Live data from Hacker News

UK formally leaves European Union after 48 years

rte.ie

221–230 of 251 posts

Re: UK formally leaves European Union after 48 years

#221

Brexit was a triumph of evil men. We were foolish and naive, and did not expect these craven lies to have such dire effect. This tidal wave of pent up hatred unleashed from these deep and forgotten pools of animus and fear. Nonetheless -- the world keeps on turning. Evil may win a battle here and there, but it cannot be allowed to win the war. What these vandals destroy can always be built up anew.

A little...overwrought? That’s how Eurasia got the Crusades, you know. Operation Barbarossa used similar language. Poetry is a poor platform on which to base actions that affect international relations. Leads to goose stepping and such..

Nonetheless, Brexit was undeniably evil, and evil must be fought.

Re: UK formally leaves European Union after 48 years

#222
post #195

Brexit was a triumph of evil men. We were foolish and naive, and did not expect these craven lies to have such dire effect. This tidal wave of pent up hatred unleashed from these deep and forgotten pools of animus and fear. Nonetheless -- the world keeps on turning. Evil may win a battle here and there, but it cannot be allowed to win the war. What these vandals destroy can always be built up anew.

LOL. Was this satire?

No. No it was not.

Re: UK formally leaves European Union after 48 years

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's complicated. I know some minority ethnic British people who voted for Brexit for entirely xenophobic reasons ... and others who would swear up and down that they were not racist one minute, and then spend the next spouting the most hateful sort of lies. Fear and hatred are powerful emotions, and the flames of discontent have been fanned for years by tabloid propaganda and industrialised hate.

Older South Asians still remember Commonwealth visa free travel and think the EU is racist in favor of white people

In isolation this would be a fair point.

However, in the context of Brexit, Farage proudly stood before “breaking point” posters that showed the same scenes as a literal Nazi propaganda film picturing large streams of Jewish refugees as a threat:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-the-poster...

Re: UK formally leaves European Union after 48 years

#224
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting that you would be willing to make yourself into yet an even weaker entity. What a tragic and utterly preventable denouement for a once proud empire.

I'm curious in what way you think rump-UK would be weaker without Scotland? Economically it would be fine: England is by far the biggest economy in the UK. There would be some losses: about 10 percent of the UK GDP, Scottish military bases, natural gas and oil resources, about 5 million people. But Scotland produces only about 6 percent of the UK's total exports. The vast majority of what it produces is "exported" to…

Your own first paragraph demonstrates the answer to your own question. 10% GDP is loads, and some of those military bases are the only places you currently have where you can fix up your “independent” nuclear deterrent.

Re: UK formally leaves European Union after 48 years

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sort of thing was the kind of statement we heard pretty frequently over the course of the Brexit process, but it’s really horribly nonspecific - “big government excess”, “bureaucratic overhead” etc. The total EU budget is about 2% of the total public spending of the member states. That’s a chunk of change at at international level, but is relatively lightweight as a layer of government. Much of its spending is i…

Investment into renewables, as one example among others. Not that such investment shouldn't take place, but it has nothing to do with free trade, and I would much prefer a large carbon tax with minimal bureaucratic overhead than the centralized EU as-is allocating capital to ventures that the bureaucrats have decided are worthwhile. It's the globalist, big government and centrally planned solution to climate change.…

Investment into renewables, as one example among others.

You could make a reasonable argument that the EU should generally refrain from funding infrastructure and other development projects, and that this is a power best reserved for member states.

But don’t sell it short; those programs are generally intended to provide long-term support for the stability of the single market by developing international cooperation and helping the least developed regions and countries catch up. It’s more intertwined with supporting free trade that it may initially seem.

NAFTA on the other hand requires roughly 0 percent, which is markedly better.

NAFTA (or USMCA now) is not really comparable to the European single market even from a free trade perspective. The latter eliminates barriers to the extent that trading with other member states is like trading between different US states. I could load a van up with products, drive them to another EU country, and deliver them to a customer - with no need for customs forms, tariffs, inspections, bureaucracy or anything else of the sort. It’s hard to overstate how much easier this makes trade.

The cost is that removing barriers means greater harmonisation between member states is required on many levels, and the purpose of the EU is to provide the means for that harmonisation.

Again, it’s fine to feel that a better approach is possible. But I think it’s also important to be honest about what the trade offs really are. Neglecting to do that is what led to Brexit.

Re: UK formally leaves European Union after 48 years

#226
post #224
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious in what way you think rump-UK would be weaker without Scotland? Economically it would be fine: England is by far the biggest economy in the UK. There would be some losses: about 10 percent of the UK GDP, Scottish military bases, natural gas and oil resources, about 5 million people. But Scotland produces only about 6 percent of the UK's total exports. The vast majority of what it produces is "exported" to…

Your own first paragraph demonstrates the answer to your own question. 10% GDP is loads , and some of those military bases are the only places you currently have where you can fix up your “independent” nuclear deterrent.

Yes, the GDP reduction isn't trivial, but Scotland spends way more than it makes. The UK would no longer have to support that deficit and they wouldn't have to provide services to 5 million Scottish people.

The loss of the HMNB Clyde (the Trident base) poses problems, but not insurmountable ones. Devonport in Plymouth and Miford Haven (more problematically) are suitable replacements. Also, Trident provides about 8,000 jobs to the Scottish economy, and they'd all move south too.

Re: UK formally leaves European Union after 48 years

#227

I'm amazed at reading British HNers who are presumably mostly rational calling Brexit "evil" and "racist" on this thread. I personally think Brexit is probably an ill-advised move for the UK, but the feelings provoked here by leaving a historically recent trade and cultural union are far, far out of proportion with the deed itself. If anything actually destroys your country, it'll be the exaggerated emotional respons…

Hello, rational British resident here.

The thing is: five years of this process has worked to make me much more pissed off than I was. It might not have been clear from outside just how toxic this all was, and will have driven many of us away from our initial position of "this was merely a bad decision that we will work around".

It’s not specifically about the mechanics of the EU membership or "leaving a historically recent trade union". There are rational arguments to support doing these things, and there are ways to do them while not being dicks about it. But the UK's internal political environment has crumbled along with this process. It's become bound up in a "culture war", and many of us reasonably feel that this is just one of the manifestations of a country which is taking a negative and inward-looking approach to situations where we'd much rather take a positive and internationalist one.

It’s hard to maintain a dispassionate attitude sometimes when being deliberately provoked. So you’ll see people using the words “evil” and “racist” not to describe Brexit itself, but rather to some of the people it’s inseparable from. Although the campaign itself was explicitly racist, featuring cliché lies about an incoming horde of foreigners. Really grubby stuff that should shame the country, and it's getting worse.

I've spent the past five years watching a succession of (primarily government) politicians lying to my fucking face about the great opportunities that await us. Repeatedly compounding a bad decision with completely unjustified rhetoric about it.

What we could have seen was a sensible approach that appreciated that Brexit was a democratically-made decision and had to be respected, and then tried to build a national consensus about how best to deliver it. But we instead went for a take-no-prisoners approach and this has left many of us quite angry.

Even just from a purely practical level, I'm pretty pissed about this. After years of nonsense the final outcome is that it's going to be much more of a pain in the arse to do a bunch of stuff I did that was easy before. I've lost a set of rights that I had, used, and valued, and gained nothing in return. I could even deal with that a bit better if I didn't have to be constantly lied to about how great it is.

So yes. The country won't be destroyed – but it will be permanently weakened, and I think it's okay to be a bit emotionally invested in that.

Re: UK formally leaves European Union after 48 years

#228
post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Older South Asians still remember Commonwealth visa free travel and think the EU is racist in favor of white people

In isolation this would be a fair point. However, in the context of Brexit, Farage proudly stood before “breaking point” posters that showed the same scenes as a literal Nazi propaganda film picturing large streams of Jewish refugees as a threat: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Comparison-of-the-poster...

And it's examples like this which help us to understand Brexit (and the broader resurgence in neofascism globally).

Re: UK formally leaves European Union after 48 years

#229
post #226
post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your own first paragraph demonstrates the answer to your own question. 10% GDP is loads , and some of those military bases are the only places you currently have where you can fix up your “independent” nuclear deterrent.

Yes, the GDP reduction isn't trivial, but Scotland spends way more than it makes. The UK would no longer have to support that deficit and they wouldn't have to provide services to 5 million Scottish people. The loss of the HMNB Clyde (the Trident base) poses problems, but not insurmountable ones. Devonport in Plymouth and Miford Haven (more problematically) are suitable replacements. Also, Trident provides about 8,00…

You are asking why the UK would be weaker without Scotland. I do not understand why you do not find convincing the very claims you already concede? 10% weaker is weaker, specifically by 10%.

Re: UK formally leaves European Union after 48 years

#230
post #229
post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the GDP reduction isn't trivial, but Scotland spends way more than it makes. The UK would no longer have to support that deficit and they wouldn't have to provide services to 5 million Scottish people. The loss of the HMNB Clyde (the Trident base) poses problems, but not insurmountable ones. Devonport in Plymouth and Miford Haven (more problematically) are suitable replacements. Also, Trident provides about 8,00…

You are asking why the UK would be weaker without Scotland. I do not understand why you do not find convincing the very claims you already concede? 10% weaker is weaker, specifically by 10%.

I do not find it convincing because reduced GDP does not equate to weakness. It has to be viewed in context: GDP would be reduced but per capita GDP would not be reduced by 10 percent (because the population would also be lower). Furthermore, the UK spends more on Scotland than Scotland contributes, so it's a net economic burden. Independence would remove that burden, leaving the UK better off.

I think I have already expressed this perfectly clearly in previous comments, so this is the last I will say about it.

Post reply on HN