12 ms·

U.K. to Trigger Brexit March 29, Starting Two Years of Talks

109 points by antr 10y ago

orph4nus 10y ago
I don't understand how they can still go through with this. As far as I've been following the analytics, news and coverage on this, the outcomes for UK are only negative. Can please someone enlighten me the good outcomes that will come out of this? Or is this really just about pride and stupidity?
- louthy 10y ago
  > I don't understand how they can still go through with this. Because there was a referendum where a majority decided it was what they wanted. The Government is hell bent on doing it for ideological reasons. The Opposition believe they are following the 'will of the people'. It's a shit state of affairs, but I don't see how it can be averted now, unless there is enough political pressure over the next two years to hold a referendum on the final deal.
  - orph4nus 10y ago
    I understand why people voted on the referendum, and I was following that live as well. But back then people were less informed. But now, months later, people are (/should be) much better informed about all the bad consequences that come out of this. So while I might understand why politicians go through with this, what I don't understand is why people don't change their minds and put pressure on the politicians to stop this shit deal. Because really, I don't believe Europe will give them anything nice they are hoping for. The UK politicians even admit that they didn't do any financial forecast, and that the probability is very high they won't get any deal... This stuff really blows my mind...
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      Polling shows people's opinions are stable. More information isn't changing people's minds. You are making some big assumptions about why people voted. For instance, you're assuming that because one or two people made some claims, everyone believed them and voted accordingly. Speaking for myself, I expect there to be no deal at all between the EU and UK, I expected that before I voted out, I expect it to be very tough for everyone including Europeans, and I still support Brexit and want it to occur as quickly as possible. "More information" about how little the EU cares about cooperation with the UK obviously isn't going to change my mind at all. I think you'll find many voters are like that: they aren't changing their minds because they didn't base their opinion on the things you believe they did to start with.
      - zenkat 10y ago
        Given that you expected it to be "very tough for everyone" before the vote, care to elucidate why you think this is the proper policy choice?
      - corobo 10y ago
        Polling where? I've not been invited to vote in a poll
        vixen99 10y ago
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/brexit-important-keeping-uk-together-public-say-poll-telegraph/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/brexit-important-... 'Scots vote to remain in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent' and 'Sixty per cent of respondents agreed that Britain’s EU departure mattered more than stopping the UK’s break-up, while just 27 per cent disagreed.'
      - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
        You're wrong on both counts. Firstly, many voters believed they were voting for more money for the NHS and to give Cameron a poke in the eye. There was actually no such thing as a "Brexit vote" - it was a popularity poll, not a vote on any specific policy. And policy-minded people were reassured that we wouldn't be leaving the single market - which was a complete lie, of course. Secondly, it won't be tough for Europe, either financially or politically. Politically there was a vague and ridiculous notion that other EU nations would take the UK's lead and leave too. That's not just not happening, the "reverse domino effect" means that federalisation is likely to accelerate now. Financially, the UK is something like 9% of the rest of the EU's export market. Even if all of that trade disappeared overnight a good part of it will be replaced by businesses leaving the UK for the mainland. Europe is 43% of the UK's export market, and the UK is a net importer. So it really can't afford to lose that trade. Most of its exports are services which will - again - be moving to the mainland. The bottom line is that Brexit will bankrupt the UK. Unless someone discovers an asteroid made of solid gold and stolen bitcoins under London, there is no other possible outcome. I mean that literally. There is no possible way the UK - or England as we should start calling it - can turn into some kind of dynamo of international trade. We don't make enough, we don't invent enough, and none of the things we're actually good at - law, management, fintech, technology, pharma, art and culture - are being helped by Brexit in any way. So the absolute best that will happen is a massive drop in living standards for most of the population. The worst is Zimbabwe-style hyper-inflation and dictatorship. Either way, it's a suicide note.
- AndrewDucker 10y ago
  If the Conservatives don't go ahead with it then they risk their supporters leaving to UKIP, and a government formed by 52% of the population voting for the only party that will fulfil the results of the referendum. Even a 15% swing from Conservative to UKIP would destroy most of the party, due to the awfulness of the FPTP voting system. And the Conservative leadership won't risk that.
- michaelbrooks 10y ago
  I think it's about pride. We had a petition which had over 100,000 signatures in which forced them to reconsider, but parliament said that they can't go against what the people have voted for.
  - UK-AL 10y ago
    There was also petition to ignore that petition which also had 100000+ signatures.
  - imron 10y ago
    > which had over 100,000 signatures I'm not from the UK and neither for or against Brexit, but what good is a petition with 100,000 signatures when they'd just had a referendum with 17.4 million people voting 'leave'. [0] Considering most of the signatures would have been people who voted to 'remain', in what world does it make sense for a 100,000 signature petition to overturn a referendum with a 1.3 million vote difference? Even assuming those 100,000 signatures were all from former 'leave' voters switching sides, it would only change the result to be 17.3 million vs 16.2 million. A difference of 1.1 million. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit#Referendum_result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit#Referendum_result
    - laurent123456 10y ago
      The petition actually had over 4 millions signatures - the fact that it had more than 100,000 only meant that the parliament was forced to consider the issue for debate [0]. They did so and considered that the result of the referendum was valid and that there shouldn't be a second one. [0] https://petition.parliament.uk/help https://petition.parliament.uk/help
      - imron 10y ago
        Thanks for the clarification. I don't think there's any other conclusion the UK parliament could have come to without destroying faith in the democratic process.
- corney91 10y ago
  Politics. Pride and stupidity are better names for it though. The two objectives the government are aiming to please "the will of the people" with are limiting immigration from the EU and to regain sovereignty. The deceit is that immigration provides more benefits to the UK than costs (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-...) and our parliament is already sovereign (the ironic proof being that they're the ones deciding we're leaving the EU).
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    There's a solid base of racist idiots in the UK - proud "patriots" who don't understand how to invest in the future, but do understand tribal flag waving and imperial nostalgia. They think politics is a football match. Their team won the match and now they're oh so happy. May is playing to that base. But she's using them to pursue far-right extremist Tory policy - which means the end of the welfare state, the end of affordable public health insurance, the end of free education, and so on. A small cabal of business insiders, including not a few US corporations, stand to profit mightily from all this, even though it will leave most of the population in permanent financial insecurity and/or catastrophic debt. Of course it's nonsense, and will turn the UK into some kind of fascist North Korea for a decade or so. The EU is the only organisation that has some interest, no matter how patchy (sorry Greece...), in maintaining humane government and corporate oversight across most of the region. With the EU out of the picture, the radical neoliberalisation of England can proceed at full speed. (Scotland will probably leave, Ireland will turn back into a mess, Wales is making noises about leaving, so is London, and so to a much lesser extent are some of the regions.) Most of the people who voted for Brexit will be horribly damaged by this, but by the time they realise they've been conned it will be too late.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - UK-AL 10y ago
      Honestly, I would not say the EU is good at corporate oversight. They refuse have their accounts audited, tons of other stuff normally considered good governance.
- bobbington 10y ago
  They don't like the EU telling them what to do. Freedom is something people hold very dear, and will risk their lives in pursuit of it. They also don't like the huge number of immigrants, especially Muslims who refuse to integrate into their culture, and expressly want to turn the whole place Muslim. Big business will hurt leaving, but they will manage (that's the reason for all the bad press). But for the common man it really is a good thing.
- Brendinooo 10y ago
  Which outcomes - economic? I'm not from the UK, but my impression was that for many it wasn't about economic optimization, it was also about the notion of freedom - being less intertwined with the EU (and thus its regulations, economics, security concerns, etc.). Immigration was probably an issue as well. If freedom was the issue, you get the freedom and work out the consequences later. Some people would rather feel like their nation has more control over their destiny, even if that destiny isn't as comfortable as it could have been under someone else's control. I would also contend that as long as Brexit hasn't happened, there are plenty of forces that would want to keep the status quo and would therefore try to project as much negativity as possible. Also, I'm not an economist, futurist, or a stockbroker (so one can correct me if I'm wrong), but humans aren't always great at predicting things in these areas. So it's not fair to assume that there is no positive outcome.
  - pavlov 10y ago
    ...it was also about the notion of freedom - being less intertwined with the EU (and thus its regulations, economics, security concerns, etc.) That is an illusory kind of freedom because you can't turn the clock back. Reducing trade with the EU would be a loss for everyone. If the UK breaks from EU norms and enacts its own regulatory frameworks, that just means more overhead for companies that want to operate there... And so on. The English habit of blaming Europe for regulations has always puzzled me, because pre-EU Britain was in many ways a bureaucrats' paradise. The number of civil servants peaked in the mid-1970s and has been declining since. From what I've heard, just getting a telephone line in '70s England could be a nightmare. There's a lot of things that are so much better today thanks to a pan-European competitive environment and free trade. Imagine if Britain had created its own mobile phone standard instead of going with the European GSM. That would have been more "independent", but to no benefit at all. A lot of things post-Brexit will end up like that: it's just easiest for everyone if Britain tags along with the EU standards rather than reinvents the wheel -- only Britain won't have a say in the processes anymore.
  - Balgair 10y ago
    I think we can all see what is happening: the Bulkhead-ing of nations. Yes, Brexit may be freedomcentric, or boomer-centric, or racist, or whatever. But the trend is a larger one that is happening across the west and the 'developed' world in general. Nations are responding to the changing world (AI, the coming CRISPR revolution, IoT doomsdays, etc, and climate-change taking the lion's share) by closing themselves down to globalization and immigration and trying to bulkhead their people against the waves of change. I am on the fence as to if it will 'work' as a method. Maybe for some countries it will, maybe not for others or smaller groups of others. But I think we can all see it starting to happen in many countries.
- corford 10y ago
  The joke of it is, Cameron called the foolish referendum in a misguided attempt to silence the Europe-sceptics within his party once and for all (which every Tory leader since Thatcher has unsuccessfully tried to do). Those same sceptics are now running government policy and wont be satisfied with anything short of a full, hard separation from Europe. They've waited 30+ years for this and are hell-bent on finally achieving it, rest of the country be damned. It's going to be a long, sad car crash and, with no effective domestic political opposition in sight, I hope Europe has the balls to make it as difficult for us as possible. The faster the country hits rock bottom the faster we can have a wholesale purge of the UK political class and start again.
  - cmdkeen 10y ago
    The Lib Dems had an EU referendum in their 2010 manifesto - it is part of what became the "referendum lock" in the European Union Act of 2011. The UK was going to hold a referendum at some point. Cameron thought he could win it, got poor advice during the renegotiation and from his pollster during the campaign. The country got to have its debate - both sides making some wild claims - and came to a decision which is still bearing up in the polls.
    - corford 10y ago
      It's bearing up in the polls because nothing visible has happened yet (apart from Sterling's slide). This is peak UK. I think 10 years from now it will be hard to find anyone that openly admits to having voted leave (much like you can't find many these days who admit they were ok with the Iraq war). Re: Lib Dem referendum - I think you're referring to the pledge they made in 2008 when the Lisbon treaty was being ratified (saying if there was ever another massive treaty change the country should have a referendum, presumably rather that than block the other 27 states from adopting the treaty if that's what they wanted) or the 2010 manifesto point about a referendum on joining the Euro. Neither of them are mad and the first one would likely never have happened. See: http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-surprising-truth-about-that-lib-dem-inout-eu-referendum-leaflet-32686.html http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-surprising-truth-about-that-l... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/how-much-of-the-liberal-democrats-2010-election-manifesto-was-implemented https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/how-much-of...
- hyperdunc 10y ago
  One good reason to leave is that the EU is undemocratic. However, reforming the EU political structure would be preferable to leaving.
  - cmdkeen 10y ago
    Well they didn't want to reform when we said we were having a referendum. Previously when other countries voted against the EU Constitution it was repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty and lo and behold didn't require votes. Now we have EU leaders saying they want to hurt the UK so much that no-one else will want to leave - despite the constituent members making very different noises. The EU is fundamentally irreformable to reduce its power, it is the modern embodiment of Whig history - the view that progress is inevitable towards every greater liberty and enlightenment. This is the sort of attitude that leads to things like Greece being allowed to join the Euro when it was patently unready to do so. One of the things you need to remember about the older people who tended to vote Leave is that they either voted in or remember the circumstances of the initial EU referendum in the UK. They remember what the UK joined and how it was presented to the UK. Other European countries with a much more recent history of revolution or dictatorship might want to remove power away from themselves, that is a view that is much more at odds with how Britain perceives itself.
  - agd 10y ago
    The EU can reform, but not in the way the UK wants. The direction of the EU is towards more integration, more centralised decision making. The UK wanted less integration and more devolved decision making. There was only one viable solution in the long run.
  - merraksh 10y ago
    The EU has a parliament with members from all EU states. Can you specify in what sense the EU is undemocratic?
    - agd 10y ago
      Only the (unelected) commission can propose new legislation. This is quite different from how most (all?) western democracies work.
- Angostura 10y ago
  Basically, politicians are locked in. If they try to stall or halt the exit process they get accused of being anti-democratic, going against the will of the people. Therefore though many of them knows it will likely be disastrous they are nonetheless doing what the people told them to do.
  - naaaaak 10y ago
    > they are nonetheless doing what the people told them to do We call that a functioning democracy. The EU is the opposite of that. EU: "You have to accept our way, even if you don't want it and it's bad for your country. It's for the good of our global group."
    - Flimm 10y ago
      Where are you getting that quote?
    - lovich 10y ago
      If you keep following that logic then the UK isn't being democratic either. Its bad for our province, its bad for our neighborhood, its bad for our street, its bad for our house, its bad for me, but you still have to follow it. The line has to be drawn somewhere when there is a government. Drawing the line at a country level as opposed to an international level is a perfectly valid opinion to have, but I don't think its right to call the UK a functioning democracy and the EU the opposite
    - ionised 10y ago
      A functioning democracy also requires an educated and well-informed populace. The UK absolutely does not hve that.
    - Angostura 10y ago
      To me it just sounds like you don't like the Commission much. When you say 'the EU' most of the direction is set by the elected ministers of the member states.
  - mathw 10y ago
- naaaaak 10y ago
  > As far as I've been following the analytics, news and coverage on this, the outcomes for UK are only negative. Most news is pure propaganda. All of the so-called "news" (BBC, etc.) has a vested interest in keeping the status quo. They've tried to brainwash people how Brexit would instantly collapse the econ (didn't happen, did it) and they are continuing that route. Don't fall for their lies. More self-control is not pride and stupidity.
  - atirip 10y ago
    > They've tried to brainwash people how Brexit would instantly collapse the econ (didn't happen, did it) I may be just silly, but Brexit hasn't happened yet.
    - naaaaak 10y ago
      They implied the mere vote for it would collapse things.
    - gadders 10y ago
      Yeah, you get this a lot: Bad thing happens = THIS IS BECAUSE OF BREXIT Good thing happens = BREXIT HASN'T HAPPENED YET
      - imron 10y ago
        Confirmation bias.
      - ionised 10y ago
        Workes the other way too, I've been seeing it a lot; Bad thing happens = THIS IS BECAUSE OF WE HAVEN'T LEFT THE EU Good thing happens = THIS IS BECAUSE WE ARE LEAVING THE EU
- gadders 10y ago
  Since the announcement of the referendum result, all the "Project Fear" predictions that the Remain Campaign said would happen immediately after a leave vote have not come to pass. The UK economy is performing better than most of Europe, and after the Brexit vote several major corporations have chosen to invest in Britain. The EU was asked to reform to accommodate those nations that don't want ever closer union and to become part of a European super-state, but they chose not to change.
- london888 10y ago
  There is no upside, it's a self-inflicted wound that will cost all of us £millions in the decades to come. Those who voted for Brexit (including 2 in my family) didn't think it through.
- user5994461 10y ago
  >>> As far as I've been following the analytics, news and coverage on this, the outcomes for UK are only negative. As far as I'm following the media. All the companies I worked with stopped recruiting and some even shut down their London offices entirely. Meanwhile, work as usual at the same places. If only we had a law department to sue them and get these fake news removed.
- rmc 10y ago
  "Less foreigners" To some that's the point.
TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
Only took them 9⅕ months! (With nought achieved in the meantime, too.)
- cjrp 10y ago
  I wouldn't say _nothing_ was achieved http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1Y http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1Y :(
  - arekkas 10y ago
    Devaluation of currency is what every central bank is after for the last 10 years. Apart from you having less money when buying foreign things or traveling abroad, this is actually a good thing for the British export economy as it is now more competitive than before, simply because things are cheaper now. It's basically why Germany sees this enormous trade surplus - the bad economic shape of southern states such as Greece, Italy, Spain "artificially" keeps the euro low, and Germany profits from that in a major way. Of course, this isn't 1:1 because the devaluation of the GBP also means that trust was lost in the GB economy, which might hurt British companies in the long run. Anyways, charts that show upwards/downards trends are not always bad/good and should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially if used by either party for making the other look dumb. This is true for the US stock market right now as it is for the GBP. ps: I'm German and I do not support Brexit, but the world is not black and white.
    - cjrp 10y ago
      > Apart from you having less money when buying foreign things Isn't this bad given that the UK currently operates with a trade deficit?
      - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
        No, because peoples' behavior changes. They buy fewer imports (because more expensive) and sell more exports (because less expensive to foreign buyers), so the balance of trade improves.
perseusprime11 10y ago
Worth talking of the pros and cons of a Democracy vs. a Republic. Are we sure listening to a lot of people makes long term sense?
- wil421 10y ago
  "Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." -George Carlin Really makes you wonder if the populous can be trusted to make big decisions. I'd like to think I'm a smart person but I'm not sure if I'm smart enough (or dumb enough) for politics.
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    >> Really makes you wonder if the populous can be trusted to make big decisions They can't. That's why we elect representatives who should be talking to experts and figuring out the impact of decisions. And then for some reason they take the biggest decision of our generation, give it to us, lie to us about the impact, and tell us to ignore the experts.
    - hyperdunc 10y ago
      Experts are easily corrupted, and so there's an expert to argue every position.
      - k-mcgrady 10y ago
        They still know a hell of a lot more than the average joe. Listen to both sides and make an informed decision. Don't dismiss them and expect to know more.
        TomMarius 10y ago
        I have a much more usual one for you: don't listen to anyone and pick whatever the guy that gives half of the money into your pocket says.
pavlov 10y ago
So in April 2019, the NHS's budget will increase by £350 million / week. Right?
- lispm 10y ago
  Not only that: there will be no more unwanted immigrants, there are no more negative effects of globalization, the tories will care about remote rural areas, the queen gets a new ship, making decisions doesn't require talking to your neighbors, the economy will boom, the empire will be a large free trade zone, ... Though, not everything is rosy: The Germans will still win the football games.
  - cjrp 10y ago
    And "Rule Britannia" will blare from every lamp post on a constant loop. Glorious!
    - moomin 10y ago
      Don't forget the blue passports...
      - lostboys67 10y ago
        And reverting to proper Imperial units none of those commie SI units back to "Thous" :-)
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  I think this was the proposal of a campaign group, not of the Givernment. The campaign group aren't in power, even though the referendum went their way. So it isn't reasonable to expect policies they proposed would be be enacted, whether or not you support the policy or the policy made any sense.
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    There was an official leave and an official remain campaign (as well as some unofficial ones). The £350m NHS promise was part of the official leave campaign headed by Boris and Gove. "The pledge was central to the official Vote Leave campaign and was controversially emblazoned on the side of the bus which shuttled Boris Johnson and Michael Gove around the country. "[0][1] [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-... [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-vote-leave-wipes-nhs-350m-claim-and-rest-of-its-website-after-eu-referendum-a7105546.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-vote-...
46Bit 10y ago
Any sense of how this will affect London tech?
- andrewingram 10y ago
  It feels like pretty much everyone is adopting a "wait and see" attitude. But i've yet to meet anyone who thinks it's going to be a positive impact.
  - vr46 10y ago
    "Wait and See" == "Uncertainty". I work for a FTSE100 and nobody in management is talking about it. Nobody. It's head in the sand time as far as we're concerned, although I imagine there's frantic discussions going on upstairs. Tech people are already leaving and not being replaced, I'm ready to quit my six-figures and bail out while the going's relatively good - just have to await my EU spouse getting their residency so we can definitely move back and forth freely.
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    I know a company that's actually relocating its HQ from the US to the UK (it's a small startup). The CEO is moving to London for personal reasons, so that's one factor, but another is simply a bet that there will be no EU deal and corporation taxes will be lowered a lot as a result.
    - urbanj 10y ago
      Oh, well if one small startup is relocating to the UK then everything must be ok.
- zelos 10y ago
  Google[1], Apple[2] and Dyson[3] (ok, not quite London) are making quite big noises about big new offices, so I guess things can't be that bad? Possibly they're betting on picking up lots of tech staff cheap if the banks start leaving London? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/15/google-commits-to-massive-new-london-hq https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/15/google-co... [2] http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-apple-to-create-stunning-new-hq-at-battersea-power-station-a3356201.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-apple-to-crea... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-39117982 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-39117982
danmaz74 10y ago
The referendum results really saddened me, but at this point the sooner this is over, the better.
- TillE 10y ago
  There were any number of ways that they could have backed out of this disaster in a politically acceptable way. A second referendum on a specific plan for what "leaving the EU" actually means, for example. It would be an uncomfortable situation, but it's vastly preferable to a decade or more of economic turmoil. Not to mention the probable loss of Scotland, huge questions about the Irish border, etc etc.
  - alva 10y ago
    > could have backed out of this disaster in a politically acceptable way I don't think any retreat would have ever been politically acceptable. The general public saw through the "hard/soft" Brexit angle, it was clear that remaining in the single market would not have delivered the majority of leavers wishes. Worse still, this heavy push on "soft Brexit" made the perception that certain sections of the establishment was trying to deceive their way out of the vote stronger. This sort of feeling, that outside powers are pursuing objectives against our wishes, was a strong driver in the ref vote.
    - coroxout 10y ago
      "it was clear that remaining in the single market would not have delivered the majority of leavers wishes" Well, with a 52:48 majority for leave and with almost all Remain voters probably preferring "soft" to "hard" Brexit, it would only need to satisfy a tiny % of leavers for it to have more a mandate than the "hard", no-deal Brexit cliff edge the government seem determined to steer us all over without any debate.
  - imron 10y ago
    > A second referendum... for example What if 'leave' won that referendum by an even larger margin? Before you think it couldn't happen, bear in mind that the whole mess was started by someone calling a referendum they clearly thought they'd win as a way to shut down political opponents who wanted to 'leave'. That didn't exactly work out the way he expected, and there's no reason to believe a second referendum would work out any better - especially since the pendulum swing is currently swinging hard against globalism.
open-source-ux 10y ago
This is very depressing news. For those not living in the UK, I cannot recall a time in recent memory when UK politics has felt so dysfunctional, oppressive or regressive than it currently is.
- branchless 10y ago
  Were you around in 2008? Coop about to be bailed out. It's like old times!
  - mhw 10y ago
    Yes; 10 years working while the economy tries to recover from that, and now we're about to chuck it back into turmoil mode again.
    - branchless 10y ago
      IMHO Brexit is a symptom of the failure to address 2008. Brexit isn't the answer but when you completely ignore problems you get ... more problems.
- bnastic 10y ago
  We knew for quite a while that the trigger will happen end of March. If you're depressed it's not because of the current news.
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    We previously knew for quite a while that the trigger will happen the day after the referendum. A further statement saying that it will be March 29th instead of "by the end of March" makes it seem ever more likely to happen (compared with the seeming uncertainty last summer).
baby 10y ago
Any idea of how this will affect the currency?
- chillydawg 10y ago
  Which one?
- s_kilk 10y ago
  It'll crater
- jamiethompson 10y ago
  It will likely continue to tank :(
- chumali 10y ago
  Assuming export volumes fall - which is the likely scenario - then we should see Sterling fall relative to the Dollar. This is not considering any external pressures on Sterling however.
deepnet 10y ago
Robert Mercer owns Cambridge Analytica[1], a Facebook analytics & targeted advertising company. Allegedly CA has close ties to Brexit and donated services to the Brexit campaign, that went undeclared [2]. Cambridge Analytica data exists outside European Data protections. Mercer also owns Breitbart .com [3] [1] https://cambridgeanalytica.org/ https://cambridgeanalytica.org/ [2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb /26/us-billionaire-mercer-helped-back-brexit [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-38005983 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-38005983
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Even before either of the campaigns they were involved in succeeded, I've read articles that seem to suggest they were better at marketing themselves and selling than actually delivering what they claimed they could. Maybe they got better at it, but personally I'd point the finger at decades of Murdoch-led media brainwashing rather than anything new-fangled. It used to be Boris Johnson's actual job as a journalist to make up lies about the EU to be fed to nationalistic, right-wing old people. And that demographic did much more for them than the (relative) youngsters on facebook.
  - deepnet 10y ago
    [edit] I am inclined to agree.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
baq 10y ago
i wonder what the results of a referendum about joining the EU would look like if it was done today.
Von_Jones 10y ago
1. Cost of living soars in Britain. 2. Britain's young people want to leave: Europe offers a better deal. Cheaper property, better employment conditions, better looking men and women, good food. 3. Britain's codger population votes to pull up the drawbridge - not to keep the foreigners out, but to keep its youth enslaved. You poor bastards, good luck to you.
- michaelbrooks 10y ago
  I would very much like to leave. :/
- coldpie 10y ago
  My engineer friend in his late 20's already left for Canada earlier this month. His prime motivator was Brexit. Good luck, Britain, you'll need it.
- hamstercat 10y ago
  I'd like to invite all the young poor bastards to have a look at Canada. We have a great immigration policy for young people looking for a new home!
  - Svip 10y ago
    I couldn't get a job in Canada, because your immigration policy required a bachelor's degree. That was even if I had a job offered to me before seeking a visa. I think Canadian immigration policy is a bit over hyped for being 'great'. Trudeau took a lot of great PR with getting some Syrian refugees, but getting into Canada is still hard. Just easier in comparison to your neighbour to the south.
    - mstade 10y ago
      Really? A friend of mind lived a few years in Canada, and to my knowledge he doesn't have a bachelor's degree. (In fact, we both dropped out at about the same time.) He did have a job before going there, which was apparently helpful, but as far as I understand it the whole process was pretty smooth. Nothing beats the EU though. Live in one country working a job on Friday, move to another over the weekend and start a new job on Monday – I've done literally this multiple times now. This alone is reason to stay in, as far as I'm concerned. The UK leaving is incredibly sad. :o(
zigzigzag 10y ago
Hacker News is full of people who are anti-Brexit. I see little understanding of the opposing point of view. I am quite happy to see Article 50 finally happen and will sum up why here. Take it or leave it. 18 months ago I was pro EU. Not strongly so, just because it was the status quo, in my mind was vaguely associated with co-operation and so I was for it by default. Today I am pretty strongly eurosceptic. I think it's important for the UK to leave and if anything I'd like to see it collapse entirely. Europe would be stronger, more prosperous, more cooperative and freer if the EU were to die. My reasoning goes like this. The EU is not simply a kind of really big working group for finding new ways to cooperate, as I had once tended to assume. It is a quasi-religious ideology with disturbing similarities to a cult. The people who control the EU and many European politicians don't simply see it as a way to foster collaboration and trade but rather as a way to replace existing European countries with a new country, one which would in my estimation be significantly worse than the countries we have now. Calling the EU a cult may seem extreme, but to me it's not: The EU and its supporters are not interested in debate on the future of Europe. The future is their intended future, and no other alternative futures are legitimised through recognition. The EU does not provide any channel for people to reject or modify their plans. Its leaders consistently see referendums or politicians that are not blindly pro-EU as dangerous and if they occur anyway, often due to constitutional obligations, the results are simply ignored if they run counter to what the EU's leadership wants. The so-called Parliament cannot actually change anything about the EU itself (it is not a real Parliament) and is thus stuffed with yes men whose only reason for being there is ideological commitment to the vision itself (there are also a handful of no-men who got themselves voted in purely to try and slow it down, but they can't do anything and have no real power). Indeed, we can safely assume that the new federal superstate the EU wants to build would not be a democracy. Given the EU's consistent lack of interest in actual, real democratic mechanisms, it is likely that if their plans succeed Europe's future looks pretty grim: something like the USSR of the 1980s. It is the avoidance of this fate that led me to vote out. In common with many cults the EU deliberately tries to make leaving it as difficult as possible, through a variety of techniques such as insisting that the remaining cult members (who were of course previously supposedly loving friends and allies) shun the traitor and have nothing to do with them. Any sustained connection with members requires complete membership and suggesting it doesn't is an evil attempt to undermine the unity of the group. The EU routinely abuses language in manipulative ways, for instance using the word "Europe" when they mean "the EU". They do this to plant the idea that any rejection of their plans is actually a rejection of "Europe" and "Europeans", although it isn't. They also like to suggest that any rejection of the EU is dirty backwards looking "nationalism", although the EU has its own civil service, its own "parliament", its own borders, its own currency, its own courts, its own flag, its own national anthem and wants its own army. The reality is that the EU is a country-under-construction and the EU is a fundamentally nationalist project. Finally, the most disturbing similarity of all is the fact that the modern EU is a project held together by fear. Its leadership happily and openly says so: President Hollande's memorable "there must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price" quote (on the topic of Brexit) being the most extreme example, but even today I read that Juncker is saying that there's no risk to the EU because the British "example" will show others what happens to countries that leave. They frequently imply that the alternative to the EU is World War 3. European leaders talk this way constantly, apparently either not realising or not caring that it makes them sound like some sort of Mafia. There is no reason European cooperation must take place through such an organisation. Before the EU was formed in the early 1990s there were many parallel integration projects that were improving cooperation independently. The EU eventually absorbed them all, but if it were to collapse, the result would not be World War 3 or a dark age of hatred. It'd be a return to the days when deals and international bodies were set up independently and countries could independently assess which were working well and which were not, instead of an "all or nothing" arrangement that artificially ties trade and cooperation to an irreversible loss of local control. Edit: -1 within a few minutes. What a surprise. Don't downvote if you disagree, you won't change anything that way. Reply and debate instead. Second edit: Thanks for the replies. I would like to engage and continue the debate with you guys but HN has throttled me so I can no longer reply. I'll try following up tomorrow and see if the throttle has been lifted. (I'm starting to conclude HN is not a particularly good place to debate political issues for this sort of reason ...)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rolandino 10y ago
The only way this makes any sense at all is if the EU and the Euro collapses - at which point, the UK may well appear to be a safe haven. This is a possibility: Grexit, Le Pen, Russia/US wanting to get rid of Merkel, alleged weakness of Deutsche Bank, to name but a few. But if the above scenario does not happen, the UK, or WEngland in all likelihood, will become a poor, backward, inward looking nasty little place, with few rights for most people, and London will probably continue to be a nice place to dump cash. It's incredibly depressing.
splitrocket 10y ago
Politics assumes a zero sum game. Experts create non-zero sum outcomes. Humans, due to their loss aversion bias, prefer politics to expertise. Thus brexit.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I don't think your logic works. Wouldn't loss aversion lead you to prefer the non-zero-sum game? After all, in a zero-sum game, you might lose, and if you do, you are guaranteed to be worse off. In a non-zero-sum game, you are not guaranteed to be worse off, even if you "lose" (win less than someone else).
cstross 10y ago
I would just like to note that March 25th (Saturday) is the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which created the European Economic Community (from which the EU evolved): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome Imagine serving divorce papers on your spouse on a significant wedding anniversary, and now consider the message it sends. It's like Theresa May has carefully picked the time to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that will cause maximum offense to the people she's about to negotiate a critically important trade deal with (from a position of inferior leverage).
- Von_Jones 10y ago
  Theresa May is a copper-bottomed cvnt. She is apparently steering Britain into a hard-Brexit for the sole reason of preserving the Conservative party. She cannot even issue a pronouncement on what form Brexit will take, or call an election which will require a manifesto setting out her position, because the party will implode. What a way to run a country: all to keep a bunch of bastards in blazers from throttling each other.
  - dang 10y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.
- corford 10y ago
  In her defence (not that she really deserves it), Theresa May was fucked either way by setting March as the deadline. The sad part is I'm sure it was incompetence rather than a calculated slight.
  - moomin 10y ago
    Grey's law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
- waqf 10y ago
  Wasn't the Treaty of Rome the one that de Gaulle successfully lobbied to keep the UK out of? I'm no Brexiteer but this seems entirely appropriate.
tehabe 10y ago
I wonder when the actual talks are starting, in April France elects a new president. In September Germany elects a new parliament. Who knows how the situation is in October and who May has to talk to.
agd 10y ago
The filter bubble/group think is incredible in this thread! You'd think people are fleeing the UK in droves and driven to despair all round based on some of the comments here. In reality, none of the dire predictions for the economy have come to pass and people are getting on with their lives. None of my friends (all educated, well-off remain voters) are talking about leaving. Some people in this thread still seem to be in denial about the situation and completely ignore the flaws of the EU. Yes there are costs of leaving, but there are also potential upsides. e.g. having a more interventionist national economic strategy while pursuing more international trade deals. And it's likely that any trade tariffs imposed by the EU will be more than offset by the currency depreciation we've seen since the referendum. There are risks for the UK going forward but I'm more worried about the EU at the moment. If it doesn't reform, we'll continue to see rising extremism on the continent - look at Holland, Italy, France, Austria where extreme (and anti EU) parties all receive more votes than UKIP does in the UK.
- karmacoda 10y ago
  Agreed. I don't even know any europeans talking about leaving.
- mathw 10y ago
  Well, most of the dire economic predictions of Brexit would never pan out until Brexit actually happens anyway, so it's way too early to expect that. It's not like things were going to collapse immediately upon the result of the vote (although the drop in Sterling in the immediate aftermath was pretty impressive). Yes, there are downsides to the EU, but the idea that we can do better by going it alone just seems absurd to me.
  - agd 10y ago
    We will not know for a while yet but the sample size of this event is 0. We have no historical precedent to learn from. What we do know is that the specific growth predictions from the government, thinktanks, Bank of England, and independent economists for the immediate aftermath of the referendum turned out to be completely wrong.
- 10y ago
merraksh 10y ago
I'm moving from Birmingham UK to northern Italy at the end of the year. I will work remotely for the same employer, life is cheaper down there, and actually quality of life is higher in terms of healthcare, transportation, and services. I didn't imagine the last part before I moved here, but a few years dealing with both the NHS and private health providers, plus poor bus transportation and street safety in Birmingham, changed my mind. I have a similar opinion of the healthcare in the US, where I also lived for some time. Central Europe provides surprisingly good healthcare and even the private option is far cheaper. I actually was looking for a house outside of Birmingham, but I decided to wait until after the referendum. After that I had little doubt I'd leave. The net effect for the UK will be that I'll pay taxes to another country. I'm not even complaining about paying more taxes.
- vr46 10y ago
  I hear you. People are harping on about potentially positive outcomes, but right now, things are quite rubbish, and it's the present that I'm finding the problem, not a theoretical outcome. I lived through a previous round of all this in the 1970s and 80s, and I really don't think I should do it again when I have a choice.

109 points by antr 10y ago

I don't understand how they can still go through with this. As far as I've been following the analytics, news and coverage on this, the outcomes for UK are only negative. Can please someone enlighten me the good outcomes that will come out of this? Or is this really just about pride and stupidity?

louthy 10y ago
> I don't understand how they can still go through with this. Because there was a referendum where a majority decided it was what they wanted. The Government is hell bent on doing it for ideological reasons. The Opposition believe they are following the 'will of the people'. It's a shit state of affairs, but I don't see how it can be averted now, unless there is enough political pressure over the next two years to hold a referendum on the final deal.
- orph4nus 10y ago
  I understand why people voted on the referendum, and I was following that live as well. But back then people were less informed. But now, months later, people are (/should be) much better informed about all the bad consequences that come out of this. So while I might understand why politicians go through with this, what I don't understand is why people don't change their minds and put pressure on the politicians to stop this shit deal. Because really, I don't believe Europe will give them anything nice they are hoping for. The UK politicians even admit that they didn't do any financial forecast, and that the probability is very high they won't get any deal... This stuff really blows my mind...
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    Polling shows people's opinions are stable. More information isn't changing people's minds. You are making some big assumptions about why people voted. For instance, you're assuming that because one or two people made some claims, everyone believed them and voted accordingly. Speaking for myself, I expect there to be no deal at all between the EU and UK, I expected that before I voted out, I expect it to be very tough for everyone including Europeans, and I still support Brexit and want it to occur as quickly as possible. "More information" about how little the EU cares about cooperation with the UK obviously isn't going to change my mind at all. I think you'll find many voters are like that: they aren't changing their minds because they didn't base their opinion on the things you believe they did to start with.
    - zenkat 10y ago
      Given that you expected it to be "very tough for everyone" before the vote, care to elucidate why you think this is the proper policy choice?
    - corobo 10y ago
      Polling where? I've not been invited to vote in a poll
      - vixen99 10y ago
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/brexit-important-keeping-uk-together-public-say-poll-telegraph/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/17/brexit-important-... 'Scots vote to remain in the UK by 55 per cent to 45 per cent' and 'Sixty per cent of respondents agreed that Britain’s EU departure mattered more than stopping the UK’s break-up, while just 27 per cent disagreed.'
    - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
      You're wrong on both counts. Firstly, many voters believed they were voting for more money for the NHS and to give Cameron a poke in the eye. There was actually no such thing as a "Brexit vote" - it was a popularity poll, not a vote on any specific policy. And policy-minded people were reassured that we wouldn't be leaving the single market - which was a complete lie, of course. Secondly, it won't be tough for Europe, either financially or politically. Politically there was a vague and ridiculous notion that other EU nations would take the UK's lead and leave too. That's not just not happening, the "reverse domino effect" means that federalisation is likely to accelerate now. Financially, the UK is something like 9% of the rest of the EU's export market. Even if all of that trade disappeared overnight a good part of it will be replaced by businesses leaving the UK for the mainland. Europe is 43% of the UK's export market, and the UK is a net importer. So it really can't afford to lose that trade. Most of its exports are services which will - again - be moving to the mainland. The bottom line is that Brexit will bankrupt the UK. Unless someone discovers an asteroid made of solid gold and stolen bitcoins under London, there is no other possible outcome. I mean that literally. There is no possible way the UK - or England as we should start calling it - can turn into some kind of dynamo of international trade. We don't make enough, we don't invent enough, and none of the things we're actually good at - law, management, fintech, technology, pharma, art and culture - are being helped by Brexit in any way. So the absolute best that will happen is a massive drop in living standards for most of the population. The worst is Zimbabwe-style hyper-inflation and dictatorship. Either way, it's a suicide note.
AndrewDucker 10y ago
If the Conservatives don't go ahead with it then they risk their supporters leaving to UKIP, and a government formed by 52% of the population voting for the only party that will fulfil the results of the referendum. Even a 15% swing from Conservative to UKIP would destroy most of the party, due to the awfulness of the FPTP voting system. And the Conservative leadership won't risk that.
michaelbrooks 10y ago
I think it's about pride. We had a petition which had over 100,000 signatures in which forced them to reconsider, but parliament said that they can't go against what the people have voted for.
- UK-AL 10y ago
  There was also petition to ignore that petition which also had 100000+ signatures.
- imron 10y ago
  > which had over 100,000 signatures I'm not from the UK and neither for or against Brexit, but what good is a petition with 100,000 signatures when they'd just had a referendum with 17.4 million people voting 'leave'. [0] Considering most of the signatures would have been people who voted to 'remain', in what world does it make sense for a 100,000 signature petition to overturn a referendum with a 1.3 million vote difference? Even assuming those 100,000 signatures were all from former 'leave' voters switching sides, it would only change the result to be 17.3 million vs 16.2 million. A difference of 1.1 million. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit#Referendum_result https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brexit#Referendum_result
  - laurent123456 10y ago
    The petition actually had over 4 millions signatures - the fact that it had more than 100,000 only meant that the parliament was forced to consider the issue for debate [0]. They did so and considered that the result of the referendum was valid and that there shouldn't be a second one. [0] https://petition.parliament.uk/help https://petition.parliament.uk/help
    - imron 10y ago
      Thanks for the clarification. I don't think there's any other conclusion the UK parliament could have come to without destroying faith in the democratic process.
corney91 10y ago
Politics. Pride and stupidity are better names for it though. The two objectives the government are aiming to please "the will of the people" with are limiting immigration from the EU and to regain sovereignty. The deceit is that immigration provides more benefits to the UK than costs (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-uk-gains-20bn-ucl-study https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/eu-migrants-...) and our parliament is already sovereign (the ironic proof being that they're the ones deciding we're leaving the EU).
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  There's a solid base of racist idiots in the UK - proud "patriots" who don't understand how to invest in the future, but do understand tribal flag waving and imperial nostalgia. They think politics is a football match. Their team won the match and now they're oh so happy. May is playing to that base. But she's using them to pursue far-right extremist Tory policy - which means the end of the welfare state, the end of affordable public health insurance, the end of free education, and so on. A small cabal of business insiders, including not a few US corporations, stand to profit mightily from all this, even though it will leave most of the population in permanent financial insecurity and/or catastrophic debt. Of course it's nonsense, and will turn the UK into some kind of fascist North Korea for a decade or so. The EU is the only organisation that has some interest, no matter how patchy (sorry Greece...), in maintaining humane government and corporate oversight across most of the region. With the EU out of the picture, the radical neoliberalisation of England can proceed at full speed. (Scotland will probably leave, Ireland will turn back into a mess, Wales is making noises about leaving, so is London, and so to a much lesser extent are some of the regions.) Most of the people who voted for Brexit will be horribly damaged by this, but by the time they realise they've been conned it will be too late.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - UK-AL 10y ago
    Honestly, I would not say the EU is good at corporate oversight. They refuse have their accounts audited, tons of other stuff normally considered good governance.
bobbington 10y ago
They don't like the EU telling them what to do. Freedom is something people hold very dear, and will risk their lives in pursuit of it. They also don't like the huge number of immigrants, especially Muslims who refuse to integrate into their culture, and expressly want to turn the whole place Muslim. Big business will hurt leaving, but they will manage (that's the reason for all the bad press). But for the common man it really is a good thing.
Brendinooo 10y ago
Which outcomes - economic? I'm not from the UK, but my impression was that for many it wasn't about economic optimization, it was also about the notion of freedom - being less intertwined with the EU (and thus its regulations, economics, security concerns, etc.). Immigration was probably an issue as well. If freedom was the issue, you get the freedom and work out the consequences later. Some people would rather feel like their nation has more control over their destiny, even if that destiny isn't as comfortable as it could have been under someone else's control. I would also contend that as long as Brexit hasn't happened, there are plenty of forces that would want to keep the status quo and would therefore try to project as much negativity as possible. Also, I'm not an economist, futurist, or a stockbroker (so one can correct me if I'm wrong), but humans aren't always great at predicting things in these areas. So it's not fair to assume that there is no positive outcome.
- pavlov 10y ago
  ...it was also about the notion of freedom - being less intertwined with the EU (and thus its regulations, economics, security concerns, etc.) That is an illusory kind of freedom because you can't turn the clock back. Reducing trade with the EU would be a loss for everyone. If the UK breaks from EU norms and enacts its own regulatory frameworks, that just means more overhead for companies that want to operate there... And so on. The English habit of blaming Europe for regulations has always puzzled me, because pre-EU Britain was in many ways a bureaucrats' paradise. The number of civil servants peaked in the mid-1970s and has been declining since. From what I've heard, just getting a telephone line in '70s England could be a nightmare. There's a lot of things that are so much better today thanks to a pan-European competitive environment and free trade. Imagine if Britain had created its own mobile phone standard instead of going with the European GSM. That would have been more "independent", but to no benefit at all. A lot of things post-Brexit will end up like that: it's just easiest for everyone if Britain tags along with the EU standards rather than reinvents the wheel -- only Britain won't have a say in the processes anymore.
- Balgair 10y ago
  I think we can all see what is happening: the Bulkhead-ing of nations. Yes, Brexit may be freedomcentric, or boomer-centric, or racist, or whatever. But the trend is a larger one that is happening across the west and the 'developed' world in general. Nations are responding to the changing world (AI, the coming CRISPR revolution, IoT doomsdays, etc, and climate-change taking the lion's share) by closing themselves down to globalization and immigration and trying to bulkhead their people against the waves of change. I am on the fence as to if it will 'work' as a method. Maybe for some countries it will, maybe not for others or smaller groups of others. But I think we can all see it starting to happen in many countries.
corford 10y ago
The joke of it is, Cameron called the foolish referendum in a misguided attempt to silence the Europe-sceptics within his party once and for all (which every Tory leader since Thatcher has unsuccessfully tried to do). Those same sceptics are now running government policy and wont be satisfied with anything short of a full, hard separation from Europe. They've waited 30+ years for this and are hell-bent on finally achieving it, rest of the country be damned. It's going to be a long, sad car crash and, with no effective domestic political opposition in sight, I hope Europe has the balls to make it as difficult for us as possible. The faster the country hits rock bottom the faster we can have a wholesale purge of the UK political class and start again.
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  The Lib Dems had an EU referendum in their 2010 manifesto - it is part of what became the "referendum lock" in the European Union Act of 2011. The UK was going to hold a referendum at some point. Cameron thought he could win it, got poor advice during the renegotiation and from his pollster during the campaign. The country got to have its debate - both sides making some wild claims - and came to a decision which is still bearing up in the polls.
  - corford 10y ago
    It's bearing up in the polls because nothing visible has happened yet (apart from Sterling's slide). This is peak UK. I think 10 years from now it will be hard to find anyone that openly admits to having voted leave (much like you can't find many these days who admit they were ok with the Iraq war). Re: Lib Dem referendum - I think you're referring to the pledge they made in 2008 when the Lisbon treaty was being ratified (saying if there was ever another massive treaty change the country should have a referendum, presumably rather that than block the other 27 states from adopting the treaty if that's what they wanted) or the 2010 manifesto point about a referendum on joining the Euro. Neither of them are mad and the first one would likely never have happened. See: http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-surprising-truth-about-that-lib-dem-inout-eu-referendum-leaflet-32686.html http://www.libdemvoice.org/the-surprising-truth-about-that-l... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/how-much-of-the-liberal-democrats-2010-election-manifesto-was-implemented https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/how-much-of...
hyperdunc 10y ago
One good reason to leave is that the EU is undemocratic. However, reforming the EU political structure would be preferable to leaving.
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  Well they didn't want to reform when we said we were having a referendum. Previously when other countries voted against the EU Constitution it was repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty and lo and behold didn't require votes. Now we have EU leaders saying they want to hurt the UK so much that no-one else will want to leave - despite the constituent members making very different noises. The EU is fundamentally irreformable to reduce its power, it is the modern embodiment of Whig history - the view that progress is inevitable towards every greater liberty and enlightenment. This is the sort of attitude that leads to things like Greece being allowed to join the Euro when it was patently unready to do so. One of the things you need to remember about the older people who tended to vote Leave is that they either voted in or remember the circumstances of the initial EU referendum in the UK. They remember what the UK joined and how it was presented to the UK. Other European countries with a much more recent history of revolution or dictatorship might want to remove power away from themselves, that is a view that is much more at odds with how Britain perceives itself.
- agd 10y ago
  The EU can reform, but not in the way the UK wants. The direction of the EU is towards more integration, more centralised decision making. The UK wanted less integration and more devolved decision making. There was only one viable solution in the long run.
- merraksh 10y ago
  The EU has a parliament with members from all EU states. Can you specify in what sense the EU is undemocratic?
  - agd 10y ago
    Only the (unelected) commission can propose new legislation. This is quite different from how most (all?) western democracies work.
Angostura 10y ago
Basically, politicians are locked in. If they try to stall or halt the exit process they get accused of being anti-democratic, going against the will of the people. Therefore though many of them knows it will likely be disastrous they are nonetheless doing what the people told them to do.
- naaaaak 10y ago
  > they are nonetheless doing what the people told them to do We call that a functioning democracy. The EU is the opposite of that. EU: "You have to accept our way, even if you don't want it and it's bad for your country. It's for the good of our global group."
  - Flimm 10y ago
    Where are you getting that quote?
  - lovich 10y ago
    If you keep following that logic then the UK isn't being democratic either. Its bad for our province, its bad for our neighborhood, its bad for our street, its bad for our house, its bad for me, but you still have to follow it. The line has to be drawn somewhere when there is a government. Drawing the line at a country level as opposed to an international level is a perfectly valid opinion to have, but I don't think its right to call the UK a functioning democracy and the EU the opposite
  - ionised 10y ago
    A functioning democracy also requires an educated and well-informed populace. The UK absolutely does not hve that.
  - Angostura 10y ago
    To me it just sounds like you don't like the Commission much. When you say 'the EU' most of the direction is set by the elected ministers of the member states.
- mathw 10y ago
naaaaak 10y ago
> As far as I've been following the analytics, news and coverage on this, the outcomes for UK are only negative. Most news is pure propaganda. All of the so-called "news" (BBC, etc.) has a vested interest in keeping the status quo. They've tried to brainwash people how Brexit would instantly collapse the econ (didn't happen, did it) and they are continuing that route. Don't fall for their lies. More self-control is not pride and stupidity.
- atirip 10y ago
  > They've tried to brainwash people how Brexit would instantly collapse the econ (didn't happen, did it) I may be just silly, but Brexit hasn't happened yet.
  - naaaaak 10y ago
    They implied the mere vote for it would collapse things.
  - gadders 10y ago
    Yeah, you get this a lot: Bad thing happens = THIS IS BECAUSE OF BREXIT Good thing happens = BREXIT HASN'T HAPPENED YET
    - imron 10y ago
      Confirmation bias.
    - ionised 10y ago
      Workes the other way too, I've been seeing it a lot; Bad thing happens = THIS IS BECAUSE OF WE HAVEN'T LEFT THE EU Good thing happens = THIS IS BECAUSE WE ARE LEAVING THE EU
gadders 10y ago
Since the announcement of the referendum result, all the "Project Fear" predictions that the Remain Campaign said would happen immediately after a leave vote have not come to pass. The UK economy is performing better than most of Europe, and after the Brexit vote several major corporations have chosen to invest in Britain. The EU was asked to reform to accommodate those nations that don't want ever closer union and to become part of a European super-state, but they chose not to change.
london888 10y ago
There is no upside, it's a self-inflicted wound that will cost all of us £millions in the decades to come. Those who voted for Brexit (including 2 in my family) didn't think it through.
user5994461 10y ago
>>> As far as I've been following the analytics, news and coverage on this, the outcomes for UK are only negative. As far as I'm following the media. All the companies I worked with stopped recruiting and some even shut down their London offices entirely. Meanwhile, work as usual at the same places. If only we had a law department to sue them and get these fake news removed.
rmc 10y ago
"Less foreigners" To some that's the point.

TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago

Only took them 9⅕ months! (With nought achieved in the meantime, too.)

cjrp 10y ago
I wouldn't say _nothing_ was achieved http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1Y http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1Y :(
- arekkas 10y ago
  Devaluation of currency is what every central bank is after for the last 10 years. Apart from you having less money when buying foreign things or traveling abroad, this is actually a good thing for the British export economy as it is now more competitive than before, simply because things are cheaper now. It's basically why Germany sees this enormous trade surplus - the bad economic shape of southern states such as Greece, Italy, Spain "artificially" keeps the euro low, and Germany profits from that in a major way. Of course, this isn't 1:1 because the devaluation of the GBP also means that trust was lost in the GB economy, which might hurt British companies in the long run. Anyways, charts that show upwards/downards trends are not always bad/good and should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially if used by either party for making the other look dumb. This is true for the US stock market right now as it is for the GBP. ps: I'm German and I do not support Brexit, but the world is not black and white.
  - cjrp 10y ago
    > Apart from you having less money when buying foreign things Isn't this bad given that the UK currently operates with a trade deficit?
    - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
      No, because peoples' behavior changes. They buy fewer imports (because more expensive) and sell more exports (because less expensive to foreign buyers), so the balance of trade improves.

perseusprime11 10y ago

Worth talking of the pros and cons of a Democracy vs. a Republic. Are we sure listening to a lot of people makes long term sense?

wil421 10y ago
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." -George Carlin Really makes you wonder if the populous can be trusted to make big decisions. I'd like to think I'm a smart person but I'm not sure if I'm smart enough (or dumb enough) for politics.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> Really makes you wonder if the populous can be trusted to make big decisions They can't. That's why we elect representatives who should be talking to experts and figuring out the impact of decisions. And then for some reason they take the biggest decision of our generation, give it to us, lie to us about the impact, and tell us to ignore the experts.
  - hyperdunc 10y ago
    Experts are easily corrupted, and so there's an expert to argue every position.
    - k-mcgrady 10y ago
      They still know a hell of a lot more than the average joe. Listen to both sides and make an informed decision. Don't dismiss them and expect to know more.
      - TomMarius 10y ago
        I have a much more usual one for you: don't listen to anyone and pick whatever the guy that gives half of the money into your pocket says.

pavlov 10y ago

So in April 2019, the NHS's budget will increase by £350 million / week. Right?

lispm 10y ago
Not only that: there will be no more unwanted immigrants, there are no more negative effects of globalization, the tories will care about remote rural areas, the queen gets a new ship, making decisions doesn't require talking to your neighbors, the economy will boom, the empire will be a large free trade zone, ... Though, not everything is rosy: The Germans will still win the football games.
- cjrp 10y ago
  And "Rule Britannia" will blare from every lamp post on a constant loop. Glorious!
  - moomin 10y ago
    Don't forget the blue passports...
    - lostboys67 10y ago
      And reverting to proper Imperial units none of those commie SI units back to "Thous" :-)
chrisseaton 10y ago
I think this was the proposal of a campaign group, not of the Givernment. The campaign group aren't in power, even though the referendum went their way. So it isn't reasonable to expect policies they proposed would be be enacted, whether or not you support the policy or the policy made any sense.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  There was an official leave and an official remain campaign (as well as some unofficial ones). The £350m NHS promise was part of the official leave campaign headed by Boris and Gove. "The pledge was central to the official Vote Leave campaign and was controversially emblazoned on the side of the bus which shuttled Boris Johnson and Michael Gove around the country. "[0][1] [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-... [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-vote-leave-wipes-nhs-350m-claim-and-rest-of-its-website-after-eu-referendum-a7105546.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-vote-...

46Bit 10y ago

Any sense of how this will affect London tech?

andrewingram 10y ago
It feels like pretty much everyone is adopting a "wait and see" attitude. But i've yet to meet anyone who thinks it's going to be a positive impact.
- vr46 10y ago
  "Wait and See" == "Uncertainty". I work for a FTSE100 and nobody in management is talking about it. Nobody. It's head in the sand time as far as we're concerned, although I imagine there's frantic discussions going on upstairs. Tech people are already leaving and not being replaced, I'm ready to quit my six-figures and bail out while the going's relatively good - just have to await my EU spouse getting their residency so we can definitely move back and forth freely.
- zigzigzag 10y ago
  I know a company that's actually relocating its HQ from the US to the UK (it's a small startup). The CEO is moving to London for personal reasons, so that's one factor, but another is simply a bet that there will be no EU deal and corporation taxes will be lowered a lot as a result.
  - urbanj 10y ago
    Oh, well if one small startup is relocating to the UK then everything must be ok.
zelos 10y ago
Google[1], Apple[2] and Dyson[3] (ok, not quite London) are making quite big noises about big new offices, so I guess things can't be that bad? Possibly they're betting on picking up lots of tech staff cheap if the banks start leaving London? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/15/google-commits-to-massive-new-london-hq https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/15/google-co... [2] http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-apple-to-create-stunning-new-hq-at-battersea-power-station-a3356201.html http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-apple-to-crea... [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-39117982 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-39117982

danmaz74 10y ago

The referendum results really saddened me, but at this point the sooner this is over, the better.

TillE 10y ago
There were any number of ways that they could have backed out of this disaster in a politically acceptable way. A second referendum on a specific plan for what "leaving the EU" actually means, for example. It would be an uncomfortable situation, but it's vastly preferable to a decade or more of economic turmoil. Not to mention the probable loss of Scotland, huge questions about the Irish border, etc etc.
- alva 10y ago
  > could have backed out of this disaster in a politically acceptable way I don't think any retreat would have ever been politically acceptable. The general public saw through the "hard/soft" Brexit angle, it was clear that remaining in the single market would not have delivered the majority of leavers wishes. Worse still, this heavy push on "soft Brexit" made the perception that certain sections of the establishment was trying to deceive their way out of the vote stronger. This sort of feeling, that outside powers are pursuing objectives against our wishes, was a strong driver in the ref vote.
  - coroxout 10y ago
    "it was clear that remaining in the single market would not have delivered the majority of leavers wishes" Well, with a 52:48 majority for leave and with almost all Remain voters probably preferring "soft" to "hard" Brexit, it would only need to satisfy a tiny % of leavers for it to have more a mandate than the "hard", no-deal Brexit cliff edge the government seem determined to steer us all over without any debate.
- imron 10y ago
  > A second referendum... for example What if 'leave' won that referendum by an even larger margin? Before you think it couldn't happen, bear in mind that the whole mess was started by someone calling a referendum they clearly thought they'd win as a way to shut down political opponents who wanted to 'leave'. That didn't exactly work out the way he expected, and there's no reason to believe a second referendum would work out any better - especially since the pendulum swing is currently swinging hard against globalism.

open-source-ux 10y ago

This is very depressing news. For those not living in the UK, I cannot recall a time in recent memory when UK politics has felt so dysfunctional, oppressive or regressive than it currently is.

branchless 10y ago
Were you around in 2008? Coop about to be bailed out. It's like old times!
- mhw 10y ago
  Yes; 10 years working while the economy tries to recover from that, and now we're about to chuck it back into turmoil mode again.
  - branchless 10y ago
    IMHO Brexit is a symptom of the failure to address 2008. Brexit isn't the answer but when you completely ignore problems you get ... more problems.
bnastic 10y ago
We knew for quite a while that the trigger will happen end of March. If you're depressed it's not because of the current news.
- gsnedders 10y ago
  We previously knew for quite a while that the trigger will happen the day after the referendum. A further statement saying that it will be March 29th instead of "by the end of March" makes it seem ever more likely to happen (compared with the seeming uncertainty last summer).

baby 10y ago

Any idea of how this will affect the currency?

chillydawg 10y ago
Which one?
s_kilk 10y ago
It'll crater
jamiethompson 10y ago
It will likely continue to tank :(
chumali 10y ago
Assuming export volumes fall - which is the likely scenario - then we should see Sterling fall relative to the Dollar. This is not considering any external pressures on Sterling however.

deepnet 10y ago

Robert Mercer owns Cambridge Analytica[1], a Facebook analytics & targeted advertising company. Allegedly CA has close ties to Brexit and donated services to the Brexit campaign, that went undeclared [2]. Cambridge Analytica data exists outside European Data protections. Mercer also owns Breitbart .com [3] [1] https://cambridgeanalytica.org/ https://cambridgeanalytica.org/ [2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb /26/us-billionaire-mercer-helped-back-brexit [3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-38005983 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-38005983

ZeroGravitas 10y ago
Even before either of the campaigns they were involved in succeeded, I've read articles that seem to suggest they were better at marketing themselves and selling than actually delivering what they claimed they could. Maybe they got better at it, but personally I'd point the finger at decades of Murdoch-led media brainwashing rather than anything new-fangled. It used to be Boris Johnson's actual job as a journalist to make up lies about the EU to be fed to nationalistic, right-wing old people. And that demographic did much more for them than the (relative) youngsters on facebook.
- deepnet 10y ago
  [edit] I am inclined to agree.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

baq 10y ago

i wonder what the results of a referendum about joining the EU would look like if it was done today.

Von_Jones 10y ago

1. Cost of living soars in Britain. 2. Britain's young people want to leave: Europe offers a better deal. Cheaper property, better employment conditions, better looking men and women, good food. 3. Britain's codger population votes to pull up the drawbridge - not to keep the foreigners out, but to keep its youth enslaved. You poor bastards, good luck to you.

michaelbrooks 10y ago
I would very much like to leave. :/
coldpie 10y ago
My engineer friend in his late 20's already left for Canada earlier this month. His prime motivator was Brexit. Good luck, Britain, you'll need it.
hamstercat 10y ago
I'd like to invite all the young poor bastards to have a look at Canada. We have a great immigration policy for young people looking for a new home!
- Svip 10y ago
  I couldn't get a job in Canada, because your immigration policy required a bachelor's degree. That was even if I had a job offered to me before seeking a visa. I think Canadian immigration policy is a bit over hyped for being 'great'. Trudeau took a lot of great PR with getting some Syrian refugees, but getting into Canada is still hard. Just easier in comparison to your neighbour to the south.
  - mstade 10y ago
    Really? A friend of mind lived a few years in Canada, and to my knowledge he doesn't have a bachelor's degree. (In fact, we both dropped out at about the same time.) He did have a job before going there, which was apparently helpful, but as far as I understand it the whole process was pretty smooth. Nothing beats the EU though. Live in one country working a job on Friday, move to another over the weekend and start a new job on Monday – I've done literally this multiple times now. This alone is reason to stay in, as far as I'm concerned. The UK leaving is incredibly sad. :o(

zigzigzag 10y ago

Hacker News is full of people who are anti-Brexit. I see little understanding of the opposing point of view. I am quite happy to see Article 50 finally happen and will sum up why here. Take it or leave it. 18 months ago I was pro EU. Not strongly so, just because it was the status quo, in my mind was vaguely associated with co-operation and so I was for it by default. Today I am pretty strongly eurosceptic. I think it's important for the UK to leave and if anything I'd like to see it collapse entirely. Europe would be stronger, more prosperous, more cooperative and freer if the EU were to die. My reasoning goes like this. The EU is not simply a kind of really big working group for finding new ways to cooperate, as I had once tended to assume. It is a quasi-religious ideology with disturbing similarities to a cult. The people who control the EU and many European politicians don't simply see it as a way to foster collaboration and trade but rather as a way to replace existing European countries with a new country, one which would in my estimation be significantly worse than the countries we have now. Calling the EU a cult may seem extreme, but to me it's not: The EU and its supporters are not interested in debate on the future of Europe. The future is their intended future, and no other alternative futures are legitimised through recognition. The EU does not provide any channel for people to reject or modify their plans. Its leaders consistently see referendums or politicians that are not blindly pro-EU as dangerous and if they occur anyway, often due to constitutional obligations, the results are simply ignored if they run counter to what the EU's leadership wants. The so-called Parliament cannot actually change anything about the EU itself (it is not a real Parliament) and is thus stuffed with yes men whose only reason for being there is ideological commitment to the vision itself (there are also a handful of no-men who got themselves voted in purely to try and slow it down, but they can't do anything and have no real power). Indeed, we can safely assume that the new federal superstate the EU wants to build would not be a democracy. Given the EU's consistent lack of interest in actual, real democratic mechanisms, it is likely that if their plans succeed Europe's future looks pretty grim: something like the USSR of the 1980s. It is the avoidance of this fate that led me to vote out. In common with many cults the EU deliberately tries to make leaving it as difficult as possible, through a variety of techniques such as insisting that the remaining cult members (who were of course previously supposedly loving friends and allies) shun the traitor and have nothing to do with them. Any sustained connection with members requires complete membership and suggesting it doesn't is an evil attempt to undermine the unity of the group. The EU routinely abuses language in manipulative ways, for instance using the word "Europe" when they mean "the EU". They do this to plant the idea that any rejection of their plans is actually a rejection of "Europe" and "Europeans", although it isn't. They also like to suggest that any rejection of the EU is dirty backwards looking "nationalism", although the EU has its own civil service, its own "parliament", its own borders, its own currency, its own courts, its own flag, its own national anthem and wants its own army. The reality is that the EU is a country-under-construction and the EU is a fundamentally nationalist project. Finally, the most disturbing similarity of all is the fact that the modern EU is a project held together by fear. Its leadership happily and openly says so: President Hollande's memorable "there must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price" quote (on the topic of Brexit) being the most extreme example, but even today I read that Juncker is saying that there's no risk to the EU because the British "example" will show others what happens to countries that leave. They frequently imply that the alternative to the EU is World War 3. European leaders talk this way constantly, apparently either not realising or not caring that it makes them sound like some sort of Mafia. There is no reason European cooperation must take place through such an organisation. Before the EU was formed in the early 1990s there were many parallel integration projects that were improving cooperation independently. The EU eventually absorbed them all, but if it were to collapse, the result would not be World War 3 or a dark age of hatred. It'd be a return to the days when deals and international bodies were set up independently and countries could independently assess which were working well and which were not, instead of an "all or nothing" arrangement that artificially ties trade and cooperation to an irreversible loss of local control. Edit: -1 within a few minutes. What a surprise. Don't downvote if you disagree, you won't change anything that way. Reply and debate instead. Second edit: Thanks for the replies. I would like to engage and continue the debate with you guys but HN has throttled me so I can no longer reply. I'll try following up tomorrow and see if the throttle has been lifted. (I'm starting to conclude HN is not a particularly good place to debate political issues for this sort of reason ...)

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rolandino 10y ago

The only way this makes any sense at all is if the EU and the Euro collapses - at which point, the UK may well appear to be a safe haven. This is a possibility: Grexit, Le Pen, Russia/US wanting to get rid of Merkel, alleged weakness of Deutsche Bank, to name but a few. But if the above scenario does not happen, the UK, or WEngland in all likelihood, will become a poor, backward, inward looking nasty little place, with few rights for most people, and London will probably continue to be a nice place to dump cash. It's incredibly depressing.

splitrocket 10y ago

Politics assumes a zero sum game. Experts create non-zero sum outcomes. Humans, due to their loss aversion bias, prefer politics to expertise. Thus brexit.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
I don't think your logic works. Wouldn't loss aversion lead you to prefer the non-zero-sum game? After all, in a zero-sum game, you might lose, and if you do, you are guaranteed to be worse off. In a non-zero-sum game, you are not guaranteed to be worse off, even if you "lose" (win less than someone else).

cstross 10y ago

I would just like to note that March 25th (Saturday) is the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, which created the European Economic Community (from which the EU evolved): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome Imagine serving divorce papers on your spouse on a significant wedding anniversary, and now consider the message it sends. It's like Theresa May has carefully picked the time to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty that will cause maximum offense to the people she's about to negotiate a critically important trade deal with (from a position of inferior leverage).

Von_Jones 10y ago
Theresa May is a copper-bottomed cvnt. She is apparently steering Britain into a hard-Brexit for the sole reason of preserving the Conservative party. She cannot even issue a pronouncement on what form Brexit will take, or call an election which will require a manifesto setting out her position, because the party will implode. What a way to run a country: all to keep a bunch of bastards in blazers from throttling each other.
- dang 10y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines.
corford 10y ago
In her defence (not that she really deserves it), Theresa May was fucked either way by setting March as the deadline. The sad part is I'm sure it was incompetence rather than a calculated slight.
- moomin 10y ago
  Grey's law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
waqf 10y ago
Wasn't the Treaty of Rome the one that de Gaulle successfully lobbied to keep the UK out of? I'm no Brexiteer but this seems entirely appropriate.

tehabe 10y ago

I wonder when the actual talks are starting, in April France elects a new president. In September Germany elects a new parliament. Who knows how the situation is in October and who May has to talk to.

agd 10y ago

The filter bubble/group think is incredible in this thread! You'd think people are fleeing the UK in droves and driven to despair all round based on some of the comments here. In reality, none of the dire predictions for the economy have come to pass and people are getting on with their lives. None of my friends (all educated, well-off remain voters) are talking about leaving. Some people in this thread still seem to be in denial about the situation and completely ignore the flaws of the EU. Yes there are costs of leaving, but there are also potential upsides. e.g. having a more interventionist national economic strategy while pursuing more international trade deals. And it's likely that any trade tariffs imposed by the EU will be more than offset by the currency depreciation we've seen since the referendum. There are risks for the UK going forward but I'm more worried about the EU at the moment. If it doesn't reform, we'll continue to see rising extremism on the continent - look at Holland, Italy, France, Austria where extreme (and anti EU) parties all receive more votes than UKIP does in the UK.

karmacoda 10y ago
Agreed. I don't even know any europeans talking about leaving.
mathw 10y ago
Well, most of the dire economic predictions of Brexit would never pan out until Brexit actually happens anyway, so it's way too early to expect that. It's not like things were going to collapse immediately upon the result of the vote (although the drop in Sterling in the immediate aftermath was pretty impressive). Yes, there are downsides to the EU, but the idea that we can do better by going it alone just seems absurd to me.
- agd 10y ago
  We will not know for a while yet but the sample size of this event is 0. We have no historical precedent to learn from. What we do know is that the specific growth predictions from the government, thinktanks, Bank of England, and independent economists for the immediate aftermath of the referendum turned out to be completely wrong.
10y ago

merraksh 10y ago

I'm moving from Birmingham UK to northern Italy at the end of the year. I will work remotely for the same employer, life is cheaper down there, and actually quality of life is higher in terms of healthcare, transportation, and services. I didn't imagine the last part before I moved here, but a few years dealing with both the NHS and private health providers, plus poor bus transportation and street safety in Birmingham, changed my mind. I have a similar opinion of the healthcare in the US, where I also lived for some time. Central Europe provides surprisingly good healthcare and even the private option is far cheaper. I actually was looking for a house outside of Birmingham, but I decided to wait until after the referendum. After that I had little doubt I'd leave. The net effect for the UK will be that I'll pay taxes to another country. I'm not even complaining about paying more taxes.

vr46 10y ago
I hear you. People are harping on about potentially positive outcomes, but right now, things are quite rubbish, and it's the present that I'm finding the problem, not a theoretical outcome. I lived through a previous round of all this in the 1970s and 80s, and I really don't think I should do it again when I have a choice.