UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-39424391

by nedsma • 9 years ago

315 631 9 years ago

djaychela• 9 years ago

I sincerely hope that today (and obviously the day it actually happens) isn't something that I look back on with sadness in the future. I live in the UK, and am really saddened by the way that politics is 'progressing' - in fact, regressing to a time where nationalism seems to be the voice, and one which I think will inevitably lead to conflict. Combined with the Trump situation in the USA, I am extremely pessimistic about the future - more so of my four step children, who are all going to reap the adult world that people such as Johnson, Gove and Farage have sewn.

adnam5• 9 years ago

We had plenty of conflict while part of the EU: the Falklands, Iraq, the IRA, Bosnia for example.

It wasn't nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe, it was a lack of democracy.

Svip4• 9 years ago

But that suggests that the UK itself lacks democracy. If the UK doesn't change because of this, how will staying in or leaving the EU change that?

mmjaa2• 9 years ago

Falklands happened "because of the EU"? Thats news to me. I thought it happened because the UK needs the oil reserves to prop up its broken economy.

themihai6• 9 years ago

Well, you didn't see a war between Germany and England though... Bosnia, Iraq etc were not part of the EU. The point was to create a closely integrated Europe so that war would become unthinkable just like a war between England and Scotland is unthinkable now. Of course it was nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe. Did democracy prevent Russia to invade Ukraine? UK simply decided the European project is not worth it and they are better off trading as an independent country than part of a european family. This may prove true but we will have to see and for how long. If the EU reforms and sticks together I fail to see how leaving it is a good choice. I hope this will make EU stronger and more competitive as UK will force their hand to do more.

vanderZwan2• 9 years ago

It wasn't nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe, it was a lack of democracy.

This is infuriatingly vague.

What are you complaining about? That the various EU councils aren't directly elected? Well, they are all delegates of politicians who have been elected in their home country. And to have a direct election makes no sense, because it's not like a Swede will vote for an Italian politician. For that to happen the EU would have to turn into some kind of United States of Europe, but "surprisingly" people who complain about a lack of democracy also always want their own home country to remain autonomy. Which is a driving force in the exact opposite direction: less direct democracy, let the elected politicians duke things out while trying to work towards the best interest of their people.

I mean this is international legislation we are talking about, trying to navigate the different laws and customs of each individual EU member. It's inherently goddamn complicated and it's probably for the best that we let the delegated politicians deal with it for the most part.

Or is it about the supposed "unelected bureaucrats in Europe telling us what to do!" Because that's another part that I find really fucking annoying about Eurosceptics who talk out of their ass: the complaint that EU makes things more complicated and creates more red tape, when there hasn't been any other project remotely as effective at reducing as much bureaucracy from the European continent as the European Union.

You hear these complaints of "They're wasting time on creating more red tape and banning curved bananas!"? Because that too is nonsense, to the point that there is an entire blog dedicated to debunking such Euromyths[0]. Here, I'll give you an explicit example of one that I investigated myself:

On the 29th of May 2014 the Telegraph[1], the Daily Mail[2], the Independent[3] all published virtually identical articles accusing the EU of being out to ban classic perfumes. The next day the Times (sorry, no link) did the same.

None of the articles mentioned a source (of course), but they turned out to be rewritten versions of a Reuters article from a day earlier[4], pulling paragraphs out of context and omitting key information. The actual proposal consisted of a ban on three ingredients, and an increase of the number of ingredients that have to be clearly labelled, because they have been shown to be significantly allergenic.

A special report by Reuters from 2012[5] actually discussed much stronger restrictions that the perfume industry feared for, in anticipation of a report on allergenic ingredients by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. Moreover, that 2012 article discussed how the perfume industry has already been changing many of its formulas for decades, and went on to explain how a new labelling regulation – enforced by the same proposed legislation – would force them to disclose many (allergenic) ingredients of their secret formulas. Among other things, this would make it harder for brands to get away with changing their formulas unnoticed.

By contrast, the 2014 Reuters article indicates that the final changes were fairly non-controversial, likely because the EU held a number of public consultations with the perfume industry between 2012 and 2014. In other words: the European Union had been transparent to and cooperative with the cosmetics industry in implementing changes to its perfume regulation.

Now here's the real kicker: when researching this, we discovered that the main legislation surrounding cosmetic products – Regulation 1223/2009 – replaced the old directive of over 3500 pages, which was patched with 55 amendments and full of incoherent terminology, with a single coherent regulation of about 200 pages, greatly reducing costs for the cosmetic industry. Not that anyone took notice of that. And before you blame that old 3500 page document on the EU, realise that that was basically all the separate national laws thrown together onto one heap of amendments - hardly the EU's fault. Read the press release here[6].

A 3500 page document! Mind you, that wasn't the fault of of the EU, that represented the underlying, incompatible laws of the various member countries. And the EU fixed that and simplified it to a universal 200 pages, applicable everywhere. Do you have any idea how much administration costs that saves across the continent?

And this happens again and again, and you never hear anyone talk of this.

[0] http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/

[1] http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/newsfeatures/TMG108620...

[2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2642389/Now-EU-rules...

[3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/iconic-chane...

[4] http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-perfume-idUKKBN0E30GE201...

[5] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-perfume-idUSBRE8BF0...

[6] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-08-184_en.htm?locale...

k-mcgrady6• 9 years ago

> "It wasn't nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe, it was a lack of democracy."

The Yugoslav wars were centred around nationalism. The Irish conflict, again was centred around nationalism and civil rights (you can't seriously think there wasn't democracy in Ireland?).

cmdkeen4• 9 years ago

Nationalism may have a voice but it hasn't been defeated on the continent at all. Golden Dawn, 5 Star Movement, Front Nationale, AfD. UKIP are currently polling 10% in the UK and have just lost their only MP (who it turns out only joined them to marginalise Farage in any EU referendum).

There's a case to be made that the increasing centralisation of Europe is provoking a national reaction in members states. You don't have to be Greek or Italian to empathise with why people might not be happy with their situation or the "German" approach to solving it.

I'm hoping that with the return of a lot of powers to Parliaments (be they Westminster or devolved) that there will be more of a distinction between parties and more debate around policies. The public will have to own far more than we currently do - the most high profile recent example is the "Tampon Tax", everyone seems to acknowledge it shouldn't exist but politicians currently shrug and say "Europe". That excuse is going away.

estel• 9 years ago

Obviously words are a lot cheaper than action, but it's at least a small consolation that the current Government, for all its varied faults, remains a pretty globalist and free-trade one (despite being responsible for one of the most protectionist and nationalist actions in the last century).

Which is to say that I don't think the nationalist right-wing will be mollified entirely by the exit negotiations. If the UK had the equivalent of a Front Nationale government leading Brexit right now I'd find that much more worrisome.

ealexhudson3• 9 years ago

I'm a big believer in not having assumptions and testing things with actual experiments. This is one experiment I'd rather not be participating in, though.

It's difficult to see very much positive about this move; certainly there will be some benefits, but I expect greatly outweighed by the negatives (which will include higher prices, lower employment and probably lower standards for UK workers - the EU has consistently been the only organisation willing to drag us out of the dark ages).

ForRealsies2• 9 years ago

The EU is a novelty in human history. The desire for independence, for better or worse, is human nature.

fao_• 9 years ago

I guess only old Welsh people have "human nature" then...

bryanrasmussen• 9 years ago

Right, this is why there have never been empires, kings, large nations or organized groups that have subsumed smaller groups around them, the United States, Great Britain itself, or any organization of peoples greater than just one lone man standing in a field bellowing 'ME!' at the emptiness.

TeMPOraL• 9 years ago

I wonder if the "desire for independence" is simply born out of the usual ingroup/outgroup dynamics - convince people they're being ruled by an outgroup, and suddenly they want to be independent.

The problem with this being that group borders are petty flexible and easily manipulated.

fredley5• 9 years ago

Independence from what? Should England be an Independent state? London? The City of London?

CPLX2• 9 years ago

It's really not. The American states were a loosely organized confederacy at outset as well. India has multiple languages. And of course the long history of empires, like the Ottoman, or Spanish control of Latin America. Yes they rise and fall, but often over the course of centuries and well out of the observational abilities of the human lifespan. There's nothing inevitable about the EU, in either direction.

dalore3• 9 years ago

The USA is a novelty in human history. The desire for independence, for better or worse, is human nature.

vidarh10• 9 years ago

I'd say the desire to build empires is a far more dominant part of human history than fights for independence.

As for novelty, apart from drawing parallels to the establishment of the US, consider also the African Union.

The African Union includes every country on the African continent - 55 of them (as of Morocco joining/rejoining in January), and includes far more people, and is on a course towards similar levels of integration, with several free trade areas established and gradually coalescing, and several monetary unions being used to gradually pare down the number of currencies with the goal of a single African currency.

It has a long way to go to reach EU level integration, but considering how bad their starting point was (starting, in the form of the OAU with a continent that still had numerous wars and civil wars and independence struggles), what they've achieved is quite impressive.

ionised11• 9 years ago

This is a gross oversimplification.

krona4• 9 years ago

which will include higher prices

Interesting. I was in a UK supermarket the other day and the asparagus on offer was from Spain and Mexico. The Mexican variety was cheaper, and just as good. Currently, Mexico pays a 14.4% common external tariff on this product, and it's still cheaper than what the EU (with it's massive array of agricultural subsidy) can produce. I imagine this is just the tip of the iceberg.

louisswiss2• 9 years ago

*heart of the iceberg (lettuce) - tip of the asparagus.

JamesMcMinn9• 9 years ago

Given that Spain is still recovering from flooding, cold weather and a bunch of other issues [1] that have made growing vegetables impossible in many areas, that's not really a surprise.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38666752

lhopki0117• 9 years ago

Yes anecdotal evidence of one trip to the supermarket which has nothing to do with the very terrible winter in Southern Europe.

Time for anecdotal evidence. My weekly supermarket bill has been going up since the Brexit vote.

TheAdamAndChe3• 9 years ago

That may be because the minimum wages are massively different for the two countries, with $0.48/hr in Mexico vs $4.98/hr in Spain[1]. Globalism does exploit the lower standard of living of other countries, after all. That means that even though there are massive tariffs, these "third world" countries can still make a profit because of the abysmal quality of life for its citizens.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_count...

TorKlingberg2• 9 years ago

That's because we are early in the asparagus season, and Mexico is a warmer country. Wait a couple of weeks and you will see mostly Spanish asparagus. A couple of more weeks and it will be British.

bontoJR• 9 years ago

These are pretty much the same forecasts Switzerland and Norway were supposed to face when they rejected to join the EU... people losing jobs, Swiss Franc falling, export collapsing, etc... well, it went a little bit in a different way.

OFC leaving is totally a different thing from not being in at all, but still... there are going to be pro and cons, but the economy will adapt as happened in Switzerland and Norway. Some will gain, some will lose, but the general picture can be valid only in 3-5 years after the Kingdom is out, so not before 2022.

lhopki0117• 9 years ago

What? Norway is a member of the EEA and Switzerland has bilateral agreements that come to the same thing. Nothing changed for them they just don't get a say in the rules.

hocuspocus• 9 years ago

The UK is putting itself in a much tougher situation, this is absolutely not comparable to Switzerland and Norway.

And some of the forecasts about Switzerland turned out very real. We have to agree and comply with Europe on most things, without much bargaining power. And the EURCHF swings can literally put businesses to the ground overnight.

cygx• 9 years ago

Note that Norway and Switzerland accept freedom of movement. Switzerland tried to introduce immigration quotas for EU workers, but that got scrapped a couple of months ago.

tobltobs• 9 years ago

Note that Switzerland last year had a similar situation after the MEI referendum and they prefered not to pull the plug on the bilateral treaties.

vidarh10• 9 years ago

For Norway's case that is a meaningless statement.

Via the EEA, Norway accepted pretty much all of the EU with the exception of the Common Agricultural Policy and parts of the fishing policies, and the Euro.

Unlike the UK, Norway is part of Schengen, and outside of the areas mentioned above, Norway has fewer special considerations and opt-outs from EU directives than the UK has.

If the UK negotiates the same deal that Norway has, the UK will probably do ok, but that would in many areas mean tighter integration into the EU than currently. E.g. joining Schengen, dropping various opt-outs etc. It would also mean maintaining full freedom of movement.

I'd love to see that happen if only to hear the whining from the Leaver crowd, many of whom held up the Norwegian model as an alternative to convince people to vote Leave.

s_dev• 9 years ago

Norway and Switzerland are effectively EU members in everything but name -- they pay in to the single market and accept the four freedoms.

They both have very good reason for not joining EU proper - Norway has a giant fishing industry relative to other industries and Switzerland wishes to preserve her neutrality.

agumonkey2• 9 years ago

It's also a very weakly motivated experiment. At least based on the morning after TV appearance of Nigel Farrage. I've rarely seen such a buffon face on someone. Less than 24h after celebrating the "win".

gambiting6• 9 years ago

Don't forget that in an interview yesterday he said that if Brexit turns out to be a failed experiment, he will leave UK and live somewhere else. I'm sure his buddy Donald Trump will offer him a place to live.

folli4• 9 years ago

I absolutely see the advantages of having common standards, tariff agreements etc. to make trade across borders easier (i.e. something akin to the European Economic Area). I'm however also a proponent of federalism, because I believe that for a democracy to truly work it is necessary that the people still feel responsible for their votes and their decisions. This is something which I'm missing in centralised and unitary states after they reach a certain size and heterogenity. I'm aware that the European Union is not (yet) a unitary state, but it is certainly shifting away democratic power from a more regional democratic system to a centralised government.

I agree that the UK's decision to leave the EU is not an optimal one (and potentially costly), but I believe it's long term the right one, given the current state. An alternative would be to change the EU within, to force it to focus on its core competencies (which I mainly see as a trade union, and leave most of the political decisions to its nation states); however I'm not sure that this would happen without any big bang, such as the Brexit might have been.

Svip4• 9 years ago

But the EU does have a directly elected parliament? So where's the lack of democracy in the EU?

rayiner6• 9 years ago

What's at stake here is more fundamental than federalism: it's self determination. Throughout history, discrete groups have waged wars of independence to ensure that they can have a government that reflects their shared history, culture, and values. My family is from Bangladesh, which fought a war to separate from Pakistan over cultural/linguistic differences. In another example, Israel is engaged in an existential battle to ensure the existence of a sovereign nation for its people.

In Europe, exactly the opposite is happening. People are being prodded to give up their sovereignty to a supra-national bureaucracy, and to be assimilated into a hetrogenous body politic with hundreds of millions of other people with which they share little other than said bureaucracy. People in the U.K. were very rightfully afraid of what that could lead to and decided they wanted to get off that train.

davedx• 9 years ago

it is certainly shifting away democratic power from a more regional democratic system to a centralised government.

The Treaty of Lisbon indicates otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon

How is the EU centralising further?

simonh2• 9 years ago

A primarily trade union with most political decisions made by nation states is exactly what the EU is. The failure of the Euro has also pretty much guaranteed it will stay that way too.

barrkel4• 9 years ago

The EU isn't about trade; it was never about trade. It was about peace.

nicky02• 9 years ago

which will include higher prices, lower employment and probably lower standards for UK workers

I often see this kind of sweeping statement here on HN as if the consequences of Brexit are an already an established fact. How do you substantiate these predicitons? Are you aware of the term "project fear"[0]?

0:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Fear_(British_politics...

nthcolumn4• 9 years ago

Maybe the small matter that every single economic authority on the matter from our foreign allies like Barack Obama, to the IMF, the Bank Of England, the Confederation of British Industry, (and endless list) said it would be an unmitigated disaster... and then there are the people who think it is a good idea... Trump, Putin, Lafarge, Gove, and not even the the PM thought it was a good idea to start off with. Project Fear? - more like Project Shit Your Pants Now...

hosker4u• 9 years ago

On those negatives: "higher prices" our food prices are rather high due to EU Tarrifs from none-eu countries. Food Prices can fall as the UK free to make trade deals with others. (Specific meat and Australia)

"lower employment" we have low-unemployment and a plan to reduce immigration. Employment will perhaps rise which may not be a good thing.

"lower standards for UK workers" labour opposition myth, its a good one "nasty tories". If they lower standards we elect labour in again to raise them. yey democracy

lkrubner• 9 years ago

But, but, but, the Daily Mail says Brexit is good! It's absolutely true if it's written in the Daily Mail!

I'm sure you've heard this song already, but it is worth a listen again to remember how Britain got here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

tomjen3• 9 years ago

Hopefully there will be some sort of negotiation whereby workers in the UK can work in the EU, just like people who hold Swiss citizenship can.

Then, if the experiment turns out horrible, which it probably will, you will at least have the opportunity to move abroad for a better life.

I will extend to my condolences, but give it five years and I may very well be in your boat, and even if I'm not let's face it you can't use my condolences to anything.

99_00• 9 years ago

It takes fairly heroic assumptions to make this into a specific number, but 2-3 percent lower income in perpetuity seems plausible.

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/the-macroeconom...

golemotron2• 9 years ago

I'm a big believer in not having assumptions and testing things with actual experiments. This is one experiment I'd rather not be participating in, though.

Have you tried flipping that? The EU was an experiment, not the status quo.

dijit4• 9 years ago

I'm British but live in the EU. I've been watching this from the outside and it makes me so very sad and despondent. Forgetting any inconvenience on my part (of which there are very few -I likely have access to an EU passport.).

It's fucking stupid. No ifs, no buts, no apologies and respecting of alternate opinions. Just fucking stupid. Every single reason for leaving (other than "leave so the EU can get on without UK obstructions) has been debunked. Poeple protest voted, they voted with feelings instead of sense. They ignored people who knew what they were talking about and went with idiotic soundbites. I don't know what the actual fuck is going through the minds of our government, but it's not sense.

Hell, it's going ahead. We don't have the manpower, experience or knowledge to replace things that have been done with the EU. The boring administration. Standards, procedures... All the little details that mean the difference between something that works and something that doesn't.

I trust the EU oversight much further than the bunch of fools in the UK. Too entwined with their own interests. Who has bought them, why are they so scared of newspapers, why they seem utter cowards... We have some wonderful examples of how education and arrogance can seem like intelligence.

Aaaand yup, this is a rant now. I shall carry on, because now I'm finding it a little cathartic.

I'm not left wing, not right. I earn well above the average. I'm a pragmatist and I firmly believe that having strong and successful neighbours is good. I do not want a neighbour that throws the metaphorical shite over the fence. There are poorer countries in the EU. Movement is good between countries and those that people complain about will not bother taking the leap when their home country is made attractive enough not to.

Nothing is perfect. The EU is far from it, because it involves people... But they move slowly in a direction of interest to its citizens. Not just in the interest of the people of those governments.

It's been pissed away by liars and imbeciles now. I cannot unite behind it in the same way I would try to stop idiots from walking off a cliff, rather than joining them.

Possibly a little harsh. Probably not though.

dijit4• 9 years ago

It's rather notable that the UK has the option of aborting this process during the 2 years. (According to an EU official who's name I forget), it's incredibly unlikely that anyone will go back on this though. The uncertainty of having this option available is bad for the UK though. Markets hate uncertainty.

s_kilk• 9 years ago

Does it?

I thought Article 50 was very much a 'hand grenade', once the pin is out there's no going back. If the two years run out without an agreement being reached, doesn't the UK just get chucked out and revert to WTO rules?

ealexhudson3• 9 years ago

It doesn't have the option per se: it can ask to abort it, and it can do so with the agreement of the 27. Also, the 27 can agree to a date far off in the future (it doesn't have to be two years).

It seems staggeringly unlikely that they would allow us to abort without a major change in relationship, though, and politically things would need to get extremely difficult for the UK for that to become palatable. All the exceptions and discounts we get right now would absolutely cease.

pricechild2• 9 years ago

I've been wondering about this as I thought the same.

In the last few days though many news outlets have been using phrases such as "irrevocable process" and it's plainly not clear what the situation is. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/date-will-article-50-trigg...

What have we signed up for?

havondale• 9 years ago

Perhaps people didn't want 'ever closer integration' to a very undemocratic system of government. Unpopular opinion, but the economy isn't everything. I'd much rather live somewhere with a smaller economy where there's actually a mechanism to remove those in power.

prodmerc6• 9 years ago

I'd much rather live somewhere with a smaller economy where there's actually a mechanism to remove those in power.

Like?

nickpeterson• 9 years ago

Look at the bright side, I live in the US where our president and his staff are quite literally morons.

dijit4• 9 years ago

I do not envy the USA right now either. Can we agree we're both being shafted from above?

lhopki0117• 9 years ago

The US will have the chance to make a different decision in 4 years and then again in 4 years after that. The UK will not.

Two9A• 9 years ago

Are British HN'ers taking any mitigating steps due to this whole situation?

I'm currently in the process of incorporating in the Netherlands, and it turns out setting up a Ltd is a lot more expensive over there than in the UK. I just don't feel that the UK will make good use of my tax receipts any more, so I'm almost obligated to take my work elsewhere.

ealexhudson3• 9 years ago

I'm formally getting EU citizenship (which I'm lucky enough to be entitled to as a citizen of Ireland). There is going to be increased demand for this, particularly as people realise that there is going to be a hard border (which seems inevitable, given the statements on freedom of movement). I won't actually move, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of personal and small businesses move in exactly the way you're suggesting.

PaulRobinson• 9 years ago

The letter specifically calls for ensuring there is no hard border.

david-gpu• 9 years ago

How are you applying for EU citizenship? All I can find is that it is automatically granted to all Nationals if member states. I.e. if you are Irish then you automatically have EU citizenship.

Is there anything else you can do?

arethuza3• 9 years ago

Does supporting Scottish independence count?

ck4253• 9 years ago

Strongly considering this. The privacy issues caused by the Tories is also a factor. Thankfully I'm securely enough employed that the economic impact shouldn't be too bad for me personally, if it were to go through.

gambiting6• 9 years ago

I'm not British but I live in the UK - I have based my entire life here, family, house, job, car, everything - and a year ago, I would have never considered leaving, this is my home. But right now, I'm weighting my options. I'm a huge believer in the European Union, so why would I want to live in a country that's not in it? And increasingly, I think the answer is - I wouldn't. So although I haven't started packing yet, if, for example, it turns out I have to get a visa to stay in the country that I consider my home, then I will most likely pack everything and leave to a different EU country that is more welcoming.

arethuza3• 9 years ago

I have had the pleasure over the last few years or working in the UK with so many excellent people from elsewhere in the EU - from Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Germany, Portugal to name a few.

It really upsets me that the inclusive welcoming culture that we used to have (not to mention the economic benefits) is being destroyed.

topbanana3• 9 years ago

Getting a visa isn't so onerous is it? Compared with the hassle of upping your roots and moving your family?

junto2• 9 years ago

I'm in the opposite situation, living in Germany as a British national. Since the EU is likely to respond in kind to any actions it takes out against EU nationals in the UK, I'm probably going to face the same in return, and it scares the crap out of me.

I've built my life over here, have a family and I really don't want to be forced back to the UK away from my children.

At present I'm considering taking out German nationality since I've pretty much been here long enough to do so, but I'm not keen on being forced to give up my British citizenship as a result. Being British is a core part of my identity.

The goalposts have been moved and after being encouraged to take advantage of freedom of movement I now find myself up against the wall as a result. This stinks.

HenryBemis2• 9 years ago

EU Citizen here, living in the UK or "wherever I may roam".

I have my Ltd in the UK. I am sticking to the UK for the time being, and will keep a close eye at:

1) Tax scheme/calculations for dividends.

2) Ability to transfer money in & out and at what cost (in the extreme case of Capital Controls or limiting transfers abroad).

3) Exchange Rate of GBP against EUR, USD, and a couple more so I make sure that my payments are not losing 10% on the get-go.

All the above are extreme situations. If I feel that my income/finances are threatened, then I will act, otherwise I will continue to support UK economy as UK has been "supporting" me (not really), these years.

AndrewOMartin• 9 years ago

Do let us know if the GBP ever tumbles against the EUR or USD.

Doctor_Fegg2• 9 years ago

Are British HN'ers taking any mitigating steps due to this whole situation?

Campaigning for the Liberal Democrats.

fredley5• 9 years ago

If only there was a snowball's chance in hell of this achieving something. (disclosure: party member)

SirHound2• 9 years ago

I'm a party member - what's the best way to get more involved with the party?

XJOKOLAT3• 9 years ago

Hedged sterling.

Looking to move medium term. Bored of this place.

rwmj• 9 years ago

In the middle of investigating the costs and feasibility of moving to the Far East.

The petty racism behind this, plus loss in two years time of my ability to move to any country in the EU, makes me very sad.

chillydawg3• 9 years ago

If petty racism here annoys you, just you wait til you get to Japan/China/Wherever you're going. Stone ages over there.

lifty• 9 years ago

AFAIK incorporating in Netherlands is very cheap. You need 1 euro starting capital and the notary fee, which is a few hundred euros. Are you referring to the initial incorporation costs or the ongoing tax burden?

martinald3• 9 years ago

A few hundred euros is a lot more than the UK. You can get the whole thing done in the UK for like £15.

antihero• 9 years ago

To be honest I'm just staring blankly into space and wondering if us Londoners can secede from the rest of the UK somehow.

themihai6• 9 years ago

Very unlikely but not impossible. It reminds me of "Yes California" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes_California

cs02rm04• 9 years ago

No, I'm not. Not sure why you'd feel the UK would make less good use of your tax receipts.

UK corporation tax is on the way down. It'd be higher in NL anyway than in the UK. Enjoy the cheaper rates and if you really feel obligated, give the surplus direct to whatever cause you want. I doubt going via the EU is the most efficient way of doing that.

ownagefool3• 9 years ago

If you live and work in the UK, you are tax domiciled here, irregardless of where you incoperate.

junto2• 9 years ago

This should be top.

falsedan2• 9 years ago

Sure but if your company makes all the money, then you only get the dividend tax rate: 38.1% vs 40-45%, for higher-rate tax payers.

Mind, your company has to be paying a pretty low corporate rate for this to make a difference (like if it's incorporated in the Channel Isles).

parkersweb• 9 years ago

To be honest - one of the most disheartening parts of this experience is the lack of coherent opposition to the process being carried out. It's like we've moved quickly from a slender majority in a doubtful referendum to an almost entire acceptance that the consequence must be the 'hard' brexit narrative.

The only voices actively trying to counter that are former prime ministers (sorry Tony - right message, really really wrong guy) and the Lib Dems who lack the political presence at the moment.

When do we get a meaningful opposition to this?

k-mcgrady6• 9 years ago

I think the problem is that a lot of Brexit support came from the working class - Labour supporters typically. So Labour are left to accept Brexit but push for a soft version which is what they seem to be doing (at least that's how it appeared in PMQ's today). Again though the problem is a lot of their base seem to want a hard Brexit so meaningful opposition with increased support isn't likely.

legostormtroopr• 9 years ago

Would you ask the same question if the "slender majority" was in your favour? If the referendum yielded a remain vote, would you accept people saying "hang on this margin was really slim, why are we accepting this and why aren't we opposing remaining?"

The fact of the matter is this - a referendum was held with the pre-agreed rule that what the majority decided would happen, and the majority of voters voted to leave the EU. So thats what needs to be done, regardless of how "slender" the margin was. All of this talk of "opposition" to Brexit just shows how many people really don't get why the vote happened as it did.

mdekkers2• 9 years ago

Look at Cyprus. Bit more expensive in setting up. Stupidly cost effective at running and taxation, especially when not tax resident.

d4rti• 9 years ago

I applied for Irish citizenship as a contingency

ed_balls3• 9 years ago

Moving to Switzerland.

ionised11• 9 years ago

Looking into options abroad.

I'ma software developer so I have skills in demand in Europe, but the language is a barrier in some places. My girlfriend is Polish and speaks a little German, and I have been considering taking German language lessons.

That said, a few people I know have moved to Germany without speaking the language and said they did fine and everyone was really friendly, so perhaps I could learn once I was there.

te_chris3• 9 years ago

Today is the day that David Cameron's legacy is solidified: The hubristic toff who saw his nation as a play thing.

csmattryder• 9 years ago

He gambled 64 million people's livelihoods to defend his party against another, that right now, doesn't even have a sitting MP (for those outside the UK, that's the UK Independence Party).

There's tables at Vegas that haven't seen that level of loss.

djmobley5• 9 years ago

You seem to be forgetting the part where the British people voted to leave the EU.

dev_head_up3• 9 years ago

oesn't even have a sitting MP

While technically true, that's deliberately misleading to those not familiar with the UK. That party got 3,881,099 votes (12.7% of all, making them the third biggest in results) but the craziness of the First Past The Post meant that didn't translate to seats.

rleigh4• 9 years ago

He might have made a gamble for political reasons. But, don't forget that there had been strong demand for a referendum on the matter since at least the mid '90s. It was long overdue, and (being cynical) had been denied because the outcome wasn't going to be what the government wanted (i.e. they knew the majority would have consistently voted leave, and didn't want to hold the referendum until they could guarantee a remain vote).

When given the chance to express their true opinion of EU membership, the majority voted leave. Not a particularly shocking outcome, given the lack of love the EU had in the eyes of most of the populace, and always had despite several decades of indoctrination.

redsummer2• 9 years ago

Great news. Of the four happiest countries in the world, three are European countries outside the EU. Autonomy is crucial to happiness.

aembleton• 9 years ago

Most of the world is outside of the EU. I don't think this correlation can stand.

OJFord4• 9 years ago

GP referred to European countries outside the EU though; not 'the world ... outside of the EU'.

The EU forms 510/743 millions of people in Europe, so GP's point is more valid than you claim.

orf• 9 years ago

That's a pretty confused statement with not much relevance to this article or indeed brexit.

Sharlin• 9 years ago

A wonderful example of an argument that isn't even wrong. For reference, see cherry-picking, confirmation bias, cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

Traubenfuchs• 9 years ago

How dare you challenge the common narrative!

lhopki0117• 9 years ago

It's worth noting that all three of those countries are either in the EEA or have similar agreements. That means they're following EU rules without having a say in them. I'm not sure why you think they have more autonomy.

Additionally if you want to selectively quote statistics I can just come back with 4 out of the top 10 are EU nations. 7 out of the top 10 have to follow EU rules.

redsummer2• 9 years ago

A great thing about autonomy is the ability to quickly solve national problems. Compare and contrast non-EU Iceland and EU Greece. Both came near to collapse due to financial crises. Iceland jailed the bankers and recovered. Greece is in the EU straight-jacket, the corrupt bankers became kings and the people will be in debt bondage for decades.

Brexit is comparable to the Berlin Wall falling. Like the Soviet Union, the technocratic elites could not imagine it collapsing until the people willed it.

pimterry3• 9 years ago

Greece is in the EU straight-jacket

The lack of freedom for Greece to manage its finances is because it's a member of the Euro, not the EU. That isn't really relevant to the UK.

And as far as I know, neither the Euro nor EU laws limited the Greeks' ability to prosecute their bankers. Is there a reason those are connected?

ben_w7• 9 years ago

If Greece could have solved their problems the same was Iceland did, they would have done so. The reality is Greece was economically dependent on a lot of business that stopped when the Credit Crunch hit, but Icleand had relatively small problems with three banks defaulting after a bank run and loss of access to credit, about 10% reduction in real-terms GDP.

"Relatively small", because UBS was warning the Greece faced hyperinflation, military coup, civil war — and that was just from leaving the Euro and revaluing their currency in an orderly default where they didn't have to repay everything.

It's not just the EU that told Greece what to do, the IMF is part of the Trokia.

trismegisto• 9 years ago

Now without the EU burden, the UK will truly prosper.

Cheers.

parenthephobia• 9 years ago

What does that prove? Of the twenty least happy countries in the world, all are outside the EU.

DrNuke• 9 years ago

Corbyn for Labour Party: "There are Conservatives who want to use Brexit to turn this country into a low-wage tax haven." Well, full automation = no wages at all, ehehe. I am not sure how it is going to end and it is not my strict business anyway but there is a chance, not a slim chance imho, we may well see some sort of sci-fi dystopian UK emerging from this process. Interesting times ahead. Disclaimer: spent five years in the UK on the cusp of the 2007-8 financial crash and could see this was going to happen somehow someday, all starting from there and from perverse globalisation enhancing inequalities imho.

k__4• 9 years ago

Hopefully, like Trump in the US, this will wake them up.

72deluxe• 9 years ago

Who? And wake up to what? To do what?

k__4• 9 years ago

The people of the UK.

I had the feeling they were resting on the inherited wealth of their empire for rather long now. They always wanted special treatments in the EU. They even pay mad bucks on their royals for basically nothing.

Maybe this Brexit will go down bad and they will change their ways and join the EU in 10-20 years as 'real' members.

But I don't have many hopes in that. Probably they will end up like Switzerland or something :/

Gonzih• 9 years ago

Did trump wake somebody up?

empressplay• 9 years ago

Democracy is a double-edged sword. I may not like the way it cuts sometimes, but no way in hell I'll ever put it down.

k-mcgrady6• 9 years ago

> I may not like the way it cuts sometimes, but no way in hell I'll ever put it down.

Why not? It's not a perfect process and blindly accepting it because 'democracy is good' is dangerous.

Personally I'm against Brexit and don't think we should go through with it. BUT the reason I don't think we should go through with it is that most voters were woefully uninformed or completely misinformed. Both sides were lied to and manipulated. Having a referendum on an issue that experts fail to understand is just plain idiotic. If there was a way to have a well informed vote and it didn't go my way I would accept it without complaint.

alkonaut2• 9 years ago

I think democracy should be reserved for when people are given the true outcome on the ballot. Here the secret was that the kingdom will dissolve in case of leave. Had people known that the outcome would have been different. I think the will to keep the UK is stronger than the will to leave the EU. That, and the fake news storm about NHS money and whatnot led to this. It's a stolen referendum by the forces that wanted to leave.

dustinmoris3• 9 years ago

I'm a bit tired of reading doomsday messages by now. I am an European living and working in the UK and even though this affects me I have no reason to believe that things will go downwards now. If there's anything I've learned so far then that every analysis I've read couldn't have been more wrong.

It almost seems like the more the UK economy doesn't collapse the more people shout even louder how bad the Brexit is. Maybe I am just too indifferent or chilled, but I think the best is to just sit back and watch what will happen.

Also I seriously don't think of the Brexit that the UK leaves Europe. I think the UK and the EU will strive for the closest relationship possible. The only thing that I see changing is that the UK withdraws from a formal contract with the EU with the hope to negotiate a better deal. I don't think this is racist. Not every contract makes the same sense for every country in the world.

--- EDIT:

Wow lots of responses to this comment. Thank you all. There's a lot of good discussion and some suggest that I am more relaxed perhaps because I am maybe financially secure, but that is not true. When I was a child I watched on television the Fukushima disaster in Japan and I was totally freaked out. I was afraid for many reasons and then as I watched longer I was totally amazed how relaxed the people in Japan dealt with the situation. There was a crisis, but nowhere near what I thought would have happened in the western world. Nobody was running or fleeing the country, nobody stopped going to work, etc. People worked together to fix the problem as good as they could and everyone lifted their weight. All news in Europe were talking about how cool-headed the Japanese dealt with this situation and it was something which I never forgot in my life. I then realised that only because everyone stayed calm and cool headed they were able to deal with this problem the way they did. It was not perfect, but boy it was much better than what I thought would happen.

So this is my childhood experience which has marked me for life and made me realise that mass hysteria is never good. No matter what the situation is.

JamesMcMinn9• 9 years ago

You haven't been affected by the changes because nothing has happened yet. This is the start of the negotiations to decide what those changes will be.

And when I say nothing has happened yet, I mean apart from the massive drop in the value of sterling and inflation massively outstripping wage increases.

I assume you're based in London, which means you're fairly isolated from the social changes that have happened across the UK in recent years. London is very pro-EU and immigration friendly. The statistics do show a massive increase in race related hate crimes in the UK since the referendum, so even if the vote wasn't racist, it has given racists a confidence boost.

coldtea15• 9 years ago

And I bet you nothing will happen in 2 or 3 or 5 years either.

Except for the "massive drop in the value of sterling" which is due to market and media hysteria, which will correct itself.

topbanana3• 9 years ago

According to the IMF [1], the pound was already overvalued. In currency markets, it usually takes large news events to prompt large fluctuations but they are just often the trigger, not the underlying cause.

[1] http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16168.pdf#pag...

ck4253• 9 years ago

Not to mention the majority of people reading HN are in favorable economic situations, so will be among the least effected if/when shit hits the fan.

That said there is a large opportunity for change post EU if we go after it. Unfortunately that would require strong unified leadership from the left / non-tories.

cmdkeen4• 9 years ago

Except "the experts" were predicting terrible things immediately, not later on - remember the punishment budget necessity? Inflation "massively outstripping wages" is just over the Bank of England's target, the one it has been massively under for the past 5 years. The drop in sterling doesn't lead to sustained inflationary pressure. Wages are also picking up as well, though not in the public sector.

The "massive increase in race related crime" is also far more complex than newspaper headlines give credit to. The big headlines came from the immediate aftermath 4 days where crimes reported to a website went from 54 to to 85 - i.e. 57%. The police statement on this made the point that it was only a single source that they weren't seeing an increase in community tension - guess what the press went with? The police statistics do bear out an overall increase since the previous year, but by a much lower margin - and in line with year on year increases.

The key point though is that in the UK hate crimes are defined as when the victim, or any other person, perceives a crime to be a hate crime - thanks to the legacy of Macpherson. Reported hate crimes have been trending up for years, partly because there has been a massive cultural shift in the police to record them and on people to report them. So, as with all statistics, it is complicated - did more people perceive an increase in hate crimes because they were being told that they were spiking? Has Britain become a more intolerant place or are we just recording better how intolerant we've been for a while? The Civitas report on this makes for interesting reading http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/hatecrimethefactsbeh...

lostboys674• 9 years ago

You mean the areas that have had less immigration than London :-(

topbanana3• 9 years ago

I agree with your observations entirely. It seems the UK is gripped by mass hysteria. Close friends of mine appear to believe this is the end of the world.

I'm looking forward to this all being behind us.

gutnor2• 9 years ago

Just to put things on perspective. Most of HN people are developers, and the average salary for a developer (30K) is bigger than 70% of the population. A 50K salary is far from unusual (that under junior developer in a bank) and that better than 90% of the UK. I lived years on a 25K salary, which is better than 50% of the population and that's the kind of salary where it does not take much to put you in big trouble. Weathering the storm is a luxury for a lot of people.

So I'm not saying that it is the end of the world. But look at Spain. If you look at the raw economic numbers, Spain has barely changed from before 2007, yet everybody I know (and that's a bunch of people) has been affected negatively.

It does not take the end of the world to make big trouble for a lot of people.

matwood• 9 years ago

Doomsday predictions make headlines, and balanced responses do not. People like black and white even though most topics are nuanced.

Al-Khwarizmi• 9 years ago

Sure, what could possibly go wrong with a radical decision taken by a narrow majority, with a significant part of the voters that supported it having racist motivations (even if the concept of Brexit itself is not racist), others motivated by lies (millions to the NHS et al) and the vast majority of economists describing it as a shoot in the foot?

I don't think it will be "doomsday" either, but I think believing that things won't go downwards is an exercise in self-fooling.

k-mcgrady6• 9 years ago

> I am an European living and working in the UK

You are lucky then as you always have the choice to leave the UK and enjoy the protections of the EU.

A lot of the coverage is focussed on trade/immigration etc. but there are lots of wonderful human rights protections and consumer protections that are provided by the EU which the British government will be excited to get rid of. It's that that worries me.

Take the surveillance overreach for example. Thanks to it violating EU law there now has to be a rethink. Or the Human Rights Act that the tory's have wanted rid of since Cameron was in office - because they don't like some of the rights if guarantees.

There are things more serious than the economy.

Nursie19• 9 years ago

IIRC the human rights act and membership of the ECHR are separate to the EU.

I agree, there's been some awful rhetoric out of the Tories about dismantling those, but as yet they aren't under threat AFAICT

barrkel4• 9 years ago

I'll say what I said before the referendum: the EU cannot strive for the closest relationship possible because that would encourage other countries to leave. There must be a price, an ongoing cost.

Britain is trapped with a forked strategy: it can go the Singapore route or the supplicant route. The two are incompatible and neither of them is realistically feasible. The Singapore route is what hard Brexiteers want but there's no mandate for it, and nor is there plurality of votes in it. The supplicant route is what Brexiteers will attack, and there probably isn't a majority of votes in the Tory party for it.

The UK's political landscape are in the wrong shape for the negotiation to come. Parties would need to be configured into those that are split according to negotiating strategy. Since they aren't, the fork will weaken Britain's negotiation throughout; every attempt to go down one road will face extreme resistance from those who prefer the other path.

Britain is screwed, AFAICT. Myself, I'm aiming at November or so to get out.

mdekkers2• 9 years ago

the EU cannot strive for the closest relationship possible because that would encourage other countries to leave. There must be a price, an ongoing cost.

I don't understand why this wasn't a centerpiece of the Remain campaign.

concinds3• 9 years ago

* the EU cannot strive for the closest relationship possible because that would encourage other countries to leave. There must be a price, an ongoing cost*

Which is a symptom among many of how grossly dysfunctional and fragile the EU is. It's also compounded by the TARGET-2 mess and Germany's obligations to the South through rescue packages. Commenters above talking about the EU being a "voluntary alliance" conveniently obfuscate this.

lhopki0117• 9 years ago

What exactly would you expect to change when nothing has actually changed yet?

What you're saying is as disingenuous as me saying that since all the horrible things people are afraid Trump didn't happy after the election before he came to power there was nothing to worry about.

dustinmoris3• 9 years ago

What exactly would you expect to change when nothing has actually changed yet?

This is my view point:

Reputable well known economists and analysts: "If the UK votes to leave then the UK will suffer great economic consequences. As soon as in the 3rd and 4th quarter of 2016 the UK will see a recession which will continue into 2017, 2018, ..."

A few months later the same people: "OK, 2016 was actually quite solid, but 2017 the shit will hit the fan"

A few months later the same reputable people: "OK, it seems like we need to make some corrections to our prognosis. There will be no recession, not even in 2017, but the economy will definitely not grow as fast as it would otherwise."

Me: "Why is still everyone hysteric. Seems like nobody knows what is really going on. Nothing bad happened yet. Let's chill and watch"

People from before: "Of course nothing has happened yet!!! Why did you think something should have happened by now? Who did tell you that, ey?"

Me: -.-

Nursie19• 9 years ago

I couldn't agree more. We've seen months of hysterics in the press and all over social media. It's unwarranted but it seems stuck in some sort of feedback loop.

I hope we'll get your ongoing rights in the UK sorted quickly. I'm fairly certain we will. Some stuff may be worse, some better.

The hysteria is doing nobody any favours - I've friends in London who seem convinced we're on our way to ethnic cleansing and probably war. They're scared, over very little.

dmix2• 9 years ago

The risks are really only economic. And those can be solved with trade pacts... without having to sacrifice any other independence such as with laws, courts, and borders.

I'm from Canada and our economy (and defence) depends heavily on the US, we both strongly benefit from an economic relationship. It's mutually beneficial, as all pacts should be. Yet we don't have to worry about policy being dictated out of NAFTA or worry about the economy of Mexico - which is totally different than Canada - dragging down our own.

Once you look beyond short term economic risks I really don't see thee problem.

It seems to me that smaller countries have the healthiest democracies - one of the reason government functions so well in Scandinavia and here in Canada. The problems with US politics is largely the result of the disparate views of regional communities. Just look at the vast cultural/economic/educational gaps between California, the 'south', or the midwest.

Those gaps are even greater across Europe, so I'm hardly surprised that various countries in the EU, not only people in the UK as we've seen recently, is feeling uncomfortable with the idea. You're just lucky you don't have the Euro to further lock you into the relationship.

Edit: Also the idea the EU stops wars seems ridiculous to me in 2017 given we have NATO and the UN... and that the west only really cares about economics. Sanctions like that were done to Russia or Iran would not last long in a western country, they'd cave in so fast. Pretty much eliminating any risk of internal EU conflict without assuming total economic destruction.

JamesMcMinn9• 9 years ago

The risks are most certainly not only economic. The EU influences almost every aspect of the UK in one way or another.

Immigration and travel are both affected. The ability to travel and work in any country in the EU is a massive benefit which will likely be much more difficult. Visiting family in friends outside of the UK could become much more difficult.

Our laws are affected - there will be nothing to stop the UK Government from bringing in even more draconian and invasive spying laws [1] or scrapping the Human Rights Act as they have desired to do for so long.

The wonderful thing about the EU is that it has for the most part done nothing but protect people, and I worry what will happen when we leave.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/snoopers-chart...

pimterry3• 9 years ago

Those [risks] can be solved with trade pacts without having to sacrifice any other independence such as with laws, courts, and borders.
I'm from Canada

Er, didn't Canada just sign a trade pact with the EU which does sacrifice some of the independence of their borders, laws and courts? CETA will:

* Create a new 'investment court system', where investors from the EU can challenge and block Canadian state decisions.

* Require Canada to legally protect various EU products.

* Require Canada to make it easier for staff to move between the EU and Canada.

* Require Canada to strengthen its copyright protection and IP laws, and the border systems required to enforce those.

(Plus a bunch of similar things in the other direction too).

Fairly readable summary here: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-explaine...

Many people would argue that NAFTA had similar effects on Canada too: http://prudentpress.com/trade/free-trade-costs-canada-sovere...

This is all a good thing nonetheless. Trade deals generally bring a lot of wealth and other benefits to both sides. Still, it's definitely not historically the case that you can get the benefits of free trade without sacrificing some independence.

lhopki0117• 9 years ago

Trade pacts don't really cover what the EU does. The EU goes well beyond traditional trade pacts in services. Take for example passporting for financial firms. Also it provides a much better legal framework for disputes than arbitration tribunals. Unless you think it's a good idea for your judge one day to be your lawyer the next.

Comparing NAFTA to the EU shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how far reaching the EU is. We are only at the beginning of the economic integration. Take for example the recent progress on the digital market. One advantage US startups have is 350m consumers immediately, something the EU is only just starting to bring in.

As for peace you might dismiss it but Western Europe has experienced the longest period of peace in its entire history by a massive margin. To put that on NATO and the UN but not the EU seems odd considering conflicts outside that involve NATO and UN member countries.

Your analysis of democracies seems very limited. Why did you exclude Germany from that list? Why don't you include Greece on you list of small democracies?

gpvos2• 9 years ago

The EU has been giving favours to the UK for decades. A better deal is not possible; the best next thing would be something like Norway, but since the UK doesn't want free movement, that is also out.

mattmanser4• 9 years ago

It doesn't help the EU is acting like a petulant wronged partner. We didn't even cheat on you!

I mean, seriously, £68 billion for stuff we're not going to be able to use? Grow up and rework your budget. No trade negotiations until we leave?

It makes them look like utter fools, one dose of actual democracy deciding they've had enough of backdoor federalisation and they're threatening every punishment they can think of.

I know others now express regret at voting leave, but I now start to have the opposite, I voted remain and the way Junker et al. are acting is a stark reminder at how undemocratic, bureaucratic and unrepresentative of its citizens the EU is.

JamesMcMinn9• 9 years ago

No trade negotiations until we leave?

No trade negotiations until we official notify the EU that we are leaving, which makes nothing but sense from the EUs perspective.

chimprich• 9 years ago

Petulant? It is your comment that seems quite emotional; "Grow up", "utter fools", etc. It is entirely rational for the EU to try to get the best possible deal they can.

lurker456• 9 years ago

As a collective, you voted to leave. Now Junker et al represent the interests of the remaining members, of which you are no longer a part. Game theory dictactes that the EU must offer unfavorable terms to leavers.

Beltiras• 9 years ago

The worst effects will be felt when the UK is booted from the EU single market. UK trade policy has been based around being an entry point of products from elsewhere into the EU. When that goes poof, a whole lot of trade will go directly from the world to the EU countries and those areas will do their very best to make free trade agreements with the EU. The UK will simply lose out. That's the jackhammer awaiting the UK.

gizmo2• 9 years ago

The UK economy will not collapse because of this, but it will cost them billions in the short term and a few basis points of yearly GDP growth for the next decade, and that really adds up.

What's even worse is that the UK leaving the EU can destabilize the Euro, which is already on a knife's edge. If the Euro collapses we'll get a worldwide recession, with a staggering human cost.

It's too easy to dismiss concerns as doomsaying. We know from history that civilization doesn't progress in a linear manner. It's entirely possible for societies to make mistakes that take a century to recovery from, and the EU and the US are not invulnerable.

stephen_g3• 9 years ago

The late economist Wynne Godley explained why the Euro couldn't work in the long run and described how it would cause problems like Greece back in 1992 [1]. There is simply no way a supra-national currency could work without a federal budget. It's probably time to accept that the Euro will likely fail no matter what we do. Sadly, the people of Greece have already paid a terrible cost...

1. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v14/n19/wynne-godley/maastricht-and-al...

dev_head_up3• 9 years ago

Similar to yourself, I'm an EU citizen living in the UK. The sheer hysteria from certain quarters is getting a bit much and my social media use has definitely changed in the past few months (not going on it as much due to the sheer bile on display).

As to work and the economy, I guess we'll see. My company is expanding at a good rate, and if worst came to worst then I could up sticks and bring my family home.

This isn't the end of history. It's one country leaving a political block, one that has it's pros and many cons. The majority decided they want out. That's the way it is.

peferron• 9 years ago

Also I seriously don't think of the Brexit that the UK leaves Europe.

What do you mean by "Europe" here? I guess you don't mean the Union nor the geographical continent (since the UK is obviously leaving one and staying in the other), so you must mean something else, but I'm not sure what.

gonvaled2• 9 years ago

I guess he means Europe the collection of states which is in the geographical continent. Which the UK is also obviously not leaving. And which is totally uninteresting since a "collection of countries" do not have a common interest, nor a common policy, nor a common market, nor a common anything.

The "Countries of the European Continent" have exactly the same international clout that any random group of world countries: without structures, without organization, without agreements, a bunch is just a bunch.

rbehrends10• 9 years ago

It is almost certain that the British economy will not collapse. That said, it is also virtually certain that there will be at least a loss of economic growth, possibly a recession.

The worst prediction I've seen by reputable economists (though that was before it became clear that May was going to push for a hard Brexit) was a loss of 9% of GDP growth by 2030.

The bigger problem is that Britain is already facing significant structural challenges that are going to be compounded by Brexit. Too much of the economy is centered in the area around London [1], leaving the rest of the country relatively poor, and British productivity has consistently been low [2], compared to the US, Germany, and France. As Piketty discussed [3] (I'm greatly simplifying his more detailed analysis here), this leads to Americans working a lot and earning a lot, France and Germany trading income for more free time, and Brits working like Americans to have the economic per capita output of France and Germany.

This is not a good situation to be in to face additional economic challenges. This does not mean that the economy will implode (which would be rather unlikely), but it does create unnecessary stress.

[1] http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

[2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity...

[3] http://piketty.blog.lemonde.fr/2017/01/09/of-productivity-in...

JPKab• 9 years ago

Is it possible that some of the areas outside of London may benefit by having more competitive trade pacts with individual nations outside of the EU?

One note on productivity in UK:

My observation of UK business culture can be summed up as low-energy and stagnant, and that's compared to US business culture, which I don't like. An example of this is how low developer salaries are in the UK compared to other nations, relative to managers and bosses. I was blown away by how overpaid the managers are in the UK, and how underpaid the "doers" are.

My company's UK office reflects this. They are a notably low-energy group compared to our other offices. There are bright lights who seem to be cowed into submission by a cultural norm of never showing excitement or passion in the workplace. I'm sure there are benefits to removing emotion from interactions to an extent, but wow does that feel suffocating.

pluma13• 9 years ago

Also I seriously don't think of the Brexit that the UK leaves Europe. I think the UK and the EU will strive for the closest relationship possible. The only thing that I see changing is that the UK withdraws from a formal contract with the EU with the hope to negotiate a better deal.

It's against the EU's best interests to give the UK a good deal in Article 50 negotiations. This has been said over and over again and the arguments are still just as valid as they were right after the vote: giving the UK a good deal sets a precedent.

Likewise it was obvious that the UK would trigger Article 50 and wouldn't hold another referendum because it would have been against their best interests to do anything else.

Cameron played an international game of chicken, risking the UK's special privileges in the EU and the 51% called his bluff. Not following through would have meant losing the only trump card the UK had available in EU negotiations: threatening to leave if the UK can't have it "their way".

It's basically a scenario of Mutually Assured Destruction but the UK actually pulled the trigger. The UK had no other choice than to follow through and file for Article 50. The EU has no other choice than to give the UK the worst deal both sides can agree on. The incentives are simply stacked against a mutually beneficial agreement because either side backing off would lose their face.

Of course there are still open questions: will the UK accept a shoddy deal or just let the negotiations default to a complete exit, will Scotland force a Scottish referendum (and what happens if Britain tries to prevent it, what happens if the referendum succeeds, will the EU accept an independent Scotland back into the EU or will they punish it to appease EU members fearing similar fragmentation), will UK-based international companies pivot to adjust to the new situation or will they relocate to stay in the EU, etc etc.

These are all detailed questions with answers that are very difficult to predict. But the two predictions that have been evident from the start are: 1. Brexit will happen and 2. it's in the EU's best interests to make the experience as unpleasant as possible.

cryptonector• 9 years ago

It's in the interest of some member states to give the UK a better deal than the deal that is in the interest of the EU. Whether this nets out to EU offering something less bad that the worst possible remains to be seen.

XJOKOLAT3• 9 years ago

My wages, the value of my home, are now worth 20% less. If you're ok with that, good for you. I'm not.

My access to the EU faces being curtailed (not just travel inconvenience, but the permanent movement of my family). If you're ok with that, good for you. I'm not.

I could go on. You say: "maybe I'm just chilled". How about, maybe you're forgetting to put yourself in other peoples shoes, or grasping why it matters to them. If you're ok with that, good for you. I'm not.

nul_byte2• 9 years ago

The value of your home is 20% less if you want to sell it in a foreign currency.

maaaats• 9 years ago

Whatever one may think of the politics or if one's country should join/leave, it's absolutely true that EU has been a big factor in keeping the peace between European nations for decades. The Nobel Peace Prize to EU got a lot of criticism because of politics, but I think it was important to show that EU has helped keep the peace.

aaron-lebo• 9 years ago

Can we really say that it's the EU though? Europe has many international organizations that include member nations. Is the EU responsible or NATO or the UN or a simple exhaustion of war and extreme nationalism? The EU as it exists today has been alive fewer than 30 years! That's a blip in time.

Europe will remain strong, regardless of this, won't it?

Xylakant3• 9 years ago

Can we really say that it's the EU though?

For some conflicts, yes. The Good Friday agreement in Ireland is a legal fiction, only possible because of the EU. Basically, the border vanishes because both sides are members of the EU and thus, via the EU have the right to move across that border at any time for any purpose.

danielvf4• 9 years ago

I know there has been intra-nation peace in western Europe since the end of WWII, but how do we know it was due to the EU?

Both the peace and the EU would seem to as easily explained by the post war situation where European nations were now second tier economicly, and threatened by a big external nation. The reward for war was no longer there, and the need for cooperation was high.

andreasklinger• 9 years ago

European nations were now second tier economicly, and threatened by a big external nation.

Wasn't this also true for eg WW1?

Even with the same actors

lhopki0117• 9 years ago

This has been the longest period of Peace in Western Europe in history by a massive margin. That's evidence. Non top tier countries used to fight all the time in Europe before.

sgift2• 9 years ago

All of your points also existed before the second world war. Russia was already a big empire, other big empires existed throughout the history of Europe. That never stopped European countries from attacking each other. Basically, almost everything else has staid the same, the only change was the EU and its predecessors came into existence after WW2. That's certainly not a proof (it's impossible to proof such thins without a alternative-history-viewer-machine, which hasn't been developed so far) but it is a very strong hint.

barking4• 9 years ago

I don't buy this argument. There was a long period of peace after Waterloo in 1815. After WW1 the powers of Europe were still big players on the world stage and Germany still felt it had some sort of imperialist destiny to fulfill. After world war two Europe was exhausted and reliant on the usa for protection from the warsaw pact.

mootothemax• 9 years ago

keeping the peace between European nations for decades

It really doesn't do anyone any favours to make claims like this; the breakup of Yugoslavia and the associated genocides were hideous:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia

(cards on table: I'm very pro-EU)

sgift2• 9 years ago

Yugoslavia wasn't part of the EU, so it doesn't apply here. Fact is no EU country attacked another EU country since the EU (and its predecessors) came into existence. Before that time the same countries attacked each other on a fairly regular schedule.

MagnumOpus• 9 years ago

And they weren't EU countries, were they?

lsd5you• 9 years ago

From what deeps analysis does this certainty come from? Seems like a propaganda point to me. Of course we cannot say what would have happened without the EU or how that would have come to pass, but I think the burden is on your side for showing that Europe could have gone to war without the EU.

If the question 'why peace?' was come at in a different context, in my opinion the EU would simply not rank as a primary cause. It would be something like (in order)

  - Mutually Assured Destruction
  - US/Soviet military dominance
  - German Holocaust Shame after WW2
  - Rising living standards/post war cultural revolution.
  - End of Empire as a plausible goal for a nation

Furthermore, the UK wasn't a member for decades, and I don't think war was viewed as a possibility at the time it did join.

demonshalo• 9 years ago

Well said!

barking4• 9 years ago

This story is going to get very boring very quickly.

Little will be decided until close to the deadline in two years.

In the meantime life will go on as normal as it has for the last year.

What is much more interesting is what will happen shortly in France and whether the phenomena that led to Trump and Brexit are repeated elsewhere in Europe.

mpweiher7• 9 years ago

So far it's looking good. Wilders did not make significant headway in NL, AfD is down significantly in the polls in Germany and the EU politician who returned to head the SPD in Germany has dramatically reversed that party's flagging poll numbers.

Opinion polling for the expected 2nd round of polling in the French presidential elections put Macron at almost 2/3rd majority vs. Le Pen.

Overall, pro-EU sentiment in EU member nations is rising.

barking4• 9 years ago

Maybe, but opinion polls got it wrong in the cases of Trump and Brexit. It seems a lot of people who intend vote on the right (for the want of a better term) are coy about it when asked.

robin_reala• 9 years ago

The Guardian have published the letter on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/343396953/PM-Letter-to-EU-Co...

coldtea15• 9 years ago

As Article 50 is triggered today, many European expats in Britain, as well as European-minded locals, are packing up, moving on or eyeing up their options. Brexit brain drain could spell disaster for industries like technology already facing shortages of skilled talent.

Sorry, what about the brain drain when those "European expats" came from their countries into the UK?

Or that doesn't matter because it was all "within EU" anyway?

Still, UK hadn't paid for their education and other benefits while they were growing up in their native countries, and their native countries didn't get taxes from those people while they were living in the UK.

And those countries would also like to have their scientists etc stay and work there to improve the country's industry and economy.

Brain drain works both ways. You can't lament brain drain from an economy that actually caused brain drain, and now those brains leave it.

omurphyevans• 9 years ago

What about the brains who never moved now moving away?

I am British and have lived here for nearly 40 years. I'm currently looking at an Irish passport (Irish wife) or maybe France. My taxes and know how will be better put to use somewhere our values (openness, tolerance, mutual respect) agree.

JamesMcMinn9• 9 years ago

With a bit of luck, Scotland might offer you someone to escape to, although the weather wont be as nice as France.

handelaar2• 9 years ago

If having an irish spouse and not living in Ireland is all you've got, then you're not getting an Irish passport. On the other hand, you definitely can have one 3 years after you've moved here.

soroso• 9 years ago

#PunishUK

arca_vorago• 9 years ago

My theory on brexit has been for a long time now that, after entangling the EU with the Euro, and globalization actually hurting the first-world EU, the UK is simply attempting to isolate it's vulnerabilities to the coming impacts of globalization.

If my theory is true, it means essentially that brexit is designed not to create wealth in the UK, but to make the losses less than the rest of the world by comparison.

With such a large surveillance state though, and a massive propaganda operation wing, the UK has done a good job confusing it's people into the core reasons because to admit them would be to admit the weaknesses of the global monetary system it has had a large part in fostering on the world through the IMF, the World Bank, and fiat, fractional reserve central banking systems not tied to gold or oil (bretton woods without the key things that made bretton woods good).

sangnoir6• 9 years ago

Your theory assumes a lot of forward-thinking, competence, benevolence and cooperation between subsequent prime ministers.

The simpler explanation is that David Cameron's gamble to silence the more extreme side of his party (and UKIP) failed. His (or his pollsters) incompetence led to this, helped along by protest votes and online Russian campaigns.

A less charitable explanation is that certain Tory elites took advantage of the narrow majority to preserve power in their hands - there are a number of disagreements with the ECHR.

kalleboo• 9 years ago

I saw it the opposite way - the UK elite sees the EU as being too slow at negotiating free trade treaties (too many other EU countries are protectionist) and think they can do better.

gonvaled2• 9 years ago

Theresa May wants deep and special partnership with the EU, without contributing at all to its existence. If every country in the EU does the same, guess what, there is no EU.

And without EU, without compromises, without rules, without standards, without common legislation, nothing of value rests. Just a bunch of countries, a bunch of private enterprises, trying to cherry pick in each an every transaction, looking for the shortest of short term profits, continuously changing course, now associating with this country, now with this other. Now selling round bananas, tomorrow selling bananas polluted with lead. Today not allowing imports of bananas from Romania because they are not straight enough, and tomorrow not accepting them from Italy because they are too straight.

Foreign citizens get expelled with made up reasons, according to what the popular opinion of the moment is. Trucks get delayed or not in a complete obscure manner.

Products get made and exported without any respect for work or environmental regulations. Quality does not satisfy any kind of standards. Nobody can trust any foreign business because there is no institution to complain to in case consumer rights are not respected. Financial products are sold to steal savings from foreign investors - until this is recognized and foreign investors stop using those investment vehicles, completely destroying the market.

bambax• 9 years ago

From the letter[1] of PM May to Pres. Tusk:

At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many part of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens

This is pretty rich. Protectionist "instincts" are on the rise in the UK and the US first and foremost today, so maybe those countries are not in the best position to lecture the rest of the world against them?

The crux of the matter is, countries have no friends and no moral imperatives, they only have interests; May's letter is very short on what the interests of the EU are, to try to give the UK a "nice" deal. How would the EU benefit from a deal -- any deal at all -- vs no deal?

(Also, this is a small detail but maybe not an insignificant one, negotiations cost money; if there is no hope of gaining anything, why should EU negotiators even show up? It would save money to simply not talk at all).

[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article5...

alkonaut2• 9 years ago

Since the actual outcome now seems to be that it'sore England leaving the UK, than the UK leaving the EU - doesn't that constitute a huge change in circumstances, enough to warrant at least a parliamentary election before the exit is triggered?

I mean, imagine if the Brexit ballot had said "Do you want for the UK to remain intact in the EU, or be broken apart with England and Wales leaving the EU?"

Or if it had 3 options

- remain

- leave

- leave, if the UK stays intact.

Leave would never had won. Which makes this whole charade completely insane.

pbhjpbhj5• 9 years ago

Leave would never had won. //

Depends, I still haven't worked out who ultimately is driving this shi(p|t) but it would have been relatively easy to get a lot of Scottish and Welsh people to vote to leave England based on a millennium of ill-sentiment that "we're being governed by them without a proper say" and to get the English to ditch the rest based on "they get more spent on them per capita" and writing a big number on a bus.

coroxout• 9 years ago

Leave would probably never have won if the ballot paper specified leaving the single market, either.

It might also not have won if the ballot paper had said "leaving will provide no extra money for the NHS, actually probably less money because the pound will be devalued and much of the NHS workforce comes from Europe, and also various prominent Leave campaigners are actually eager to dismantle the NHS and privatise healthcare bit by bit".

But, oh well, we are where we are, I suppose.

dep_b2• 9 years ago

Sure enough Henry VIII leaving the Holy Church of Rome will lead to all kinds of disaster for the kingdom. Oh wait no, they actually went on to rule about half of the world afterwards.

genma_it• 9 years ago

Sure, and they ruled so well that today that half of the world lives in peace and it is proud to have been a British colony.

dep_b2• 9 years ago

Which was a problem for the British back then in what sense?

Looking back at it now with our current look on things, for the other countries involved, sure.

Someone2• 9 years ago

I know it is nerdy, but what a weird PDF (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article5...)

Pages 1 and 4 are text (allow text selection), the other ones are images (on iPad)

I wonder what process could have led to that; it is not simply a matter of having one section produced in a different way from the other, as, for example, page 5 continues an enumeration started on page 4.

leovonl• 9 years ago

It's amusing to read all these calls for a more democratic EU, specially when comparisons with the USA are made.

EU membership is voluntary, you can leave if you want. What would happen if an USA state decided to leave? Check the history books.

Truly democratic nations respect self-determination principles. In this sense, USA is closer to the authoritarianism of Spain than to democracies like Canada or the UK itself.

Joeri• 9 years ago

To be fair, some of the EU leaders have made it clear that they intend to make the brexit so costly on britain that no one else dare leave. So, it remains to be seen how voluntary EU membership is.

UnoriginalGuy• 9 years ago

But nobody will die. You're contrasting bad trade terms with literal wars, really apples and oranges comparison.

logicallee3• 9 years ago

The EU should treat this like America treated secessionist states - the UK should be compelled to stay by force. Obviously there should not be any actual war, since the Brtis should just say, "well, all right."

Afterward they should be full, normal participants, just as every state is a normal participant in the United States and has equal and fair votes in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Why should this be done:

1 - America shows that it is great that there is a unified country, which benefits from huge economies of scale.

2 - Can you imagine how much money is saved by not having to have border control, separate visas and citizenships in the United States? The same applies to the EU.

3 - The EU should directly compete with the United States as the second of three world poles (Asia being the third).

4 - The good of the Union outweighs the UK's selfish and shortsighted act.

Why shouldn't history repeat?

Would America be better-off if it were split into two countries?

Would America be the world's leading economy (by far)?

Citing the close historical precedent I have mentioned, I do not think that the UK should be allowed to leave the EU. Its request should be denied.

prodmerc6• 9 years ago

A United States of Europe would be great, but what you're proposing is insane.

First of all, it won't work at all without military conflict, and from there it's World War 3.

Based on language alone, the EU would self-destruct so quickly you won't believe it if one EU country went to war against another, especially for the purpose of maintaining the "union".

mattmanser4• 9 years ago

Putting aside the lack of knowledge of the situation or what the EU actually is, the UK has nuclear weapons, the highest EU defence spending and a permanent UN security council seat. The EU has no army.

What you propose would mean the end of the UN, the end of NATO, the end of the EU and a possible WW3. And Russia would probably 'liberate' a few border countries from the 'imperialistic EU' while that's all happening.

logicallee3• 9 years ago

Its request should still be denied. I notice you have not in any way attacked my historical foundation, secessionist states. The implication that the UK would detonate a nuclear bomb over this is laughable on its face.

Its request should be denied.

Animats• 9 years ago

Scotland now wants to get out of the United Kingdom and stay in the EU. When this thing settles down, the EU will probably be OK, but England will stand alone.

maverick_iceman• 9 years ago

Hopefully, UK will now get rid of onerous, business-strangling regulations of the EU. That's at least one good aspect of Brexit.

UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

Related Stories