Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper? • Hacker News Board

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#121

Post by matthewmacleod » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:29 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #90

ben_w wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Think that's going to bite Nige Disagree. He said before the referendum that 48%-52% would be unfinished business, but didn’t seem to lose credibility amongst his supporters from it. Something may eventually tarnish his Teflon, but he’d probably be able to turn defeat in a second referendum into a rallying cry for a literal attempted revolution. (I place odds of UK civil war in the next 6 years at about 10%).

> I place odds of UK civil war in the next 6 years at about 10% Hmm. Does that include resumption of armed conflict in NI? That's a possibility but there's no real tradition of this in England. I'm somewhat surprised there haven't been anti-Brexit riots but I can only assume that MI5 is pro-Brexit and actively disrupting their organisation. I can't see how we'd actually get to armed conflict unless the government sta…

I would reckon there have been no anti-Brexit riots primarily because Brexit isn't really the end of the world – it's just a ludicrously stupid, badly-handled, long-term-damaging project.

It's hard to get riot-angry that "living conditions will get gradually worse over the next decade"

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#122

Post by ljf » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:30 PM UTC

dhoulb wrote: post #14

dx034 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't a Canada-like solution exactly what current negotiations appear to work towards? Barnier presented a slide with options for the UK and a free trade agreement like with Canada was the only one that doesn't violate red lines set by the UK government. Such a free-trade agreement would allow most goods to flow relatively freely but doesn't have any provisions for services.

Yeah this seems like the most reasonable option. Even not having service trade isn’t a great disaster. Companies with sizeable EU revenue can just set up a European subsidiary (in Ireland, etc) to conduct business in Europe from the UK (or anywhere). (Though I accept it’ll be a pain for e.g. finance companies which the EU requires to be based within the EU,) Startups eespecially aren’t held back by these rules right…

OK - but tell me how that would work for cars for example, to be sold in the EU they need to have a certain percentage assembled in the EU. So really all those jobs will need to jobs to Ireland to be sold in the EU.

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#123

Post by b5 » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:30 PM UTC

mkohlmyr wrote: post #85

nkkollaw wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad. If anything because they'll have to rewrite thousands of laws and procedures that came from the EU times, and deal with the caos that that will cause. That only will cost so much money (and pain) that it would justify staying in the EU. Then, of course there are companies that have left and that will leave, highly-skilled workflow for London that will be harder to get, etc. They have to negotiate with the EU so…

Your first argument boils down to "it's difficult to leave so why bother". That's an objectively terrible reason to stay, no matter your political affiliation or feelings about the EU. As far as the "old people did this to us" meme. The 75% of young people who purportedly are so strongly against brexit probably should have bothered to vote if they wanted that outcome. Additionally, there are other factors than just a…

And if we afford those people a bit of empathy rather than casting them all as gullible fools or bad people, we might consider that they actually stand to benefit far less (or have plausible reasons to feel this way) from the EU than someone (such as the average HN reader) who has the privilege to e.g. be choosy about employment opportunities, be able to afford educating themselves, be able to afford to travel at will.

Thank you for writing your comment, and for this part in general. I voted 'Remain' but I couldn't agree more with what you wrote -- the backlash against those who voted 'Leave' has been appalling. With just a little bit more compassion, willingness to listen, and understanding, the division between both sides could possibly be healed. We seem further than ever from that, and the likelihood diminishes every day.

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#124

Post by kypro » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:30 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #97

raverbashing wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then have a vote with multiple alternatives Also I would favour a disclaimer on the bottom Tick here if you're aware that X% of doctors and nurses on the NHS are from the EU and reducing their number will result in more delays and/or need to have more doctors/nurses from non-EU countries Tick here if you're aware leaving the EU (hard Brexit) will result in longer times and possible caveats when entering other countri…

The irony is that Brexit will almost certainly mean an increase in immigration from non-EU countries - which is bad economically (EU migrants tend to be contributors to the UK economy and non-EU migrants don't - mainly due to the latter moving later in life with families) and, I suspect, not what a lot of leave voters were actually wanting to happen.

This is an interesting point, which may very well be the end result of Brexit. However, what was the alternative?

The UK public have consistently asked their politicians to reduce immigration since the 60s and this has been reflected over and over again in poll data. However, politicians have always ignored this request and while the UK is in the EU politicians have very little control over total number anyway.

So basically what you're saying is despite the UK public not agree with the population replacement level of immigration currently occurring in their country, they have no choice because politicians either way are going to continue to replace the population through immigration. The only choice the UK people have to choice between between replaced by EU immigrants or non-EU immigrants... Well how brilliantly immoral. Have we learnt nothing from our past?

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#125

Post by blibble » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:30 PM UTC

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #79

blibble wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is incorrect: Article 50 states that the withdrawal agreement only requires a Qualified Majority, not unanimity Poland's consent is not required

> this is incorrect: Article 50 states that the withdrawal agreement only requires a Qualified Majority, not unanimity But a trade deal with the UK does not. We just went through this with CETA.

trade deals under the Common Commercial Policy also are under QMV: this is the entire point of the EU being delegated responsibility for trade

CETA is a mixed agreement: 99% of it is covered under the CCP and went into effect before it had even been voted on by most national parliaments

you can confirm for yourself from the EU's own website on CETA (http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/index_en.htm):

    On 21 September 2017 CETA entered into force provisionally. As such most of the agreement now applies.
    National parliaments in EU countries – and in some cases regional ones too – will then need to approve CETA before it can take full effect.

"full effect" refers to the remaining 1%, which requires unanimity -- and the 99% can go into effect even if the 1% is rejected

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#126

Post by alkonaut » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:31 PM UTC

Xylakant wrote: post #10

Nursie wrote: post #2

This seems speculative and it effectively posits a worst-of-all-worlds situation resulting - one if which the UK is half inside the single market. Half inside such that it allows the flow of goods (the UK is a net importer) but not services (which we net export). This would be untenable, worse than a no-deal situation. And the basis of this speculation is that the EU is holding all the cards. I'm really not convinced…

So far negotiations have shown the EU holds most of the important cards. The UK caved in on any negotiation demand. It’s a fascinating view from Germany: The UK threatens “No Deal”, the EU informs companies that “No Deal” is a possible outcome and plans contingencies, informs companies that they should too, UK now complains that EU threatens companies. UK says “Out means out”, EU prepares to move EU institutions abro…

> I’m also puzzled what’s supposed to happen with such important stuff as rules and agreements for importing nuclear materials for powerplants (currently regulated via Euratom), regulations regarding medicine/medical treatment (currently also handled on a european level) and all of that stuff.

Obviously there are already emergency plans to set up massive bureaucracies to replace the european ones. Just like there are enormous customs stations being built at the channel tunnel, the construction of which started the day after the election.

Or it isn't.

Because in the end the sheer enormity of the task probably is too much to take in, and even the slightest risk that all of this will somehow "go away" or "be delayed" means politicians aren't really ready to start burying billions of pounds in these projects. And the deadlines creep ever closer.

This at least leads me to think that the outcome of theis "first brexit" negotiaion will be that the Brexit proper will happen in X years. The UK will keep paying nearly all of what it's paying PLUS costs to move EU things from Britain to the rest of europe. The bargaining space is the rebate the UK had before brexit, that is, the EU could possibly concede to let the UK "only" pay what it used to, and not significantly more.

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#127

Post by kypro » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:31 PM UTC

te_chris wrote: post #78

kypro wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? Or are you just reading the headline? He is saying a second referendum could show the politicians who have been pushing for a soft brexit recently that this is really what the British public want. What point are you trying to make?

That the man's a charlatan who senses that his life's work is a charade and is now trying to run away as fast as possible.

It's easy to make statements, but if you want to make an argument I'll happily discuss our disagreements.

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#128

Post by ljf » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:32 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #101

maze-le wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK has a population of 65M. Thus there is a big market for all kinds of exports. As far as cards go this is a big one, but its the only one I can identify.

Russia has 144M, and EU is not exactly folding their cards and giving up in regard to trade deals or sanctions. Population size don't seem to be that important.

Smaller population, but bigger disposable (credit based) income? Not that I am pro brexit - quite the opposite. I think the idea that we have them over a barrel, and that we can 'have cake and eat it' is bonkers.

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#129

Post by pbhjpbhj » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:34 PM UTC

maze-le wrote: post #24

627467 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious: what are the cards UK is holding?

The UK has a population of 65M. Thus there is a big market for all kinds of exports. As far as cards go this is a big one, but its the only one I can identify.

Versus an EU population of c.750 Million.

We in the UK need the EU (eg for trade) more than they need us.

Re: Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper?

#130

Post by nkkollaw » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 1:35 PM UTC

rusk wrote: post #113

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Poland and Hungary (luckily I live in Poland), which seem to me as the only countries that look after their own citizens _first_ and _then_ at what's good for the EU As someone who lives in a country where loads of Hungarians move to because they don't like their government I'm not sure I can agree. From what I can see here Hungary has a massive brain drain and unless you live in Budapest the state of infrastructur…

I'm also not entirely sure how well the Polish line holds of late either. Hasn't there been a bunch of religious conservatives elected there lately? I honestly don't know if what I'm reading is propaganda any more but it seems they were doing lots of ugly things like cracking down on free speech.

> Hasn't there been a bunch of religious conservatives elected there lately?

Yes, like are most Poles. It makes sense, no..? Not my cup of tea, but what's wrong with that?

> I honestly don't know if what I'm reading is propaganda any more but it seems they were doing lots of ugly things like cracking down on free speech.

It's partly true. You're talking about an incident where they fined a newspaper for their coverage of protests by using a law that prohibited to incite violence. It's sure not cool, but when Italy's Berlusconi was governing 3 out of 6 main TV channels where his, and it was proved in court that he actively censored the other 3 government-controlled ones. Yet, no one is/was talking about Italy becoming a dictatorship.

The truth is that the media is very pro-EU, and therefore any little thing they do is the end of the world.

Having seen how Italy was _absolutely ruined_ by both Germany-fueled mass migrations and not standing up to the EU in general, I can't really blame them for not wanting to repeat other European countries' mistake(s).

Life in Poland is pretty great, honestly. Doing business is easy (or at least 1000 times easier than Italy), very high buying power, etc., and no tanks on the streets in sight so no coup happening anytime soon.