7 ms·

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

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.

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.