no-one, and only undermines any genuine points you may have
> I've lived in the UK 30 years and I've never heard any nostalgia for the empire at all
Was it under a rock? Because I lived the first 26 years of my life in the U.K. and practically every conversation around patriotism was a bunch of faded empire nostalgia.
Hell, the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony contained a lot of it.
Was it under a rock? Because I lived the first 26 years of my life in the U.K. and practically every conversation around patriotism was a bunch of faded empire nostalgia.
Hell, the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony contained a lot of it.
I've lived in the UK 30 years and I've never heard any nostalgia for the empire at all
I have lived there for ten, and heard it all the time.
I have lived there for ten, and heard it all the time.
>I've lived in the UK 30 years and I've never heard any nostalgia for the empire at all
Which bit of the UK were you living in?
Which bit of the UK were you living in?
In a decade many of the people who voted for it will be literally dead. It was mainly carried by an older generation on "triple-locked" pensions who will suffer relatively little from it financially.
Honestly, I would not say the EU is good at corporate oversight. They refuse have their accounts audited, tons of other stuff normally considered good governance.
The EU is the only organisation that has taken on Microsoft, Google, and Apple, among others - and won.
It's a world leader in environmental standards, and some countries - like Germany - are working towards moving to an economy that runs exclusively on renewables.
You're certainly not going to find that kind of resistance in any of the Anglo countries.
It's a world leader in environmental standards, and some countries - like Germany - are working towards moving to an economy that runs exclusively on renewables.
You're certainly not going to find that kind of resistance in any of the Anglo countries.
you are completely ignoring the collaboration of the Commission with Volkswagen on their diesel emissions fraud, which has resulted in the early deaths of thousands of people
Microsoft bundling a media player is nothing in comparison
of course, MS, Google and Apple are American firms, while VW is German
Microsoft bundling a media player is nothing in comparison
of course, MS, Google and Apple are American firms, while VW is German
> you are completely ignoring the collaboration of the Commission with Volkswagen on their diesel emissions fraud
What collaboration? Do you have links? I really ignore it.
What collaboration? Do you have links? I really ignore it.
Can you give us a source for your claim that EU accounts are not audited?
Of course they are audited, every year. [1] And they are found to be fair and accurate as far as the EU can control it. Issues and corruption happen when the member states are responsible to distribute money - a lot of them seem to be less honest than the Eurocrats.
[1] https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/
[1] https://fullfact.org/europe/did-auditors-sign-eu-budget/
[deleted]
> Ireland will turn back into a mess
didn't know Ireland was in the UK?
didn't know Ireland was in the UK?
It obviously isn't. But what the border between the Republic and the North looks like post-Brexit is not at all clear. The constitutional upheaval of Brexit will significantly affect all of the devolved nations (including NI) and their relationships with their neighbours.
> There's a solid base of racist idiots in the UK - proud "patriots" who don't understand how to invest in the future, but do understand tribal flag waving and imperial nostalgia.
As opossed to the tribal flag waving from the bureaucrats in Brussels and those they've brainwashed into supporting them?
As opossed to the tribal flag waving from the bureaucrats in Brussels and those they've brainwashed into supporting them?
Honestly, this is an insane viewpoint. Brussels is the most diverse city I have ever visited, to and to call the EU tribal could not be farther from the truth. You could call them globalist, overreaching, megalomaniac, pendantic, kafka-esque, pompus, shallow, form-over-function. But tribal is just wrong.
[deleted]
a comment from the article
>It would if the report was comprehensive. It isn't. It ignored housing benefit in private rentals. Housing benefit budget is £25b per year.
>It doesn't look at child benefit or break down tax credits.
>It doesn't include costs of increased school places (£5 billion additional allocated for this) nor health costs.
>The data is does use is not comprehensive from govt departments but a survey. Fact is we don't know all the costs as many are not recorded.
using the Guardian to back up a left leaning idea is like quoting The Daily Mail to back up a right leaning idea.
>It would if the report was comprehensive. It isn't. It ignored housing benefit in private rentals. Housing benefit budget is £25b per year.
>It doesn't look at child benefit or break down tax credits.
>It doesn't include costs of increased school places (£5 billion additional allocated for this) nor health costs.
>The data is does use is not comprehensive from govt departments but a survey. Fact is we don't know all the costs as many are not recorded.
using the Guardian to back up a left leaning idea is like quoting The Daily Mail to back up a right leaning idea.
The joke of it is, Cameron called the foolish referendum in a misguided attempt to silence the Europe-sceptics within his party once and for all (which every Tory leader since Thatcher has unsuccessfully tried to do).
Those same sceptics are now running government policy and wont be satisfied with anything short of a full, hard separation from Europe. They've waited 30+ years for this and are hell-bent on finally achieving it, rest of the country be damned.
It's going to be a long, sad car crash and, with no effective domestic political opposition in sight, I hope Europe has the balls to make it as difficult for us as possible. The faster the country hits rock bottom the faster we can have a wholesale purge of the UK political class and start again.
Those same sceptics are now running government policy and wont be satisfied with anything short of a full, hard separation from Europe. They've waited 30+ years for this and are hell-bent on finally achieving it, rest of the country be damned.
It's going to be a long, sad car crash and, with no effective domestic political opposition in sight, I hope Europe has the balls to make it as difficult for us as possible. The faster the country hits rock bottom the faster we can have a wholesale purge of the UK political class and start again.
The Lib Dems had an EU referendum in their 2010 manifesto - it is part of what became the "referendum lock" in the European Union Act of 2011. The UK was going to hold a referendum at some point. Cameron thought he could win it, got poor advice during the renegotiation and from his pollster during the campaign. The country got to have its debate - both sides making some wild claims - and came to a decision which is still bearing up in the polls.
It's bearing up in the polls because nothing visible has happened yet (apart from Sterling's slide). This is peak UK. I think 10 years from now it will be hard to find anyone that openly admits to having voted leave (much like you can't find many these days who admit they were ok with the Iraq war).
Re: Lib Dem referendum - I think you're referring to the pledge they made in 2008 when the Lisbon treaty was being ratified (saying if there was ever another massive treaty change the country should have a referendum, presumably rather that than block the other 27 states from adopting the treaty if that's what they wanted) or the 2010 manifesto point about a referendum on joining the Euro. Neither of them are mad and the first one would likely never have happened.
See:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-surprising-truth-about-that-l...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/how-much-of...
Re: Lib Dem referendum - I think you're referring to the pledge they made in 2008 when the Lisbon treaty was being ratified (saying if there was ever another massive treaty change the country should have a referendum, presumably rather that than block the other 27 states from adopting the treaty if that's what they wanted) or the 2010 manifesto point about a referendum on joining the Euro. Neither of them are mad and the first one would likely never have happened.
See:
http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-surprising-truth-about-that-l...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/how-much-of...
> I don't understand how they can still go through with this.
Because there was a referendum where a majority decided it was what they wanted. The Government is hell bent on doing it for ideological reasons. The Opposition believe they are following the 'will of the people'. It's a shit state of affairs, but I don't see how it can be averted now, unless there is enough political pressure over the next two years to hold a referendum on the final deal.
Because there was a referendum where a majority decided it was what they wanted. The Government is hell bent on doing it for ideological reasons. The Opposition believe they are following the 'will of the people'. It's a shit state of affairs, but I don't see how it can be averted now, unless there is enough political pressure over the next two years to hold a referendum on the final deal.
I understand why people voted on the referendum, and I was following that live as well. But back then people were less informed. But now, months later, people are (/should be) much better informed about all the bad consequences that come out of this. So while I might understand why politicians go through with this, what I don't understand is why people don't change their minds and put pressure on the politicians to stop this shit deal. Because really, I don't believe Europe will give them anything nice they are hoping for. The UK politicians even admit that they didn't do any financial forecast, and that the probability is very high they won't get any deal... This stuff really blows my mind...
Polling shows people's opinions are stable. More information isn't changing people's minds.
You are making some big assumptions about why people voted. For instance, you're assuming that because one or two people made some claims, everyone believed them and voted accordingly.
Speaking for myself, I expect there to be no deal at all between the EU and UK, I expected that before I voted out, I expect it to be very tough for everyone including Europeans, and I still support Brexit and want it to occur as quickly as possible. "More information" about how little the EU cares about cooperation with the UK obviously isn't going to change my mind at all.
I think you'll find many voters are like that: they aren't changing their minds because they didn't base their opinion on the things you believe they did to start with.
You are making some big assumptions about why people voted. For instance, you're assuming that because one or two people made some claims, everyone believed them and voted accordingly.
Speaking for myself, I expect there to be no deal at all between the EU and UK, I expected that before I voted out, I expect it to be very tough for everyone including Europeans, and I still support Brexit and want it to occur as quickly as possible. "More information" about how little the EU cares about cooperation with the UK obviously isn't going to change my mind at all.
I think you'll find many voters are like that: they aren't changing their minds because they didn't base their opinion on the things you believe they did to start with.
You're wrong on both counts. Firstly, many voters believed they were voting for more money for the NHS and to give Cameron a poke in the eye. There was actually no such thing as a "Brexit vote" - it was a popularity poll, not a vote on any specific policy. And policy-minded people were reassured that we wouldn't be leaving the single market - which was a complete lie, of course.
Secondly, it won't be tough for Europe, either financially or politically. Politically there was a vague and ridiculous notion that other EU nations would take the UK's lead and leave too. That's not just not happening, the "reverse domino effect" means that federalisation is likely to accelerate now.
Financially, the UK is something like 9% of the rest of the EU's export market. Even if all of that trade disappeared overnight a good part of it will be replaced by businesses leaving the UK for the mainland.
Europe is 43% of the UK's export market, and the UK is a net importer. So it really can't afford to lose that trade. Most of its exports are services which will - again - be moving to the mainland.
The bottom line is that Brexit will bankrupt the UK. Unless someone discovers an asteroid made of solid gold and stolen bitcoins under London, there is no other possible outcome.
I mean that literally. There is no possible way the UK - or England as we should start calling it - can turn into some kind of dynamo of international trade. We don't make enough, we don't invent enough, and none of the things we're actually good at - law, management, fintech, technology, pharma, art and culture - are being helped by Brexit in any way.
So the absolute best that will happen is a massive drop in living standards for most of the population.
The worst is Zimbabwe-style hyper-inflation and dictatorship.
Either way, it's a suicide note.
Secondly, it won't be tough for Europe, either financially or politically. Politically there was a vague and ridiculous notion that other EU nations would take the UK's lead and leave too. That's not just not happening, the "reverse domino effect" means that federalisation is likely to accelerate now.
Financially, the UK is something like 9% of the rest of the EU's export market. Even if all of that trade disappeared overnight a good part of it will be replaced by businesses leaving the UK for the mainland.
Europe is 43% of the UK's export market, and the UK is a net importer. So it really can't afford to lose that trade. Most of its exports are services which will - again - be moving to the mainland.
The bottom line is that Brexit will bankrupt the UK. Unless someone discovers an asteroid made of solid gold and stolen bitcoins under London, there is no other possible outcome.
I mean that literally. There is no possible way the UK - or England as we should start calling it - can turn into some kind of dynamo of international trade. We don't make enough, we don't invent enough, and none of the things we're actually good at - law, management, fintech, technology, pharma, art and culture - are being helped by Brexit in any way.
So the absolute best that will happen is a massive drop in living standards for most of the population.
The worst is Zimbabwe-style hyper-inflation and dictatorship.
Either way, it's a suicide note.
Given that you expected it to be "very tough for everyone" before the vote, care to elucidate why you think this is the proper policy choice?
> I expect it to be very tough for everyone including Europeans
So, how many of the UK's ~3m resident Europeans do you expect to be leave, and how many to be deported? How do you expect that to work out? What do you expect couples who suddenly have no right to reside in the same country to do?
So, how many of the UK's ~3m resident Europeans do you expect to be leave, and how many to be deported? How do you expect that to work out? What do you expect couples who suddenly have no right to reside in the same country to do?
Polling where? I've not been invited to vote in a poll
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/brexit-important-...
'Scots vote to remain in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent' and 'Sixty per cent of respondents agreed that Britain’s EU departure mattered more than stopping the UK’s break-up, while just 27 per cent disagreed.'
'Scots vote to remain in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent' and 'Sixty per cent of respondents agreed that Britain’s EU departure mattered more than stopping the UK’s break-up, while just 27 per cent disagreed.'
If the Conservatives don't go ahead with it then they risk their supporters leaving to UKIP, and a government formed by 52% of the population voting for the only party that will fulfil the results of the referendum.
Even a 15% swing from Conservative to UKIP would destroy most of the party, due to the awfulness of the FPTP voting system.
And the Conservative leadership won't risk that.
Even a 15% swing from Conservative to UKIP would destroy most of the party, due to the awfulness of the FPTP voting system.
And the Conservative leadership won't risk that.
> As far as I've been following the analytics, news and coverage on this, the outcomes for UK are only negative.
Most news is pure propaganda. All of the so-called "news" (BBC, etc.) has a vested interest in keeping the status quo. They've tried to brainwash people how Brexit would instantly collapse the econ (didn't happen, did it) and they are continuing that route.
Don't fall for their lies. More self-control is not pride and stupidity.
Most news is pure propaganda. All of the so-called "news" (BBC, etc.) has a vested interest in keeping the status quo. They've tried to brainwash people how Brexit would instantly collapse the econ (didn't happen, did it) and they are continuing that route.
Don't fall for their lies. More self-control is not pride and stupidity.
> They've tried to brainwash people how Brexit would instantly collapse the econ (didn't happen, did it)
I may be just silly, but Brexit hasn't happened yet.
I may be just silly, but Brexit hasn't happened yet.
Yeah, you get this a lot:
Bad thing happens = THIS IS BECAUSE OF BREXIT
Good thing happens = BREXIT HASN'T HAPPENED YET
Bad thing happens = THIS IS BECAUSE OF BREXIT
Good thing happens = BREXIT HASN'T HAPPENED YET
They implied the mere vote for it would collapse things.
Since the announcement of the referendum result, all the "Project Fear" predictions that the Remain Campaign said would happen immediately after a leave vote have not come to pass. The UK economy is performing better than most of Europe, and after the Brexit vote several major corporations have chosen to invest in Britain.
The EU was asked to reform to accommodate those nations that don't want ever closer union and to become part of a European super-state, but they chose not to change.
The EU was asked to reform to accommodate those nations that don't want ever closer union and to become part of a European super-state, but they chose not to change.
Basically, politicians are locked in. If they try to stall or halt the exit process they get accused of being anti-democratic, going against the will of the people. Therefore though many of them knows it will likely be disastrous they are nonetheless doing what the people told them to do.
> they are nonetheless doing what the people told them to do
We call that a functioning democracy. The EU is the opposite of that.
EU: "You have to accept our way, even if you don't want it and it's bad for your country. It's for the good of our global group."
We call that a functioning democracy. The EU is the opposite of that.
EU: "You have to accept our way, even if you don't want it and it's bad for your country. It's for the good of our global group."
If you keep following that logic then the UK isn't being democratic either. Its bad for our province, its bad for our neighborhood, its bad for our street, its bad for our house, its bad for me, but you still have to follow it. The line has to be drawn somewhere when there is a government.
Drawing the line at a country level as opposed to an international level is a perfectly valid opinion to have, but I don't think its right to call the UK a functioning democracy and the EU the opposite
Drawing the line at a country level as opposed to an international level is a perfectly valid opinion to have, but I don't think its right to call the UK a functioning democracy and the EU the opposite
To me it just sounds like you don't like the Commission much. When you say 'the EU' most of the direction is set by the elected ministers of the member states.
Where are you getting that quote?
A functioning democracy also requires an educated and well-informed populace.
The UK absolutely does not hve that.
The UK absolutely does not hve that.
"The people" did not tell them to do this. It's not like it was unanimous.
48% of those who voted voted to Remain 52% of those who voted voted to Leave 28% of the electorate didn't bother to vote
But "the will of the people", "the people have spoken". A good few million didn't bother to say anything at all (I do not find myself thinking generously of this at all, it was the most important vote most of us will ever see), and the gap between leave and remain is a hardly-unanimous 4%. If this was representative, nearly half the MPs should be arguing against leaving the EU.
But as you say, few MPs want to say it because they're terrified they're going to lose their jobs next election.
48% of those who voted voted to Remain 52% of those who voted voted to Leave 28% of the electorate didn't bother to vote
But "the will of the people", "the people have spoken". A good few million didn't bother to say anything at all (I do not find myself thinking generously of this at all, it was the most important vote most of us will ever see), and the gap between leave and remain is a hardly-unanimous 4%. If this was representative, nearly half the MPs should be arguing against leaving the EU.
But as you say, few MPs want to say it because they're terrified they're going to lose their jobs next election.
One good reason to leave is that the EU is undemocratic.
However, reforming the EU political structure would be preferable to leaving.
However, reforming the EU political structure would be preferable to leaving.
Well they didn't want to reform when we said we were having a referendum. Previously when other countries voted against the EU Constitution it was repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty and lo and behold didn't require votes. Now we have EU leaders saying they want to hurt the UK so much that no-one else will want to leave - despite the constituent members making very different noises.
The EU is fundamentally irreformable to reduce its power, it is the modern embodiment of Whig history - the view that progress is inevitable towards every greater liberty and enlightenment. This is the sort of attitude that leads to things like Greece being allowed to join the Euro when it was patently unready to do so.
One of the things you need to remember about the older people who tended to vote Leave is that they either voted in or remember the circumstances of the initial EU referendum in the UK. They remember what the UK joined and how it was presented to the UK. Other European countries with a much more recent history of revolution or dictatorship might want to remove power away from themselves, that is a view that is much more at odds with how Britain perceives itself.
The EU is fundamentally irreformable to reduce its power, it is the modern embodiment of Whig history - the view that progress is inevitable towards every greater liberty and enlightenment. This is the sort of attitude that leads to things like Greece being allowed to join the Euro when it was patently unready to do so.
One of the things you need to remember about the older people who tended to vote Leave is that they either voted in or remember the circumstances of the initial EU referendum in the UK. They remember what the UK joined and how it was presented to the UK. Other European countries with a much more recent history of revolution or dictatorship might want to remove power away from themselves, that is a view that is much more at odds with how Britain perceives itself.
The EU can reform, but not in the way the UK wants. The direction of the EU is towards more integration, more centralised decision making. The UK wanted less integration and more devolved decision making. There was only one viable solution in the long run.
I would not go that far as to call it undemocratic. Sure there are some deficiencies and the democratic legitimation of some political organs is clearly a bit too indirect but as you said that can be reformed (it actually had improved already over the years).
The biggest problem is that the public generally does not care much about EU law making despite the importance of the decisions made there. Only if something bad pops up the finger is pointed at the "evil EU" afterwards, ironically often by the same government which pushed that "bad" legislation forward in the first place.
The EU has a parliament with members from all EU states. Can you specify in what sense the EU is undemocratic?
Only the (unelected) commission can propose new legislation. This is quite different from how most (all?) western democracies work.
Straight from Wikipedia:
The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 28 members of the Commission (informally known as "commissioners"). There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.[3] One of the 28 is the Commission President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker) proposed by the European Council and elected by the European Parliament. The Council of the European Union then nominates the other 27 members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and the 28 members as a single body are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament. The current Commission is the Juncker Commission, which took office in late 2014.
The Commission operates as a cabinet government, with 28 members of the Commission (informally known as "commissioners"). There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.[3] One of the 28 is the Commission President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker) proposed by the European Council and elected by the European Parliament. The Council of the European Union then nominates the other 27 members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and the 28 members as a single body are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament. The current Commission is the Juncker Commission, which took office in late 2014.
I think it's about pride. We had a petition which had over 100,000 signatures in which forced them to reconsider, but parliament said that they can't go against what the people have voted for.
> which had over 100,000 signatures
I'm not from the UK and neither for or against Brexit, but what good is a petition with 100,000 signatures when they'd just had a referendum with 17.4 million people voting 'leave'. [0]
Considering most of the signatures would have been people who voted to 'remain', in what world does it make sense for a 100,000 signature petition to overturn a referendum with a 1.3 million vote difference?
Even assuming those 100,000 signatures were all from former 'leave' voters switching sides, it would only change the result to be 17.3 million vs 16.2 million. A difference of 1.1 million.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit#Referendum_result
I'm not from the UK and neither for or against Brexit, but what good is a petition with 100,000 signatures when they'd just had a referendum with 17.4 million people voting 'leave'. [0]
Considering most of the signatures would have been people who voted to 'remain', in what world does it make sense for a 100,000 signature petition to overturn a referendum with a 1.3 million vote difference?
Even assuming those 100,000 signatures were all from former 'leave' voters switching sides, it would only change the result to be 17.3 million vs 16.2 million. A difference of 1.1 million.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit#Referendum_result
The petition actually had over 4 millions signatures - the fact that it had more than 100,000 only meant that the parliament was forced to consider the issue for debate [0]. They did so and considered that the result of the referendum was valid and that there shouldn't be a second one.
[0] https://petition.parliament.uk/help
[0] https://petition.parliament.uk/help
Thanks for the clarification.
I don't think there's any other conclusion the UK parliament could have come to without destroying faith in the democratic process.
I don't think there's any other conclusion the UK parliament could have come to without destroying faith in the democratic process.
There was also petition to ignore that petition which also had 100000+ signatures.
There is no upside, it's a self-inflicted wound that will cost all of us £millions in the decades to come.
Those who voted for Brexit (including 2 in my family) didn't think it through.
Those who voted for Brexit (including 2 in my family) didn't think it through.
>>> As far as I've been following the analytics, news and coverage on this, the outcomes for UK are only negative.
As far as I'm following the media. All the companies I worked with stopped recruiting and some even shut down their London offices entirely.
Meanwhile, work as usual at the same places. If only we had a law department to sue them and get these fake news removed.
As far as I'm following the media. All the companies I worked with stopped recruiting and some even shut down their London offices entirely.
Meanwhile, work as usual at the same places. If only we had a law department to sue them and get these fake news removed.
"Less foreigners" To some that's the point.
I wonder when the actual talks are starting, in April France elects a new president. In September Germany elects a new parliament. Who knows how the situation is in October and who May has to talk to.
Politics assumes a zero sum game.
Experts create non-zero sum outcomes.
Humans, due to their loss aversion bias, prefer politics to expertise.
Thus brexit.
Experts create non-zero sum outcomes.
Humans, due to their loss aversion bias, prefer politics to expertise.
Thus brexit.
I don't think your logic works. Wouldn't loss aversion lead you to prefer the non-zero-sum game? After all, in a zero-sum game, you might lose, and if you do, you are guaranteed to be worse off. In a non-zero-sum game, you are not guaranteed to be worse off, even if you "lose" (win less than someone else).
[deleted]
Only took them 9⅕ months! (With nought achieved in the meantime, too.)
I wouldn't say _nothing_ was achieved http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1Y
:(
:(
Devaluation of currency is what every central bank is after for the last 10 years. Apart from you having less money when buying foreign things or traveling abroad, this is actually a good thing for the British export economy as it is now more competitive than before, simply because things are cheaper now.
It's basically why Germany sees this enormous trade surplus - the bad economic shape of southern states such as Greece, Italy, Spain "artificially" keeps the euro low, and Germany profits from that in a major way.
Of course, this isn't 1:1 because the devaluation of the GBP also means that trust was lost in the GB economy, which might hurt British companies in the long run.
Anyways, charts that show upwards/downards trends are not always bad/good and should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially if used by either party for making the other look dumb. This is true for the US stock market right now as it is for the GBP.
ps: I'm German and I do not support Brexit, but the world is not black and white.
It's basically why Germany sees this enormous trade surplus - the bad economic shape of southern states such as Greece, Italy, Spain "artificially" keeps the euro low, and Germany profits from that in a major way.
Of course, this isn't 1:1 because the devaluation of the GBP also means that trust was lost in the GB economy, which might hurt British companies in the long run.
Anyways, charts that show upwards/downards trends are not always bad/good and should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially if used by either party for making the other look dumb. This is true for the US stock market right now as it is for the GBP.
ps: I'm German and I do not support Brexit, but the world is not black and white.
You summarised it well:
- It is really really bad for anyone buying foreign goods and services (which is 100% of the UK population, because very little gets made here)
- It is nice for anyone who has major shares of UK manufacturing companies (0.01% of people) and who own foreign assets (the 0.1% of people who have 6-7 digits of globally diversified assets). Maybe for people who might find a manufacturing job that otherwise wouldn't have gone to the UK - but frankly the Ford Transit production that moved to Turkey won't come back to Southampton anytime soon...
It's not black and white, but it is a pretty dark shade of grey for the huge part of the population who used to be able to easily afford nice foreign food and cheap foreign holidays and consumer electronics, and now suddenly has to cut back. And the manufacturers whose domestic revenue suffers after these cutbacks.
- It is really really bad for anyone buying foreign goods and services (which is 100% of the UK population, because very little gets made here)
- It is nice for anyone who has major shares of UK manufacturing companies (0.01% of people) and who own foreign assets (the 0.1% of people who have 6-7 digits of globally diversified assets). Maybe for people who might find a manufacturing job that otherwise wouldn't have gone to the UK - but frankly the Ford Transit production that moved to Turkey won't come back to Southampton anytime soon...
It's not black and white, but it is a pretty dark shade of grey for the huge part of the population who used to be able to easily afford nice foreign food and cheap foreign holidays and consumer electronics, and now suddenly has to cut back. And the manufacturers whose domestic revenue suffers after these cutbacks.
> Apart from you having less money when buying foreign things
Isn't this bad given that the UK currently operates with a trade deficit?
Isn't this bad given that the UK currently operates with a trade deficit?
No, because peoples' behavior changes. They buy fewer imports (because more expensive) and sell more exports (because less expensive to foreign buyers), so the balance of trade improves.
That assumes everything can be made in the UK without any dependence on foreign countries anywhere in the supply chain.
No, it assumes that more can be made in the UK with less dependence on foreign countries in the supply chain.
Well, nothing good.
What were they supposed to have achieved?
Deciding what "brexit" means would be a start.
A plan would have been nice, or really any thought to what happens when we exit without a deal.
Worth talking of the pros and cons of a Democracy vs. a Republic. Are we sure listening to a lot of people makes long term sense?
Here's a little anecdote: https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-voters-1...
Problem is, a non-binding referendum with just a binary subject with virtually zero clarity on how the process will be exercised was shoved down our throats. It's easy to blame the masses but the real problem was created by the politicians (e.g. David Cameron/the Tories) and their arrogance and short-sightedness.
Problem is, a non-binding referendum with just a binary subject with virtually zero clarity on how the process will be exercised was shoved down our throats. It's easy to blame the masses but the real problem was created by the politicians (e.g. David Cameron/the Tories) and their arrogance and short-sightedness.
It was a war of the negatives.
Neither side chose to express the positives.
Brexiters were portrayed as small-minded xenophobes.
The EU took the "We won't throw you a bone, what are you going to do about it?" approach.
If there was a middle-ground option it would have won by a landslide.
I don't see large enough majority worthy of this amount of change.
Neither side chose to express the positives.
Brexiters were portrayed as small-minded xenophobes.
The EU took the "We won't throw you a bone, what are you going to do about it?" approach.
If there was a middle-ground option it would have won by a landslide.
I don't see large enough majority worthy of this amount of change.
Not to mention the lack of coherent opposition from Labour.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
-George Carlin
Really makes you wonder if the populous can be trusted to make big decisions. I'd like to think I'm a smart person but I'm not sure if I'm smart enough (or dumb enough) for politics.
-George Carlin
Really makes you wonder if the populous can be trusted to make big decisions. I'd like to think I'm a smart person but I'm not sure if I'm smart enough (or dumb enough) for politics.
>> Really makes you wonder if the populous can be trusted to make big decisions
They can't. That's why we elect representatives who should be talking to experts and figuring out the impact of decisions. And then for some reason they take the biggest decision of our generation, give it to us, lie to us about the impact, and tell us to ignore the experts.
They can't. That's why we elect representatives who should be talking to experts and figuring out the impact of decisions. And then for some reason they take the biggest decision of our generation, give it to us, lie to us about the impact, and tell us to ignore the experts.
> representatives who should be talking to experts
"I think the people in this country have had enough of experts" - Michael Gove
"I think the people in this country have had enough of experts" - Michael Gove
Experts are easily corrupted, and so there's an expert to argue every position.
They still know a hell of a lot more than the average joe. Listen to both sides and make an informed decision. Don't dismiss them and expect to know more.
I have a much more usual one for you: don't listen to anyone and pick whatever the guy that gives half of the money into your pocket says.
If someone is willing to pay me £100k to vote for a bill and someone else is willing to pay me £200k to against it then, by the Law of Free Markets, voting against is the best option.
yes Nasim Taleeb has been arguing modern experts are wrong about alot and have no skin in the game.
This article blew my mind. https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e...
This article blew my mind. https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e...
Or a Democracy vs Epistocracy.
I realize how stupid I am in a lot of areas. And if I think I'm better than others, it's in my ability to realize my shortcomings.
If only people more knowledgable than me ruled (and there's obviously nothing stopping me from learning/becoming more involved), I'd be very happy, even if I knew too little to get a vote.
I realize how stupid I am in a lot of areas. And if I think I'm better than others, it's in my ability to realize my shortcomings.
If only people more knowledgable than me ruled (and there's obviously nothing stopping me from learning/becoming more involved), I'd be very happy, even if I knew too little to get a vote.
The problem with all variants of "only subgroup x should be able to vote" is the potential for abuse. Who writes the test? Who grades the test? Who defines the correct answers? And so on. As long as we don't have a solution for that all "only subgroup x may vote"-systems are not really feasible.
Absolutely. But that's the problem with a republic too. And frankly anything that's not a direct democracy, of which there are none in the world.
Democracydepends on how you define the demos: now it's all the adults, but it was not this way originally. The demos was, in the Ancient Greece, the free elite. A parallel thing today could kind-of be to let vote only uni graduates.
Plato classifies democracy as the least effective political system when it's good and the least worst whenit's corrupt (Politikos 302b-303c), and I think that's sort if a nice trade off, but functions better when fake religions like nationalism and patriotism are not around and the countries are smaller.
Plato classifies democracy as the least effective political system when it's good and the least worst whenit's corrupt (Politikos 302b-303c), and I think that's sort if a nice trade off, but functions better when fake religions like nationalism and patriotism are not around and the countries are smaller.
> Worth talking of the pros and cons of a Democracy vs. a Republic.
"Democracy" and "Republic" are overlapping categories, rather than opposed ones.
"Democracy" and "Republic" are overlapping categories, rather than opposed ones.
If you're going to make that pedantic a distinction, then the UK is neither; it's a constitutional monarchy.
So in April 2019, the NHS's budget will increase by £350 million / week. Right?
Not only that: there will be no more unwanted immigrants, there are no more negative effects of globalization, the tories will care about remote rural areas, the queen gets a new ship, making decisions doesn't require talking to your neighbors, the economy will boom, the empire will be a large free trade zone, ...
Though, not everything is rosy: The Germans will still win the football games.
Though, not everything is rosy: The Germans will still win the football games.
And "Rule Britannia" will blare from every lamp post on a constant loop. Glorious!
Don't forget the blue passports...
And reverting to proper Imperial units none of those commie SI units back to "Thous" :-)
I think this was the proposal of a campaign group, not of the Givernment. The campaign group aren't in power, even though the referendum went their way. So it isn't reasonable to expect policies they proposed would be be enacted, whether or not you support the policy or the policy made any sense.
There was an official leave and an official remain campaign (as well as some unofficial ones). The £350m NHS promise was part of the official leave campaign headed by Boris and Gove.
"The pledge was central to the official Vote Leave campaign and was controversially emblazoned on the side of the bus which shuttled Boris Johnson and Michael Gove around the country. "[0][1]
[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-vote-...
"The pledge was central to the official Vote Leave campaign and was controversially emblazoned on the side of the bus which shuttled Boris Johnson and Michael Gove around the country. "[0][1]
[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-...
[1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-vote-...
They weren't representing HM Government when they made those suggestions. I think the claim didn't make sense either, but it wasn't proposed by any group with the authority to enact it. It wasn't a general election and Vote Leave haven't formed a government or written a Queen's Speech.
Boris Johnson is a senior member of the government and the reason the promise isn't being fulfilled isn't because the government don't want to do it - it's because it was utter nonsense and never possible as a result of the referendum.
That's a cop out. If they didn't have the means to deliver on their promises they shouldn't have made the claims.
They took highly populist positions, completely divorced from reality just to win votes, then shrugged their shoulders post-referendum when asked how they would be implemented.
They took highly populist positions, completely divorced from reality just to win votes, then shrugged their shoulders post-referendum when asked how they would be implemented.
But they didn't say 'we will'. It wasn't a promise. They said 'let's' - it was a suggestion of what they thought should be done. You've imagined the promise part, and you'd be foolish to accept it as a promise, because clearly the group did not have that authority.
I don't see the group lobbying the Government to follow through on that "suggestion". If they believed strongly enough in the "suggestion" to put it on the side of a bus and in their leaflets, surely they should be trying to secure that £350m/week NHS funding as we speak?
Yes that's true and that makes sense. That's the right question to ask - not 'why isn't this happening'. It's not happening because nobody with the authority to do it said they would.
it was a suggestion of what they thought should be done ... you'd be foolish to accept it as a promise
You're giving the Leave campaign a free pass on a technicality of language.
I don't believe the 51.9% of voters who saw an emotive slogan on the side of a bus and in a 1001 tabloid headlines assumed this was a gentle suggestion. They thought this might actually be done.
The Leave campaign knew emphatically it would not, but pushed it anyway because many voters care about the NHS and it was an easy way to win their votes.
I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a political organisation to account on their policy positions. To not do so condemns us to live in the kind of post-truth swamp we're seeing unravel on the other side of the pond.
You're giving the Leave campaign a free pass on a technicality of language.
I don't believe the 51.9% of voters who saw an emotive slogan on the side of a bus and in a 1001 tabloid headlines assumed this was a gentle suggestion. They thought this might actually be done.
The Leave campaign knew emphatically it would not, but pushed it anyway because many voters care about the NHS and it was an easy way to win their votes.
I don't think it's unreasonable to hold a political organisation to account on their policy positions. To not do so condemns us to live in the kind of post-truth swamp we're seeing unravel on the other side of the pond.
> You're giving the Leave campaign a free pass on a technicality of language.
I suppose that's probably right.
I just don't like seeing snide throwaway remarks that when you think them, they aren't really exactly what the situation is. Like the Leave slogan, the snide remarks are also damaging to making sure everyone has a fair understanding of the true situation.
I suppose that's probably right.
I just don't like seeing snide throwaway remarks that when you think them, they aren't really exactly what the situation is. Like the Leave slogan, the snide remarks are also damaging to making sure everyone has a fair understanding of the true situation.
[deleted]
It was the proposal of the official Leave campaign, headed by Government ministers, one of whom is the current Foreign Secretary.
But the Leave campaign haven't formed a government so can't submit a budget, and ministers can have personal opinions and proposals that aren't government policy.
Attacking the logic of the idea is sensible. Asking why it isn't happening now is ignorance of the whole setup.
Attacking the logic of the idea is sensible. Asking why it isn't happening now is ignorance of the whole setup.
In that case the Leave campaign should not have suggested it was a reasonable case to put forward if they never could have actually actioned it.
You have to remember Leave vs Remain was for the most part government ministers arguing with each other, and the PM lost his job over the result, with the current Foreign Secretary and his colleague in the Leave campaign both planning to run for that office.
To say that they are not in Government, just because they have not taken the role of PM, is shaky ground: they will be judged on this at the next election, to some extent.
The problem is people still think this number is real. If they knew the true numbers, they would likely vote differently. Hence the back-pressure: now we know the numbers, it might be sensible to re-think this project in its entirety.
Alas, common sense can't prevail because to point out that politicians currently serving in HMG's cabinet are lying liars who lie is politically toxic, and saving face is more important than doing the right thing by the country.
You have to remember Leave vs Remain was for the most part government ministers arguing with each other, and the PM lost his job over the result, with the current Foreign Secretary and his colleague in the Leave campaign both planning to run for that office.
To say that they are not in Government, just because they have not taken the role of PM, is shaky ground: they will be judged on this at the next election, to some extent.
The problem is people still think this number is real. If they knew the true numbers, they would likely vote differently. Hence the back-pressure: now we know the numbers, it might be sensible to re-think this project in its entirety.
Alas, common sense can't prevail because to point out that politicians currently serving in HMG's cabinet are lying liars who lie is politically toxic, and saving face is more important than doing the right thing by the country.
They lied. It was a clear, unambiguous, blatant, lie.
And although they withdrew it the morning of the referendum results, it's fair to keep reminding people that some voted "leave" because of this promise.
http://imgur.com/indvx6a
http://imgur.com/AJzU5nd
If they were not able to keep this promise they should not have made it. They should have said that this is not something they can offer.
Remember when Nolan Principles were a thing?
And although they withdrew it the morning of the referendum results, it's fair to keep reminding people that some voted "leave" because of this promise.
http://imgur.com/indvx6a
http://imgur.com/AJzU5nd
If they were not able to keep this promise they should not have made it. They should have said that this is not something they can offer.
Remember when Nolan Principles were a thing?
I don't want to get into a debate about who made 'bigger lies' because both campaigns were awful but there were lies on both sides. It's also fair to keep reminding people that some voted 'remain' because of lies about immigration, punishment budgets, costs to each UK household etc.
Not only has that been ruled out, but costs to the UK of being outside the EU are currently being estimated at around £60bn/year, so we will in fact have £1.15bn a week less to go around.
Meanwhile NHS bosses are already warning they can't hit the target budgets for next year, and we're about to see the currency deflate to a point where imports - including agricultural produce - is going to rise in price dramatically.
There is a small chance that the EU might now decide to give more generous terms than they have indicated in the past to the UK, and all will be well. That looks unlikely however.
Meanwhile NHS bosses are already warning they can't hit the target budgets for next year, and we're about to see the currency deflate to a point where imports - including agricultural produce - is going to rise in price dramatically.
There is a small chance that the EU might now decide to give more generous terms than they have indicated in the past to the UK, and all will be well. That looks unlikely however.
Citation? Is the cost estimated by all the same people who said that a No vote would immediately tank the UK economy, even before the official Brexit? It grew instead.
The problem with pronouncements like that is we've repeatedly seen economists and independent bodies be heavily politically biased in favour of the EU and seem to heavily exaggerate consequences and costs.
As someone who is disappointed by our exit, I still want to see a reasonable assessment of our chances and frankly a lot of people like the IMF, etc. increasingly look like little more than shills for the EU political elite who are desperately clinging to their federalisation plans and need those bodies to tell other countries in the EU that the consequences of even considering an exit is dire.
The problem with pronouncements like that is we've repeatedly seen economists and independent bodies be heavily politically biased in favour of the EU and seem to heavily exaggerate consequences and costs.
As someone who is disappointed by our exit, I still want to see a reasonable assessment of our chances and frankly a lot of people like the IMF, etc. increasingly look like little more than shills for the EU political elite who are desperately clinging to their federalisation plans and need those bodies to tell other countries in the EU that the consequences of even considering an exit is dire.
Of course you're right. There is bias.
However this bias is informed by pronouncements from the EU themselves declaring they want £50 billion up-front for us leaving, and models that have been updated based on agreements we can see in action elsewhere (Norway, Sweden, WTO tariffs, etc.)
So... yes, it might all be wrong. But if you aren't prepared to accept any model because in the past some models were a little off, well, how are we meant to make reasonable decisions about the future.
However this bias is informed by pronouncements from the EU themselves declaring they want £50 billion up-front for us leaving, and models that have been updated based on agreements we can see in action elsewhere (Norway, Sweden, WTO tariffs, etc.)
So... yes, it might all be wrong. But if you aren't prepared to accept any model because in the past some models were a little off, well, how are we meant to make reasonable decisions about the future.
You're still not saying where you got £60 billion per year from. If you're talking about the OBR figures, they're not a per year figure, but a one off cost.
They also include something like £15 billion because of a drop in immigration. The OBR present growth figures include a built in "we're going to keep on ignoring our immigration targets" figure, and by removing that, "lost" that money. So it's basically two parts of government doing opposite things and then talking as if it's a "cost".
They also include something like £15 billion because of a drop in immigration. The OBR present growth figures include a built in "we're going to keep on ignoring our immigration targets" figure, and by removing that, "lost" that money. So it's basically two parts of government doing opposite things and then talking as if it's a "cost".
With the Scottish and Irish no longer apart of/a drain on the UK by then there should be plenty of extra capital available for the NHS. /s
Any sense of how this will affect London tech?
Google[1], Apple[2] and Dyson[3] (ok, not quite London) are making quite big noises about big new offices, so I guess things can't be that bad? Possibly they're betting on picking up lots of tech staff cheap if the banks start leaving London?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/15/google-co... [2] http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-apple-to-crea... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-39117982
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/15/google-co... [2] http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-apple-to-crea... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-39117982
The big companies that already have a presence in multiple European cities won't have a big impact on staff. Take Google for example, people staying in London can keep working at that office, people that want to leave (or are forced to leave) can work in many of the other European locations (e.g. Berlin, Paris, Zurich, Vienna).
Smaller tech companies will probably be hit the hardest if they only have a London presence and they lose half of their employees. Depending on the employee composition, it may even make sense to move the company entirely to another country in Europe.
Smaller tech companies will probably be hit the hardest if they only have a London presence and they lose half of their employees. Depending on the employee composition, it may even make sense to move the company entirely to another country in Europe.
> Depending on the employee composition, it may even make sense to move the company entirely to another country in Europe.
Similarly, if you're starting a company it probably makes sense to make Berlin or somewhere like that your home. Why risk potentially having your supply of engineers reduced dramatically post-Brexit? Funding could start to dry up in the UK for the same reason.
Similarly, if you're starting a company it probably makes sense to make Berlin or somewhere like that your home. Why risk potentially having your supply of engineers reduced dramatically post-Brexit? Funding could start to dry up in the UK for the same reason.
If I was incorporating in Europe today and didn't need SEIS/EIS I'd definitely at least look at Ireland, Germany, Malta and Estonia before automatically picking the UK. The criteria would be something like:
1). Is it easy to do most company filing work, taxes, VAT etc. on-line 2). Is it easy to open a business bank account there 3). Are investors familiar with that country 4). Is the required paid up share capital on incorporation small 5). Is the process quick (and corporate tax rate & legal compliance burden not too onerous)
1). Is it easy to do most company filing work, taxes, VAT etc. on-line 2). Is it easy to open a business bank account there 3). Are investors familiar with that country 4). Is the required paid up share capital on incorporation small 5). Is the process quick (and corporate tax rate & legal compliance burden not too onerous)
Lower corporation tax too.
Why would they lose half their employees?
The only way Brexit involves people being forced to leave where they live is if the EU forces it to happen. The UK has already said many times it wants to take that possibility off the table as soon as possible.
The only way Brexit involves people being forced to leave where they live is if the EU forces it to happen. The UK has already said many times it wants to take that possibility off the table as soon as possible.
> The UK has already said many times it wants to take that possibility off the table as soon as possible.
Except of course that the government repeatedly blocked attempts to give guarantees for people already living here.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/18/nhs-eu-nurse...
"Only 96 nurses joined the NHS from other European nations in December 2016 – a drop from 1,304 in July, the month after the referendum.
At the same time, freedom of information responses compiled by the Liberal Democrats from 80 of the 136 NHS acute trusts in England show that 2,700 EU nurses left the health service in 2016, compared to 1,600 EU nurses in 2014 – a 68% increase."
Except of course that the government repeatedly blocked attempts to give guarantees for people already living here.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/18/nhs-eu-nurse...
"Only 96 nurses joined the NHS from other European nations in December 2016 – a drop from 1,304 in July, the month after the referendum.
At the same time, freedom of information responses compiled by the Liberal Democrats from 80 of the 136 NHS acute trusts in England show that 2,700 EU nurses left the health service in 2016, compared to 1,600 EU nurses in 2014 – a 68% increase."
The UK has by all accounts tried to agree this ASAP before article 50. Europe (specifically Germany) has blocked this.
It seems cold but it would be irresponsible of the UK to not defend the rights of the millions of British citizens living in Europe. You'll notice that all EU countries have acted the same way.
It seems cold but it would be irresponsible of the UK to not defend the rights of the millions of British citizens living in Europe. You'll notice that all EU countries have acted the same way.
Of course the EU is not going to start negotiations until they've been formally told that the UK wants to start negotiations for exit.
Assuming that the UK does end up with tighter immigration controls from the EU, getting staff in future is going to be harder, even if those already here aren't forced to leave.
Whether those controls will actually make any difference to highly-educated, well-paid, in-demand employees like software developers, I don't know.
Whether those controls will actually make any difference to highly-educated, well-paid, in-demand employees like software developers, I don't know.
Software developers of various kinds are actually on the UK government list of "professions with a shortage", meaning they get immigration priority.
(note: not _all_ developers, the list goes into particular backgrounds and specialities).
(note: not _all_ developers, the list goes into particular backgrounds and specialities).
While developers might get "priority" immigration you still have more overhead compared to the "no fuss, just find a place to rent" deal those developers would get in other European countries.
For example, I would consider UK after brexit only if I get a substantially better deal than anywhere else in Europe. Otherwise it is just not worth going through the "immigration" process.
For example, I would consider UK after brexit only if I get a substantially better deal than anywhere else in Europe. Otherwise it is just not worth going through the "immigration" process.
> The UK has already said many times it wants to take that possibility off the table as soon as possible.
Words are cheap. If they really wanted to do it, they would have done it already. I guess you're also expecting the NHS to get £350 million a week extra soon.
Words are cheap. If they really wanted to do it, they would have done it already. I guess you're also expecting the NHS to get £350 million a week extra soon.
Has it occurred to the UK that young, progressive Europeans might actually not want to work there any more?
Why pick a country that at best will grudgingly tolerate you when you have so many other easier and increasingly more attractive options on your doorstep?
Why pick a country that at best will grudgingly tolerate you when you have so many other easier and increasingly more attractive options on your doorstep?
The British are willingly giving away their EU citizenship. Since each member state sets its own rules regarding non-EU immigration, the EU can not "force" anything to happen or not happen.
EU citizenship entails, among others, the rights of freedom of movement and of non-discrimination because of nationality. The UK has made it abundantly clear that it will not respect these rights, regardless of what the EU or its member states do. Ending freedom of movement and being able to "put British people first" were among the main arguments of the Brexit campaign.
So why wouldn't somebody consider leaving a place where they and their families will be open to discrimination, and where they will be allowed to remain only at the whim of the UKBA?
EU citizenship entails, among others, the rights of freedom of movement and of non-discrimination because of nationality. The UK has made it abundantly clear that it will not respect these rights, regardless of what the EU or its member states do. Ending freedom of movement and being able to "put British people first" were among the main arguments of the Brexit campaign.
So why wouldn't somebody consider leaving a place where they and their families will be open to discrimination, and where they will be allowed to remain only at the whim of the UKBA?
"Willingly". Yeah. We all changed our minds the moment the result came in because "the people have spoken".
Rupert bloody Murdoch has spoken more like.
Rupert bloody Murdoch has spoken more like.
There are also all sorts of legal barriers to kicking out people who have been in the UK for any length of time. It simply isn't the case that there are going to be millions of people forced to leave. Future immigration policy will need to be decided - I can't see a scenario in which talented Europeans who want to work in the UK are going to be turned away.
More interesting will be what happens to tech immigration from the rest of world. It is entirely possible that we end up with easier immigration to/from North America as a result.
More interesting will be what happens to tech immigration from the rest of world. It is entirely possible that we end up with easier immigration to/from North America as a result.
Home Office already brakes the EU law on immigration, and I have absolutely no doubts that it will brake it further.
The example I have in mind is that Home Office requires that EU citizens who are in education or self employed should have Private Comprehensive Health Insurance to have right to permanent residence in the UK, despite the fact that such requirement is literally illegal in EU. The law states clearly that if you lived somewhere for 5 years, you have the right to permanent residence in that country - but Home Office will ask you for proof that you had comprehensive health insurance as a student for example, before issuing the Right To Permanent Residence permit. So people like me, who lived here for 7 years now, and were in university for 4, are fucked, because all the time spent here does not count towards the 5 year minimum requirement for permanent residence(and of course no one at uni told us we needed private health insurance - we were told to register with NHS and could use NHS like any EU citizen without any limits). I live here, I pay my taxes, I'm starting a family, want to buy a house soon - and then I ask myself, why the hell would I, if I can literally get kicked out in 2 years because someone decides not to give me a visa.
I would have never considered leaving UK otherwise, this is my home now, but it looks like I will have to at least consider my options now.
The example I have in mind is that Home Office requires that EU citizens who are in education or self employed should have Private Comprehensive Health Insurance to have right to permanent residence in the UK, despite the fact that such requirement is literally illegal in EU. The law states clearly that if you lived somewhere for 5 years, you have the right to permanent residence in that country - but Home Office will ask you for proof that you had comprehensive health insurance as a student for example, before issuing the Right To Permanent Residence permit. So people like me, who lived here for 7 years now, and were in university for 4, are fucked, because all the time spent here does not count towards the 5 year minimum requirement for permanent residence(and of course no one at uni told us we needed private health insurance - we were told to register with NHS and could use NHS like any EU citizen without any limits). I live here, I pay my taxes, I'm starting a family, want to buy a house soon - and then I ask myself, why the hell would I, if I can literally get kicked out in 2 years because someone decides not to give me a visa.
I would have never considered leaving UK otherwise, this is my home now, but it looks like I will have to at least consider my options now.
The immigration status of EU citizens resident in the UK is one of the only strong cards the UK has in the Brexit negotiations.
The UK may well threaten the EU with mass deportations, especially since the Brexiters running the UK don't give two shits about the status of UK expats in the EU.
While I don't consider deportations likely, when there are stronger forces at play (e.g. economic security of the UK) then all sorts of "barriers" have a tendency to disappear.
The UK may well threaten the EU with mass deportations, especially since the Brexiters running the UK don't give two shits about the status of UK expats in the EU.
While I don't consider deportations likely, when there are stronger forces at play (e.g. economic security of the UK) then all sorts of "barriers" have a tendency to disappear.
> There are also all sorts of legal barriers to kicking out people who have been in the UK for any length of time.
Such as? I don't believe that there are.
Such as? I don't believe that there are.
There are arguments the Vienna Convention has created acquired rights, and the ECHR's right to a private and family life. There's also the ability to apply for permanent residence if you've been in the UK for more than 5 years.
This is all being predicated on a more specific settlement not being reached with the EU. Given the UK says it wants one that shouldn't be a problem and may well turn into the UK making a unilateral grant of residence even if the EU decides to play hardball.
This is all being predicated on a more specific settlement not being reached with the EU. Given the UK says it wants one that shouldn't be a problem and may well turn into the UK making a unilateral grant of residence even if the EU decides to play hardball.
Google was planned before the referendum.
Dyson is pro-brexit and has had a problem with having enough office space for a while (so probably unrelated to timing of referendum but making noise because it supports his position).
Apple are the only one who are new in that list, and it may just be a consolidation of existing office space.
Dyson is pro-brexit and has had a problem with having enough office space for a while (so probably unrelated to timing of referendum but making noise because it supports his position).
Apple are the only one who are new in that list, and it may just be a consolidation of existing office space.
> Apple are the only one who are new in that list, and it may just be a consolidation of existing office space.
AFAIK that's largely it; I don't know how much of this is expansion, but it's certainly mostly about getting their 1400 employees in/around London in a single space (with all the simplification of security, etc. that entails). It's worth pointing out that AFAIK the majority of those employees ultimately come from other companies that Apple has acquired over the years, hence the disparate offices.
AFAIK that's largely it; I don't know how much of this is expansion, but it's certainly mostly about getting their 1400 employees in/around London in a single space (with all the simplification of security, etc. that entails). It's worth pointing out that AFAIK the majority of those employees ultimately come from other companies that Apple has acquired over the years, hence the disparate offices.
Probably not as London is a cheap source for native english speaking engineering resource - compare the starting salary's in London vs SV
James Dyson was pro-Brexit anyway, so that might affect whether you consider Dyson (the business) to be a meaningful data point.
Keep a close eye on EU data protection/retention laws and agreements and how Brexit will affect the UK's ability to trade with the EU in that way.
Currently the UK's Department For Brexit has stated they have no idea what will happen there.
That's likely to have an impact on any tech company trading with the EU that uses or accesses personal data.
Currently the UK's Department For Brexit has stated they have no idea what will happen there.
That's likely to have an impact on any tech company trading with the EU that uses or accesses personal data.
> Currently the UK's Department For Brexit has stated they have no idea what will happen there.
That applies to everything not just Data Protection/Retention.
They have no plan, no mandate for what they are doing and no sensible way to even begin the planning.
That applies to everything not just Data Protection/Retention.
They have no plan, no mandate for what they are doing and no sensible way to even begin the planning.
It feels like pretty much everyone is adopting a "wait and see" attitude. But i've yet to meet anyone who thinks it's going to be a positive impact.
"Wait and See" == "Uncertainty". I work for a FTSE100 and nobody in management is talking about it. Nobody. It's head in the sand time as far as we're concerned, although I imagine there's frantic discussions going on upstairs.
Tech people are already leaving and not being replaced, I'm ready to quit my six-figures and bail out while the going's relatively good - just have to await my EU spouse getting their residency so we can definitely move back and forth freely.
Tech people are already leaving and not being replaced, I'm ready to quit my six-figures and bail out while the going's relatively good - just have to await my EU spouse getting their residency so we can definitely move back and forth freely.
The referendum results really saddened me, but at this point the sooner this is over, the better.
There were any number of ways that they could have backed out of this disaster in a politically acceptable way. A second referendum on a specific plan for what "leaving the EU" actually means, for example.
It would be an uncomfortable situation, but it's vastly preferable to a decade or more of economic turmoil. Not to mention the probable loss of Scotland, huge questions about the Irish border, etc etc.
It would be an uncomfortable situation, but it's vastly preferable to a decade or more of economic turmoil. Not to mention the probable loss of Scotland, huge questions about the Irish border, etc etc.
> could have backed out of this disaster in a politically acceptable way
I don't think any retreat would have ever been politically acceptable. The general public saw through the "hard/soft" Brexit angle, it was clear that remaining in the single market would not have delivered the majority of leavers wishes.
Worse still, this heavy push on "soft Brexit" made the perception that certain sections of the establishment was trying to deceive their way out of the vote stronger. This sort of feeling, that outside powers are pursuing objectives against our wishes, was a strong driver in the ref vote.
I don't think any retreat would have ever been politically acceptable. The general public saw through the "hard/soft" Brexit angle, it was clear that remaining in the single market would not have delivered the majority of leavers wishes.
Worse still, this heavy push on "soft Brexit" made the perception that certain sections of the establishment was trying to deceive their way out of the vote stronger. This sort of feeling, that outside powers are pursuing objectives against our wishes, was a strong driver in the ref vote.
"it was clear that remaining in the single market would not have delivered the majority of leavers wishes"
Well, with a 52:48 majority for leave and with almost all Remain voters probably preferring "soft" to "hard" Brexit, it would only need to satisfy a tiny % of leavers for it to have more a mandate than the "hard", no-deal Brexit cliff edge the government seem determined to steer us all over without any debate.
Well, with a 52:48 majority for leave and with almost all Remain voters probably preferring "soft" to "hard" Brexit, it would only need to satisfy a tiny % of leavers for it to have more a mandate than the "hard", no-deal Brexit cliff edge the government seem determined to steer us all over without any debate.
> A second referendum... for example
What if 'leave' won that referendum by an even larger margin?
Before you think it couldn't happen, bear in mind that the whole mess was started by someone calling a referendum they clearly thought they'd win as a way to shut down political opponents who wanted to 'leave'.
That didn't exactly work out the way he expected, and there's no reason to believe a second referendum would work out any better - especially since the pendulum swing is currently swinging hard against globalism.
What if 'leave' won that referendum by an even larger margin?
Before you think it couldn't happen, bear in mind that the whole mess was started by someone calling a referendum they clearly thought they'd win as a way to shut down political opponents who wanted to 'leave'.
That didn't exactly work out the way he expected, and there's no reason to believe a second referendum would work out any better - especially since the pendulum swing is currently swinging hard against globalism.
> What if 'leave' won that referendum by an even larger margin?
That would be good. A clear majority on a concrete plan indicates what the voters want, if it's leave then be it. That's way better than a vague 52:48 on some vaguely formulated question where there is a magnitude of possible ways to go, from "soft" to "hard" brexit.
That would be good. A clear majority on a concrete plan indicates what the voters want, if it's leave then be it. That's way better than a vague 52:48 on some vaguely formulated question where there is a magnitude of possible ways to go, from "soft" to "hard" brexit.
This is very depressing news. For those not living in the UK, I cannot recall a time in recent memory when UK politics has felt so dysfunctional, oppressive or regressive than it currently is.
We knew for quite a while that the trigger will happen end of March. If you're depressed it's not because of the current news.
We previously knew for quite a while that the trigger will happen the day after the referendum.
A further statement saying that it will be March 29th instead of "by the end of March" makes it seem ever more likely to happen (compared with the seeming uncertainty last summer).
A further statement saying that it will be March 29th instead of "by the end of March" makes it seem ever more likely to happen (compared with the seeming uncertainty last summer).
Were you around in 2008? Coop about to be bailed out. It's like old times!
Yes; 10 years working while the economy tries to recover from that, and now we're about to chuck it back into turmoil mode again.
IMHO Brexit is a symptom of the failure to address 2008. Brexit isn't the answer but when you completely ignore problems you get ... more problems.
Any idea of how this will affect the currency?
Assuming export volumes fall - which is the likely scenario - then we should see Sterling fall relative to the Dollar.
This is not considering any external pressures on Sterling however.
It will likely continue to tank :(
Which one?
It'll crater
Robert Mercer owns Cambridge Analytica[1], a Facebook analytics & targeted advertising company.
Allegedly CA has close ties to Brexit and donated services to the Brexit campaign, that went undeclared [2].
Cambridge Analytica data exists outside European Data protections.
Mercer also owns Breitbart .com [3]
[1] https://cambridgeanalytica.org/
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb /26/us-billionaire-mercer-helped-back-brexit
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-38005983
Allegedly CA has close ties to Brexit and donated services to the Brexit campaign, that went undeclared [2].
Cambridge Analytica data exists outside European Data protections.
Mercer also owns Breitbart .com [3]
[1] https://cambridgeanalytica.org/
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb /26/us-billionaire-mercer-helped-back-brexit
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-38005983
Even before either of the campaigns they were involved in succeeded, I've read articles that seem to suggest they were better at marketing themselves and selling than actually delivering what they claimed they could.
Maybe they got better at it, but personally I'd point the finger at decades of Murdoch-led media brainwashing rather than anything new-fangled. It used to be Boris Johnson's actual job as a journalist to make up lies about the EU to be fed to nationalistic, right-wing old people. And that demographic did much more for them than the (relative) youngsters on facebook.
Maybe they got better at it, but personally I'd point the finger at decades of Murdoch-led media brainwashing rather than anything new-fangled. It used to be Boris Johnson's actual job as a journalist to make up lies about the EU to be fed to nationalistic, right-wing old people. And that demographic did much more for them than the (relative) youngsters on facebook.
[edit] I am inclined to agree.
[deleted]
i wonder what the results of a referendum about joining the EU would look like if it was done today.
1. Cost of living soars in Britain.
2. Britain's young people want to leave: Europe offers a better deal. Cheaper property, better employment conditions, better looking men and women, good food.
3. Britain's codger population votes to pull up the drawbridge - not to keep the foreigners out, but to keep its youth enslaved.
You poor bastards, good luck to you.
You poor bastards, good luck to you.
Here's another anecdotal story. I just got my visa for Australia so I'm going there in June. I also know 3 other friends who are leaving. We're all leaving because we don't want to be in a country that's so preoccupied with something we don't believe in, so we're voting with our feet. Over the next few years every other issue is going to be sidelined to deal with this.
Yep. I'm an EU citizen living in UK, and a year ago I would have never considered living somewhere else, like that thought was literally inconceivable. Right now, I'm not so sure. Especially if I'm going to end up needing a visa - why would I go through that trouble? A programmer can easily find work in any EU country still, so why live in a country that I don't agree with? Why would I choose to pay my taxes here, if the government of this country is actively trying to make my life more difficult? I wouldn't, so depending on the sort of the exit deal UK negotiates, I might just get up and leave. Like you said, the only way we can vote right now is with our feet, and by taking our tax money elsewhere.
Is any EU country paying remotely close to the UK for programmers?
I'm not in the EU, but one of my brothers in law ended up moving to the U.S. from Austria in part because the pay difference was humongous (and of course the scene is completely different).
The only other country he considered was the U.K.
I'm not in the EU, but one of my brothers in law ended up moving to the U.S. from Austria in part because the pay difference was humongous (and of course the scene is completely different).
The only other country he considered was the U.K.
Even UK doesn't pay super well unless you work for a financial company and are close to London. I'm in the North East, so while I enjoy cheap cost of living, I don't make that much - my salary could easily be matched by pretty much any industry in Germany or France.
The UK definitely pays the best rates in the EU. I moved here in part for that reason, though now that the GBP is slowly losing its value it makes less and less sense to stay here.
Do you mean the UK or London?
Well London has the highest rates, but if you compare cities of similar sizes from one country to another (Say London to Paris, Sheffield to Lyon, etc.) the rates in British cities are almost always higher.
I've been doing a lot of comparisons lately because I'm considering leaving the UK (due to Brexit) and I'm seeing the UK consistently paying far less unless it's the financial services/banking sector.
Austria/Germany/Benelux vs US is a big difference.
Austria/Germany/Benelux vs UK isn't - outside London, the pay is now about the same order of magnitude. While London salaries are higher for now, London living costs are much higher, so disposable income suffers.
Austria/Germany/Benelux vs UK isn't - outside London, the pay is now about the same order of magnitude. While London salaries are higher for now, London living costs are much higher, so disposable income suffers.
I'd like to invite all the young poor bastards to have a look at Canada. We have a great immigration policy for young people looking for a new home!
I couldn't get a job in Canada, because your immigration policy required a bachelor's degree. That was even if I had a job offered to me before seeking a visa.
I think Canadian immigration policy is a bit over hyped for being 'great'. Trudeau took a lot of great PR with getting some Syrian refugees, but getting into Canada is still hard. Just easier in comparison to your neighbour to the south.
I think Canadian immigration policy is a bit over hyped for being 'great'. Trudeau took a lot of great PR with getting some Syrian refugees, but getting into Canada is still hard. Just easier in comparison to your neighbour to the south.
Really? A friend of mind lived a few years in Canada, and to my knowledge he doesn't have a bachelor's degree. (In fact, we both dropped out at about the same time.) He did have a job before going there, which was apparently helpful, but as far as I understand it the whole process was pretty smooth.
Nothing beats the EU though. Live in one country working a job on Friday, move to another over the weekend and start a new job on Monday – I've done literally this multiple times now. This alone is reason to stay in, as far as I'm concerned. The UK leaving is incredibly sad. :o(
Nothing beats the EU though. Live in one country working a job on Friday, move to another over the weekend and start a new job on Monday – I've done literally this multiple times now. This alone is reason to stay in, as far as I'm concerned. The UK leaving is incredibly sad. :o(
To be fair, the company said they've tried hiring people without bachelor's degrees in the past, and it hadn't worked out. So I actually never got as far as to apply for a visa.
But I check out the point systems the Canadian visa system has, and it turns out that I could get without a bachelor's degree, but only if I aced the language test. Apparently, without the degree, you have to get the highest points available from the language test.
See this for more details: http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-skilled-worker-immigratio...
(Also, I think they changed the immigration policy a few years ago, so your friend may have been able to get in before they changed it.)
But I check out the point systems the Canadian visa system has, and it turns out that I could get without a bachelor's degree, but only if I aced the language test. Apparently, without the degree, you have to get the highest points available from the language test.
See this for more details: http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-skilled-worker-immigratio...
(Also, I think they changed the immigration policy a few years ago, so your friend may have been able to get in before they changed it.)
From what I read here in the last month or two, I'd rather not have the Canadian and American borders be the ones that I'd often have to use. Many horror stories, even from native citizens.
The most plausible summary I've heard is that it won't be a rapid collapse, but a story of opportunities not taken or no longer available. We'll slowly forget that the UK used to be better off than Ireland and that young people used to emigrate from Dublin to London not the other way round.
(However, I'm still worried about what's going to happen to our 3m EU residents; there are a lot of ways in which the government could mess this up badly in a blood on the streets way. Will they? We don't know. But saying "that would be stupid, they won't do that" is no longer valid.)
(However, I'm still worried about what's going to happen to our 3m EU residents; there are a lot of ways in which the government could mess this up badly in a blood on the streets way. Will they? We don't know. But saying "that would be stupid, they won't do that" is no longer valid.)
> However, I'm still worried about what's going to happen to our 3m EU residents; there are a lot of ways in which the government could mess this up badly in a blood on the streets way. Will they? We don't know. But saying "that would be stupid, they won't do that" is no longer valid
Especially in the context of the NHS and social care, both of which have many employees from the EU.
Especially in the context of the NHS and social care, both of which have many employees from the EU.
My engineer friend in his late 20's already left for Canada earlier this month. His prime motivator was Brexit. Good luck, Britain, you'll need it.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume people will want to leave, the US election provoked a similar line of thinking ("if Trump wins I'm moving to Canada because X") and yet it doesn't seem to be happening.
I would very much like to leave. :/
Hacker News is full of people who are anti-Brexit. I see little understanding of the opposing point of view. I am quite happy to see Article 50 finally happen and will sum up why here. Take it or leave it.
18 months ago I was pro EU. Not strongly so, just because it was the status quo, in my mind was vaguely associated with co-operation and so I was for it by default.
Today I am pretty strongly eurosceptic. I think it's important for the UK to leave and if anything I'd like to see it collapse entirely. Europe would be stronger, more prosperous, more cooperative and freer if the EU were to die.
My reasoning goes like this. The EU is not simply a kind of really big working group for finding new ways to cooperate, as I had once tended to assume. It is a quasi-religious ideology with disturbing similarities to a cult. The people who control the EU and many European politicians don't simply see it as a way to foster collaboration and trade but rather as a way to replace existing European countries with a new country, one which would in my estimation be significantly worse than the countries we have now.
Calling the EU a cult may seem extreme, but to me it's not:
The EU and its supporters are not interested in debate on the future of Europe. The future is their intended future, and no other alternative futures are legitimised through recognition.
The EU does not provide any channel for people to reject or modify their plans. Its leaders consistently see referendums or politicians that are not blindly pro-EU as dangerous and if they occur anyway, often due to constitutional obligations, the results are simply ignored if they run counter to what the EU's leadership wants. The so-called Parliament cannot actually change anything about the EU itself (it is not a real Parliament) and is thus stuffed with yes men whose only reason for being there is ideological commitment to the vision itself (there are also a handful of no-men who got themselves voted in purely to try and slow it down, but they can't do anything and have no real power).
Indeed, we can safely assume that the new federal superstate the EU wants to build would not be a democracy. Given the EU's consistent lack of interest in actual, real democratic mechanisms, it is likely that if their plans succeed Europe's future looks pretty grim: something like the USSR of the 1980s. It is the avoidance of this fate that led me to vote out.
In common with many cults the EU deliberately tries to make leaving it as difficult as possible, through a variety of techniques such as insisting that the remaining cult members (who were of course previously supposedly loving friends and allies) shun the traitor and have nothing to do with them. Any sustained connection with members requires complete membership and suggesting it doesn't is an evil attempt to undermine the unity of the group.
The EU routinely abuses language in manipulative ways, for instance using the word "Europe" when they mean "the EU". They do this to plant the idea that any rejection of their plans is actually a rejection of "Europe" and "Europeans", although it isn't. They also like to suggest that any rejection of the EU is dirty backwards looking "nationalism", although the EU has its own civil service, its own "parliament", its own borders, its own currency, its own courts, its own flag, its own national anthem and wants its own army. The reality is that the EU is a country-under-construction and the EU is a fundamentally nationalist project.
Finally, the most disturbing similarity of all is the fact that the modern EU is a project held together by fear. Its leadership happily and openly says so: President Hollande's memorable "there must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price" quote (on the topic of Brexit) being the most extreme example, but even today I read that Juncker is saying that there's no risk to the EU because the British "example" will show others what happens to countries that leave. They frequently imply that the alternative to the EU is World War 3. European leaders talk this way constantly, apparently either not realising or not caring that it makes them sound like some sort of Mafia.
There is no reason European cooperation must take place through such an organisation. Before the EU was formed in the early 1990s there were many parallel integration projects that were improving cooperation independently. The EU eventually absorbed them all, but if it were to collapse, the result would not be World War 3 or a dark age of hatred. It'd be a return to the days when deals and international bodies were set up independently and countries could independently assess which were working well and which were not, instead of an "all or nothing" arrangement that artificially ties trade and cooperation to an irreversible loss of local control.
Edit: -1 within a few minutes. What a surprise. Don't downvote if you disagree, you won't change anything that way. Reply and debate instead.
Second edit: Thanks for the replies. I would like to engage and continue the debate with you guys but HN has throttled me so I can no longer reply. I'll try following up tomorrow and see if the throttle has been lifted. (I'm starting to conclude HN is not a particularly good place to debate political issues for this sort of reason ...)
18 months ago I was pro EU. Not strongly so, just because it was the status quo, in my mind was vaguely associated with co-operation and so I was for it by default.
Today I am pretty strongly eurosceptic. I think it's important for the UK to leave and if anything I'd like to see it collapse entirely. Europe would be stronger, more prosperous, more cooperative and freer if the EU were to die.
My reasoning goes like this. The EU is not simply a kind of really big working group for finding new ways to cooperate, as I had once tended to assume. It is a quasi-religious ideology with disturbing similarities to a cult. The people who control the EU and many European politicians don't simply see it as a way to foster collaboration and trade but rather as a way to replace existing European countries with a new country, one which would in my estimation be significantly worse than the countries we have now.
Calling the EU a cult may seem extreme, but to me it's not:
The EU and its supporters are not interested in debate on the future of Europe. The future is their intended future, and no other alternative futures are legitimised through recognition.
The EU does not provide any channel for people to reject or modify their plans. Its leaders consistently see referendums or politicians that are not blindly pro-EU as dangerous and if they occur anyway, often due to constitutional obligations, the results are simply ignored if they run counter to what the EU's leadership wants. The so-called Parliament cannot actually change anything about the EU itself (it is not a real Parliament) and is thus stuffed with yes men whose only reason for being there is ideological commitment to the vision itself (there are also a handful of no-men who got themselves voted in purely to try and slow it down, but they can't do anything and have no real power).
Indeed, we can safely assume that the new federal superstate the EU wants to build would not be a democracy. Given the EU's consistent lack of interest in actual, real democratic mechanisms, it is likely that if their plans succeed Europe's future looks pretty grim: something like the USSR of the 1980s. It is the avoidance of this fate that led me to vote out.
In common with many cults the EU deliberately tries to make leaving it as difficult as possible, through a variety of techniques such as insisting that the remaining cult members (who were of course previously supposedly loving friends and allies) shun the traitor and have nothing to do with them. Any sustained connection with members requires complete membership and suggesting it doesn't is an evil attempt to undermine the unity of the group.
The EU routinely abuses language in manipulative ways, for instance using the word "Europe" when they mean "the EU". They do this to plant the idea that any rejection of their plans is actually a rejection of "Europe" and "Europeans", although it isn't. They also like to suggest that any rejection of the EU is dirty backwards looking "nationalism", although the EU has its own civil service, its own "parliament", its own borders, its own currency, its own courts, its own flag, its own national anthem and wants its own army. The reality is that the EU is a country-under-construction and the EU is a fundamentally nationalist project.
Finally, the most disturbing similarity of all is the fact that the modern EU is a project held together by fear. Its leadership happily and openly says so: President Hollande's memorable "there must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price" quote (on the topic of Brexit) being the most extreme example, but even today I read that Juncker is saying that there's no risk to the EU because the British "example" will show others what happens to countries that leave. They frequently imply that the alternative to the EU is World War 3. European leaders talk this way constantly, apparently either not realising or not caring that it makes them sound like some sort of Mafia.
There is no reason European cooperation must take place through such an organisation. Before the EU was formed in the early 1990s there were many parallel integration projects that were improving cooperation independently. The EU eventually absorbed them all, but if it were to collapse, the result would not be World War 3 or a dark age of hatred. It'd be a return to the days when deals and international bodies were set up independently and countries could independently assess which were working well and which were not, instead of an "all or nothing" arrangement that artificially ties trade and cooperation to an irreversible loss of local control.
Edit: -1 within a few minutes. What a surprise. Don't downvote if you disagree, you won't change anything that way. Reply and debate instead.
Second edit: Thanks for the replies. I would like to engage and continue the debate with you guys but HN has throttled me so I can no longer reply. I'll try following up tomorrow and see if the throttle has been lifted. (I'm starting to conclude HN is not a particularly good place to debate political issues for this sort of reason ...)
I read your entire rant and it's based on the sole idea that the EU is a cult, not a single quantifiable fact. This is the kind of judgement that leads to bad decisions. I think it's best we make this kind of decisions based on numbers rather than abstract thinking.
For the record, I want to understand why people voted "leave" but every time I try I end up reading something like this which doesn't get me closer, it just upsets me.
For the record, I want to understand why people voted "leave" but every time I try I end up reading something like this which doesn't get me closer, it just upsets me.
Try this:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/23/leaving-...
'So, obviously, it's not in fact the leaving or not of the EU that causes the changes in the economy. It's the policies of openness to trade that do.'
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/23/leaving-...
'So, obviously, it's not in fact the leaving or not of the EU that causes the changes in the economy. It's the policies of openness to trade that do.'
There are lots of quantifiable facts. Here are some quantifiable facts for you.
https://euobserver.com/institutional/136630
> Secret EU law making reached a high in 2016 that has only been matched once before, according to figures obtained by EUobserver ... according to figures provided by the parliament, not a single bill ended up in a second reading agreement in 2016, only the second time this has happened since EU parliament record keeping began in 2004
If you dig into that story you will find people (Brits) raising the trend towards secret law making as a problem way back in 2005. The EU said it'd improve, it didn't, it got worse. Only one other legislature in the world makes law in secret: North Korea.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-faces-brexit-c...
> A recent survey by the Pew Research Centre found that only 38 per cent of France had a favourable view of the EU, marking an astonishing negative shift in attitudes towards Brussels since the 2009 financial crisis that has been mirrored to varying degrees all across Europe. A poll last month by Ipsos-MORI found that nearly half of voters in eight European Union countries want to be able to vote on whether to remain members of the bloc, with a third saying they would opt to leave, if given the choice.
That's a pretty large number of people wanting their own exit referendums. However, there appears to be no chance of them getting such a vote. European politicians tend to describe allowing people to vote on the EU as a "contagion", a "mistake", "populism" etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/is-the-ignorant-l...
> learning more about the EU may be just as likely to lead people to have a negative view of the EU as a positive view ... in 2003 a team of researchers from University of Twente in the Netherlands concluded that, contrary to Inglehart’s thesis, the more voters understand about European democracy the less satisfied they become.
Summary: the idea that people can only disagree with the EU because they don't know the facts is not supported by the EU's own polling and studies.
The quotes and references to events I suppose you can Google for yourself. Are there other things you'd like me to provide data for?
I note that some people seem to think my post says things that are wild/extreme/unsubstantiated. But we're talking about the UK which just voted to leave despite all the warnings about how painful it's going to be. What I wrote above is not really considered an extreme POV in the UK, you can find op-eds with similar lines of reasoning in mainstream newspapers. And many of the things I refer to can be easily checked with a few minutes on a search engine, like the quotes from European politicians.
https://euobserver.com/institutional/136630
> Secret EU law making reached a high in 2016 that has only been matched once before, according to figures obtained by EUobserver ... according to figures provided by the parliament, not a single bill ended up in a second reading agreement in 2016, only the second time this has happened since EU parliament record keeping began in 2004
If you dig into that story you will find people (Brits) raising the trend towards secret law making as a problem way back in 2005. The EU said it'd improve, it didn't, it got worse. Only one other legislature in the world makes law in secret: North Korea.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/eu-faces-brexit-c...
> A recent survey by the Pew Research Centre found that only 38 per cent of France had a favourable view of the EU, marking an astonishing negative shift in attitudes towards Brussels since the 2009 financial crisis that has been mirrored to varying degrees all across Europe. A poll last month by Ipsos-MORI found that nearly half of voters in eight European Union countries want to be able to vote on whether to remain members of the bloc, with a third saying they would opt to leave, if given the choice.
That's a pretty large number of people wanting their own exit referendums. However, there appears to be no chance of them getting such a vote. European politicians tend to describe allowing people to vote on the EU as a "contagion", a "mistake", "populism" etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/10/is-the-ignorant-l...
> learning more about the EU may be just as likely to lead people to have a negative view of the EU as a positive view ... in 2003 a team of researchers from University of Twente in the Netherlands concluded that, contrary to Inglehart’s thesis, the more voters understand about European democracy the less satisfied they become.
Summary: the idea that people can only disagree with the EU because they don't know the facts is not supported by the EU's own polling and studies.
The quotes and references to events I suppose you can Google for yourself. Are there other things you'd like me to provide data for?
I note that some people seem to think my post says things that are wild/extreme/unsubstantiated. But we're talking about the UK which just voted to leave despite all the warnings about how painful it's going to be. What I wrote above is not really considered an extreme POV in the UK, you can find op-eds with similar lines of reasoning in mainstream newspapers. And many of the things I refer to can be easily checked with a few minutes on a search engine, like the quotes from European politicians.
People who accuse the EU of wanting to be a United States of Europe are at least a decade out of date. Political power within the EU ultimately lies in the hands of individual national governments, not the EU structure as a whole (who's Jean-Claude Juncker again?).
After the failed EU constitution and the tribulations of the Lisbon Treaty, there has been absolutely no energy towards attempting any further federalization. Look at the response to the Greek sovereign debt crisis, or the ongoing migrant crisis. I doubt there will be any credible push towards "ever closer union" for at least another decade--and even then, it would still require at least the cooperation of major national governments.
Yes, it's possible for the rest of the EU to gang up on one country if they do a vote "wrongly" (cf., Ireland). However, Britain is one of the largest countries in the EU. If the French or German governments objected to a proposed treaty revision, it would be incapable of passing. And Cameron's "renegotiation" actually did get a similar guarantee in writing to apply to Britain.
It's also worth pointing out that you're asking to leave the EU at this point, which means you should expect to forfeit the benefits of being in the EU and should not expect to receive any more favorable treatment than other countries outside the EU (such as Canada) with respect to things like trade.
After the failed EU constitution and the tribulations of the Lisbon Treaty, there has been absolutely no energy towards attempting any further federalization. Look at the response to the Greek sovereign debt crisis, or the ongoing migrant crisis. I doubt there will be any credible push towards "ever closer union" for at least another decade--and even then, it would still require at least the cooperation of major national governments.
Yes, it's possible for the rest of the EU to gang up on one country if they do a vote "wrongly" (cf., Ireland). However, Britain is one of the largest countries in the EU. If the French or German governments objected to a proposed treaty revision, it would be incapable of passing. And Cameron's "renegotiation" actually did get a similar guarantee in writing to apply to Britain.
It's also worth pointing out that you're asking to leave the EU at this point, which means you should expect to forfeit the benefits of being in the EU and should not expect to receive any more favorable treatment than other countries outside the EU (such as Canada) with respect to things like trade.
There is this trend in online postings that I've only noticed recently with Trump and Brexit. Accounts come with huge walls of texts that always start with "I used to be super pro-EU/hippy liberal" but then they did their own research and found out that EU are actually mafia that eats babies and liberals are all pedophiles - opinions which are so out of the mainstream line of thinking that it's quite clear that they've never shared pro-EU/liberal values in the first place.
Is this "I use to be like you but then I saw the light"-sort of post effective at persuading people?
Is this "I use to be like you but then I saw the light"-sort of post effective at persuading people?
Originally when the vote was announced I was pro staying in, but like the above, the more I looked on to how the EU is run, how decisions are made, the more I didn't like it.
I have no issues with immigration, I'm all for people settling in whatever country the like!
I'm pro leaving the EU because I do not agree with how it is run and the direction it is heading.
I have no issues with immigration, I'm all for people settling in whatever country the like!
I'm pro leaving the EU because I do not agree with how it is run and the direction it is heading.
I was very similar, I started out quite strongly in favour of remaining, did quite a lot of research and ended up firmly stuck on the fence, with my only reasons to stay being any to avoid taking any economic damage
>I'm pro leaving the EU because I do not agree with how it is run
... such as?
... such as?
The EU is controlled by an informal body that doesn't exist on paper called the "Eurogroup". Decisions taken there, affect the entire continent. That group is tightly controlled by the German Finance Minister with his Hollander counterpart acting as a messenger. All other European Bodies hold literally no formal powers, while at the same time trying to somehow justify their existence.
I'd say that the UK would have a problem in the long run if the EU had any chance of reforming Brussels. I don't see how this can happen. The EU is disintegrating as we speak.
Regarding the anti-immigrant feeling of Britons. It's not just the UK. Greece has Nazis in parliament since 2010 or 2012 AFAIK. Anti-immigrant policies are enforced by socialist governments throughout Europe (Hollande, Merkel, etc.) as result of Brussel's austerity policy which led to a financial stagnation, but hey if it brings votes to the party. Far right parties already set the agenda in the EU, without being in power, because their positions are the ones that bring votes.
Picturing the EU as a nice place is misleading at best.
I'd say that the UK would have a problem in the long run if the EU had any chance of reforming Brussels. I don't see how this can happen. The EU is disintegrating as we speak.
Regarding the anti-immigrant feeling of Britons. It's not just the UK. Greece has Nazis in parliament since 2010 or 2012 AFAIK. Anti-immigrant policies are enforced by socialist governments throughout Europe (Hollande, Merkel, etc.) as result of Brussel's austerity policy which led to a financial stagnation, but hey if it brings votes to the party. Far right parties already set the agenda in the EU, without being in power, because their positions are the ones that bring votes.
Picturing the EU as a nice place is misleading at best.
> The EU is controlled by an informal body that doesn't exist on paper called the "Eurogroup"
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/eurogroup/
> All other European Bodies hold literally no formal powers
What other bodies are you referring to?
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/eurogroup/
> All other European Bodies hold literally no formal powers
What other bodies are you referring to?
The European Council for example.
By does not exist on paper I am referring to the lack of transcript and formal responsibility about what can be said and done there.
By does not exist on paper I am referring to the lack of transcript and formal responsibility about what can be said and done there.
> All other European Bodies hold literally no formal powers
Except, of course that all the Eurogroup does is feed suggestions into the Council of Ministers, which literally holds the formal powers.
So, other than that - what do you have problems with?
Except, of course that all the Eurogroup does is feed suggestions into the Council of Ministers, which literally holds the formal powers.
So, other than that - what do you have problems with?
> Except, of course that all the Eurogroup does is feed suggestions into the Council of Ministers, which literally holds the formal powers.
Nope. That's what you might wanna believe. Finance Ministers are treated like total idiots - most of them are tbh. They have 10 minutes each to talk about the problems of their country and that's about it. While they are talking others are cheerfully blabbing about personal shit. After this happy exchange of opinions, the German FinMin passes a set of papers which other FinMins are forced to sign blindly, go home and say something along the lines "I know it sucks, but if we want to be part of the EU we need to sign this...". Every now and then the French and Italian FinMin try to express an alternative view but they get quickly spanked and sent home crying like babies.
You might find that acceptable. I don't. I am part of the majority apparently, so fasten your seatbelt 'cause the next couple of years we're going for a wild ride in Europe.
Nope. That's what you might wanna believe. Finance Ministers are treated like total idiots - most of them are tbh. They have 10 minutes each to talk about the problems of their country and that's about it. While they are talking others are cheerfully blabbing about personal shit. After this happy exchange of opinions, the German FinMin passes a set of papers which other FinMins are forced to sign blindly, go home and say something along the lines "I know it sucks, but if we want to be part of the EU we need to sign this...". Every now and then the French and Italian FinMin try to express an alternative view but they get quickly spanked and sent home crying like babies.
You might find that acceptable. I don't. I am part of the majority apparently, so fasten your seatbelt 'cause the next couple of years we're going for a wild ride in Europe.
Is this something in your head, or do you have evidence that any of this is true?
Because it sounds like you're inventing it as you go along.
Because it sounds like you're inventing it as you go along.
Yanis Varoufakis has talked extensively about it[1]. But the real evidence is the total lack of transcripts of a procedure that should be publicly available since it concerns European citizens directly. Since you seem to be so happy with the current state of the EU, could you explain to me why there is no transcript of what my FinMin said and what XYZ FinMin replied? Maybe you can enlight us.
[1] https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2016/03/30/the-eurogroup-made...
[1] https://www.yanisvaroufakis.eu/2016/03/30/the-eurogroup-made...
Because it's an informal group. The formal discussions decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers.
You got this all wrong - the Council of Ministers has no power where it matters, on budget and policies, at all. It's just there to spoonfeed ppl who can't tell the difference between a symbol with nominal power (that's why you get Malta and Ireland to preside this group) vs a group with executive and decisional power (like the Eurogroup) who decides who's bank are going to be closed next (Ireland and Greece are pretty good examples).
You've got a really long list of things 'they' supposedly do without a single citation or link.
I dont think youre being downvoted because people disagree, you are being downvoted for making extreme claims and not supporting any of it.
I dont think youre being downvoted because people disagree, you are being downvoted for making extreme claims and not supporting any of it.
The EU has many many problems. Of course. Many of the critcisms you level at it would be equally valid of any single political party without a competant opposition.
Currently the EU only really has visible 'opposition' in the form of (IMHO) petty nationalists who want their respective countries to leave, rather than from people who are quite happy to be part of the EU, but want it radically reformed, or changed in specific ways.
I was saddened that the UK voted to leave (I'm British, live in the UK, but grew up in Cyprus). And horrified by how the 'Brexit meanx Brexit' group are now pushing it through with very little discussion about what that could mean, or how Euroskepticsm could be rechanneled into something positive.
The idea of Europe-wide cooperation, freedom of travel/work, etc. isn't going away any time soon, and currently the vehicle it's embodied in is the EU. I deeply wish the UK government had said, "Right. So the referendum proves that enough of the country is very very unhappy with the status quo. Would leaving the EU fix that? Or is there a way we can change the EU, or our status in the EU, in such a way that the situation is better?"
Post Brexit, the UK has no voice into the EU governance, and it's very unlikely that the people with influence in the EU will lean in helpful directions to what the UK government(s) would like it to be.
I hope you're right, that we will return to much more ad-hoc co-operation, deals and many individual treaties and so on. I really really hope you're right.
But while the EU remains like it currently is, I suspect it's simply going to be awful for the UK for a very long time.
I guess it slightly depends on how grown up and generous the EU negotiators and leaders are. If they genuinely will look out for the British public (technially their citizens...) and their interests in this, then it may not be so bad. But the UK government is certainly perceived as being remarkably selfish and self-centered in the whole affair, which doesn't really fill me with confidence about the future of the UK.
Currently the EU only really has visible 'opposition' in the form of (IMHO) petty nationalists who want their respective countries to leave, rather than from people who are quite happy to be part of the EU, but want it radically reformed, or changed in specific ways.
I was saddened that the UK voted to leave (I'm British, live in the UK, but grew up in Cyprus). And horrified by how the 'Brexit meanx Brexit' group are now pushing it through with very little discussion about what that could mean, or how Euroskepticsm could be rechanneled into something positive.
The idea of Europe-wide cooperation, freedom of travel/work, etc. isn't going away any time soon, and currently the vehicle it's embodied in is the EU. I deeply wish the UK government had said, "Right. So the referendum proves that enough of the country is very very unhappy with the status quo. Would leaving the EU fix that? Or is there a way we can change the EU, or our status in the EU, in such a way that the situation is better?"
Post Brexit, the UK has no voice into the EU governance, and it's very unlikely that the people with influence in the EU will lean in helpful directions to what the UK government(s) would like it to be.
I hope you're right, that we will return to much more ad-hoc co-operation, deals and many individual treaties and so on. I really really hope you're right.
But while the EU remains like it currently is, I suspect it's simply going to be awful for the UK for a very long time.
I guess it slightly depends on how grown up and generous the EU negotiators and leaders are. If they genuinely will look out for the British public (technially their citizens...) and their interests in this, then it may not be so bad. But the UK government is certainly perceived as being remarkably selfish and self-centered in the whole affair, which doesn't really fill me with confidence about the future of the UK.
I think if the EU had been really capable of improving itself in a big way the UK would not have voted to leave. Cameron tried that tack though and it blew up in his face. He toured the whole continent trying to put together a deal to address the concerns of British voters and the rest of Europe told him to stop being a crybaby and demanding special breaks, etc.
The EU was unwilling to budge at all because the idea the Brits might actually do it and the government might not ignore the vote was unthinkable to them. You could find quotes at the time along the lines of "we are so glad this whole British business is behind us" after they sent Cameron packing: the idea the vote might be lost simply didn't occur at all.
So he came home and told the country he'd got a great deal that solved people's problems. But it didn't and nobody believed him. It also killed the "we can stay in a reformed EU" argument dead.
There is no chance of constructively working with the EU. It believes in commanding, not compromising.
The EU was unwilling to budge at all because the idea the Brits might actually do it and the government might not ignore the vote was unthinkable to them. You could find quotes at the time along the lines of "we are so glad this whole British business is behind us" after they sent Cameron packing: the idea the vote might be lost simply didn't occur at all.
So he came home and told the country he'd got a great deal that solved people's problems. But it didn't and nobody believed him. It also killed the "we can stay in a reformed EU" argument dead.
There is no chance of constructively working with the EU. It believes in commanding, not compromising.
> Calling the EU a cult may seem extreme, but to me it's not:
> The EU and its supporters are not interested in debate on the future of Europe.
> Reply and debate instead
What kind ofdebate do you want when you call the other side cultists and that they don't want to debate?
> The EU and its supporters are not interested in debate on the future of Europe.
> Reply and debate instead
What kind ofdebate do you want when you call the other side cultists and that they don't want to debate?
I agree the EU is undemocratic and ideologically driven and it disturbs me how many people here don't seem to either care or realize it.
I'm not opposed to an EU superstate in principle. A well-structured EU would probably be useful in balancing the rising power of China. But the state of political affairs in Europe is intolerable and I'd rather see the EU collapse than the current trajectory continue.
I'm not opposed to an EU superstate in principle. A well-structured EU would probably be useful in balancing the rising power of China. But the state of political affairs in Europe is intolerable and I'd rather see the EU collapse than the current trajectory continue.
Why is the EU undemocratic?
Because it was set up to try and avoid future wars by pursuing integration, not to represent the will of the people.
AFAIK the EU Parliament cannot even propose legislation. The unelected Commission holds that power.
AFAIK the EU Parliament cannot even propose legislation. The unelected Commission holds that power.
You have to remember there are layers of governance here. The EU is a conglomerate formed of democratic member states. The Commissioners are appointed by those individual governments (which have to be democratic, it's a requirement of EU membership, for some value of "democratic" anyway). They also have to be approved by the EU parliament.
So we have Commissioners who are appointed by elected governments (in much the same way that the UK government appoints ministers, that's one level of indirection away from the voters) and are approved by directly-elected MEPs (assuming that the UK's shambolic turnout rates for EU elections mean the MEPs are actually directly-elected, since most people don't seem very interested). So the Commission is, what, half a level of indirection away from the voters? And they're directed by the governments they represent to adopt certain positions and advocate for what is in their government's interest.
So, yeah. We don't directly elect the Commissioners, but we don't directly elect the Chancellor of the Exchequer either.
So we have Commissioners who are appointed by elected governments (in much the same way that the UK government appoints ministers, that's one level of indirection away from the voters) and are approved by directly-elected MEPs (assuming that the UK's shambolic turnout rates for EU elections mean the MEPs are actually directly-elected, since most people don't seem very interested). So the Commission is, what, half a level of indirection away from the voters? And they're directed by the governments they represent to adopt certain positions and advocate for what is in their government's interest.
So, yeah. We don't directly elect the Commissioners, but we don't directly elect the Chancellor of the Exchequer either.
The EU might be the Austro-Hungarian Empire, a century later - a collection of nationalities and things that had been countries, bolted together by a trans-national government that nobody really is all that fond of or loyal to.
Like all analogies, it has flaws, but it might be an interesting perspective...
Like all analogies, it has flaws, but it might be an interesting perspective...
> Reply and debate instead.
Sorry - you said 'take it or leave it' - which strongly implies that you weren't interested in debate.
> It is a quasi-religious ideology with disturbing similarities to a cult.... The EU and its supporters are not interested in debate on the future of Europe.
Given the huge amounts of time that are spent in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers discussing exactly these issues, I'm going to assume that you simply don't follow European affairs that closely.
> The so-called Parliament cannot actually change anything about the EU itself (it is not a real Parliament) and is thus stuffed with yes men whose only reason for being there is ideological commitment to the vision itself
Oddly enough, yes for the most part the people who stand for EU parliament are those people who think that the EU is valuable and want to get it to work.
You say the EU Parliament is not a 'real' parliament - I presume you mean because it cannot propose legislation. But that is precisely because the people who framed the EU wanted to limit the extent to which the EU Parliament would remove power from national parliaments and nation states. The Parliament can ask the Executive (the Commission) to draft legislation for it to vote on and you can certainly argue that the Commission should be more subservient to the Parliament's wishes - but again, nation states have proved resistant to that idea. Perhaps you would like more power to reside in the Council of Ministers?
There are many potential ways here that the EU could be reformed, if nation states got their arses into gear and actually did it.
> Indeed, we can safely assume that the new federal superstate the EU wants to build would not be a democracy.
No, one cannot safely state that.
> Given the EU's consistent lack of interest in actual, real democratic mechanisms, it is likely that if their plans succeed Europe's future looks pretty grim: something like the USSR of the 1980s. It is the avoidance of this fate that led me to vote out.
This is pretty much all in your head. Yes, if all the member states got together and said 'You know what, lets steer ourselves towards a dystopian future' it could happen. There's nothing in the EU institutions that says that this is an inevitable or even likely outcome.
> In common with many cults the EU deliberately tries to make leaving it as difficult as possible, through a variety of techniques such as insisting that the remaining cult members (who were of course previously supposedly loving friends and allies) shun the traitor and have nothing to do with them. Any sustained connection with members requires complete membership and suggesting it doesn't is an evil attempt to undermine the unity of the group.
Again, you're just making stuff up. So far various EU folks have pointed out, reasonably enough that if you want to have the benefits of full access to the single market, the other aspects, such as free movement of labour have to follow.
> The EU routinely abuses language in manipulative ways, for instance using the word "Europe" when they mean "the EU".
Or it's a verbal short hand. Let's try translating shall we?:
The United States of America routinely abuses language in manipulative ways, for instance using the word "America" when they mean "The United States of America".
> They also like to suggest that any rejection of the EU is dirty backwards looking "nationalism"
Partly, no-doubt because a large proportion of the people who reject the EU do so due to backwards-looking nationalism.
I don't think your argument is particularly rational. The EU is flawed, the EU can be reformed by its members
Sorry - you said 'take it or leave it' - which strongly implies that you weren't interested in debate.
> It is a quasi-religious ideology with disturbing similarities to a cult.... The EU and its supporters are not interested in debate on the future of Europe.
Given the huge amounts of time that are spent in the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers discussing exactly these issues, I'm going to assume that you simply don't follow European affairs that closely.
> The so-called Parliament cannot actually change anything about the EU itself (it is not a real Parliament) and is thus stuffed with yes men whose only reason for being there is ideological commitment to the vision itself
Oddly enough, yes for the most part the people who stand for EU parliament are those people who think that the EU is valuable and want to get it to work.
You say the EU Parliament is not a 'real' parliament - I presume you mean because it cannot propose legislation. But that is precisely because the people who framed the EU wanted to limit the extent to which the EU Parliament would remove power from national parliaments and nation states. The Parliament can ask the Executive (the Commission) to draft legislation for it to vote on and you can certainly argue that the Commission should be more subservient to the Parliament's wishes - but again, nation states have proved resistant to that idea. Perhaps you would like more power to reside in the Council of Ministers?
There are many potential ways here that the EU could be reformed, if nation states got their arses into gear and actually did it.
> Indeed, we can safely assume that the new federal superstate the EU wants to build would not be a democracy.
No, one cannot safely state that.
> Given the EU's consistent lack of interest in actual, real democratic mechanisms, it is likely that if their plans succeed Europe's future looks pretty grim: something like the USSR of the 1980s. It is the avoidance of this fate that led me to vote out.
This is pretty much all in your head. Yes, if all the member states got together and said 'You know what, lets steer ourselves towards a dystopian future' it could happen. There's nothing in the EU institutions that says that this is an inevitable or even likely outcome.
> In common with many cults the EU deliberately tries to make leaving it as difficult as possible, through a variety of techniques such as insisting that the remaining cult members (who were of course previously supposedly loving friends and allies) shun the traitor and have nothing to do with them. Any sustained connection with members requires complete membership and suggesting it doesn't is an evil attempt to undermine the unity of the group.
Again, you're just making stuff up. So far various EU folks have pointed out, reasonably enough that if you want to have the benefits of full access to the single market, the other aspects, such as free movement of labour have to follow.
> The EU routinely abuses language in manipulative ways, for instance using the word "Europe" when they mean "the EU".
Or it's a verbal short hand. Let's try translating shall we?:
The United States of America routinely abuses language in manipulative ways, for instance using the word "America" when they mean "The United States of America".
> They also like to suggest that any rejection of the EU is dirty backwards looking "nationalism"
Partly, no-doubt because a large proportion of the people who reject the EU do so due to backwards-looking nationalism.
I don't think your argument is particularly rational. The EU is flawed, the EU can be reformed by its members
The next step for UK is to leave NATO (because it's held together by fear) and face reality on its own.
The United States of Europe would have been an apt name for the union, but understandably people wouldn't have bought the idea.
"We must build a kind of United States of Europe." -- Winston Churchill
http://www.voltairenet.org/article192499.html
http://www.voltairenet.org/article192499.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome
Imagine serving divorce papers on your spouse on a significant wedding anniversary, and now consider the message it sends.
It's like Theresa May has carefully picked the time to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that will cause maximum offense to the people she's about to negotiate a critically important trade deal with (from a position of inferior leverage).