17 ms·

Theresa May: UK must leave European single market

137 points by jaimebuelta 10y ago

mikaelj 10y ago
...and now off to re-build the British Empire...?
- johndunne 10y ago
  Many here in the UK might actually be hoping for just that!! Fingers crossed it doesn't turn into a mess!
  - senorjazz 10y ago
    I think you are onto something personally. Many in the UK had an inflated view of the importance / strength of the country harking back to the empire (admittedly final days pre WWII). Which was in fact more todo with to being close to the US who propped the country up and kept it at the top table, because we would always agree as opposed to the actual merit of the country. That combined with an island mentality and a fear mongering, sensationalist press. Case in point, my mother complaining of immigration, although she lives in an out of the way town where they had never seen a brown person (apart from at the hospital in the next town) until probably the late 90s. Now she insists there are too many eastern Europeans, however she swears blind she would never get an Englishman builder / plumber because the Polish ones (catchall, means any Eastern euro) are cheaper, more reliable and just better. But she wants to make Britain "great" again, "like it used to be". Pressing her when, she cannot answer. Asked if we should invade a "brown" country and get rich of plundering their resources and ruling via the military like we used to do, "no no no we shouldn't do that". "err mother you do realise why we used to be great and rich don't you" and she voted remain!
    - petecox 10y ago
      An Anglo free-migratory superstate combining Canada, NZ and AUS has been proposed to fill the shortage of labour once your continental plumbers leave. As an Aussie, I have no desire to return to the island my ancestors fled 160 years ago but if it enables me to retire to a piece of land in Quebec or the Maritimes, I'm all for it!
cs02rm0 10y ago
I think, regardless of where she intends to end up, she always had to start from the perspective of the UK being completely out of the EU. Showing that the UK is prepared to stand on its own two feet. If not prepared to do so, negotiations would be very one sided. It'll certainly be interesting to see how the negotiations play out.
- planetjones 10y ago
  Exactly - you can't show nervousness like Switzerland did. May is taking the only starting position possible, when performing hostile negociations. When Switzerland was faced with a similar issue (after citizens voted to restrict EU immigration) it was clear their Government knew straightaway they needed the deals with the EU, so it was impossible to negotiate anything of value. Britain is politically and economically very important to continental Europe, so May does have some bargaining chips.
- geekus_maximus 10y ago
  "If not prepared to do so, negotiations would be very one sided." Exactly that, and it's pertinent timing given the noises that Trump is making regarding import taxes, and the implications of those taxes for EU exporters.
- osullivj 10y ago
  Agreed. Look at what happened with the recent Canadian EU deal, which was nearly derailed by Wallonia, the French speaking half of Belgium [1]. A UK EU trade deal will require unanimity from the EU 27. Given the current political climate, that just won't happen. So "hard Brexit" is inevitable. Theresa May is just making a virtue of a necessity. She does have one very powerful negotiating lever: London is Europe's financial capital. When the debt management office of any Eurozone state issues new govt bonds to the primary market the bidders are primary dealer trading desks in London. The ultimate measure of Eurozone govt financial stability is whether an individual govt can attract bids for 100% of a new issue, and at what price. Since 2010 there have been occasions Italy and Greece have failed to get bids for new debt. When that happens Germany and the ECB have to step in. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/belgium-reaches-deal-with-wallonia-over-eu-canada-trade-agreement https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/belgium-reache...
blowski 10y ago
I began 2016 knowing (and hoping) Remain would win the referendum, and Clinton would win the presidency. So I'm not going to make any predictions at all. Despite this speech, we still have absolutely no idea what conversations are being had in private, or how anything is going to work out.
- TillE 10y ago
  The EU is going to slaughter the UK. That's basically their public position, and there's little reason to suspect they hold different private positions. It's the only thing that makes political sense. An agreement needs to be reached about EU citizens already living in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU. That's maybe the only critical issue where they have common ground. In every other respect, the UK is going to take decades to recover from radical economic upheaval. It's a ludicrous self-imposed crisis.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    Please stop the victim playing. The EU is not going to "slaughter the UK". The EU is simply going to uphold the value of EU membership. EU membership is something different that non EU membership. UK is opting for non EU membership, and even for a deal completely different than any other country has. We will reach that kind of deal. But please do not pretend that the expected agreement is "the UK gets unfettered access to the EU market without having to compromise in other areas like all EU members do", and that any other agreement is unfair. I am perfectly fine with the UK's starting position to be that one. The EU's starting position is "We want access to the city, free access to the UK market, payment for 40 years of deal making and market uniformization (which is going to be adopted on day one as British law), infrastructures, research, patents owned by British companies paid with EU funds, investments in UK culture and economy, unfettered access to UK's market". Anything less than that would be totally unfair to the EU, right? Now let's compromise.
emptyfile 10y ago
"It's your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer. Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people. Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it. It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real." Margaret Thatcher 1988
- jamesdempsy 10y ago
  Except she was Lied to. We all were. Also, it's not as clear cut as 320 million people. They all have different languages. All have different customs. All have different laws. All have different banking structures. The EU is not like the US. Please don't think it is. Have you tried exporting something to the EU? It's not easy. Oh and developing a website for the EU and communicating to it's citizens. Again not easy. I launched a business in the US. I have 1 language, 1 bank, 1 custom to deal with. Oh and as it happens, I speak that language also. Very easy to deal with. The EU was a nightmare!
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Was it for real or isn't that just a politician trying to sell something (which it sounds remarkably like)? One of the reasons Brexit is happening (at least it's argued) is due to bureaucracy. Should we agree with the quote or find it wrong in hindsight?
  - mfukar 10y ago
    Just to be clear, are you doubting the existence of a single market for EU members? Because if you are, reality is very persuasive.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      You can agree with the existence of a single market but find most of that quote flowery political rhetoric.
planetjones 10y ago
I think Britain will eventually come out of this stronger. However, it's clear in the interim period (which could be 5-10 years I think) there could be huge transitional issues. Whether that pain is worth suffering, only time will tell. Personally, I am not a huge fan of these currency, trading or political blocs. The WTO exists for trade and I would much prefer it to be the vehicle for trade, rather than groups of geographically close-knit countries.
- cs02rm0 10y ago
  It chimes with UNIX philosophy for me. Organisations like the WTO which do (approximately) one thing and one thing well are preferable to those that try and do a bit of everything. It keeps the politics to a minimum. Likewise, subject to the outcome of the negotiations, I imagine after a period of uncertainty and perhaps some turmoil it will be for the best. The timing may be unfortunate for some though.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    Agree that the ideal situation is to have several WTO-like entities enforcing policies in different areas, but integrated into a global organization (call it the UN). The EU is a good way to reach that final, ideal state.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > Personally, I am not a huge fan of these currency, trading or political blocs. The EU seems to be pretty effective at preventing wars within Europe. That's a good enough pro to cancel out all the other cons on my list. But hey, it's been three generations since our last big war, we are probably overdue on a reminder of why fully-industrialized total war is not such a great idea.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    Honestly, I think the war argument is a bit outdated, and not relevant currently. I like the EU for what it offers me: a market where I can buy and sell things knowing that some minimum rules are being respected, an area which allows me, as a person the freedom that I think every human being has, to move and work wherever he wants (although this is currently limited to EU citizens), and lots of other advantages. Peace is good collateral effect.
jamesdempsy 10y ago
I think this is a great decision. Not only does it allow May to try and negotiate a good deal. It also means the UK is free to negotiate deals around the world. Prior to entering the "common market" the UK was 4th largest economy and had trade deals with the world. The UK really needs to get back to basics. Trade deals with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the ex-colonies, the US and then the EU (if they want a trading partner). Not only that. Make Britian Great again. Lets have lower regulation than the EU. Lets have a much lower corporate tax and sales tax than the EU. The UK needs to be the most attractive country to invest in. The UK needs to be very business friendly. There is a lot the UK can do without having some other country want to veto it. I voted for Brexit and the UK can do a lot better!
headmelted 10y ago
For anyone not familiar with British political etiquette, the phrase: "the UK cannot remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean not leaving the EU at all" can be interpreted as: "I told them they better give us a special exception for single market access and no immigration and they laughed at me".
- akjainaj 10y ago
  Which is funny because if the EU is to survive, immigration controls will have to be put in place. Many countries are already demanding to control their borders. So when that happens, the UK will feel stupid for leaving, I suppose. They could've just waited.
  - jamesdempsy 10y ago
    > Many countries are already demanding to control their borders. Yes but that won't happen. > the UK will feel stupid for leaving, I suppose. Nope. It's not just about immigration. It's actually being able to run one's own country. When you sign up to the EU, you are effectively giving up your country.
  - bru 10y ago
    There are currently such controls for the EU, actually, and done on the French side of the channel. Those may go as well.
    - cs02rm0 10y ago
      Only at Calais are they on the French side. They're on the UK side elsewhere.
      - cs02rm0 10y ago
        Why the downvote? With the exception of the Eurotunnel route, customs checks remain unaffected by juxtaposed immigration controls and continue to take place upon arrival after disembarkation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls
billpg 10y ago
Doomed...
- coldtea 10y ago
  Check back in 10 years.
matthewmacleod 10y ago
This is almost certainly a collosal act of self-harm, and deeply short-sighted. I was desperately hopeful that the whole Brexit situation could be salvaged in some way, and that some way forward for liberalism might be figured out such that the rising tide of populism could be countered. I'm less and less confident about that.
- sjg007 10y ago
  Parliament has to vote on it... might be hope
  - ar0 10y ago
    But isn't this in many ways actually even more risky? When Parliament gets its vote, the two year exit period will almost certainly be almost over and a vote of Parliament will not be able to stop the exit. Instead it will be a vote on the new arrangements with the EU. So either they just have to rubberstamp whatever gets put to them or - if they vote down these new arrangements - Britain will be left outside of the EU without any new deal in place.
    - peteretep 10y ago
      The two year exit period can't start until parliament votes, because May doesn't have the authority to trigger Article 51 without parliament
      - matthewmacleod 10y ago
        My understanding is that there are two distinct parliamentary votes – one on the triggering of Article 50, and one on the final settlement with the EU. The former starts the mandatory two-year withdrawal process.
      - kamjam 10y ago
        I assume you're talking about the triggering of Article 50 - the decision of the Supreme Court case which we are still waiting for on whether Parliament needs to vote before it can be triggered or the Prime Minister can trigger it using Executive Powers. So possibly, but there is talk of Teresa May rewording the Bill and forcing it through. Democracy eh!
donmatito 10y ago
This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is. I hope the best for Europe and UK on their separate path. Given the mess, a clean cut is probably in the best interest of both sides
- coldtea 10y ago
  >This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is. Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.
  - iaskwhy 10y ago
    While I agree with what you said, I believe the UK never acted as a heavier country during all these years. I understand why if the reason is purely political and based on winning elections but winning in the short terms led us to where we are now. I'm sure Cameron got himself a nice surprise.
  - the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
    Except that's absolutely incorrect and repeating these things won't make it any more true.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      That's hardly an argument. Sounds more like 'lalala' hands in the ears denial. Germany has been pushing peripheral countries around and controlling central aspects of European policy for decades, even bullying France into compliance. And, of course, containing Germany, which brought war upon Europe twice in the 20th century, was a stated goal of the 1950s European politicians and diplomats that designed EU and its early precursors (E.g. "The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany.").
johndunne 10y ago
I wouldn't dare pretend to know what'll be the result once it's all said and done.
donmatito 10y ago
Unrelated to the topic, I like how BBC splits clearly reporting of facts and analysis/opinion section.
- Graham24 10y ago
  I like how it's so much clearer and easier to read than, say, the NYT's website with its horrible plain black and white tiny font. Is there a reason why it looks (IMO) so bad?
cJ0th 10y ago
The UK (and soon the US) are shaking the world up. The winners of this shake up will be those who are, both, able to drop old assumptions quickly and enjoying a good deal of luck. It's a bit like organizing the world by chance while hoping for the best.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Agree. We have entered the "Era of the Bully": don't ask permission, not even forgiveness. Whatever you can do, just do it. Don't care who you hurt. The only principle guiding you should be "to maximize your own benefit", assuming that the other players are doing the same. In the EU, we had left this behind long ago, compromising between us in order to get some minimal standards for granted. This will work very well for those strong enough to fight the fight - and the UK could very well be one of the winners of this new period. But this will be at the expense of hurting the rest. That's why the EU should be extremely careful about what role the UK is going to play in the near future. We should recognize and punish any hostile act for what it is, for example the already official threat of creating a tax heaven in our backyard.
  - up_so_floating 10y ago
    Have we really ever left the "Era of the Bully"? Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their actions? You will be competing with them. Can you punish them as effectively as you can "punish" Britain?
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      > Have we really ever left the "Era of the Bully"? We had left it. In the EU. > Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their actions? You will be competing with them We are competing with China and Russia. To do that we need to be strong. That's one of the reasons why EU membership is important. Thanks for pointing that out. > Can you punish them as effectively as you can "punish" Britain? We are not punishing Britain. Britain is leaving the EU. Any deal we get is a new deal. Nothing can be taken for granted, by the EU or by the UK. If the UK does not get access to the EU market, it is because it is a) either not in the interest of the UK to accept compromises offered by the EU b) or not in the interest of the EU to accept what the UK is proposing
tomelders 10y ago
All because people think 3.5% of the population (immigrants) is 20% of the population. No one - no matter what they may claim today - voted for this. At the time they were saying "we'll get access to the single market because we're special". I'm completely lost and hopeless. We've torn up everything that's good because it's difficult, and we're exchanging it for everything that's bad, and will be a thousand times more difficult.
- mathw 10y ago
  I don't understand how we got here. I understand that the media picked up a massive campaign to leave, because the various super-rich owners of the popular press decided Brexit was the thing to support. I understand that there were a lot of lies told and that people believed enough of those told by the Leave side that they decided to vote that way. I don't understand how a slender majority in favour of leaving ended up with a government of people who are supposed to look out for our best interests going full-on for just about the worst possible outcome.
  - derrickdirge 10y ago
    The same way a slender minority forced just about the worst possible President on the American people.
    - tomp 10y ago
      As with Brexit so with Trump, the one side only won because the alternative was only barely, if at all, better.
  - mcintyre1994 10y ago
    The left is in disarray, the only threats to May are from the further right in her party and outside (mainly UKIP). Since they're the only threats they're the only groups worth appeasing to maintain her job.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  Hopefully this time everyone will remember how difficult bad things are.
lwhi 10y ago
I find her language very problematic. I didn't vote to leave—so when she claims to be speaking for the British people, I'm left wondering how my voice can count. I'm part of 48% of 72.2%; a lot of people are likely to share my concern. We need a general election. She speaks of what 'she wants'—the most problematic part of this surreal theatrical horror story is fact we the country didn't vote for her. I don't want this government to make such fundamental changes without the mandate of the people.
- Gupie 10y ago
  We need a second referendum on what is finally agreed with the EU. The people are allowed to change their mind.
  - xemoka 10y ago
    Yeah, but article 50 doesn't work like that, does it?
    - dx034 10y ago
      It just says you're out after two years, which will be very interesting if some regional parliament decides to block the deal the EU makes with the UK. And I'm sure there will be a parliament which is unhappy with the deal.
    - Gupie 10y ago
      In what way? Article 50 can be revoked once triggered: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-revoked-once-triggered-senior-academics-claim-a7393661.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article...
      - gpderetta 10y ago
        "[...] probably unilaterally by the UK. However, in the latter case the UK would find itself having to defend a very uncertain legal and very troubling position.” senior academic claims (emphasis and ellipses mine).
rayiner 10y ago
It'll be interesting to see how the UK handles this. I suspect they will fail, but they should be applauded for trying. A single market is not an unmitigated good. The single market that exists within the U.S. is the major reason why federalism has failed. When governments can't exercise control over commerce with external entities, it becomes impossible to really chart a destiny distinct from the larger union. Massachusetts can't just decide to become a Scandanavian-style welfare state if it can't control the flow of people and commerce across its borders. Companies could relocate over the border and still access the rich Massachusetts market; people can move to Massachusetts only when they get sick; etc. The American single market is why state socreignty is such a farce, and the U.K. has wiser up to that reality.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- gonvaled 10y ago
  In the EU we have extremely different countries. What is exactly your point?
  - rayiner 10y ago
    And the EU will either end up with a bunch of very different people unhappy about being forced into the same polity, or it will end. America proves you cannot have Democratic sovereign states tied together by an overarching union. America is a lot more homogenous than Europe and even then it's intensely straining here. Neither Alabama nor Massachusetts are happy being forced into the same polity with each other--voting in the same elections and being governed by the same laws.
    - gonvaled 10y ago
      > Massachusetts can't just decide to become a Scandanavian-style welfare state if it can't control the flow of people and commerce across its borders In the EU we have some countries with Scandinavian-style welfare states, and some without it. And still the EU exists, which seems impossible according to your comment.
Ensorceled 10y ago
I'm not sure why everybody is hammering jamesdempsy with down votes, I disagree with them as well but they are making rational, and disputable, arguments. Debate, don't censor.
kalekold 10y ago
Britain is ok, everything is fine! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWkTQvlnDTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWkTQvlnDTI
paskster 10y ago
Europe is not a single market at all. Simple thinks like making sure your invoice is paid from a customer who is based in another european country is practically impossible. I know because I am the CEO of a staffing company in Germany: national as well as international businesses book exhibition staff and other temporary employees for events in Germany and Austria through our platform. If one of our german customers does not pay, we can easily use the german legal system to ensure that we get our money. If we have to sue, our legal system makes sure that we are reimbursed if we win in court. But if for example an Italian business is using our service and they don't pay our invoice, we have no way to get our money. We technically could appeal to a court in Italy, get a lawyer in Italy, translate all documents to Italian and sue in Italy. But this would cost at least 20.000 EUR in total which are not reimbursed even if we win in court. That is why businesses who are not based in Germany have to pay upfront. I cannot call the EU a single market, if my business has to treat a customer from EU the same like any other customer around the world. So, maybe the UK will have some disadvantages if they are not part of the EU anymore. But they are not leaving a "single market" because the EU never was a single market. I guess they will be just fine without the EU.
- kuschku 10y ago
  > Europe is not a single market at all. Oh, it’s already a lot better than it was before. But you are right, a fuckton of work is required to make it even slightly competitive with the US, China, or India. But we should work towards that – and not split it up even further.
  - virmundi 10y ago
    Isn't one of the issues with the EU government that it's recalcitrant to reform? Brussels feels like they have a cozy little cocoon. Any attempts to make them work for the people in a meaningful way get rebuffed.
    - dx034 10y ago
      They actually work a lot for the people. The reason the EU is often unpopular with businesses is due to laws protecting people (labor laws, customer protection, minimum standards, ...). I'd argue that is politic for the people, just not for businesses.
gotchange 10y ago
There's the court ruling and now Parliament too would have a say in the matter and could probably derail the decision and put an end to the mess that the Leavers made and that's why FX markets are reacting possibly to this news.
pvdebbe 10y ago
Shame if this happens (Amazon.co.uk has been good; Amazon.de doesn't speak English), but UK must do what they think what's good for them. Doing customs declarations in Finland has turned into a hassle since the convenience of EU trade.
- germanier 10y ago
  Just FYI, Amazon.de introduced English interface and customer support some while back (most product listings are still only German of course).
  - xiaq 10y ago
    If you enter an English query, it will translate to German, though
    - germanier 10y ago
      Does it? I just tried switching the interface to English (there is a dropdown in the menu) and it worked exactly like the UK or US version of Amazon, just with the German product catalogue.
  - pvdebbe 10y ago
    Thanks for heads-up. Sounds like I must try it out the next time I need something from there!
- gonvaled 10y ago
  why do you need to do customs declarations in Finland? Where are you based? Where are you buying from? Buying from any other EU country should free you from customs declarations.
  - pvdebbe 10y ago
    Mainly because I'm a sucker for Amazon, and the other Amazon warehouses in EU area didn't support English to my knowledge. I'm glad if they do. There's also been the possibility to hack with GBP/EUR rates.
gonvaled 10y ago
It is unfortunate that the spotlight is in the UK, and that the EU is not able to bring across the benefits and compromises that membership has and implies. I fear that this failure of communicating clearly to EU citizens (and the rest) what the EU project is, what benefits it has, why we need to compromise in certain areas, is having a strong negative impact in how it is perceived, and can bring about its own demise. For decades the EU bashers have been attributing all kinds of problems to the EU, while very seldom anybody, not even the member states which benefit from membership, have ever taken the chance to praise the role that EU is playing in lots of different areas. May has made her case quite eloquently, offering the UK's view of the negotiations, but of course without recognizing something extremely obvious: whenever May talks about a UK strength, which can and will be used in negotiation, she omits mentioning that the other side, the EU, has a similar strength, often much bigger. And she keeps on pretending that the EU is trying to punish the UK for leaving the block, when nothing is further from the truth. The EU is simply not willing to dilute the value of EU membership by allowing the UK to have "its cake and eat it". May repeats and repeats that there is nothing bad in allowing the UK a very favorable access to the EU common market, but I guess that she does not allow her neighbors to enter at their will into her house: being member of a Club has some benefits, but implies following some rules. Put bluntly: giving access to the common market means the end of the EU. As long as that is not the goal of the EU26, we can not accept that. Finally, the UK has proven to be an extremely unreliable partner, and a very selfish one. After decades of special treatment, the UK is prepared (quite literally, as we see with the threats of becoming a tax heaven) to stab the EU in the back. This, from my point of view, has three consequences: - the UK can not be trusted again to work together with the EU. Any deal we make with the UK must be done taking into account that the UK can and will break it whenever it wishes - there is no rolling back: sorry for the remain voters, but it is unthinkable for us EU citizens to get you back on board. Even in case that your leaders rethink their position, I would say that option is not anymore on the table. Brexit it is. - any other country or economic block making trade agreements with the UK are by now aware of how selfish and unreliable the UK has become. I would say this will have consequences in the kind of deals that the UK will able to secure. May and the brexiteers have been talking for months about trade deals as if those would never carry any kind of compromises attached. Any deal means a compromise, securing something in exchange of something else. You had an agreement with the EU (as EU member) which is being terminated because you did not like the strings attached. You will now get zick new agreements with other areas, all of them with strings attached. Will you blame those agreements for your future failures?
sparshgupta 10y ago
> Maintaining the common travel area between the UK and Irish Republic Tariff-free trade with the EU A customs agreement with the EU Continued "practical" sharing of intelligence and policing information "Control" of immigration rights for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU Correct me if I am wrong but aren't these the things they get by being members of the EU? That is why they paid fees to have all this stuff that benefits them, right? Honestly, when did the world start getting run by petulant children in the form of old white people? Over here we have The Golden Tariff that is destroying stocks because they pissed him off.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  The UK is simply trying to divide the EU, by cosying up to some members. Of course the UK has control of borders: they are not even in Shengen! Besides, only EU citizens are allowed to move around the EU. It is unfortunate that the EU has allowed the UK to amass that much financial and intelligence clout, and something that I hope will be corrected in the near future, by distributing the financial center around the EU member states, and by building up a world class intelligence service.
unfortunateface 10y ago
I think we should replace politicians and obviously flawed democratic process with a top down style economy run by Economists. Obviously we will have to have some kind of mechanism for choosing between these Economists, as some have shown to be pretty far off in their predictions. Some sort of system based on the casting and counting of votes perhaps.
- aleksei 10y ago
  A world run by economists sounds even harsher than the one we have now.
grzm 10y ago
Current title is slightly different: "Brexit: UK to leave single market, says Theresa May" Don't know if the article title has changed or submission title was slightly edited.

137 points by jaimebuelta 10y ago

mikaelj 10y ago

...and now off to re-build the British Empire...?

johndunne 10y ago
Many here in the UK might actually be hoping for just that!! Fingers crossed it doesn't turn into a mess!
- senorjazz 10y ago
  I think you are onto something personally. Many in the UK had an inflated view of the importance / strength of the country harking back to the empire (admittedly final days pre WWII). Which was in fact more todo with to being close to the US who propped the country up and kept it at the top table, because we would always agree as opposed to the actual merit of the country. That combined with an island mentality and a fear mongering, sensationalist press. Case in point, my mother complaining of immigration, although she lives in an out of the way town where they had never seen a brown person (apart from at the hospital in the next town) until probably the late 90s. Now she insists there are too many eastern Europeans, however she swears blind she would never get an Englishman builder / plumber because the Polish ones (catchall, means any Eastern euro) are cheaper, more reliable and just better. But she wants to make Britain "great" again, "like it used to be". Pressing her when, she cannot answer. Asked if we should invade a "brown" country and get rich of plundering their resources and ruling via the military like we used to do, "no no no we shouldn't do that". "err mother you do realise why we used to be great and rich don't you" and she voted remain!
  - petecox 10y ago
    An Anglo free-migratory superstate combining Canada, NZ and AUS has been proposed to fill the shortage of labour once your continental plumbers leave. As an Aussie, I have no desire to return to the island my ancestors fled 160 years ago but if it enables me to retire to a piece of land in Quebec or the Maritimes, I'm all for it!

cs02rm0 10y ago

I think, regardless of where she intends to end up, she always had to start from the perspective of the UK being completely out of the EU. Showing that the UK is prepared to stand on its own two feet. If not prepared to do so, negotiations would be very one sided. It'll certainly be interesting to see how the negotiations play out.

planetjones 10y ago
Exactly - you can't show nervousness like Switzerland did. May is taking the only starting position possible, when performing hostile negociations. When Switzerland was faced with a similar issue (after citizens voted to restrict EU immigration) it was clear their Government knew straightaway they needed the deals with the EU, so it was impossible to negotiate anything of value. Britain is politically and economically very important to continental Europe, so May does have some bargaining chips.
geekus_maximus 10y ago
"If not prepared to do so, negotiations would be very one sided." Exactly that, and it's pertinent timing given the noises that Trump is making regarding import taxes, and the implications of those taxes for EU exporters.
osullivj 10y ago
Agreed. Look at what happened with the recent Canadian EU deal, which was nearly derailed by Wallonia, the French speaking half of Belgium [1]. A UK EU trade deal will require unanimity from the EU 27. Given the current political climate, that just won't happen. So "hard Brexit" is inevitable. Theresa May is just making a virtue of a necessity. She does have one very powerful negotiating lever: London is Europe's financial capital. When the debt management office of any Eurozone state issues new govt bonds to the primary market the bidders are primary dealer trading desks in London. The ultimate measure of Eurozone govt financial stability is whether an individual govt can attract bids for 100% of a new issue, and at what price. Since 2010 there have been occasions Italy and Greece have failed to get bids for new debt. When that happens Germany and the ECB have to step in. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/belgium-reaches-deal-with-wallonia-over-eu-canada-trade-agreement https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/belgium-reache...

blowski 10y ago

I began 2016 knowing (and hoping) Remain would win the referendum, and Clinton would win the presidency. So I'm not going to make any predictions at all. Despite this speech, we still have absolutely no idea what conversations are being had in private, or how anything is going to work out.

TillE 10y ago
The EU is going to slaughter the UK. That's basically their public position, and there's little reason to suspect they hold different private positions. It's the only thing that makes political sense. An agreement needs to be reached about EU citizens already living in the UK, and UK citizens in the EU. That's maybe the only critical issue where they have common ground. In every other respect, the UK is going to take decades to recover from radical economic upheaval. It's a ludicrous self-imposed crisis.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Please stop the victim playing. The EU is not going to "slaughter the UK". The EU is simply going to uphold the value of EU membership. EU membership is something different that non EU membership. UK is opting for non EU membership, and even for a deal completely different than any other country has. We will reach that kind of deal. But please do not pretend that the expected agreement is "the UK gets unfettered access to the EU market without having to compromise in other areas like all EU members do", and that any other agreement is unfair. I am perfectly fine with the UK's starting position to be that one. The EU's starting position is "We want access to the city, free access to the UK market, payment for 40 years of deal making and market uniformization (which is going to be adopted on day one as British law), infrastructures, research, patents owned by British companies paid with EU funds, investments in UK culture and economy, unfettered access to UK's market". Anything less than that would be totally unfair to the EU, right? Now let's compromise.

emptyfile 10y ago

"It's your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer. Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people. Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it. It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real." Margaret Thatcher 1988

jamesdempsy 10y ago
Except she was Lied to. We all were. Also, it's not as clear cut as 320 million people. They all have different languages. All have different customs. All have different laws. All have different banking structures. The EU is not like the US. Please don't think it is. Have you tried exporting something to the EU? It's not easy. Oh and developing a website for the EU and communicating to it's citizens. Again not easy. I launched a business in the US. I have 1 language, 1 bank, 1 custom to deal with. Oh and as it happens, I speak that language also. Very easy to deal with. The EU was a nightmare!
aaron-lebo 10y ago
Was it for real or isn't that just a politician trying to sell something (which it sounds remarkably like)? One of the reasons Brexit is happening (at least it's argued) is due to bureaucracy. Should we agree with the quote or find it wrong in hindsight?
- mfukar 10y ago
  Just to be clear, are you doubting the existence of a single market for EU members? Because if you are, reality is very persuasive.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    You can agree with the existence of a single market but find most of that quote flowery political rhetoric.

planetjones 10y ago

I think Britain will eventually come out of this stronger. However, it's clear in the interim period (which could be 5-10 years I think) there could be huge transitional issues. Whether that pain is worth suffering, only time will tell. Personally, I am not a huge fan of these currency, trading or political blocs. The WTO exists for trade and I would much prefer it to be the vehicle for trade, rather than groups of geographically close-knit countries.

cs02rm0 10y ago
It chimes with UNIX philosophy for me. Organisations like the WTO which do (approximately) one thing and one thing well are preferable to those that try and do a bit of everything. It keeps the politics to a minimum. Likewise, subject to the outcome of the negotiations, I imagine after a period of uncertainty and perhaps some turmoil it will be for the best. The timing may be unfortunate for some though.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Agree that the ideal situation is to have several WTO-like entities enforcing policies in different areas, but integrated into a global organization (call it the UN). The EU is a good way to reach that final, ideal state.
sangnoir 10y ago
> Personally, I am not a huge fan of these currency, trading or political blocs. The EU seems to be pretty effective at preventing wars within Europe. That's a good enough pro to cancel out all the other cons on my list. But hey, it's been three generations since our last big war, we are probably overdue on a reminder of why fully-industrialized total war is not such a great idea.
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Honestly, I think the war argument is a bit outdated, and not relevant currently. I like the EU for what it offers me: a market where I can buy and sell things knowing that some minimum rules are being respected, an area which allows me, as a person the freedom that I think every human being has, to move and work wherever he wants (although this is currently limited to EU citizens), and lots of other advantages. Peace is good collateral effect.

jamesdempsy 10y ago

I think this is a great decision. Not only does it allow May to try and negotiate a good deal. It also means the UK is free to negotiate deals around the world. Prior to entering the "common market" the UK was 4th largest economy and had trade deals with the world. The UK really needs to get back to basics. Trade deals with Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the ex-colonies, the US and then the EU (if they want a trading partner). Not only that. Make Britian Great again. Lets have lower regulation than the EU. Lets have a much lower corporate tax and sales tax than the EU. The UK needs to be the most attractive country to invest in. The UK needs to be very business friendly. There is a lot the UK can do without having some other country want to veto it. I voted for Brexit and the UK can do a lot better!

headmelted 10y ago

For anyone not familiar with British political etiquette, the phrase: "the UK cannot remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean not leaving the EU at all" can be interpreted as: "I told them they better give us a special exception for single market access and no immigration and they laughed at me".

akjainaj 10y ago
Which is funny because if the EU is to survive, immigration controls will have to be put in place. Many countries are already demanding to control their borders. So when that happens, the UK will feel stupid for leaving, I suppose. They could've just waited.
- jamesdempsy 10y ago
  > Many countries are already demanding to control their borders. Yes but that won't happen. > the UK will feel stupid for leaving, I suppose. Nope. It's not just about immigration. It's actually being able to run one's own country. When you sign up to the EU, you are effectively giving up your country.
- bru 10y ago
  There are currently such controls for the EU, actually, and done on the French side of the channel. Those may go as well.
  - cs02rm0 10y ago
    Only at Calais are they on the French side. They're on the UK side elsewhere.
    - cs02rm0 10y ago
      Why the downvote? With the exception of the Eurotunnel route, customs checks remain unaffected by juxtaposed immigration controls and continue to take place upon arrival after disembarkation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls

billpg 10y ago

Doomed...

coldtea 10y ago
Check back in 10 years.

matthewmacleod 10y ago

This is almost certainly a collosal act of self-harm, and deeply short-sighted. I was desperately hopeful that the whole Brexit situation could be salvaged in some way, and that some way forward for liberalism might be figured out such that the rising tide of populism could be countered. I'm less and less confident about that.

sjg007 10y ago
Parliament has to vote on it... might be hope
- ar0 10y ago
  But isn't this in many ways actually even more risky? When Parliament gets its vote, the two year exit period will almost certainly be almost over and a vote of Parliament will not be able to stop the exit. Instead it will be a vote on the new arrangements with the EU. So either they just have to rubberstamp whatever gets put to them or - if they vote down these new arrangements - Britain will be left outside of the EU without any new deal in place.
  - peteretep 10y ago
    The two year exit period can't start until parliament votes, because May doesn't have the authority to trigger Article 51 without parliament
    - matthewmacleod 10y ago
      My understanding is that there are two distinct parliamentary votes – one on the triggering of Article 50, and one on the final settlement with the EU. The former starts the mandatory two-year withdrawal process.
    - kamjam 10y ago
      I assume you're talking about the triggering of Article 50 - the decision of the Supreme Court case which we are still waiting for on whether Parliament needs to vote before it can be triggered or the Prime Minister can trigger it using Executive Powers. So possibly, but there is talk of Teresa May rewording the Bill and forcing it through. Democracy eh!

donmatito 10y ago

This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is. I hope the best for Europe and UK on their separate path. Given the mess, a clean cut is probably in the best interest of both sides

coldtea 10y ago
>This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common destiny and a shared set of values is. Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of lesser ones.
- iaskwhy 10y ago
  While I agree with what you said, I believe the UK never acted as a heavier country during all these years. I understand why if the reason is purely political and based on winning elections but winning in the short terms led us to where we are now. I'm sure Cameron got himself a nice surprise.
- the_mitsuhiko 10y ago
  Except that's absolutely incorrect and repeating these things won't make it any more true.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    That's hardly an argument. Sounds more like 'lalala' hands in the ears denial. Germany has been pushing peripheral countries around and controlling central aspects of European policy for decades, even bullying France into compliance. And, of course, containing Germany, which brought war upon Europe twice in the 20th century, was a stated goal of the 1950s European politicians and diplomats that designed EU and its early precursors (E.g. "The ECSC was first proposed by French foreign minister Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950 as a way to prevent further war between France and Germany.").

johndunne 10y ago

I wouldn't dare pretend to know what'll be the result once it's all said and done.

donmatito 10y ago

Unrelated to the topic, I like how BBC splits clearly reporting of facts and analysis/opinion section.

Graham24 10y ago
I like how it's so much clearer and easier to read than, say, the NYT's website with its horrible plain black and white tiny font. Is there a reason why it looks (IMO) so bad?

cJ0th 10y ago

The UK (and soon the US) are shaking the world up. The winners of this shake up will be those who are, both, able to drop old assumptions quickly and enjoying a good deal of luck. It's a bit like organizing the world by chance while hoping for the best.

gonvaled 10y ago
Agree. We have entered the "Era of the Bully": don't ask permission, not even forgiveness. Whatever you can do, just do it. Don't care who you hurt. The only principle guiding you should be "to maximize your own benefit", assuming that the other players are doing the same. In the EU, we had left this behind long ago, compromising between us in order to get some minimal standards for granted. This will work very well for those strong enough to fight the fight - and the UK could very well be one of the winners of this new period. But this will be at the expense of hurting the rest. That's why the EU should be extremely careful about what role the UK is going to play in the near future. We should recognize and punish any hostile act for what it is, for example the already official threat of creating a tax heaven in our backyard.
- up_so_floating 10y ago
  Have we really ever left the "Era of the Bully"? Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their actions? You will be competing with them. Can you punish them as effectively as you can "punish" Britain?
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    > Have we really ever left the "Era of the Bully"? We had left it. In the EU. > Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their actions? You will be competing with them We are competing with China and Russia. To do that we need to be strong. That's one of the reasons why EU membership is important. Thanks for pointing that out. > Can you punish them as effectively as you can "punish" Britain? We are not punishing Britain. Britain is leaving the EU. Any deal we get is a new deal. Nothing can be taken for granted, by the EU or by the UK. If the UK does not get access to the EU market, it is because it is a) either not in the interest of the UK to accept compromises offered by the EU b) or not in the interest of the EU to accept what the UK is proposing

tomelders 10y ago

All because people think 3.5% of the population (immigrants) is 20% of the population. No one - no matter what they may claim today - voted for this. At the time they were saying "we'll get access to the single market because we're special". I'm completely lost and hopeless. We've torn up everything that's good because it's difficult, and we're exchanging it for everything that's bad, and will be a thousand times more difficult.

mathw 10y ago
I don't understand how we got here. I understand that the media picked up a massive campaign to leave, because the various super-rich owners of the popular press decided Brexit was the thing to support. I understand that there were a lot of lies told and that people believed enough of those told by the Leave side that they decided to vote that way. I don't understand how a slender majority in favour of leaving ended up with a government of people who are supposed to look out for our best interests going full-on for just about the worst possible outcome.
- derrickdirge 10y ago
  The same way a slender minority forced just about the worst possible President on the American people.
  - tomp 10y ago
    As with Brexit so with Trump, the one side only won because the alternative was only barely, if at all, better.
- mcintyre1994 10y ago
  The left is in disarray, the only threats to May are from the further right in her party and outside (mainly UKIP). Since they're the only threats they're the only groups worth appeasing to maintain her job.
derrickdirge 10y ago
Hopefully this time everyone will remember how difficult bad things are.

lwhi 10y ago

I find her language very problematic. I didn't vote to leave—so when she claims to be speaking for the British people, I'm left wondering how my voice can count. I'm part of 48% of 72.2%; a lot of people are likely to share my concern. We need a general election. She speaks of what 'she wants'—the most problematic part of this surreal theatrical horror story is fact we the country didn't vote for her. I don't want this government to make such fundamental changes without the mandate of the people.

Gupie 10y ago
We need a second referendum on what is finally agreed with the EU. The people are allowed to change their mind.
- xemoka 10y ago
  Yeah, but article 50 doesn't work like that, does it?
  - dx034 10y ago
    It just says you're out after two years, which will be very interesting if some regional parliament decides to block the deal the EU makes with the UK. And I'm sure there will be a parliament which is unhappy with the deal.
  - Gupie 10y ago
    In what way? Article 50 can be revoked once triggered: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-revoked-once-triggered-senior-academics-claim-a7393661.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article...
    - gpderetta 10y ago
      "[...] probably unilaterally by the UK. However, in the latter case the UK would find itself having to defend a very uncertain legal and very troubling position.” senior academic claims (emphasis and ellipses mine).

rayiner 10y ago

It'll be interesting to see how the UK handles this. I suspect they will fail, but they should be applauded for trying. A single market is not an unmitigated good. The single market that exists within the U.S. is the major reason why federalism has failed. When governments can't exercise control over commerce with external entities, it becomes impossible to really chart a destiny distinct from the larger union. Massachusetts can't just decide to become a Scandanavian-style welfare state if it can't control the flow of people and commerce across its borders. Companies could relocate over the border and still access the rich Massachusetts market; people can move to Massachusetts only when they get sick; etc. The American single market is why state socreignty is such a farce, and the U.K. has wiser up to that reality.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
gonvaled 10y ago
In the EU we have extremely different countries. What is exactly your point?
- rayiner 10y ago
  And the EU will either end up with a bunch of very different people unhappy about being forced into the same polity, or it will end. America proves you cannot have Democratic sovereign states tied together by an overarching union. America is a lot more homogenous than Europe and even then it's intensely straining here. Neither Alabama nor Massachusetts are happy being forced into the same polity with each other--voting in the same elections and being governed by the same laws.
  - gonvaled 10y ago
    > Massachusetts can't just decide to become a Scandanavian-style welfare state if it can't control the flow of people and commerce across its borders In the EU we have some countries with Scandinavian-style welfare states, and some without it. And still the EU exists, which seems impossible according to your comment.

Ensorceled 10y ago

I'm not sure why everybody is hammering jamesdempsy with down votes, I disagree with them as well but they are making rational, and disputable, arguments. Debate, don't censor.

kalekold 10y ago

Britain is ok, everything is fine! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWkTQvlnDTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWkTQvlnDTI

paskster 10y ago

Europe is not a single market at all. Simple thinks like making sure your invoice is paid from a customer who is based in another european country is practically impossible. I know because I am the CEO of a staffing company in Germany: national as well as international businesses book exhibition staff and other temporary employees for events in Germany and Austria through our platform. If one of our german customers does not pay, we can easily use the german legal system to ensure that we get our money. If we have to sue, our legal system makes sure that we are reimbursed if we win in court. But if for example an Italian business is using our service and they don't pay our invoice, we have no way to get our money. We technically could appeal to a court in Italy, get a lawyer in Italy, translate all documents to Italian and sue in Italy. But this would cost at least 20.000 EUR in total which are not reimbursed even if we win in court. That is why businesses who are not based in Germany have to pay upfront. I cannot call the EU a single market, if my business has to treat a customer from EU the same like any other customer around the world. So, maybe the UK will have some disadvantages if they are not part of the EU anymore. But they are not leaving a "single market" because the EU never was a single market. I guess they will be just fine without the EU.

kuschku 10y ago
> Europe is not a single market at all. Oh, it’s already a lot better than it was before. But you are right, a fuckton of work is required to make it even slightly competitive with the US, China, or India. But we should work towards that – and not split it up even further.
- virmundi 10y ago
  Isn't one of the issues with the EU government that it's recalcitrant to reform? Brussels feels like they have a cozy little cocoon. Any attempts to make them work for the people in a meaningful way get rebuffed.
  - dx034 10y ago
    They actually work a lot for the people. The reason the EU is often unpopular with businesses is due to laws protecting people (labor laws, customer protection, minimum standards, ...). I'd argue that is politic for the people, just not for businesses.

gotchange 10y ago

There's the court ruling and now Parliament too would have a say in the matter and could probably derail the decision and put an end to the mess that the Leavers made and that's why FX markets are reacting possibly to this news.

pvdebbe 10y ago

Shame if this happens (Amazon.co.uk has been good; Amazon.de doesn't speak English), but UK must do what they think what's good for them. Doing customs declarations in Finland has turned into a hassle since the convenience of EU trade.

germanier 10y ago
Just FYI, Amazon.de introduced English interface and customer support some while back (most product listings are still only German of course).
- xiaq 10y ago
  If you enter an English query, it will translate to German, though
  - germanier 10y ago
    Does it? I just tried switching the interface to English (there is a dropdown in the menu) and it worked exactly like the UK or US version of Amazon, just with the German product catalogue.
- pvdebbe 10y ago
  Thanks for heads-up. Sounds like I must try it out the next time I need something from there!
gonvaled 10y ago
why do you need to do customs declarations in Finland? Where are you based? Where are you buying from? Buying from any other EU country should free you from customs declarations.
- pvdebbe 10y ago
  Mainly because I'm a sucker for Amazon, and the other Amazon warehouses in EU area didn't support English to my knowledge. I'm glad if they do. There's also been the possibility to hack with GBP/EUR rates.

gonvaled 10y ago

It is unfortunate that the spotlight is in the UK, and that the EU is not able to bring across the benefits and compromises that membership has and implies. I fear that this failure of communicating clearly to EU citizens (and the rest) what the EU project is, what benefits it has, why we need to compromise in certain areas, is having a strong negative impact in how it is perceived, and can bring about its own demise. For decades the EU bashers have been attributing all kinds of problems to the EU, while very seldom anybody, not even the member states which benefit from membership, have ever taken the chance to praise the role that EU is playing in lots of different areas. May has made her case quite eloquently, offering the UK's view of the negotiations, but of course without recognizing something extremely obvious: whenever May talks about a UK strength, which can and will be used in negotiation, she omits mentioning that the other side, the EU, has a similar strength, often much bigger. And she keeps on pretending that the EU is trying to punish the UK for leaving the block, when nothing is further from the truth. The EU is simply not willing to dilute the value of EU membership by allowing the UK to have "its cake and eat it". May repeats and repeats that there is nothing bad in allowing the UK a very favorable access to the EU common market, but I guess that she does not allow her neighbors to enter at their will into her house: being member of a Club has some benefits, but implies following some rules. Put bluntly: giving access to the common market means the end of the EU. As long as that is not the goal of the EU26, we can not accept that. Finally, the UK has proven to be an extremely unreliable partner, and a very selfish one. After decades of special treatment, the UK is prepared (quite literally, as we see with the threats of becoming a tax heaven) to stab the EU in the back. This, from my point of view, has three consequences: - the UK can not be trusted again to work together with the EU. Any deal we make with the UK must be done taking into account that the UK can and will break it whenever it wishes - there is no rolling back: sorry for the remain voters, but it is unthinkable for us EU citizens to get you back on board. Even in case that your leaders rethink their position, I would say that option is not anymore on the table. Brexit it is. - any other country or economic block making trade agreements with the UK are by now aware of how selfish and unreliable the UK has become. I would say this will have consequences in the kind of deals that the UK will able to secure. May and the brexiteers have been talking for months about trade deals as if those would never carry any kind of compromises attached. Any deal means a compromise, securing something in exchange of something else. You had an agreement with the EU (as EU member) which is being terminated because you did not like the strings attached. You will now get zick new agreements with other areas, all of them with strings attached. Will you blame those agreements for your future failures?

sparshgupta 10y ago

> Maintaining the common travel area between the UK and Irish Republic Tariff-free trade with the EU A customs agreement with the EU Continued "practical" sharing of intelligence and policing information "Control" of immigration rights for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU Correct me if I am wrong but aren't these the things they get by being members of the EU? That is why they paid fees to have all this stuff that benefits them, right? Honestly, when did the world start getting run by petulant children in the form of old white people? Over here we have The Golden Tariff that is destroying stocks because they pissed him off.

gonvaled 10y ago
The UK is simply trying to divide the EU, by cosying up to some members. Of course the UK has control of borders: they are not even in Shengen! Besides, only EU citizens are allowed to move around the EU. It is unfortunate that the EU has allowed the UK to amass that much financial and intelligence clout, and something that I hope will be corrected in the near future, by distributing the financial center around the EU member states, and by building up a world class intelligence service.

unfortunateface 10y ago

I think we should replace politicians and obviously flawed democratic process with a top down style economy run by Economists. Obviously we will have to have some kind of mechanism for choosing between these Economists, as some have shown to be pretty far off in their predictions. Some sort of system based on the casting and counting of votes perhaps.

aleksei 10y ago
A world run by economists sounds even harsher than the one we have now.

grzm 10y ago

Current title is slightly different: "Brexit: UK to leave single market, says Theresa May" Don't know if the article title has changed or submission title was slightly edited.