Will London Fall?(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Will London Fall?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/11/world/europe/uk-london-brexit.html?_r=0
126 comments
Depends on which part of Europe you are talking about. Europe is huge and diverse - kind of like the UK. Apart from your personal view, I doubt you can find the facts to back up your assertions. Example: France is famously mired in bureaucracy, with law that discourages scaling up a business beyond a certain size due to the tower of rules and regulations you have to comply with beyond that size. Another example: Crossrail, one of if not the largest infrastructure project in Europe just now, and it's in the UK.
Takes three weeks to do anything? BT are crap, granted, but Amazon Prime takes care of many things I need the next day, and apart from getting a mortgage banking is pretty swift these days. Healthcare? I call the doctor and get a triage callback the same day, and often an appointment the same day, with nothing paid. I remember telling colleagues in the Netherlands that we paid nothing, which punctured their idea of superiority a little given their compulsory health insurance charges, plus extra per visit costs.
You're not the only one that's lived abroad.
Takes three weeks to do anything? BT are crap, granted, but Amazon Prime takes care of many things I need the next day, and apart from getting a mortgage banking is pretty swift these days. Healthcare? I call the doctor and get a triage callback the same day, and often an appointment the same day, with nothing paid. I remember telling colleagues in the Netherlands that we paid nothing, which punctured their idea of superiority a little given their compulsory health insurance charges, plus extra per visit costs.
You're not the only one that's lived abroad.
The places I've lived. Not just BT; literally every company I've dealt with since getting back has been somehow ragingly incompetent. How about a welcome letter with account number asking you to sign up online, followed by support call saying that won't actually work because it takes 10 business days to move your details from one computer to another?
The Netherlands is one such country: not perfect but vastly better - definitely including the health service. You certainly don't pay nothing for the NHS.
The Netherlands is one such country: not perfect but vastly better - definitely including the health service. You certainly don't pay nothing for the NHS.
If the EU citizens wanted security of living in London for as long as they want, why not apply for permanent residency after five years and then citizenship? Doesn't seem like that big of an obstacle.
Why is London the only prosperous city in England? Does that seem right? Germany has many prosperous cities.
And what is it that makes London a world capital so much more than Paris or Frankfurt? Perhaps it is due to something uniquely British? If so, perhaps that's worth preserving.
As someone living for years in one of these "global cities," they are all hype. They are modern feudal estates. Look at the mentality of so many of these expats who come into London... For example, the French. Do they treasure British traditions? Doubtful. They want to make their money and resume and go back home as soon as it's feasible. They want to stick to their own enclaves in London. Does anyone else find this odd and unappealing from both sides?
How did London become a global capital? Mostly money laundering for the world. They call it finance, but it's really just banking (not a lot of PE or hedge funds), which is really just money laundering when you talk about the top end of that industry. Screw banking and finance, every city they dominate ends up sucking. Leave and we can build a city based on something real.
I just saw this in Sydney too. Everyone openly says, the (white) Aussies have sold their property and bailed out to regional towns or what not.
It seems abnormal because what all the immigrants were chasing was the place, culture and system those people built.
Why is London the only prosperous city in England? Does that seem right? Germany has many prosperous cities.
And what is it that makes London a world capital so much more than Paris or Frankfurt? Perhaps it is due to something uniquely British? If so, perhaps that's worth preserving.
As someone living for years in one of these "global cities," they are all hype. They are modern feudal estates. Look at the mentality of so many of these expats who come into London... For example, the French. Do they treasure British traditions? Doubtful. They want to make their money and resume and go back home as soon as it's feasible. They want to stick to their own enclaves in London. Does anyone else find this odd and unappealing from both sides?
How did London become a global capital? Mostly money laundering for the world. They call it finance, but it's really just banking (not a lot of PE or hedge funds), which is really just money laundering when you talk about the top end of that industry. Screw banking and finance, every city they dominate ends up sucking. Leave and we can build a city based on something real.
I just saw this in Sydney too. Everyone openly says, the (white) Aussies have sold their property and bailed out to regional towns or what not.
It seems abnormal because what all the immigrants were chasing was the place, culture and system those people built.
So much FUD it's difficult to know where to start! Just a few observations:
1. Londoners are said to be more open-minded, but there's been plenty of narrow-minded sneering about Brexit supporters from Remainers
2. There is a deliberately false picture being portrayed that no immigration will be permitted after Brexit. On the contrary - it's just that the UK will be able to exercise sovereignty over its borders once again. Nothing about that means the drawbridge is being pulled up
3. No one makes the same criticisms about isolation etc. from other places that don't offer hundreds of millions of people the automatic right to move to. Canada? Australia? You never hear the same bleating about these countries skilled migrant programmes!!
4. No one could have predicted what London would have looked like in future even if we had stayed in the EU - let's not forget the EU has a good long list of serious challenges on its plate
5. 'You can't live in an island and call it your oasis' said Shirley Watkins, 83 - might just as well say the same about the detachment of Londoners from the rest of the UK!
6. Criticism of tabloid press over Brexit - let's not forget the almost unanimous media, political, business and academic consensus that supported remain, and the apocalyptic FUD saying things like the day after a leave vote an immediate recession would start, etc. etc. In that context criticism of one side hints at bias
7. '..London is struggling so much now.'. Oh please.. Not from where I'm standing. So the borders with the EU become a little firmer. As if there won't still be millions of people interested in making the UK their home. Who's to say we won't have a more interesting and diverse London with more migrants from outside the EU?
1. Londoners are said to be more open-minded, but there's been plenty of narrow-minded sneering about Brexit supporters from Remainers
2. There is a deliberately false picture being portrayed that no immigration will be permitted after Brexit. On the contrary - it's just that the UK will be able to exercise sovereignty over its borders once again. Nothing about that means the drawbridge is being pulled up
3. No one makes the same criticisms about isolation etc. from other places that don't offer hundreds of millions of people the automatic right to move to. Canada? Australia? You never hear the same bleating about these countries skilled migrant programmes!!
4. No one could have predicted what London would have looked like in future even if we had stayed in the EU - let's not forget the EU has a good long list of serious challenges on its plate
5. 'You can't live in an island and call it your oasis' said Shirley Watkins, 83 - might just as well say the same about the detachment of Londoners from the rest of the UK!
6. Criticism of tabloid press over Brexit - let's not forget the almost unanimous media, political, business and academic consensus that supported remain, and the apocalyptic FUD saying things like the day after a leave vote an immediate recession would start, etc. etc. In that context criticism of one side hints at bias
7. '..London is struggling so much now.'. Oh please.. Not from where I'm standing. So the borders with the EU become a little firmer. As if there won't still be millions of people interested in making the UK their home. Who's to say we won't have a more interesting and diverse London with more migrants from outside the EU?
So this article is about whether London will lose its multicultural appeal after Brexit. Here's an observation about the nationalities of the people cited. Quite a few Europeans, but also:
- An Indian-British writer (Nikesh Shukla) who has compiled a set of essays about nonwhite Britons. (In case it isn't obvious, most (all?) European countries are mostly white and the countries that are mostly nonwhite are not in Europe).
- Russian house-buyers.
- A Canadian who wrote a book about London.
- London's Pakistani-British mayor.
- A Brazilian hairdresser.
- A Japanese sculptor.
- Jewish refugees from European persecution a hundred years before Britain joined the EU.
- An Indian food entrepeneur.
- Somali immigrants at the doctor's surgery.
- The Bangladeshi-born mayor of Tower Hamlets.
- Bangladeshi muslims at Brick Lane Mosque.
Excellent people, no doubt, and worthy contributors to the life of the capital (even the Russian oligarchs). The point is that they don't seem to owe their position to EU membership.
It's interesting, the opening lines of the article say 'after the "Brexit" referendum, its future as an international crossroads is far from certain'. But the sources make it seem like London's multiculturalism doesn't owe that much to the EU in the first place.
- An Indian-British writer (Nikesh Shukla) who has compiled a set of essays about nonwhite Britons. (In case it isn't obvious, most (all?) European countries are mostly white and the countries that are mostly nonwhite are not in Europe).
- Russian house-buyers.
- A Canadian who wrote a book about London.
- London's Pakistani-British mayor.
- A Brazilian hairdresser.
- A Japanese sculptor.
- Jewish refugees from European persecution a hundred years before Britain joined the EU.
- An Indian food entrepeneur.
- Somali immigrants at the doctor's surgery.
- The Bangladeshi-born mayor of Tower Hamlets.
- Bangladeshi muslims at Brick Lane Mosque.
Excellent people, no doubt, and worthy contributors to the life of the capital (even the Russian oligarchs). The point is that they don't seem to owe their position to EU membership.
It's interesting, the opening lines of the article say 'after the "Brexit" referendum, its future as an international crossroads is far from certain'. But the sources make it seem like London's multiculturalism doesn't owe that much to the EU in the first place.
The Bangladeshi-born mayor of Tower Hamlets
Not an excellent person.
"An east London mayor has been removed from office and a poll declared void after he was found guilty of electoral fraud."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648
Current mayor is John Biggs.
Not an excellent person.
"An east London mayor has been removed from office and a poll declared void after he was found guilty of electoral fraud."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648
Current mayor is John Biggs.
I am unable to read this on mobile. Can anyone tl;dr plz?
Londoners voted against Brexit, yet Brexit happened. London will be in ruins now as a world capital, surely.
That's quite literally the summary, if you normalize for all the musings and feel-good details.
That's quite literally the summary, if you normalize for all the musings and feel-good details.
A careful reading of this article will show that the authore made absolutely zero objective, measurable predictions. e.g. the author doesn't say that the banking system will fail, or the stock market will crash, or that average incomes will fall relative to their continental counterparts.
However, the mood of the piece accurately captured my ambivalence about continuing to live in London.
I bought a house just before the election, but I'm finding it extremely hard to justify investing much in it because I can't really see a future for me in this country, if it continues to trend.
It's not about plummeting stock markets or failing banking systems. It's about living with the uncertainty as to whether I'll still be welcome as a non-citizen. The moment the UK state starts to vary treatment on important things like entitlements or tax rates, I'm out of here - I'm not like some cow to be milked for the benefit of the natives.
I reckon I'm 6 to 18 months away from leaving for someplace else.
I bought a house just before the election, but I'm finding it extremely hard to justify investing much in it because I can't really see a future for me in this country, if it continues to trend.
It's not about plummeting stock markets or failing banking systems. It's about living with the uncertainty as to whether I'll still be welcome as a non-citizen. The moment the UK state starts to vary treatment on important things like entitlements or tax rates, I'm out of here - I'm not like some cow to be milked for the benefit of the natives.
I reckon I'm 6 to 18 months away from leaving for someplace else.
Oh yeah, definitely agreed, which is why I added "surely" at the end. It wasn't anything objective that the author claimed that he expects to fail, like banking, or stock market, or anything else, just his vague abstract notion of failure.
London voted overwhelmingly against Brexit, but will this change as Brexit continues.
Quite a lot about how it feels different, about how London is a multicultural hub, about how migrants are thinking about leaving, about how London will change.
It's a mood piece, but a fairly accurate one from my point of view (lived in London for 20 yrs)
Quite a lot about how it feels different, about how London is a multicultural hub, about how migrants are thinking about leaving, about how London will change.
It's a mood piece, but a fairly accurate one from my point of view (lived in London for 20 yrs)
It's an opinion piece that celebrates the many languages, cultures and peoples that make up London today that came about in the last two decades and speculates that Brexit came about because of the divide between cosmopolitan Londoners and rural voters. This difference it posits was exploited by conservative media to inflame residents of rural and less urban areas to vote for Brexit, giving examples of opinion writers claiming Trump as their model and Obama'izing as the problem. It wonders but does not answer if London can continue to succeed as a cosmopolitan financial center of Europe after Brexit.
In other words the age old "champagne left" explanation for everything. Ignoring the massive class divide involved in the vote. A class divide that can be traced back to Thatcher and Reagan going union busing.
I'm in the middle of reading "Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class" which is rather interesting - although it is from 2012 the attitudes is described are clearly what eventually led to the Brexit vote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chavs:_The_Demonization_of_the...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chavs:_The_Demonization_of_the...
> Thatcher and Reagan going union busing
What exactly do you mean by that if you don't mind me asking?
What exactly do you mean by that if you don't mind me asking?
I honestly tried to read this but couldn't get past the format. The rapid changes of background/text when scrolling were incredibly jarring. This felt like a regular long form article made into an "interactive" (in quotes because there is no actual interaction) for the sake of it.
Maybe this isn't a productive comment but the format ruined the article for me.
Maybe this isn't a productive comment but the format ruined the article for me.
If you have Firefox, click on the "open book" (Reader mode) icon up near the address bar. It will extract the text and present it without the NYT layout / Javascript.
These days I read practically all of my articles using Reader Mode. No ads, no scrolljacking, no popup videos.
These days I read practically all of my articles using Reader Mode. No ads, no scrolljacking, no popup videos.
I wonder how much time and money they spent on designing this ruinous format.
"Please. Please. Just let me read."
"Please. Please. Just let me read."
This has been a "trend" ever since print media decided they needed an online presence.
It is basically about emulating printed documents online.
Before HTML5, this was mostly done using full size Flash sites.
It is basically about emulating printed documents online.
Before HTML5, this was mostly done using full size Flash sites.
IF you're on desktop, I highly recommend using the reader view feature built into Firefox. Makes most of my reading experience so much better for most sites.
Reader View in Safari (and its equivalent in other browsers) fixes it: http://i.imgur.com/YtIcW4d.png
I personally love it. To me, it's art, and it draws me to the article in a way that most long form never would. I do occasionally use reader view on a lot of blogs though where the UI leaves a lot to be desired, you should try it.
[deleted]
Don't worry. They applied the same over-stylized method to make up for lack of substance in their verbal content, too.
That's odd; it was wonderful to experience on my desktop pc. :)
I guess a really big screen and a beefy non-laptop CPU helps.
Maybe they should start making laptop versions of these "interactive stories".
I guess a really big screen and a beefy non-laptop CPU helps.
Maybe they should start making laptop versions of these "interactive stories".
Ditto.
your site is bad and you should feel bad
Will we ever have titles that aren't clickbait?
Nicely designed site/story. But to put it simply: no.
There's simply no reason that London will "fall". Yes the immigration with the EU will cause problems, and yes they will lose a lot of financial industry business but London will continue to exist, and prosper. People will still immigrate to the UK, and people will still live in London. The strength of the city lies not solely as it relates to the EU, but because it is the capitol, and largest city of a long and storied nation that is largely prosperous and innovative.
I really wish we'd stop this whole Brexit == UK falls into the sea forever nonsense. Economic problems? Maybe. But prosperous people are innovative and responsive to change. Immigration is not the sole contributor to economic growth or innovation. If it was, than China, Japan, and many other countries would still be subsistence farming.
Nicely designed site/story. But to put it simply: no.
There's simply no reason that London will "fall". Yes the immigration with the EU will cause problems, and yes they will lose a lot of financial industry business but London will continue to exist, and prosper. People will still immigrate to the UK, and people will still live in London. The strength of the city lies not solely as it relates to the EU, but because it is the capitol, and largest city of a long and storied nation that is largely prosperous and innovative.
I really wish we'd stop this whole Brexit == UK falls into the sea forever nonsense. Economic problems? Maybe. But prosperous people are innovative and responsive to change. Immigration is not the sole contributor to economic growth or innovation. If it was, than China, Japan, and many other countries would still be subsistence farming.
It's not saying that. It's pointing our how London is very much the emblem of a modern, integrated, multicultural city, and this is bound to change.
It doesn't say it'll fall into the sea. It wonders how such a city might change, most likely in directions opposed to its current identity.
It doesn't say it'll fall into the sea. It wonders how such a city might change, most likely in directions opposed to its current identity.
Why is that considered "fall" then?
The idea I had of London as a place I could live for decades when I first moved here: that's starting to fade away. That's the fall. And it's not just me; it's lots of other EU citizens.
Yea but that doesn't mean London "will fall".
Stop being so literal. Rome is still there, and has been for 2000+ years. It just isn't a terribly important city any more, globally; London will be similar.
London is the idea that a city can have and respect both a past with all its cultural heritage merits/baggage/identity as well as a future as a globalized hotspot. The corporeal hope that you don't have to give up one to have the other. If post-Brexit London turns out to fail on the globalization side of that balancing act, that hope takes a hit not just for Londoners but for everyone who values both sides.
It's the hope that is feared to fall, not the bricks and stones.
It's the hope that is feared to fall, not the bricks and stones.
>The strength of the city lies not solely as it relates to the EU, but because it is the capitol
Not quite true. London is the capital of England, not the capitol. A capitol is a building, not a city.
Anyway, typos aside, you're still wrong. The reason London is as successful as it is is because it's a financial hub, which it got to be by being part of the EU. There really isn't much else going on there; England is not a huge industrial producer any more like it was decades ago. Banks are going to pull out and move to other EU nations, and the local economy is going to implode.
>and yes they will lose a lot of financial industry business but London will continue to exist, and prosper.
Doing what, exactly? That financial industry business you handwave away is what makes the city successful in the first place.
>Immigration is not the sole contributor to economic growth or innovation.
It's not just immigration which makes London successful, it's its membership in the EU and access to the common market. That all goes away with Brexit. England will be about as relevant and economically prosperous as Russia. Well, strike that; Russia actually has natural resources, while England has none. So it'll probably be more like Egypt.
Not quite true. London is the capital of England, not the capitol. A capitol is a building, not a city.
Anyway, typos aside, you're still wrong. The reason London is as successful as it is is because it's a financial hub, which it got to be by being part of the EU. There really isn't much else going on there; England is not a huge industrial producer any more like it was decades ago. Banks are going to pull out and move to other EU nations, and the local economy is going to implode.
>and yes they will lose a lot of financial industry business but London will continue to exist, and prosper.
Doing what, exactly? That financial industry business you handwave away is what makes the city successful in the first place.
>Immigration is not the sole contributor to economic growth or innovation.
It's not just immigration which makes London successful, it's its membership in the EU and access to the common market. That all goes away with Brexit. England will be about as relevant and economically prosperous as Russia. Well, strike that; Russia actually has natural resources, while England has none. So it'll probably be more like Egypt.
>Will we ever have titles that aren't clickbait?
No. Because headlines have been written to be "clickbait" for long before there were clicks.
No. Because headlines have been written to be "clickbait" for long before there were clicks.
I think the author probably agrees with you that London won't "fall" in the sense that it will cease to exist, or even fail to prosper. Rather, she's arguing that London is the most important city in the world due to its connectedness to Europe, and as a result of Brexit it will fall behind other cities and lose its position as the most alpha-est world city that there is.
Not catastrophic by any means, but if someone is living in London because they consider it to be the center of the world, then it's a big deal.
Not catastrophic by any means, but if someone is living in London because they consider it to be the center of the world, then it's a big deal.
Perhaps, but as you said it's not catastrophic.
Even so, you don't need to be the center of the world.
Even so, you don't need to be the center of the world.
Sure, but sometimes people are sad when they lose things, even if they don't "need" them.
I totally agree that the title is clickbaity, but the sentiment expressed in the article is legitimate.
I totally agree that the title is clickbaity, but the sentiment expressed in the article is legitimate.
web site design is moronic. i couldn't get past the second paragraph. who in their mind designed and approved it???
Reader mode is essential on the modern web, everything has a crap signal to noise ratio.
I sympathize that folks don't like the format how this story is presented. I don't think I am quite as irritated but I do not prefer all this activity while I scroll.
I think it's great that NYT is experimenting new ways to capitalize on this medium and not merely just publishing their print stories on the web.
...but it's probably best for them to learn from this experiment and not repeat it.
I think it's great that NYT is experimenting new ways to capitalize on this medium and not merely just publishing their print stories on the web.
...but it's probably best for them to learn from this experiment and not repeat it.
No, London will still be London. Why do people think that suddenly you might have to apply for a visa people will stop wanting to come and live in London?
Probably because one of the reason people from the EU came to London and, in general, the UK, was because you didn't need a visa.
Remove that possibility, then people will consider other places as well.
Remove that possibility, then people will consider other places as well.
I highly doubt people keen on going to London would consider Brussels or Frankfurt an acceptable substitute.
Depends on where the jobs move to.
The ones that won't bother to learn a different language certainly won't
sure but the types of jobs on offer in London may not be on offer elsewhere.
Because they don't live in London just because they like Big Ben; they go there for the jobs and the economy. With a hard Brexit, that all disappears because the only reason London is the economic powerhouse that it is is because of its position within the EU. When that disappears, the reason for all the banks to be there will also disappear, and the local economy will collapse. When that happens, people will be moving out in droves.
> With a hard Brexit, that all disappears because the only reason London is the economic powerhouse that it is is because of its position within the EU.
This may be the only reason it has retained the role, but it had the role for a couple centuries before the EU, largely due to its historical position in the Empire and inertia. I don't think the essential connection of the role to the EU is universally accepted. Though we'll certainly see if it's true...
This may be the only reason it has retained the role, but it had the role for a couple centuries before the EU, largely due to its historical position in the Empire and inertia. I don't think the essential connection of the role to the EU is universally accepted. Though we'll certainly see if it's true...
The Empire is long since dead and gone, and small has-been nations with little significant industry cannot retain world-leading status forever on inertia alone. Just look at Italy; where are they now? They make some great olive oil I guess, and a few really nice cars, but they're not the powerhouse they were 2000 years ago.
The essential connection of the role to the EU may not be universally accepted, but it's also not universally accepted that the world is round or that humans visited the Moon. The EU countries are more prosperous economically for the same reason the US has been prosperous for a long time: having tons of different currencies and massive transaction overhead (customs, duties, different regulations to follow, etc.) every time you cross a border is bad for economies. North Korea is a good example of how a country does economically without significant trade.
The essential connection of the role to the EU may not be universally accepted, but it's also not universally accepted that the world is round or that humans visited the Moon. The EU countries are more prosperous economically for the same reason the US has been prosperous for a long time: having tons of different currencies and massive transaction overhead (customs, duties, different regulations to follow, etc.) every time you cross a border is bad for economies. North Korea is a good example of how a country does economically without significant trade.
The French have been claiming the end of the City of London and Anglo-Saxon capitalism since the 16th century. Other than the outbreak of WWI, I can't think of a single example that had a material, long lasting effect on London as a center for global finance.
Yes, London is at an inflection point. Then again, so is the EU, traditional commercial banking and global finance in general. Brexit pales in comparison to these things.
Yes, London is at an inflection point. Then again, so is the EU, traditional commercial banking and global finance in general. Brexit pales in comparison to these things.
London will fall just like Switzerland, Norway and Iceland have collapsed because they are not in the EU. The UK will become like Somalia.
No wait, actually those 3 countries are in the top 5 countries to live in the world. Why do people wish for apocalypses?
No wait, actually those 3 countries are in the top 5 countries to live in the world. Why do people wish for apocalypses?
All 3 of those countries are still in the single European market though, with freedom of movement. Given UK appears to be heading towards a hard brexit and doesn't seem to want freedom of movement I think comparing them directly is a bit disingenuous.
And plenty of Norwegians would love to see the nation exit that market, because they are, much like most that voted for brexit, tired of seeing industry jobs being "offshored" and remaining wages being undercut by temporary workers from the former eastern block.
At the hight of the oil boom a local shipyard was 1/3 Poles, brought in by the busload. Some of them didn't have the first clue about English, never mind Norwegian.
For all the "champagne left's" kumbaya about EU being about European peace and solidarity, most of the working class see it as a way for the economic "elite" to defang unions and force down wages.
At the hight of the oil boom a local shipyard was 1/3 Poles, brought in by the busload. Some of them didn't have the first clue about English, never mind Norwegian.
For all the "champagne left's" kumbaya about EU being about European peace and solidarity, most of the working class see it as a way for the economic "elite" to defang unions and force down wages.
Bingo, it's the EU version of the US playbook going back to the late 70's... Take advantage of labor arbitrage by moving production to the cheaper Eastern European labor markets. But the workers in Britain, Norway etc. don't have the freedom to take advantage of the lower costs of living in those cheap labor markets.
It seems to me there's an inflection point in these national economies when the citizens' wages can no longer pay for goods and services produced locally.
I'm all for free trade between countries but I think nations need to really discourage imports of goods and services that can be provided internally solely for maximizing profits.
It seems to me there's an inflection point in these national economies when the citizens' wages can no longer pay for goods and services produced locally.
I'm all for free trade between countries but I think nations need to really discourage imports of goods and services that can be provided internally solely for maximizing profits.
and how would you implement that?
Yeah, it's a tough problem but perhaps restrictions can be placed on multi-national corporations. Using Apple as an example; trade agreements would be setup such that Apple, being a US company, could sell iPhones abroad but they wouldn't be allowed to design or manufacture iPhones abroad.
They would be allowed to import the components for the iPhone from foreign manufactures but the design and assembly would be restricted to the U.S. They wouldn't be allowed to setup shell corporations abroad to handle component manufacturing or distribution. Distribution would need to be handled solely by companies within the importing nation.
Basically free and open trade but with clear national boundaries... Put restrictions on the rent seeking.
They would be allowed to import the components for the iPhone from foreign manufactures but the design and assembly would be restricted to the U.S. They wouldn't be allowed to setup shell corporations abroad to handle component manufacturing or distribution. Distribution would need to be handled solely by companies within the importing nation.
Basically free and open trade but with clear national boundaries... Put restrictions on the rent seeking.
Well the UK creates laws so that banks can't lose out, why can't we do it for the rest of the country instead of just the fat lazy bank owners?
And of course Brexit will stop that in its tracks.
Most of the working class right doesn't understand that Brexit will not be allowed to have any direct effect at all on immigration, because the EU is not the direct cause of wage gouging.
If corporations can't get cheap labour from Europe they'll get it from other countries - just as they did before the UK joined the EU.
And their toadies in government will continue to be noisily in favour of protecting the working man from the influx of nasty foreigners in public, while working hard to keep the cheap labour coming in private - just as they've been doing for at least a century and a half.
Most of the working class right doesn't understand that Brexit will not be allowed to have any direct effect at all on immigration, because the EU is not the direct cause of wage gouging.
If corporations can't get cheap labour from Europe they'll get it from other countries - just as they did before the UK joined the EU.
And their toadies in government will continue to be noisily in favour of protecting the working man from the influx of nasty foreigners in public, while working hard to keep the cheap labour coming in private - just as they've been doing for at least a century and a half.
The corporations will at least have to go through an ostensibly democratic parliament system to get their agenda passed instead of a fully authoritarian EU Council that is not subject to any kind of democratic control.
I find this argument mind-boggling when the people who have done the most to undermine workers rights are exactly the same people who support Brexit.
In the UK, one shocking source of work insecurity is the zero-hours contract (basically, you have no guaranteed income but have to be available whenever your employer feels like it). The EU has nothing to do with that, in fact most EU countries have banned the practise [1] but the British government refuse to do anything it in the name of 'labour flexibility'.
These same people are now claiming that leaving the EU, which offers important protections to workers rights through the treaties and the European Court of Human Rights, will magically solve problems they created and sustain themselves.
[1] https://fullfact.org/law/zero-hours-contracts-uk-europe/
In the UK, one shocking source of work insecurity is the zero-hours contract (basically, you have no guaranteed income but have to be available whenever your employer feels like it). The EU has nothing to do with that, in fact most EU countries have banned the practise [1] but the British government refuse to do anything it in the name of 'labour flexibility'.
These same people are now claiming that leaving the EU, which offers important protections to workers rights through the treaties and the European Court of Human Rights, will magically solve problems they created and sustain themselves.
[1] https://fullfact.org/law/zero-hours-contracts-uk-europe/
>I find this argument mind-boggling when the people who have done the most to undermine workers rights are exactly the same people who support Brexit.
The people against Brexit were all major political parties that ruled for 50+ years, all mainstream press, all businesses, the financial sector.
The deep establishment, in other words, that is, precisely those who have done the most to undermine workers rights.
>but the British government refuse to do anything it in the name of 'labour flexibility'.
Yes, but the British government was all for bremain. So who are those people you were referring to?
The people against Brexit were all major political parties that ruled for 50+ years, all mainstream press, all businesses, the financial sector.
The deep establishment, in other words, that is, precisely those who have done the most to undermine workers rights.
>but the British government refuse to do anything it in the name of 'labour flexibility'.
Yes, but the British government was all for bremain. So who are those people you were referring to?
It's true the UK gov is not being helpful. But the UK gov supported remain. All major parties did. In the language of the vulgar tabloids, the British worker has been spit-roasted by both the EU and the UK government. One of those is withdrawing. The UK only has stop the UK gov fucking workers in the mouth now.
This is the crux of the matter. Giant companies hijack the hands-around-the-world narrative of the left for their own monetary purposes. In the US, the narrative is that there will be 'crops rotting in the fields' if cheap labour is not imported. Ironically, this is a very similar argument to pro-slavery campaigners who said the US would collapse without slavery.
Do you think no other countries bring foreign workers for cheap because the locals won't accept the job at the wages paid?
Canada does it, the US does it. No EU needed for that.
The alternative is to have production stalled or unaffordable because you don't have enough people to do the grunt work.
The industry jobs are more likely to be offshored without free movement of people, because import taxes are cheaper than manufacturing in high-wage countries. That's why free movement of goods and people go together.
Canada does it, the US does it. No EU needed for that.
The alternative is to have production stalled or unaffordable because you don't have enough people to do the grunt work.
The industry jobs are more likely to be offshored without free movement of people, because import taxes are cheaper than manufacturing in high-wage countries. That's why free movement of goods and people go together.
The thing is that the whole debate is skewed. As a politician I want to capture the political capital, but I can't do it without providing solutions. I think the job automation is the major contributor to this, but no one is eager to talk about it. What can you say that would get you elected? Stop using technology? What kind of enforceable laws can you provide? In the current politics this problem is insolvable. Some industry jobs are definitely offshored, but no one wants to talk about the fact that, say, steel mills have become 100x more efficient per employee in the 70 years.
> tired of seeing industry jobs being "offshored"
This is really a complex one to solve. What are the solutions? If you impose the tariffs the poorest one will suffer the most - they spend the highest percentage of the income on "stuff". Less competition, higher prices. Trading will slow which will have further implications for the growth. Historically, countries that were trying to isolate themselves failed (19th century China, Brazil 50 years ago)
> tired of seeing industry jobs being "offshored"
This is really a complex one to solve. What are the solutions? If you impose the tariffs the poorest one will suffer the most - they spend the highest percentage of the income on "stuff". Less competition, higher prices. Trading will slow which will have further implications for the growth. Historically, countries that were trying to isolate themselves failed (19th century China, Brazil 50 years ago)
Norway probably doesn't need the single market and freedom of movement to thrive. However, as countries go Norway (Switzerland as well, for that matter) is quite unique. The UK on the other hand with its largely service-based economy is dependent on international trade and workforce movement.
The UK's leaders seem to want hard Brexit, supported by an ever-decreasing number of political Flat Earthers, and some online bots.
The sentient element of the population is agitating hard to stop Brexit and/or making plans to leave.
The sentient element of the population is agitating hard to stop Brexit and/or making plans to leave.
>All 3 of those countries are still in the single European market though, with freedom of movement. Given UK appears to be heading towards a hard brexit and doesn't seem to want freedom of movement I think comparing them directly is a bit disingenuous.
None of these countries is in the "European Market" in the way EU member states are.
And Britain will be as much a part of the free market as those countries are, if not more.
None of these countries is in the "European Market" in the way EU member states are.
And Britain will be as much a part of the free market as those countries are, if not more.
Those countries are essentially part of the EU; they're in the EEA or EFTA, have access to the common market, have to obey most of the rules, and don't get to vote. They chose this situation as politically preferable to the EU from a public opinion point of view; it has few practical advantages.
That'd be what was referred to as a 'soft Brexit'. However, the UK, with its immigration fixation, is now basically committed to a hard Brexit. They won't be in the EEA and they won't have access to the common market. Totally different situation to the countries you named.
That'd be what was referred to as a 'soft Brexit'. However, the UK, with its immigration fixation, is now basically committed to a hard Brexit. They won't be in the EEA and they won't have access to the common market. Totally different situation to the countries you named.
It's a miracle that other top 10 countries like Canada, New Zealand, Japan, Australia managed to get anywhere without being part of the EU.
Let's be realistic. In max 20 years the UK will of course be in the EU single market again. My guess is that they will make similar deals with the EU like Switzerland and probably end up in EFTA. And that would be not a bad place to be.
Probably. That'll be an expensive 20 years, though.
"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest" [1]
- Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, 1950
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Warburg_before_the_Subc...
To put it bluntly, (consolidated government === consolidated control). We will see the media 'attack' the brexit decision in every possible way. TPTB (the ones with the money who own most media) do not want sovereign states.
- Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, 1950
[1] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/James_Warburg_before_the_Subc...
To put it bluntly, (consolidated government === consolidated control). We will see the media 'attack' the brexit decision in every possible way. TPTB (the ones with the money who own most media) do not want sovereign states.
> . TPTB (the ones with the money who own all media) do not want sovereign states.
Oh you mean like the Daily Mail and all the other tabloids that pushed for Brexit so they could get "their country" (read, their lobbying power) back?
Oh you mean like the Daily Mail and all the other tabloids that pushed for Brexit so they could get "their country" (read, their lobbying power) back?
In the UK, the mogul-owned press is all for Brexit.
I suspect I'm feeding a troll by replying, but what the heck. Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are countries. London is a city. It is a truly global city, unlike Zurich, Oslo or Reykjavick.
London is currently one of the top few cities in the World in terms of wealth, culture, diversity and other measures. If it 'falls', it will probably still outrank the vast majority of the World's cities still, but lose its status as one of the jewels in the crown.
London is currently one of the top few cities in the World in terms of wealth, culture, diversity and other measures. If it 'falls', it will probably still outrank the vast majority of the World's cities still, but lose its status as one of the jewels in the crown.
'culture', 'diversity', what does this actually mean? As if London is going to become some kind of backwater! The tourists will still come. The migrants will still come. There are millions of migrants in London that will stay after Brexit.
And if there are fewer property speculators and the housing market cools off a bit, bloody good thing too.
And if there are fewer property speculators and the housing market cools off a bit, bloody good thing too.
> Why do people wish for apocalypses?
To validate ideology.
To validate ideology.
Not necessarily -- if I believe your actions make everyone but yourself worse off, it's not entirely unreasonable for me to choose an outcome where I'm a little worse off than I would be in order to ensure that your benefit is reduced or taken away. This outcome is common in situations where trust does not exist between parties -- my action might actually be required to motivate you to seek to rebuild trust.
I can easily interpret your characterization of me with the phrase "wishing for the apocalypse" as you overstating the relative importance of your loss vs mine.
I can easily interpret your characterization of me with the phrase "wishing for the apocalypse" as you overstating the relative importance of your loss vs mine.
If the premise of the question is invalid then my answer is irrelevant.
Some people just want to watch the world burn?
Watching something is a spectacle, even if you know it's bad its still entertaining. This kind of article will get more traction than a dry analysis, "London will probably be fine".
Switzerland is part of the single market, the free movement area, and is subject to the European Court of Justice - three things that the Brexit bunch explicitly want to be without.
Could have sworn the Swiss voted to get out of the free movement stuff a while back.
Are they? When I was in Iceland I got the feeling that young people couldn't wait to leave, mostly due to low wages and unemployment.
No, London of course won't fall (whatever that's supposed to mean anyway) but it probably will be significantly less important if the Little Englanders have it their way.
Switzerland, Norway and Iceland all have very unique characteristics that make them rather independent. The UK on the other hand - and London particularly so - is very connected to the single market.
Switzerland, Norway and Iceland all have very unique characteristics that make them rather independent. The UK on the other hand - and London particularly so - is very connected to the single market.
Because MSM really hates Brexit, therefore they'll remind you about it forever.
Because the MSM is either in the pocket of the economic elite, or have a workforce of 20-somethings that can live and write from anywhere with a net connection.
The anti-EU sentiment is coming from the people with family, a mortgage around their neck, and watching their former workplace rot away, stripped of all machinery, because the bosses in the glass tower decided that it was more beneficial for the bottom line to sack the lot and contract with a foreign company.
The anti-EU sentiment is coming from the people with family, a mortgage around their neck, and watching their former workplace rot away, stripped of all machinery, because the bosses in the glass tower decided that it was more beneficial for the bottom line to sack the lot and contract with a foreign company.
> MSM
I don't believe you even care about credibility outside of your ideological bubble.
But, in case I am wrong, I'd recommend to avoid clichés that only have meaning for you. It is sloppy and lazy. This acronym is like crying out loud: "I'll just blurt out a standard canned answer devoid of any deep thinking or originality".
I don't believe you even care about credibility outside of your ideological bubble.
But, in case I am wrong, I'd recommend to avoid clichés that only have meaning for you. It is sloppy and lazy. This acronym is like crying out loud: "I'll just blurt out a standard canned answer devoid of any deep thinking or originality".
Replace MSM with NYT if it makes you feel better.
I am not so sure that Brexit will have such a negative impact on Europe (and the world).
I don't like the idea of these Super National organizations that politically and economically integrate people so tightly.
Really it's more about having our global society so tightly integrated and efficient. It means power (economic and political) goes to a select few people who get better and better at holding on to it.
These crazy large banks that are so freaking tightly integrated are the worse example. A crisis at one bank triggers a global meltdown. We don't want a global meltdown so we bail out the banks, making them bigger and more powerful, exacerbating the problem.
The more tightly controlled everything is makes our system so fragile.
If the UK is more separated economically from Europe, if one or the other has an economic crisis the separation will lead to less drastic economic crisis.
I don't like the idea of these Super National organizations that politically and economically integrate people so tightly.
Really it's more about having our global society so tightly integrated and efficient. It means power (economic and political) goes to a select few people who get better and better at holding on to it.
These crazy large banks that are so freaking tightly integrated are the worse example. A crisis at one bank triggers a global meltdown. We don't want a global meltdown so we bail out the banks, making them bigger and more powerful, exacerbating the problem.
The more tightly controlled everything is makes our system so fragile.
If the UK is more separated economically from Europe, if one or the other has an economic crisis the separation will lead to less drastic economic crisis.
Supra-national organizations help prevent war. The original purpose of the EU was to integrate the countries so tightly that war .. which happened twice on this continent not so long ago, would be unthinkable. Now - when the world is looking particularly unstable - is not the time to damage the organisations that keep us close.
From an economic perspective, we live in a world of supra-national companies. To have leverage when negotiating with the likes of Amazon or Google the UK needs to work with other countries to avoid a race to the bottom on working conditions, taxes and so on.
Its the same for trade. When we're not tied by EU legislation, the UK may keep going economically, by building a low tax imitation of the US with shorter holidays, poorer healthcare, welfare etc. But I think the world is a better place for having the EU as standard bearer for a fairer kinder society. Not perfect for sure, wasteful definitely (as is all government). But also holding hope that as human beings we're able to identify with a bigger picture than the tribal nationalisms we grew up with.
From an economic perspective, we live in a world of supra-national companies. To have leverage when negotiating with the likes of Amazon or Google the UK needs to work with other countries to avoid a race to the bottom on working conditions, taxes and so on.
Its the same for trade. When we're not tied by EU legislation, the UK may keep going economically, by building a low tax imitation of the US with shorter holidays, poorer healthcare, welfare etc. But I think the world is a better place for having the EU as standard bearer for a fairer kinder society. Not perfect for sure, wasteful definitely (as is all government). But also holding hope that as human beings we're able to identify with a bigger picture than the tribal nationalisms we grew up with.
This is a well formed opinion. It shouldn't be downvoted; if people disagree there are better ways to express that than by downvoting it to fade out.
You're confusing the financial system, which is global, with local politics, which is... local.
Brexit will do absolutely nothing to rein in the banks. The US has no interest in taming Wall St, and at this point - although it's a very long shot - only an organisation the size of the EU has the leverage to steer banking in a less serving direction.
Brexit will do absolutely nothing to rein in the banks. The US has no interest in taming Wall St, and at this point - although it's a very long shot - only an organisation the size of the EU has the leverage to steer banking in a less serving direction.
Integration has ups and downs
Ups: moving in a cohesive direction. Like CO2 emission reduction
I think there's a balance between independence and integration needed at all levels (global/"continental"/national/regional/municipal) that has to be found
Ups: moving in a cohesive direction. Like CO2 emission reduction
I think there's a balance between independence and integration needed at all levels (global/"continental"/national/regional/municipal) that has to be found
London has been a "world capitol" ... meaning I guess that it has deserved that description as much as any other large city ... since at least the mid-17th century. Whatever affect brexit has on the UK economy and place in the European sphere I doubt it will fundamentally alter London's status.
Right at the end:
"She pays $750 a month for a room on the edge of the city with seven roommates".
Financialisation of housing is killing the UK. Work has no real meaning because value created is unrelated to fiat money appropriated. The divide between have and have not is massive. Immigration is being used to prop up demand for housing as nobody can pay for a small apartment any more so people live 8 to a small house.
"She pays $750 a month for a room on the edge of the city with seven roommates".
Financialisation of housing is killing the UK. Work has no real meaning because value created is unrelated to fiat money appropriated. The divide between have and have not is massive. Immigration is being used to prop up demand for housing as nobody can pay for a small apartment any more so people live 8 to a small house.
You're right but HN hive mind is destroying you.
It's the worst site on the internet for economics. The mixture of econ 101 and smug closed-mindedness from success in other fields is hard to beat.
[deleted]
London has fallen. Is falling. Slowly thru a century.
As the focal point for economic activity of the planet moved from Europe to North America and eventually will move to China.
Brexit has got nothing to do with it; there are much larger forces at play.
As the focal point for economic activity of the planet moved from Europe to North America and eventually will move to China.
Brexit has got nothing to do with it; there are much larger forces at play.
This is an awful piece of pro globalist propaganda IMO. Good job the online format makes it so hard to read.
The EU is totally undemocratic with 7 unelected presidents imposing layers of bureaucracy and regulation on everyone within the eurozone. It has failed to reform and modernize, a key reason why the UK elected to leave in the referendum.
Meanwhile Wall Street is locked in combat with the City of London, hence the 'poor old London the loser/ has been tone' of this article. 'Will London Fall?' etc
The reality is that the City of London is an entirely separate sovereign state within England, and is also one of the largest offshore tax havens on the planet. (This also urgently needs reform). https://www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feab...
As such it is highly unlikely that anything will change around London's global dominance financially..
I am all for integration of the peoples of europe, but on their own terms and wellbeing, not as chattels of a large globalist financial entity. Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland have all been badly damaged by the EU. We need a more equitable system that is about the people and not profits...
The EU is totally undemocratic with 7 unelected presidents imposing layers of bureaucracy and regulation on everyone within the eurozone. It has failed to reform and modernize, a key reason why the UK elected to leave in the referendum.
Meanwhile Wall Street is locked in combat with the City of London, hence the 'poor old London the loser/ has been tone' of this article. 'Will London Fall?' etc
The reality is that the City of London is an entirely separate sovereign state within England, and is also one of the largest offshore tax havens on the planet. (This also urgently needs reform). https://www.ft.com/content/7c8f24fa-3aa5-11e4-bd08-00144feab...
As such it is highly unlikely that anything will change around London's global dominance financially..
I am all for integration of the peoples of europe, but on their own terms and wellbeing, not as chattels of a large globalist financial entity. Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland have all been badly damaged by the EU. We need a more equitable system that is about the people and not profits...
Spot on.
They asked the same question in 2008.
I hope so.
The UK has brought the world much pain, sadly there is no omnipresent compensation, like Karma, that make things right again.
The only fear I have is that people will now flock to Berlin and gentrify the hell out of it. Shame.
The UK has brought the world much pain, sadly there is no omnipresent compensation, like Karma, that make things right again.
The only fear I have is that people will now flock to Berlin and gentrify the hell out of it. Shame.
This article does a great job at capturing the mood in London. I think a lot of Londoners feel a kind of betrayal - when Brexiteers talk about 'reclaiming' the country, to diverse Londoners that means 'reclaiming' it from them. There is no doubt that people are feel targeted and alienated by this kind of discourse - and this very much includes EU citizens who have been witnessing the rhetoric with increasing concern.
I particularly dislike the arrogance of the uniquely British 'reassurances' given to skilled non-UK citizens with regards to this anti-immigrant rhetoric, which goes something like "Oh when we talk about throwing out the filthy immigrants, we don't mean YOU - so long as we find you useful". I mean, geez, thanks I guess it's just friends and family who'll get forcibly deported then, nothing to worry about.
In general there appears to be a (possibly wilful) lack of appreciation among the Brexit crowd that when you say horrible things about the Europeans and immigrants, those people can actually hear you. I'm not sure how they expect to build an 'open trading nation' while becoming known as the country that calls foreigners scum.
I particularly dislike the arrogance of the uniquely British 'reassurances' given to skilled non-UK citizens with regards to this anti-immigrant rhetoric, which goes something like "Oh when we talk about throwing out the filthy immigrants, we don't mean YOU - so long as we find you useful". I mean, geez, thanks I guess it's just friends and family who'll get forcibly deported then, nothing to worry about.
In general there appears to be a (possibly wilful) lack of appreciation among the Brexit crowd that when you say horrible things about the Europeans and immigrants, those people can actually hear you. I'm not sure how they expect to build an 'open trading nation' while becoming known as the country that calls foreigners scum.
Is it really Leavers saying that, though? Or is it Remainers telling everyone that Leavers are saying that as a way of trying to make Leavers look bad?
Obviously, as with anything in reality, it's a bit of both. But polls both before and after the referendum consistently showed that immigration was not the primary concern motivating Leave voters, support for immigration in general is still very high across the board (well into the 80s IIRC, and ISTR the most recent poll I saw showed only about a 1% gap in support for it between Leave and Remain voters), and support for all existing EU residents being able to stay after Brexit is near-as-dammit universal. The only reason that hasn't been officially confirmed already is that the EU refused to reciprocate for UK citizens living in the rEU until the Article 50 notification had happened.
I understand that a lot of people are anxious, and I hope things get cleared up soon to remove that anxiety, but the people continually screaming that Brexiteers hate immigrants and want to throw them out, against all evidence to the contrary, are not really helping matters.
Obviously, as with anything in reality, it's a bit of both. But polls both before and after the referendum consistently showed that immigration was not the primary concern motivating Leave voters, support for immigration in general is still very high across the board (well into the 80s IIRC, and ISTR the most recent poll I saw showed only about a 1% gap in support for it between Leave and Remain voters), and support for all existing EU residents being able to stay after Brexit is near-as-dammit universal. The only reason that hasn't been officially confirmed already is that the EU refused to reciprocate for UK citizens living in the rEU until the Article 50 notification had happened.
I understand that a lot of people are anxious, and I hope things get cleared up soon to remove that anxiety, but the people continually screaming that Brexiteers hate immigrants and want to throw them out, against all evidence to the contrary, are not really helping matters.
I've heard the feeling expressed by many Brexit supporters that their concerns about migration have nothing to do with immigration or foreigners per se, but more with the pace of change due to mass uncontrolled migration. Also I don't recognise the image you portray of the UK being 'the country that calls foreigners scum'. This might be what the vested interests including the media would have you believe, or what you might choose to believe if you are pro-EU, but I suspect the portrayal of Brexit supporters as arrogant racists is a little one-dimensional and doesn't have a strong basis in reality.
How is that uniquely British? They do that everywhere. The primary justification for accepting immigrants is that they are a driver for the economy.
[deleted]
Having recently moved back after 10 years, the country seems massively behind the times in most ways. Everything is slower and less efficient than in Europe; more bureaucratic, worse technology & infrastructure. Half the service at twice the price and takes three weeks to do anything. I don't feel farming subsidies are going to cut it going forward.