‘Brexit’: The Vote That Could Sink Britain's Economy(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
‘Brexit’: The Vote That Could Sink Britain's Economy
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/22/business/international/brexit-referendum-eu-economy.html
134 comments
In todays world, Holland is tiny. It cannot make many meaningful decisions on an international level.
How would Holland negotiate with the USA or Russia about trade issues? Well, they couldn't. They'd have to concede to any terms that are dictated from the outside. And like that, every European country on its own would be marginalized over the years.
Together, they at least have a chance. European countries are always debating and don't speak with a single voice yet. But at least there is a chance for survival.
Together, they at least have a chance. European countries are always debating and don't speak with a single voice yet. But at least there is a chance for survival.
Just look at my country, Holland. Pretty much all important decisions are made by
the EU. An example: we cannot control our own borders. We cannot decide how many
immigrants we want to allow. The EU wants to force quotas on countries and if they
don't accept the quotas, they want to give the countries fines.
The EEA said hai, also Norway and Switzerland say nice to meet ya'll.
The Netherlands have a higher GDP than Turkey, what coolaid have you drank that you think that all of a sudden the Netherlands which is still a maritime superpower as far as trading goes cannot some how negotiate a trading agreement with the US? What enemy is encroaching on European borders that some how countries in the top 20 most developed nations can no longer stand on their own? Some how Canada, South Korea, Turkey and Israel can manage their economies, borders, and trade just fine but France or the Netherlands can't?
P.S. While not trying to stir anything no international law actually compels the EU to take in anything close to those numbers of refugees, those who come from N. Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan et al. are considered "economic migrants", those who actually come from war zones like Syria are not protected by international law since they've went through multiple countries mainly Turkey before they've reached the EU. And while the EU can and should help the resettlement of refugees it's also untrue to say that some how international law mandates it, international law does not allow a refugees to pick and choose where they want to be settled, if they want the protection they must register and ask for asylum in the first country outside of the conflict zone that they've been assigned too.
However the refugees currently don't even want to settle in any EU country, they specifically refused registration until they reach the UK, Germany, or Sweden, they constantly fight the police in Greece, Italy, France and other locations when they attempt to register them.
The Netherlands have a higher GDP than Turkey, what coolaid have you drank that you think that all of a sudden the Netherlands which is still a maritime superpower as far as trading goes cannot some how negotiate a trading agreement with the US? What enemy is encroaching on European borders that some how countries in the top 20 most developed nations can no longer stand on their own? Some how Canada, South Korea, Turkey and Israel can manage their economies, borders, and trade just fine but France or the Netherlands can't?
P.S. While not trying to stir anything no international law actually compels the EU to take in anything close to those numbers of refugees, those who come from N. Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan et al. are considered "economic migrants", those who actually come from war zones like Syria are not protected by international law since they've went through multiple countries mainly Turkey before they've reached the EU. And while the EU can and should help the resettlement of refugees it's also untrue to say that some how international law mandates it, international law does not allow a refugees to pick and choose where they want to be settled, if they want the protection they must register and ask for asylum in the first country outside of the conflict zone that they've been assigned too.
However the refugees currently don't even want to settle in any EU country, they specifically refused registration until they reach the UK, Germany, or Sweden, they constantly fight the police in Greece, Italy, France and other locations when they attempt to register them.
> what coolaid have you drank
This breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you not to call names in arguments. It's particularly important not to do so on divisive topics like this one.
This breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you not to call names in arguments. It's particularly important not to do so on divisive topics like this one.
That's not name calling it's an idiom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_the_Kool-Aid
It implies mindless cultism, which (when applied to someone else's view) is certainly name-calling.
>How would Holland negotiate with the USA or Russia about trade issues?
I'd imagine having one of the largest ports in the world, which is Rotterdam, is a big leverage.
I'd imagine having one of the largest ports in the world, which is Rotterdam, is a big leverage.
Not so sure about that. Having either of the two most important sea passages didn't do much good for Panama or Egypt in terms of international power.
Besides, being out of the EU, Rotterdam port wouldn't be as attractive as an European entry/exit port. Taxes and tariffs would make it less competitive.
If the Netherlands was no longer part of the EU, and thus lacked the low-friction connections to the European economies by rail and other transport that currently exist, Rotterdam would likely start to decline in size and be supplanted by a port that was within the EU.
I really doubt this would be the case.
> In todays world, Holland is tiny
Yes, but there is no correlation between the size of a country and the standard of living of its inhabitants. The people of India, Brazil or Nigeria is not better off than the people of Norway, Singapore or Switzerland.
Yes, but there is no correlation between the size of a country and the standard of living of its inhabitants. The people of India, Brazil or Nigeria is not better off than the people of Norway, Singapore or Switzerland.
Yeah, but India has more than a billion people and they have nukes. As the parent comment said, Holland is tiny and not only geographically or in population.
- It's barely in the top 40 military world powers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-det...
- It's 17th on GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... (actually below India and Brazil and not so far from Nigeria)
As part of the EU, Dutch people live in the (arguably) world's biggest economy. Outside the EU, they're just 17th and far from most of their neighbours.
You punch above your weight in football though :)
The EU is far from perfect, but we're the ones building it.
- It's barely in the top 40 military world powers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-det...
- It's 17th on GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... (actually below India and Brazil and not so far from Nigeria)
As part of the EU, Dutch people live in the (arguably) world's biggest economy. Outside the EU, they're just 17th and far from most of their neighbours.
You punch above your weight in football though :)
The EU is far from perfect, but we're the ones building it.
Which is to compare with the listing on this page : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi...
Edit: I'm not Dutch by the way
Edit: I'm not Dutch by the way
That's the thing: Monaco, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein are not even local players. Others in the top of the list are not global players: Norway, Qatar, etc
India and Brazil have very low GDP per capita, but they're absolute weight is so big that they're world players (more India than Brazil if you ask me), at least compared to rich countries like Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, etc
India and Brazil have very low GDP per capita, but they're absolute weight is so big that they're world players (more India than Brazil if you ask me), at least compared to rich countries like Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, etc
And standard of living doesn't correlate well to geopolitical/economic power which is what GP was talking about with being able to get good terms in trade negotiations.
Who do you think the EU is exactly? Some abstract group of extra-terrestrial aliens? An AI? It's made of European people, like you and me. They're actually politicians from our countries.
In your example you've said the EU "wants to" impose immigration quotas and "fine the countries that don't accept". How is that different from e.g. Germany imposing an immigration quota on your country? In exchange of e.g. not leaving you out of a trade agreement.
What's stopping your politicians from negotiating those quotas? Nothing, because that's what they're actually doing, but they know part of their voters are xenophobic, so they have to save face by saying "the EU told me to do it". It's politics 101.
Finally, please point me to where the EU is not a democratic entity, because I think I've missed the memo.
In your example you've said the EU "wants to" impose immigration quotas and "fine the countries that don't accept". How is that different from e.g. Germany imposing an immigration quota on your country? In exchange of e.g. not leaving you out of a trade agreement.
What's stopping your politicians from negotiating those quotas? Nothing, because that's what they're actually doing, but they know part of their voters are xenophobic, so they have to save face by saying "the EU told me to do it". It's politics 101.
Finally, please point me to where the EU is not a democratic entity, because I think I've missed the memo.
The so-called EU "Parliament" cannot inititiate legislation - it is told what to do by the UNELECTED EU Commission.
The EU is not a democratic entity by any stretch of the imagination, it is anti-democratic, over-ruling elected members and overriding the wishes of the people.
The EU is not a democratic entity by any stretch of the imagination, it is anti-democratic, over-ruling elected members and overriding the wishes of the people.
This is nonsense: the commissioners are not a self-appointed oligarchy. They are appointed by the European Council, that is to say by the head of all EU states. It is called indirect democracy, and is certainly not anti-democratic by any stretch of the imagination. If you don't like the EU commissioners, the fault resides solely on whoever we (European citizens) collectively picked as a our respective head of states (in my case that would be François Hollande, the French president).
Don't get me wrong: I would prefer for the EU commission to be elected more directly by the European citizens. And I certainly wish that the European parliament had more power. But keep in mind that the only reason it's not happening is because the various EU governments don't want to give up too much power: they have full control of the EU commission, but not of the EU parliament / EU citizens...
TL;DR: power in the EU is held by the European Council, that is to say by the head of states.
EDIT: typo
Don't get me wrong: I would prefer for the EU commission to be elected more directly by the European citizens. And I certainly wish that the European parliament had more power. But keep in mind that the only reason it's not happening is because the various EU governments don't want to give up too much power: they have full control of the EU commission, but not of the EU parliament / EU citizens...
TL;DR: power in the EU is held by the European Council, that is to say by the head of states.
EDIT: typo
> the fault resides solely on whoever we (European citizens) collectively picked as a our respective head of states
And how exactly are we going to hold the head of states accountable, so one could say we control him/her?
And how exactly are we going to hold the head of states accountable, so one could say we control him/her?
Yes - your point is absolutely unanswerable! For anyone with doubts should see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
(Brexit - the movie). Sure, it's supporting Leave but the factual evidence is, well, just fact.
(Brexit - the movie). Sure, it's supporting Leave but the factual evidence is, well, just fact.
Thank you for sharing that documentary, it's convinced me to change my mind, I'll be voting to leave. Please keep spreading the documentary, I'll be sharing it also.
The EU commission is unelected in the same way the prime minister is unelected (directly), that does not mean it's undemocratic. There is 1 commissioner proposed by each EU country.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> It might just as likely boost the economy of the UK.
Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ?
> We cannot control our own borders. We cannot decide how many immigrants we want to allow.
Seems to me much of this sentiment about leaving the EU is merely fear for being overrun by non-natives.
Talking about 'This fear mongering has got to stop'...
Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ?
> We cannot control our own borders. We cannot decide how many immigrants we want to allow.
Seems to me much of this sentiment about leaving the EU is merely fear for being overrun by non-natives.
Talking about 'This fear mongering has got to stop'...
We don't have the housing or infrastructure to support the vast number of immigrants. Hundreds of thousands a year. For most people it isn't a racist knee jerk, it's watching our schools and hospitals and housing buckle under the pressure.
Our schools, hospitals and housing have been under pressure since time immemorial, perhaps if the countries earnings from oil and other resources had been managed better, investment in social housing had been maintained at previous levels, if the lack of investment from the business world in the form of apprenticeships and on the job training had been addressed more pertinently, and if the earnings of the managing and owning class not risen at a faster rate than working class, then this would not be an issue.
Blaming a lacking in public services on migrants is not fair, while it's true to say that we have experienced a rise in immigration levels over the last decade, we are talking about a rise from 4 million in 1993 to 8 million in 2014, out of a population of 64 million, well under 10%.
To blame all the failings of our state on that small section of society, migrants who are more likely to be of working age than our recumbent ageing population, and hence more likely to be adding to our GDP over the long term, is not only unfair, it's bad economic policy too, without immigration our country will fall to it's knees supporting legions of pensioners...
Blaming a lacking in public services on migrants is not fair, while it's true to say that we have experienced a rise in immigration levels over the last decade, we are talking about a rise from 4 million in 1993 to 8 million in 2014, out of a population of 64 million, well under 10%.
To blame all the failings of our state on that small section of society, migrants who are more likely to be of working age than our recumbent ageing population, and hence more likely to be adding to our GDP over the long term, is not only unfair, it's bad economic policy too, without immigration our country will fall to it's knees supporting legions of pensioners...
Where I live there isn't much space left for new houses. I guess we could build up, but it doesn't seem desirable. Give the local people the choice of building low cost high rise accommodation or voting out of the EU... well, that's the decision we're all making at the moment.
In 2014, 4 out of every 10 persons in the EU-28 lived in flats, just over one quarter (25.6 %) in semi-detached houses and just over one third (33.7 %) in detached houses (see Figure 1). The proportion of people living in flats was highest, among the EU Member States, in Spain (66.5 %), Latvia (65.1 %) and Estonia (63.8 %; 2013 data), while the highest proportions of people living in semi-detached houses were reported in the Netherlands (61.2 %), the United Kingdom (60.0 %) and Ireland (58.3 %; 2013 data).The share of people living in detached houses peaked in Croatia (72.6 %), Slovenia (65.4 %) and Hungary (63.0 %); Norway (62.4 %) and Serbia (60.5 %; 2013 data) also reported high shares of their populations living in detached houses.
Seems like the rest of Europe 'copes' with going up, as the other poster pointed out, it's not really about land, for example, take Surrey, an area with very high demand for housing, 2.6% of the total land area is golf course...
Seems like the rest of Europe 'copes' with going up, as the other poster pointed out, it's not really about land, for example, take Surrey, an area with very high demand for housing, 2.6% of the total land area is golf course...
See those sorts of data do not help. What would you do? Just go to golf courses and demand they build houses? If your answer is no, then why use that as a fact?
People don't want more buildings near them (nimby) ... what do you do then? They are the ones you need to convince to vote IN, not me.
People don't want more buildings near them (nimby) ... what do you do then? They are the ones you need to convince to vote IN, not me.
It was meant to be representative of the choices that are made in land distribution, there is a lot of land in the UK that could be built on, building more housing will of course reduce the value of existing housing by increasing supply, protection of the value of houses is part of a conservative / capitalist remit, perhaps it's that factor that is more influential than just a resource issue ? It's going to be hard to persuade anyone to vote IN, it's hard to 'sell' the status quo when people are dissatisfied, it's much easier to sell 'change', fairly terrifying, I really would rather stay in.
Just go to golf courses and demand they build houses?
Basingstoke golf course is being replaced with houses.
Basingstoke golf course is being replaced with houses.
While your area may of course be quite dense, England (the most densely inhabited part of the UK) is about 2.3% built on.
The problem is not immigrants.
The problem is not immigrants.
Incompetent government unable to do its fucking job and get houses built is the reason for the lack of housing. Extra people do exacerbate the problem, but the largest culprit is our incompetent, small-minded government refusing to do their job.
Controlling borders is fundamental to sovereignty, the point being that a sovereign nation decides how porous the borders ought to be. To cede that control significantly reduces the self-determination of the people within the border, even if the decision of exactly how porous does not vary between administering entities.
So, why should southerners accept all those northerners coming down? The southern people have no sovereignty on the matter. Oh and don't even get me started with those Scots :)
The UK is not and has never been in Schengen, so it has borders and has control of it. They just happen to have agreed to a deal with the rest of the EU to give EU citizens almost the same rights as UK citizens.
In other words, people voting LEAVE can't have a problem with border control as it is now, because the borders are controlled. The problem is of a very different (and sad) nature.
The UK is not and has never been in Schengen, so it has borders and has control of it. They just happen to have agreed to a deal with the rest of the EU to give EU citizens almost the same rights as UK citizens.
In other words, people voting LEAVE can't have a problem with border control as it is now, because the borders are controlled. The problem is of a very different (and sad) nature.
Sovereignty is widely considered an obsolete concept.
You're not wrong.
I've yet to hear any pro-exit talking point that isn't xenophobic, jingoistic, or at BEST just hopelessly misinformed economically.
The fact that the BNP and UKIP are solidly behind an exit should be a good indication that it's terrible. They are like a bellwether for awful ideas.
I've yet to hear any pro-exit talking point that isn't xenophobic, jingoistic, or at BEST just hopelessly misinformed economically.
The fact that the BNP and UKIP are solidly behind an exit should be a good indication that it's terrible. They are like a bellwether for awful ideas.
Pro-immigration person here. Considering brexit.
[0] http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave
[1] http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution
[0] http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave
[1] http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution
That's a very smart summary of a lot of data but it's not supporting its conclusions very well - all it seems to be able to say is that increased globalization has had a massive economic impact worldwide.
Well... yes. The rest of it is a bunch of "well, we'd likely have had a bunch of the good ideas we were forced into by EU membership anyway" which is shockingly optimistic when looking at 80s Thatcherite Britain, verging on naive.
Throw in a couple more rather unconnected points that pretend to show significance (while just showing that the less-developed world is growing faster than the developed one. Which is... yeah, obvious, but also expected)
The rest of it then swerves into dodgy anti-immigration territory. Which is odd for a "liberal" case.
I agree with it that the Brexit plan is optimistic - but I think the article demonstrates exactly why that's a bad thing: because it's stupidly optimistic and convinces itself that everything will be perfectly awesome because they want it to be.
Whereas the reality is that this is rarely the case.
It's massive risk for little upside vs no real risk for a slightly reduced short-to-medium upside.
Well... yes. The rest of it is a bunch of "well, we'd likely have had a bunch of the good ideas we were forced into by EU membership anyway" which is shockingly optimistic when looking at 80s Thatcherite Britain, verging on naive.
Throw in a couple more rather unconnected points that pretend to show significance (while just showing that the less-developed world is growing faster than the developed one. Which is... yeah, obvious, but also expected)
The rest of it then swerves into dodgy anti-immigration territory. Which is odd for a "liberal" case.
I agree with it that the Brexit plan is optimistic - but I think the article demonstrates exactly why that's a bad thing: because it's stupidly optimistic and convinces itself that everything will be perfectly awesome because they want it to be.
Whereas the reality is that this is rarely the case.
It's massive risk for little upside vs no real risk for a slightly reduced short-to-medium upside.
> The fact that the BNP and UKIP are solidly behind an exit should be a good indication that it's terrible.
While I'm absolutely not a supporter of the BNP or UKIP in any way, their endorsement of something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea.
If it does, then what does it mean when both the Conservative party, as well as many high level US officials (the President, military generals, intelligence chiefs) all come out in favour of the UK staying in the EU? Does that not ring any alarm bells?
EDIT: note, I am deliberately cherry picking the supporters to make the point. I'm aware they're not the only people in support of staying in the EU. Much like I'm sure the person I'm replying to is aware that the BNP and UKIP aren't the only people in favour of leaving, and has chosen them to make his point.
While I'm absolutely not a supporter of the BNP or UKIP in any way, their endorsement of something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea.
If it does, then what does it mean when both the Conservative party, as well as many high level US officials (the President, military generals, intelligence chiefs) all come out in favour of the UK staying in the EU? Does that not ring any alarm bells?
EDIT: note, I am deliberately cherry picking the supporters to make the point. I'm aware they're not the only people in support of staying in the EU. Much like I'm sure the person I'm replying to is aware that the BNP and UKIP aren't the only people in favour of leaving, and has chosen them to make his point.
> their endorsement of something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea
True, but it does heavily cast a massive amount of doubt upon it. At least adds evidence that a lot of the Pro reasons may be based on... less than sensible ideas.
True, but it does heavily cast a massive amount of doubt upon it. At least adds evidence that a lot of the Pro reasons may be based on... less than sensible ideas.
Doesn't sound like you're getting a fair balance of the politics if its from the misinformed. I'd like to point out Boris is also behind the exit too.
Well.. yes, and if Boris is behind it then I'm quite happy to call it awful as well. The man is a tit.
Then look out for some and test your notions. Decent arguments for leaving exist, and there are links on this page for the start of your search for good reasons.
Based on the "decent" arguments provided it appears I've already seen them. They aren't very good and verge on irresponsibly optimistic at best. Most are just - as I said - very poor and misunderstood economics.
The "good" reasons so far have been basically shown to be mostly wishful thinking with very little actual upside and a LOT of risk.
Personally I'd not like to play roulette with a country, I'll take slightly slower growth and stability, thanks.
The "good" reasons so far have been basically shown to be mostly wishful thinking with very little actual upside and a LOT of risk.
Personally I'd not like to play roulette with a country, I'll take slightly slower growth and stability, thanks.
Would you disagree that countries should have a mechanism under their control under which they have a say as to who gets to settle, work or study in their country?
Are customs and border control not useful any longer? Have we decided they aren't something countries should have control over?
Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress. In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.
Are customs and border control not useful any longer? Have we decided they aren't something countries should have control over?
Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress. In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.
How about counties? Cities? Towns? Neighbours? Federations?
What makes "Holland" so special that it should have the ability to bar people from settling instead of "European Union", "Utrecht" or old grandma from the house across the street?
What makes "Holland" so special that it should have the ability to bar people from settling instead of "European Union", "Utrecht" or old grandma from the house across the street?
That would be something "Holland's" electorate can decide upon, governed by their laws and regulations, rather than policymakers in Brussels.
It's like wanting to dictate to China to abolish the Hukou system. I see it as unfair, but that's their own internal problem to solve.
It's like wanting to dictate to China to abolish the Hukou system. I see it as unfair, but that's their own internal problem to solve.
Nobody is dictating anything. Holland joined the EU of its own accord.
The question is not whether the people of Holland should be stripped of that decision, but whether they should partially delegate it. And why shouldn't they?
The question is not whether the people of Holland should be stripped of that decision, but whether they should partially delegate it. And why shouldn't they?
Why delegate? And what if they want to bring that decision making back home?
I can delegate my finances, or I can make my own choices and maybe I feel like I'll get better served doing things myself.
I can delegate my finances, or I can make my own choices and maybe I feel like I'll get better served doing things myself.
So you want open borders?
> Would you disagree that countries should have a mechanism under their control under which they have a say as to who gets to settle, work or study in their country?
I would, actually. Why should the accidents of birth determine something like that?
> Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress.
Realistically that's the only reason people who talk about controlling ingress want to control it though.
> In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.
Shrug. I've lived in the UK all my life, but I feel like I have more connection to Brussels than (say) Leeds. (Indeed it would take me less long to get a train there).
I would, actually. Why should the accidents of birth determine something like that?
> Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress.
Realistically that's the only reason people who talk about controlling ingress want to control it though.
> In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.
Shrug. I've lived in the UK all my life, but I feel like I have more connection to Brussels than (say) Leeds. (Indeed it would take me less long to get a train there).
>> It might just as likely boost the economy of the UK.
> Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ?
That's the point. It is all speculation.
> Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ?
That's the point. It is all speculation.
Yes, you can, together with everyone else, cooperatively.
It's difficult, we have good benefits, minimum wage, NHS, great schools, etc etc. To negotiate on immigration with other EU countries that don't have these things is really hard.
In what way other EU countries do not have that?
We have a lot of Polish immigrants where I live. Health care in Poland is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, which is free for all the citizens of Poland provided they fall into the "insured" category (usually meaning that they have their health insurance paid for by their employer, or are the spouse or child of an insured person.)
Minimum wage in Poland is 410 EUR, in the UK it is 1,378 EUR
... I could keep going but you get the point. The UK is a desirable place to live. The UK is small. The UK has a housing crisis. The NHS is at breaking point (our local hospital is in crisis)... Not much of this is due to immigration, but it doesn't help that 500,000 (or so) new people turn up each year.
Minimum wage in Poland is 410 EUR, in the UK it is 1,378 EUR
... I could keep going but you get the point. The UK is a desirable place to live. The UK is small. The UK has a housing crisis. The NHS is at breaking point (our local hospital is in crisis)... Not much of this is due to immigration, but it doesn't help that 500,000 (or so) new people turn up each year.
I still fail to see your point. What does free Polish healthcare have to do with the NHS? O.o
Yeah, it is a complex issue. I guess you just need to do your own research and make up your own mind.
I don't know where you guys were when you voted for the Lisbon Treaty.
You might want to read up on this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_European_Constitution_...
Our government doesn't really care what the people think though. The Euro project must go on, no matter the cost.
Our government doesn't really care what the people think though. The Euro project must go on, no matter the cost.
I didn't know this, thank you for the link. How did the Dutch & French govn'ts have the power to sign it then?
A referendum in The Netherlands is not legally binding for the government.
The same thing happened just a few months ago when the Dutch people voted against the EU association treaty with Ukraine [0].
The government will still push through with the treaty. The EU project is holy and must go on. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission said the following on the Lisbon treaty:
The same thing happened just a few months ago when the Dutch people voted against the EU association treaty with Ukraine [0].
The government will still push through with the treaty. The EU project is holy and must go on. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission said the following on the Lisbon treaty:
"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and
if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."
"There can be no democratic choice against
the European treaties."
I live in the UK. I am an internationalist, believe in free trade, good governance and keen supporter of human rights. I also believe in self-determination and will vote for UK leaving the EU when the time comes. I think the EU is undemocratic, deeply flawed and probably not reformable.
Because of its size, these flaws matter in a crisis. Balkans, Euro, Ukraine, refugees - EU response to each has been ridiculous and dangerous.
Because of its size, these flaws matter in a crisis. Balkans, Euro, Ukraine, refugees - EU response to each has been ridiculous and dangerous.
Consider the alternative to the EU's 'flawed and dangerous' response to the Balkans, etc - 28 individual responses which take no consideration of each other and cumulatively achieve nothing.
Some bureaucracy, organisational headaches (and yes of course, allowing those evil men in Brussles to tell us how straight our carrots can be) are a small price to pay for getting stuff done in our closely connected continent.
Taking the moral high ground with the 'undemocratic' argument gets you nowhere really. Britain has an unelected house of Parliament and many, many more historical oddities all of its own which are deeply undemocratic.
All you end up with is 'our brand of undemocracy is better than your dirty foreign one', and yes I'm aware that this is an oversimplification of sovereignty, etc, etc.
Some bureaucracy, organisational headaches (and yes of course, allowing those evil men in Brussles to tell us how straight our carrots can be) are a small price to pay for getting stuff done in our closely connected continent.
Taking the moral high ground with the 'undemocratic' argument gets you nowhere really. Britain has an unelected house of Parliament and many, many more historical oddities all of its own which are deeply undemocratic.
All you end up with is 'our brand of undemocracy is better than your dirty foreign one', and yes I'm aware that this is an oversimplification of sovereignty, etc, etc.
At least for the Euro crisis, the main issue is not enough integration, not too much. Though honestly I can understand not wanting to give control of your budget over to Germany...
With regards to free trade, can you explain what you mean by this?
This is a genuine question. Free trade seems to me to be a somewhat nebulous term, stretched to serve a wide range of economic approaches, and I'd be interested in getting a better sense of clarity.
This is a genuine question. Free trade seems to me to be a somewhat nebulous term, stretched to serve a wide range of economic approaches, and I'd be interested in getting a better sense of clarity.
The effort to make trading relationships between people easy and not exploitative, the intent of making all parties richer. Obvious examples include removing tariffs, harmonising standards and law where this is possible and agreeing procedures for conflict resolution.
I see. In that case, are free trade and free trade agreements always the same thing? For example, if two countries strike up a free trade deal that protects the agriculture industries of those countries, do they do so in order to protect themselves from competition from other countries?
Seems clear to me that they are not. Same for many other ideals when compared with what is actually done in practice.
The EU is not democratic enough and does not have sufficient military power. But Britain is too small and weak to ever again become a unit regulating itself. Too much is cross border nowadays and probably also was back in the 1700s and 1800s when the notion of sovereign nation state flourished.
The UK, like all other small and medium sized countries, is not a unit in itself in terms of any of the issues that a nation state would normally (pretend to) govern:
- Economy; You import most of what you consume and much of what you produce is exported. - Tariffs; If you were to unilaterally increase tariffs, other countries would punish you the same way. - Language; Your language is a mixture of Germanic, Old Norse, French, Latin etc. - Education and research: You have imported most of what you learn, at any level of the educational system, and you export most of your valuable research. - Demographics; you are a diverse society. Quite many British people go abroad to work or study and many British are first, second or third generation immigrants. - Military; You depend on the good will and alliances of your neighbors and the US. Contrary to most other European states, you did manage to continue to function as a nation during WW2 but were it not for the Americans and the Russians, you would have lost to the Germans. The whole notion of military sovereignty for small countries is ridiculous. It's like a small dog barking at a bigger dog (I'm Danish, so I don't mean it as an offence).
I could go on. No matter what the issue is, the solution is International. The UK, and any other European country, benefits from the EU. The UK with its financial industry, dependence of foreign labour and dependence of export more than most.
The reason we all speak English here on HN is British colonialism. That was the preferred way to regulate and govern international relations back in the heydays of nation states. I prefer voluntary cooperation like the EU. A stronger, bigger and more democratic union, but a union.
The UK, like all other small and medium sized countries, is not a unit in itself in terms of any of the issues that a nation state would normally (pretend to) govern:
- Economy; You import most of what you consume and much of what you produce is exported. - Tariffs; If you were to unilaterally increase tariffs, other countries would punish you the same way. - Language; Your language is a mixture of Germanic, Old Norse, French, Latin etc. - Education and research: You have imported most of what you learn, at any level of the educational system, and you export most of your valuable research. - Demographics; you are a diverse society. Quite many British people go abroad to work or study and many British are first, second or third generation immigrants. - Military; You depend on the good will and alliances of your neighbors and the US. Contrary to most other European states, you did manage to continue to function as a nation during WW2 but were it not for the Americans and the Russians, you would have lost to the Germans. The whole notion of military sovereignty for small countries is ridiculous. It's like a small dog barking at a bigger dog (I'm Danish, so I don't mean it as an offence).
I could go on. No matter what the issue is, the solution is International. The UK, and any other European country, benefits from the EU. The UK with its financial industry, dependence of foreign labour and dependence of export more than most.
The reason we all speak English here on HN is British colonialism. That was the preferred way to regulate and govern international relations back in the heydays of nation states. I prefer voluntary cooperation like the EU. A stronger, bigger and more democratic union, but a union.
> " But Britain is too small and weak to ever again become a unit regulating itself."
With all due respect, the UK has the 5th largest economy in the world. Countries with weaker economies than the UK manage just fine on their own. The question isn't whether the UK can or can't do it, but rather whether we should.
With all due respect, the UK has the 5th largest economy in the world. Countries with weaker economies than the UK manage just fine on their own. The question isn't whether the UK can or can't do it, but rather whether we should.
You lost 90-something percent of your territory, 90 percent of your population. You used to be the largest economy but now you seem impressed to be 5th. You used to impose your influence on all others. Now you are mostly in the receiving end.
One of the reasons you didn't wither any further is the EU, another is pax americana, as long as it lasts. As is the case for most of the other weaker economies that do 'just fine'.
One of the reasons you didn't wither any further is the EU, another is pax americana, as long as it lasts. As is the case for most of the other weaker economies that do 'just fine'.
The UK is no longer a world superpower, that much is true, but I find your argument that because we're only 5th means that we're "mostly in the receiving end" to be not that convincing.
Not all economic arrangements that the UK has made rely on the EU or the US. To give one example, the UK has one of the strongest banking sectors in the world. Aside from London, none of the top 10 financial centres of the world exist within an economic union, the closest is Luxembourg at 14th:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index
If it's not an issue for other countries to have a global financial centre outside an economic union, it's not going to be an issue for the UK either. Financial service companies based in London are unlikely to move anywhere else in the EU any time soon.
For a better perspective on the position of the UK outside the EU, consider the difference between the economies of UK and Australia. Australia has the 13th largest economy in the world, yet there aren't the same type of calls for economic unity in Oceania. How can Australia survive as an independent territory? Why can't the UK do the same?
Not all economic arrangements that the UK has made rely on the EU or the US. To give one example, the UK has one of the strongest banking sectors in the world. Aside from London, none of the top 10 financial centres of the world exist within an economic union, the closest is Luxembourg at 14th:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Financial_Centres_Index
If it's not an issue for other countries to have a global financial centre outside an economic union, it's not going to be an issue for the UK either. Financial service companies based in London are unlikely to move anywhere else in the EU any time soon.
For a better perspective on the position of the UK outside the EU, consider the difference between the economies of UK and Australia. Australia has the 13th largest economy in the world, yet there aren't the same type of calls for economic unity in Oceania. How can Australia survive as an independent territory? Why can't the UK do the same?
I'm British and I fully intend to vote to remain in the EU. I also completely concur that being isolationist would be stupid and damaging.
But to imply that the only way to engage with the world is via the EU is just not true.
Almost everything you point out about the UK be it language, education, economy, immigration were true before we joined the EU (and were true before the EU) and will be true were we to leave. I've no idea what you think the EU does for us militarily. NATO, sure, but that's because of the US.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that we'd suddenly turn into a shrinking violet without the EU helping us see the big, wide world. For some of the economically smaller nations sure, the EU is fantastic. But the UK has the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world and it's not as if all the growth potential is in Europe (arguably the opposite).
Now, my personal view is that, economically, it's likely that we'd be better off in the short to medium term remaining in the EU. There are too many variables to have a meaningful long term view. Politically the EU is a mess but is likely to be a mess whether we stay or go. We're clearly not aligned politically with the bulk of the EU members but we're not going to suddenly turn into a dictatorship or a hippy commune if we left.
But to imply that the EU is the only answer for a country like the UK is as illogical as implying that the only answer is for us to leave.
Oh, and the reason we all speak English on HN is because it's the primary language of the US. If they hadn't reached economic and technical dominance in the mid-20th century I would fully expect we'd be writing in German as that was the lingua franca for scientific and technical work. There's much that the world should thank us for (by which of course I mean cricket) but this isn't one of them.
But to imply that the only way to engage with the world is via the EU is just not true.
Almost everything you point out about the UK be it language, education, economy, immigration were true before we joined the EU (and were true before the EU) and will be true were we to leave. I've no idea what you think the EU does for us militarily. NATO, sure, but that's because of the US.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that we'd suddenly turn into a shrinking violet without the EU helping us see the big, wide world. For some of the economically smaller nations sure, the EU is fantastic. But the UK has the 4th or 5th largest economy in the world and it's not as if all the growth potential is in Europe (arguably the opposite).
Now, my personal view is that, economically, it's likely that we'd be better off in the short to medium term remaining in the EU. There are too many variables to have a meaningful long term view. Politically the EU is a mess but is likely to be a mess whether we stay or go. We're clearly not aligned politically with the bulk of the EU members but we're not going to suddenly turn into a dictatorship or a hippy commune if we left.
But to imply that the EU is the only answer for a country like the UK is as illogical as implying that the only answer is for us to leave.
Oh, and the reason we all speak English on HN is because it's the primary language of the US. If they hadn't reached economic and technical dominance in the mid-20th century I would fully expect we'd be writing in German as that was the lingua franca for scientific and technical work. There's much that the world should thank us for (by which of course I mean cricket) but this isn't one of them.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The ASI has two great articles on why the UK should leave [0] and what economic/political relationships they should take part in if they do [1]. It's a far better read than the fear-mongering available elsewhere.
I am voting leave but not for the reasons that are spotlighted by the mainstream media. I know that in the short-term there is some risk however I believe it is surmountable. I am much more worried by what will happen to this country if we remain in the EU over the next decade.
[0] http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave
[1] http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution
I am voting leave but not for the reasons that are spotlighted by the mainstream media. I know that in the short-term there is some risk however I believe it is surmountable. I am much more worried by what will happen to this country if we remain in the EU over the next decade.
[0] http://www.adamsmith.org/the-liberal-case-for-leave
[1] http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution
The particular argument and graph that as a % of global GDP, Europe and the US have been diminishing while China has been growing does sound a bit shortsighted... after all, if China is joining the developed world, that's EXACTLY how the graph should like.
A much more informative graph would map relative growth versus countries that didn't "join the club" (say, Norway, Switzerland or others).
I'm not British, and I'm not sure whether I'd vote for or against if I were, but it's interesting.
A much more informative graph would map relative growth versus countries that didn't "join the club" (say, Norway, Switzerland or others).
I'm not British, and I'm not sure whether I'd vote for or against if I were, but it's interesting.
Nice links. Nowhere near enough discussion of anything that matters in this debate.
A lot of people are using immigration issues to argue for brexit. Personally I hate this. I'm generally for immigration.
There is a positive vision for brexit, which about being open to the world, embracing free trade, free movement of labour, and reducing regulation.
The current version immigration system is broken. Any one with little skills can come to the UK from Europe. A doctor from outside Europe will have real difficultly. Personally I want both people.
There is a positive vision for brexit, which about being open to the world, embracing free trade, free movement of labour, and reducing regulation.
The current version immigration system is broken. Any one with little skills can come to the UK from Europe. A doctor from outside Europe will have real difficultly. Personally I want both people.
People should stop using immigration to argue for brexit because it's a nonsense argument.
Leaving the EU wouldn't effect our border controls, because they aren't set by the EU.
The UK isn't part of the "Schengen Area" of countries without mutual border control. The UK has control over its border policy, despite what brexit campaigners claim. It is the UK government that chooses to implement border policies which are regarded by some as "too lax", and then, sometimes, chooses to blame the EU for it.
Leaving the EU wouldn't effect our border controls, because they aren't set by the EU.
The UK isn't part of the "Schengen Area" of countries without mutual border control. The UK has control over its border policy, despite what brexit campaigners claim. It is the UK government that chooses to implement border policies which are regarded by some as "too lax", and then, sometimes, chooses to blame the EU for it.
You are mistaken. Immigration from the EU cannot be regulated as the EU guarantees the right to free movement for all citizen. Therefore anyone in 28 member states can immigrate, and the UK government may not impede that.
You appear to be confusing border control and EU immigration. We control the former and not the latter.
You appear to be confusing border control and EU immigration. We control the former and not the latter.
I'm Greek but live and work in the UK. I'm an immigrant, I guess. I've done well for myself here. If the Brexit happens, I'll be in a tough spot, possibly forced to leave. To go where? Back home! That would be a bit of a disaster for me.
And yet- I think the UK should leave.
From living with the British it seems to me that they really, really want to go. They want it for absurd, idiotic reasons. They 're motivated by nationalism, xenophobia, a ridiculous belief that if they kick all the foreigners off their island everything broken with the UK will magically fix itself... In short, the worse, most stupid sentiments that could ever inform such a serious decision.
And yet- they seem to want it. What's more, while they're in they're constantly disruptive and reactionary, digging in their heels and protesting every effort to bring the rest of the continent closer _as the rest of the continent wants it_. They are the grumpy man of Europe and proud of it.
So let them have their little moment. Let them wave two fingers in our collective faces. And let them get out just like they want it.
That's what they want. Let them have it.
And yet- I think the UK should leave.
From living with the British it seems to me that they really, really want to go. They want it for absurd, idiotic reasons. They 're motivated by nationalism, xenophobia, a ridiculous belief that if they kick all the foreigners off their island everything broken with the UK will magically fix itself... In short, the worse, most stupid sentiments that could ever inform such a serious decision.
And yet- they seem to want it. What's more, while they're in they're constantly disruptive and reactionary, digging in their heels and protesting every effort to bring the rest of the continent closer _as the rest of the continent wants it_. They are the grumpy man of Europe and proud of it.
So let them have their little moment. Let them wave two fingers in our collective faces. And let them get out just like they want it.
That's what they want. Let them have it.
I'm British and I live in the UK, and I am not like this.
I'm not a xenophobic nationalist, and I don't believe that purifying the motherland will magically fix everything.
Outside of unbalanced right-wing newspapers and their vitriolic online comments sections, polls show Remain with an, admittedly unsafe, majority. We are not all foaming at the mouth screaming at foreigners for ruining everything.
I'm not a xenophobic nationalist, and I don't believe that purifying the motherland will magically fix everything.
Outside of unbalanced right-wing newspapers and their vitriolic online comments sections, polls show Remain with an, admittedly unsafe, majority. We are not all foaming at the mouth screaming at foreigners for ruining everything.
> "That's what they want. Let them have it."
That's not what all of us want.
Speaking as someone born and raised in the UK, I recognise that the attitude you speak of is prominent in our culture, but it's not what all of us want. I for one recognise that immigration has (for the most part) been a net benefit for the UK economically (and culturally, IMO). On the economic side:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-u...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/...
Immigrants are being used as a scapegoat, there's no excuse for it but at least some of us recognise it for what it is. What I find funny is if you look at the nonsense that surrounds immigration the stories aren't cohesive. You'll hear people saying that immigrants are lazy and just here to collect benefits, and you'll also hear people saying that immigrants are taking people's jobs because they're hard working and prepared to work for less. If people are going to be prejudiced, at least be consistent!
I recognise there are some issues around immigration that centre on religious differences, and those are more problematic than the economic issues, but for the most part the issues around immigration are overblown.
As an aside, I've come to realise that a lot of the problems in the UK stem from our frequently toxic mainstream news media. It's really sad to hear friends and family repeat back soundbites from the news media, with seemingly little to no awareness that those soundbites are there to reinforce prejudice rather than provide insight. I'm sure that the limited access to grown up news coverage and respectful debate lies at the core of our difficulties, everything else that's an issue stems from the lack of good quality information and an unengaged populace.
That's not what all of us want.
Speaking as someone born and raised in the UK, I recognise that the attitude you speak of is prominent in our culture, but it's not what all of us want. I for one recognise that immigration has (for the most part) been a net benefit for the UK economically (and culturally, IMO). On the economic side:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-u...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11913927/...
Immigrants are being used as a scapegoat, there's no excuse for it but at least some of us recognise it for what it is. What I find funny is if you look at the nonsense that surrounds immigration the stories aren't cohesive. You'll hear people saying that immigrants are lazy and just here to collect benefits, and you'll also hear people saying that immigrants are taking people's jobs because they're hard working and prepared to work for less. If people are going to be prejudiced, at least be consistent!
I recognise there are some issues around immigration that centre on religious differences, and those are more problematic than the economic issues, but for the most part the issues around immigration are overblown.
As an aside, I've come to realise that a lot of the problems in the UK stem from our frequently toxic mainstream news media. It's really sad to hear friends and family repeat back soundbites from the news media, with seemingly little to no awareness that those soundbites are there to reinforce prejudice rather than provide insight. I'm sure that the limited access to grown up news coverage and respectful debate lies at the core of our difficulties, everything else that's an issue stems from the lack of good quality information and an unengaged populace.
>> I'm sure that the limited access to grown up news coverage and respectful debate lies at the core of our difficulties, everything else that's an issue stems from the lack of good quality information and an unengaged populace.
This goes to parenthepobia also.
I understand not everyone in the UK is a raging xenophobe, and I'm sorry if my comment lumps everyone together with those guys.
But the truth is that the UK society has indulged in this sort of attitude for a long time. Like you say, ZenoArrow, the mainstream press is constantly banging on that drum and people don't just tolerate it, they actively support it. Some challenge it, sure- but the Sun is still the paper with the highest circulation and the Mail is the second.
And now there's a referendum. It's not just a few people in the pub being a bit rude after a couple of pints. The country is officially thinking of embracing its isolationist tendencies.
I know there's good people in the UK- in fact, regardless of their love for populist rhetoric I think the majority of Brits are decent folk and I owe the country a big part of my own culture if you like. But it seems in this issue, somehow, the nasty ones have won and they'll have their way. And that's because nobody else stepped in to stop them. That's political apathy, as you say.
So maybe a Brexit will be a bit of a wake up call, or make people think again about stuff. Probably not, but in any case I really believe what I said: if this is what the majority really-really wants, they should have it.
I'm sorry the rest of you must suffer it also.
This goes to parenthepobia also.
I understand not everyone in the UK is a raging xenophobe, and I'm sorry if my comment lumps everyone together with those guys.
But the truth is that the UK society has indulged in this sort of attitude for a long time. Like you say, ZenoArrow, the mainstream press is constantly banging on that drum and people don't just tolerate it, they actively support it. Some challenge it, sure- but the Sun is still the paper with the highest circulation and the Mail is the second.
And now there's a referendum. It's not just a few people in the pub being a bit rude after a couple of pints. The country is officially thinking of embracing its isolationist tendencies.
I know there's good people in the UK- in fact, regardless of their love for populist rhetoric I think the majority of Brits are decent folk and I owe the country a big part of my own culture if you like. But it seems in this issue, somehow, the nasty ones have won and they'll have their way. And that's because nobody else stepped in to stop them. That's political apathy, as you say.
So maybe a Brexit will be a bit of a wake up call, or make people think again about stuff. Probably not, but in any case I really believe what I said: if this is what the majority really-really wants, they should have it.
I'm sorry the rest of you must suffer it also.
You know the problem I have with that?
That I know a lot of young (and not so young), clever, entrepreneurial and hard-working British people that do not want that... And I don't want that for them.
I've got it easy as an EU citizen: I'll move back home or maybe another EU country if I feel like to. I'll might even buy a house in the coast from a British immigrant in Spain. I'm sure they'll start going for cheap in case of Brexit.
They, my British friends, won't have that chance. They will be stranded in an island with their careers and prospects crippled because, even if the long term is beneficial for the UK (something that no one has been able to support with decent arguments), the current generations are screwed.
At least they will get their borders (back?), so Boris Johnson, Rupert Murdoch and the dude from Wetherspoons can have free reign over the country.
Well, that's why I'm vocal about the issue. Is not so much about me, but more about my friends. I owe them this.
That I know a lot of young (and not so young), clever, entrepreneurial and hard-working British people that do not want that... And I don't want that for them.
I've got it easy as an EU citizen: I'll move back home or maybe another EU country if I feel like to. I'll might even buy a house in the coast from a British immigrant in Spain. I'm sure they'll start going for cheap in case of Brexit.
They, my British friends, won't have that chance. They will be stranded in an island with their careers and prospects crippled because, even if the long term is beneficial for the UK (something that no one has been able to support with decent arguments), the current generations are screwed.
At least they will get their borders (back?), so Boris Johnson, Rupert Murdoch and the dude from Wetherspoons can have free reign over the country.
Well, that's why I'm vocal about the issue. Is not so much about me, but more about my friends. I owe them this.
You are evidently a positive net contributor to the UK, why would you be forced out? I find it completely unimaginable that you would be forcibly removed.
It is one thing living as a EU citizen, another as an immigrant with considerably less rights, though. If GB leaves, me and my family might consider leaving the country as well.
The alternative is applying for citizenship, of course.
edit: living/leaving
The alternative is applying for citizenship, of course.
edit: living/leaving
I have exactly the same problem. I'm British. I live in the EU. This is a vote to potentially take away my right to live & work here, and I don't even get to vote in it.
(And I'm not eligible for citizenship; I move too much. I have to have 5 years behind me and intent to make this my home. I have neither.)
(And I'm not eligible for citizenship; I move too much. I have to have 5 years behind me and intent to make this my home. I have neither.)
>> I find it completely unimaginable that you would be forcibly removed.
The only reason I'm allowed to live and work in the UK is that I'm an EU citizen. If there's a Brexit (or a Grexit for that matter) I'll have to get a working Visa, or possibly apply for a residency.
Neither is certain, and I'll be at the mercy of whoever examines my application. That's not a good place to be. And I'm worried that in a post-Brexit Britain, people will feel justified to act on xenophobic sentiment.
There will also probably be many other things that change- for instance, as an EU citizen I was eligible for a tuition fee loan for my university degree (I'm still repaying it) and I paid less for my Masters than overseas students. So there may be financial consequences also.
The only reason I'm allowed to live and work in the UK is that I'm an EU citizen. If there's a Brexit (or a Grexit for that matter) I'll have to get a working Visa, or possibly apply for a residency.
Neither is certain, and I'll be at the mercy of whoever examines my application. That's not a good place to be. And I'm worried that in a post-Brexit Britain, people will feel justified to act on xenophobic sentiment.
There will also probably be many other things that change- for instance, as an EU citizen I was eligible for a tuition fee loan for my university degree (I'm still repaying it) and I paid less for my Masters than overseas students. So there may be financial consequences also.
Unfortunately politicians on the brexit side are using immigration issues to pander to the masses.
You also have to remember brexit is also opportunity to be even more open then we are now.
I'm looking at Switzerland or Hong Kong for future possibilities.
You also have to remember brexit is also opportunity to be even more open then we are now.
I'm looking at Switzerland or Hong Kong for future possibilities.
Could, but most likely won't. It will however most likely do the exact opposite, if our government makes the rights calls in terms of international trade.
If we leave, to become more global. I.e free trade deals with China, India, Brazil, the English speaking commonwealth, whom share much of our laws and ways of working. Then we'd be 'quids in'.
If we leave, to become more global. I.e free trade deals with China, India, Brazil, the English speaking commonwealth, whom share much of our laws and ways of working. Then we'd be 'quids in'.
> 'I.e free trade deals with China, India, Brazil,'
I wonder: would for example California by itself make better trading deals with those countries then the US as a whole can establish ?
In economic theory bigger is better. Its interesting you mention only countries bigger then the UK instead of small ones. How do you think those countries look at sizes of other countries and regions ?
I wonder: would for example California by itself make better trading deals with those countries then the US as a whole can establish ?
In economic theory bigger is better. Its interesting you mention only countries bigger then the UK instead of small ones. How do you think those countries look at sizes of other countries and regions ?
He/She doesn't care, because no one cares about small countries. They're unimportant on the grand scale of things... Oh, wait :)
Yes, being pushed around by USA even more without the backing of other nations will help you a lot when negotiating independently.
Yes, we could boost our exports to China, in no time at all we could be doing as well as um... Germany.
No one knows. I believe it would be a mistake for the UK to leave, as everything down that road is totally open, but I'm actually really curious to see what would happen. Interesting times. "May you live in interesting times" is a curse, mind.
Speaking as a .uk resident, I'm definitely in favour of 'remain', but extremely tired of the fear based rhetoric from both sides. Honestly, I think the key argument is "better the devil you know than a roll of the dice".
I was on the fence for a long time. My main concern was and still is how best to handle tax evasion and the corruption of the democratic processes by corporate interests. I considered voting to leave, but on balance I believe the EU has a better track record of standing up for the interests of people compared to the current Conservative government, so I'll be voting to stay. If we had a different set of politicians in power in the UK I may have voted to leave, but I don't think the time is right to do so.
I'm also tired of the fear mongering on both sides, I'd much rather we had a less divisive debate on the issues.
I'm also tired of the fear mongering on both sides, I'd much rather we had a less divisive debate on the issues.
Lots of people agree with you. It's disappointing that we should vote out of fear and not optimism.
I'd go with vote informed- currently there's no information that backs a brexit being a good idea. Plenty against it however.
So you say it's a "vote for optimism", and you're VERY right. Misplaced optimism, mind.
So you say it's a "vote for optimism", and you're VERY right. Misplaced optimism, mind.
> currently there's no information that backs a brexit being a good idea. Plenty against it however.
What are these points against it? I have no idea how to vote so far.
What are these points against it? I have no idea how to vote so far.
Lots. I mean.. LOTS. Here's a sample:
* Better regulations. Yes, this can be handled locally, but at a large cost. * Lower prices of goods – the EU ‘Single Market’ for all member countries is a massive saving. Impossible outside of the EU.
* Free movement. Citizens are free to move from one member country to another. This is actually a massive boon to both leisure and commerce. Impossible without the EU.
* Creation of jobs - over 3.5 million jobs in the UK have been generated over the years. Not massive but the economic hit would be painful outside of the EU.
* The Structural and Investment Funds. Places all over the UK (and the EU) have been redeveloped, had economic investments, and companies funded. This is just not scalable economically outside of the EU.
* Louder voice – Britain isn't an Empire any more. It might be the 2nd largest economy in the EU (9th in the world) but without all the others it is a much smaller voice when it comes to agreements - plus it would have to negotiate agreements itself again. This is a surprisingly subtle one in terms of impact long term.
* Workers protections – the European Working Time Directive for a start but lots of other protections for EU citizens exist.
There are more, but this is a good example. Turns out btw that while EU membership costs the UK a bunch per person it actually more than makes up for it once you factor in a lot of the costs it has saved us as well.
* Better regulations. Yes, this can be handled locally, but at a large cost. * Lower prices of goods – the EU ‘Single Market’ for all member countries is a massive saving. Impossible outside of the EU.
* Free movement. Citizens are free to move from one member country to another. This is actually a massive boon to both leisure and commerce. Impossible without the EU.
* Creation of jobs - over 3.5 million jobs in the UK have been generated over the years. Not massive but the economic hit would be painful outside of the EU.
* The Structural and Investment Funds. Places all over the UK (and the EU) have been redeveloped, had economic investments, and companies funded. This is just not scalable economically outside of the EU.
* Louder voice – Britain isn't an Empire any more. It might be the 2nd largest economy in the EU (9th in the world) but without all the others it is a much smaller voice when it comes to agreements - plus it would have to negotiate agreements itself again. This is a surprisingly subtle one in terms of impact long term.
* Workers protections – the European Working Time Directive for a start but lots of other protections for EU citizens exist.
There are more, but this is a good example. Turns out btw that while EU membership costs the UK a bunch per person it actually more than makes up for it once you factor in a lot of the costs it has saved us as well.
"It might be the 2nd largest economy in the EU (9th in the world)"
Isn't it the 5th largest in the world? http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gd...
Isn't it the 5th largest in the world? http://statisticstimes.com/economy/countries-by-projected-gd...
Depends on how it's calculated. It's 5th by Nominal GDP but 9th based on GDP Purchasing Power Parity.
I honestly think it is too complex for anyone to really know what is best for the UK as a whole. For individuals I think it is easier, there are plenty of people who are directly effected by immigration (houses, high tax, NHS collapse, overcrowded schools etc) ... and there are plenty of other people for who the EU is great ... small businesses, farmers, um, loads of others. The EU cleans up our beaches, rivers. Make sure our food is fit to eat. Tons of other stuff.
I dunno, with a Tory government staying in the EU is a good idea. If we had a Green and/or Left socialist government then voting out may be more progressive.
I had exactly those thoughts too, but I've just watched this and it's changed my mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
We may have to wait a long time before we get this vote again, let's get out of the EU now then get our own house in order. I know it's not the ideal way to do it, but at the very least we will have restored more of our own democracy in the meantime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
We may have to wait a long time before we get this vote again, let's get out of the EU now then get our own house in order. I know it's not the ideal way to do it, but at the very least we will have restored more of our own democracy in the meantime.
The world and its economies become less and less predictable the faster technology advances and so, for me, it's political considerations that matter. I don't want political integration with continental Europe. We have separate languages and separate traditions, which are valuable. The English Channel (a 20 mile wide body of sea) gave England the scope to develop more freedoms together with a unique outlook, which are now under threat. The rest of the world loses out too if they disappear.
> unique outlook
I don't believe you. England's outlook is one of the most dismal I have seen from all the countries in the world.
I don't believe you. England's outlook is one of the most dismal I have seen from all the countries in the world.
One can see differences in specific laws and legal traditions. But it's the outlook (inexplicit conception of freedom) that develops first and which is responsible for further progress. It's not possible to appreciate in depth the different outlooks of different national cultures. If it were then they wouldn't be as precious as they are.
I like England. What is it about the country and its 50 million inhabitants distinguish it in such a dismal way from other countries?
"Brexit the Movie" is highly entertaining and well worth a watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTMxfAkxfQ0
This is only my personal perspective. I come from outside Europe so I have no dog in the fight.
The impact seems quite real. My company is already having trouble filling up positions. Nobody applied in the last few months (my company consists largely of British and Europeans worker plus a small number of oversea workers). My speculation is that if UK is going to treat EU citizens the same as everybody else in the world, Europeans might as well head for the US.
In case you don’t know about UK visa system, I (and possibly other tech workers) am on a T2 visa. The quota for T2 last year is around 20k national wide. Good luck for all tech companies, big or small, that employ Europeans. My predication is that leaving EU is going to hit UK tech sector hard. Even if companies don’t mind paying for a T2 visa (my company paid more than 2000 pounds), good luck dealing with home office.
On the other hand, I think EU is a mess. Watching the Greece debt crisis as it developed is like watching slow motion car crash, so I don’t really blame if some UK people really want to leave for good reasons.
And here goes my personal rant:
I really don't care whether the UK leaves the EU or no, but at the end of the day, I am really fed up with all the talks about immigrants taking jobs and putting pressure on the system. Heck, I pay hefty sum of tax and NI contribution but the service I receive is abysmal. The cost of living is high but the salary is not that high. I just don't feel welcomed here. I couldn't imagine making this place my home.
The referendum could be the last straw on camel's back. I would probably move to somewhere else where the weather is nicer and the pay is higher.
The impact seems quite real. My company is already having trouble filling up positions. Nobody applied in the last few months (my company consists largely of British and Europeans worker plus a small number of oversea workers). My speculation is that if UK is going to treat EU citizens the same as everybody else in the world, Europeans might as well head for the US.
In case you don’t know about UK visa system, I (and possibly other tech workers) am on a T2 visa. The quota for T2 last year is around 20k national wide. Good luck for all tech companies, big or small, that employ Europeans. My predication is that leaving EU is going to hit UK tech sector hard. Even if companies don’t mind paying for a T2 visa (my company paid more than 2000 pounds), good luck dealing with home office.
On the other hand, I think EU is a mess. Watching the Greece debt crisis as it developed is like watching slow motion car crash, so I don’t really blame if some UK people really want to leave for good reasons.
And here goes my personal rant:
I really don't care whether the UK leaves the EU or no, but at the end of the day, I am really fed up with all the talks about immigrants taking jobs and putting pressure on the system. Heck, I pay hefty sum of tax and NI contribution but the service I receive is abysmal. The cost of living is high but the salary is not that high. I just don't feel welcomed here. I couldn't imagine making this place my home.
The referendum could be the last straw on camel's back. I would probably move to somewhere else where the weather is nicer and the pay is higher.
I don't think the public will vote to leave, majority don't like certain things about the EU, sometimes rightly so, but at the same time are aware of the potential economic damage if they voted "Leave".
What's annoying is how the vote is being used irresponsibly as a tool in domestic politics.
First - Cameron calling the vote to start off with, just to please backbenchers in his own party. What a waste of money this whole exercise has been. I bet he's hoping he could turn the clock back.
Second - Boris Johnson. Come on. People are not going to vote you for PM based on your "Leave" campaign. A haircut would go much further and be far less risky.
What's annoying is how the vote is being used irresponsibly as a tool in domestic politics.
First - Cameron calling the vote to start off with, just to please backbenchers in his own party. What a waste of money this whole exercise has been. I bet he's hoping he could turn the clock back.
Second - Boris Johnson. Come on. People are not going to vote you for PM based on your "Leave" campaign. A haircut would go much further and be far less risky.
It was part of the Conservative's election manifesto to enable a referendum of EU membership; enough people voted Conservative for them to form a government therefore they are enacting their manifesto. It wasn't a knee jerk reaction by Cameron over the last year; it's been something brewing for many many years.
If Cameron resigns because of a leave vote then it is highly unlikely there will be a general election as a result. Conservative party members will vote for the next PM at party conference, not the general public. So Boris won't need _your_ vote to become PM, haircut or not.
If Cameron resigns because of a leave vote then it is highly unlikely there will be a general election as a result. Conservative party members will vote for the next PM at party conference, not the general public. So Boris won't need _your_ vote to become PM, haircut or not.
Wait a second! but that's utterly non-democratic! We have to elect the PM, not a bunch of bureaucrats!
/s
/s
I think Brexit also has a potential to make the UK better for trade. simplifying regulations and instead of thinking European, thinking global.
An independent uk cannot simplify regulations. Just by having a separate set of regulations from the rest of Europe guarantees more complexity, and automatically places the UK behind the rest of Europe in terms of market value.
Between a Greek accountant and a German one, who do you prefer?
[sarcasm off]
[sarcasm off]
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11754550 and marked it off-topic.
That's just mild racism. The answer would depend on the competency of the individuals involved, not their nationality.
And the fear mongering commences. It's really rather abusive and manipulative how the establishment is just berating people with a sense of self-determination and dignity not to submit to central domination.
If you think about it, it's really a counter-intuitive, yet rather expected behavior when you understand what is really happening in the world where a global elite is trying to consolidate and centralize ever more control and domination in a global system of government. Humanity needs actual diversity, not this mess that the EU and globalist, jet-setting elite have fooled the mentally ill liberal and Marxist minded people into beieving is diversity. We need differences, we need actual uniqueness; not homogenization, not consolidation and centralization.
Unfortunately, the internet is actually contributing to that trend. Just look at the recent revelations about Facebook controlling the messsage, discussion, and conversation of it's users by controlling what they can see and others share with them. And that's Facebook, with triple digit million users; a number of controlled messaging and propaganda tool that all other dictators and authoritarian regimes would have lost their mind with glee over having access to.
I can't recall off the top of my head who exactly is working on it, but I believe there are some interesting efforts going on at MIT to try to reintroduce decentralization back to the internet. We really need it. Humanity is really heading to a bad place if we don't figure this out.
If you think about it, it's really a counter-intuitive, yet rather expected behavior when you understand what is really happening in the world where a global elite is trying to consolidate and centralize ever more control and domination in a global system of government. Humanity needs actual diversity, not this mess that the EU and globalist, jet-setting elite have fooled the mentally ill liberal and Marxist minded people into beieving is diversity. We need differences, we need actual uniqueness; not homogenization, not consolidation and centralization.
Unfortunately, the internet is actually contributing to that trend. Just look at the recent revelations about Facebook controlling the messsage, discussion, and conversation of it's users by controlling what they can see and others share with them. And that's Facebook, with triple digit million users; a number of controlled messaging and propaganda tool that all other dictators and authoritarian regimes would have lost their mind with glee over having access to.
I can't recall off the top of my head who exactly is working on it, but I believe there are some interesting efforts going on at MIT to try to reintroduce decentralization back to the internet. We really need it. Humanity is really heading to a bad place if we don't figure this out.
A vote LEAVE will not take us completely out, a vote REMAIN will take us in so deep, we never vote again, the pound becomes 'fixed-rate' and the central banks own us.
The EU did not really help Greece, in it's difficulties. The UK has a better starting position, but that is everybodies future, in or out, and will be worse in.
The EU, as one of the largest 'countries' in the world, has not addressed the problems of climate change. Our beaches might be cleaner, but our skies are melting the Arctic, and the world's approach to carbon mining, is 'business-as-usual'. Climate distruction and ocean acidification are not even mentioned in the governments advice pamphlet (remain), nor in TTIP.
The EU will be stronger if we vote leave.
The EU did not really help Greece, in it's difficulties. The UK has a better starting position, but that is everybodies future, in or out, and will be worse in.
The EU, as one of the largest 'countries' in the world, has not addressed the problems of climate change. Our beaches might be cleaner, but our skies are melting the Arctic, and the world's approach to carbon mining, is 'business-as-usual'. Climate distruction and ocean acidification are not even mentioned in the governments advice pamphlet (remain), nor in TTIP.
The EU will be stronger if we vote leave.
What has been driving me crazy, is the sheer, utter guesswork - from both sides. No one can predict the future. Both sides are making predictions and both sides are just guessing.
Meanwhile the real issues are not being discussed or debated in any kind of sensible manner. The UK is spending around 350 GBP million a week (minus some small amount they get back in rebates from the EU) on supporting the EU and have no control on millions of migrants coming into the UK to benefit from its completely free NHS medical system, (even breast implants for cosmetic purposes are allowed in some cases), free schooling, very high minimum wage laws and extremely generous benefits system (including free housing).
These system are now at breaking point and there is no end in sight to the ever increasing load on the system.
Meanwhile, the politicians sling mud at each other...
Meanwhile the real issues are not being discussed or debated in any kind of sensible manner. The UK is spending around 350 GBP million a week (minus some small amount they get back in rebates from the EU) on supporting the EU and have no control on millions of migrants coming into the UK to benefit from its completely free NHS medical system, (even breast implants for cosmetic purposes are allowed in some cases), free schooling, very high minimum wage laws and extremely generous benefits system (including free housing).
These system are now at breaking point and there is no end in sight to the ever increasing load on the system.
Meanwhile, the politicians sling mud at each other...
> (minus some small amount they get back in rebates from the EU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
> Based on a net contribution of €12.1 billion (£9.8 billion) in 2014, the UK Treasury estimates the 2015 rebate amounted to €6.2 billion (£4.9 billion)
That doesn't sound like a small rebate.
Even the wingnut Daily Mail says
> In total since 1979, Britain has paid in about €260 billion (£228 billion). It has received back in benefits just €163 billion (£143 billion).
This rebate is only counting direct payments from EU (for farm subsidies, or to fund research), and ignores other benefits we get from EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
> Based on a net contribution of €12.1 billion (£9.8 billion) in 2014, the UK Treasury estimates the 2015 rebate amounted to €6.2 billion (£4.9 billion)
That doesn't sound like a small rebate.
Even the wingnut Daily Mail says
> In total since 1979, Britain has paid in about €260 billion (£228 billion). It has received back in benefits just €163 billion (£143 billion).
This rebate is only counting direct payments from EU (for farm subsidies, or to fund research), and ignores other benefits we get from EU.
I heard the Daily Mail is looking for staff.
"minus some small amount they get back in rebates". The rebate is actually a discount: we do not send the money then get it back. With the rebate, we pay around £250m/week (still a lot of money)
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million...
https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million...
Yes, UK, please leave
You can't even get around ordering stuff right when you go to Spain for vacations, never mind enjoying the freedom of movement the EU allows
You complain about immigration but you bring also a lot of people from your ex-colonies and do you really think this has something to do with the EU? And Cameron's latest deal has some provisions in relation to immigrant's benefits.
You complain about the Euro but you couldn't even be bothered with that.
You talk about "going global" while you're breaking up with your neighbours? Yes, nice one
Complaints about regulation, true, EU bureaucracy, true. But everybody else has to do that as well.
(Or, what's also likely, they will "leave" but keep a lot of similar deals in place)
You can't even get around ordering stuff right when you go to Spain for vacations, never mind enjoying the freedom of movement the EU allows
You complain about immigration but you bring also a lot of people from your ex-colonies and do you really think this has something to do with the EU? And Cameron's latest deal has some provisions in relation to immigrant's benefits.
You complain about the Euro but you couldn't even be bothered with that.
You talk about "going global" while you're breaking up with your neighbours? Yes, nice one
Complaints about regulation, true, EU bureaucracy, true. But everybody else has to do that as well.
(Or, what's also likely, they will "leave" but keep a lot of similar deals in place)
Just look at my country, Holland. Pretty much all important decisions are made by the EU. An example: we cannot control our own borders. We cannot decide how many immigrants we want to allow. The EU wants to force quotas on countries and if they don't accept the quotas, they want to give the countries fines.
The EU is undemocratic and if one values freedom, one should stay as far away from the EU as possible, even if it would be at some cost of the economy (though I'd say this is speculation).