59 ms·

UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU

315 points by nedsma 10y ago

djaychela 10y ago
I sincerely hope that today (and obviously the day it actually happens) isn't something that I look back on with sadness in the future. I live in the UK, and am really saddened by the way that politics is 'progressing' - in fact, regressing to a time where nationalism seems to be the voice, and one which I think will inevitably lead to conflict. Combined with the Trump situation in the USA, I am extremely pessimistic about the future - more so of my four step children, who are all going to reap the adult world that people such as Johnson, Gove and Farage have sewn.
- adnam 10y ago
  We had plenty of conflict while part of the EU: the Falklands, Iraq, the IRA, Bosnia for example. It wasn't nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe, it was a lack of democracy.
  - Svip 10y ago
    But that suggests that the UK itself lacks democracy. If the UK doesn't change because of this, how will staying in or leaving the EU change that?
    - lhopki01 10y ago
      The UK does lack democracy. It has an unelected upper house and elections for the lower house are profoundly undemocratic. I have never lived anywhere in the UK where my vote counted for General Elections.
  - mmjaa 10y ago
    Falklands happened "because of the EU"? Thats news to me. I thought it happened because the UK needs the oil reserves to prop up its broken economy.
    - adnam 10y ago
      Except I didn't say that the Falklands happened because of the EU, did I? It happened because Argentina invaded British sovereign territory, and the British defended it. Interestingly, not a single other EU country aided the UK.
      - lhopki01 10y ago
        Would this be the same EU that wasn't founded for another 13 years? While we're putting forward spurious facts not a single non-EU country aided the UK.
        OJFord 10y ago
        > Would this be the same EU that wasn't founded for another 13 years? Yes; the same one, too, that grew out of the EEC founded 35 years prior.
        lhopki01 10y ago
        So your argument is that the Economic body that was the EEC was supposed to help the UK fight a war half a world away because.....reasons?
        OJFord 10y ago
        I haven't said anything of the sort; I don't have enough knowledge of the period to comfortably comment on it. I only commented above to explain why, it seemed, you were disagreeing on whether the multi-European-country group existed before the Falklands conflict. Highlighting the Economic in EEC hardly seems relevant either, seeing as the EU is basically just MaastrichtTreaty(EEC) - a treaty which insofar I'm aware makes no mention of supporting member states' wars, "because.....reasons" or otherwise.
        lhopki01 10y ago
        Since the founding of the EU there have been several steps towards common military work. In the mid 2000s EU battlegroups were created. In 2009 SAFE laid the foundations for a EU military. Since then EU forces have been involved in peacekeeping missions. The EEC was very much just an economic body. Since then the EU has been taking steps in multiple areas beyond just it's initial economic competencies.
  - themihai 10y ago
    Well, you didn't see a war between Germany and England though... Bosnia, Iraq etc were not part of the EU. The point was to create a closely integrated Europe so that war would become unthinkable just like a war between England and Scotland is unthinkable now. Of course it was nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe. Did democracy prevent Russia to invade Ukraine? UK simply decided the European project is not worth it and they are better off trading as an independent country than part of a european family. This may prove true but we will have to see and for how long. If the EU reforms and sticks together I fail to see how leaving it is a good choice. I hope this will make EU stronger and more competitive as UK will force their hand to do more.
    - dustinmoris 10y ago
      Based on statistics I would say that any war between the UK and Germany is more likely to be inflicted by Germany... just saying...
      - themihai 10y ago
        Does it matter who started? I don't think blaming one state or another helps much once the nukes take off.
    - nkrisc 10y ago
      Russia isn't exactly democratic.
    - macintux 10y ago
      > Did democracy prevent Russia to invade Ukraine? Russian democracy is a charade at this point.
    - cmdkeen 10y ago
      I'd argue we didn't see a war between Germany and England, or Britain as we are these days, as we were occupying them in the aftermath until 1949 and maintained a British Army of the Rhine there until 1994. The Allies also established a new Constitution and political consensus that is vehemently anti-war - witness German reluctance to be involved in fighting in recent NATO and other coalition conflicts. There's also the small matter that the Russians were effectively still occupying half of Germany until the late 1980s. The origins of the EU came that trade prevents wars. The Democratic Peace Thesis likes to discount all sorts of countries as "not a democracy", a good example of No True Scotsman. Given we're seeing Turkey rapidly heading towards dictatorship, Hungary's far right leadership despite being an EU member, and all the problems the US is going through it is a salient reminder that just because you are a democracy doesn't mean you stay one. One of the pretty unique things about the UK in the EU is its political history - France is on its 5th Republic, Germany has only been reunified within living memory, Italy's system is from 1946 etc. You can see how relatively new, potentially fragile systems of Government might want to prevent resurgences of problems, especially under the shadow of the Cold War. Edit to add: Oh - there's also this thing called NATO as well. When two countries are in a military alliance they also tend to avoid going to war with each other. NATO is of course also the body that intervened far more decisively than the EU in the Bosnian and Kosovan Wars - those pesky examples of genocide in Europe that people overlook about how fantastic and peaceful we are as a continent.
  - vanderZwan 10y ago
    > It wasn't nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe, it was a lack of democracy. This is infuriatingly vague. What are you complaining about? That the various EU councils aren't directly elected? Well, they are all delegates of politicians who have been elected in their home country. And to have a direct election makes no sense, because it's not like a Swede will vote for an Italian politician. For that to happen the EU would have to turn into some kind of United States of Europe, but "surprisingly" people who complain about a lack of democracy also always want their own home country to remain autonomy. Which is a driving force in the exact opposite direction: less direct democracy, let the elected politicians duke things out while trying to work towards the best interest of their people. I mean this is international legislation we are talking about, trying to navigate the different laws and customs of each individual EU member. It's inherently goddamn complicated and it's probably for the best that we let the delegated politicians deal with it for the most part. Or is it about the supposed "unelected bureaucrats in Europe telling us what to do!" Because that's another part that I find really fucking annoying about Eurosceptics who talk out of their ass: the complaint that EU makes things more complicated and creates more red tape, when there hasn't been any other project remotely as effective at reducing as much bureaucracy from the European continent as the European Union. You hear these complaints of "They're wasting time on creating more red tape and banning curved bananas!"? Because that too is nonsense, to the point that there is an entire blog dedicated to debunking such Euromyths[0]. Here, I'll give you an explicit example of one that I investigated myself: On the 29th of May 2014 the Telegraph[1], the Daily Mail[2], the Independent[3] all published virtually identical articles accusing the EU of being out to ban classic perfumes. The next day the Times (sorry, no link) did the same. None of the articles mentioned a source (of course), but they turned out to be rewritten versions of a Reuters article from a day earlier[4], pulling paragraphs out of context and omitting key information. The actual proposal consisted of a ban on three ingredients, and an increase of the number of ingredients that have to be clearly labelled, because they have been shown to be significantly allergenic. A special report by Reuters from 2012[5] actually discussed much stronger restrictions that the perfume industry feared for, in anticipation of a report on allergenic ingredients by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. Moreover, that 2012 article discussed how the perfume industry has already been changing many of its formulas for decades, and went on to explain how a new labelling regulation – enforced by the same proposed legislation – would force them to disclose many (allergenic) ingredients of their secret formulas. Among other things, this would make it harder for brands to get away with changing their formulas unnoticed. By contrast, the 2014 Reuters article indicates that the final changes were fairly non-controversial, likely because the EU held a number of public consultations with the perfume industry between 2012 and 2014. In other words: the European Union had been transparent to and cooperative with the cosmetics industry in implementing changes to its perfume regulation. Now here's the real kicker: when researching this, we discovered that the main legislation surrounding cosmetic products – Regulation 1223/2009 – replaced the old directive of over 3500 pages, which was patched with 55 amendments and full of incoherent terminology, with a single coherent regulation of about 200 pages, greatly reducing costs for the cosmetic industry. Not that anyone took notice of that. And before you blame that old 3500 page document on the EU, realise that that was basically all the separate national laws thrown together onto one heap of amendments - hardly the EU's fault. Read the press release here[6]. A 3500 page document! Mind you, that wasn't the fault of of the EU, that represented the underlying, incompatible laws of the various member countries. And the EU fixed that and simplified it to a universal 200 pages, applicable everywhere. Do you have any idea how much administration costs that saves across the continent? And this happens again and again, and you never hear anyone talk of this. [0] http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ [1] http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/newsfeatures/TMG10862035/Chanel-and-Dior-fall-prey-to-EU-ingredient-regulation.html http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/newsfeatures/TMG108620... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2642389/Now-EU-rules-threaten-future-Chanel-No-5-Popular-perfumes-threat-ingredient-bans-labelling-regulations-branded-absurd-manufacturers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2642389/Now-EU-rules... [3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/iconic-chanel-no-5-perfume-to-reformulate-under-new-eu-regulations-9451331.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/iconic-chane... [4] http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-perfume-idUKKBN0E30GE20140523 http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-perfume-idUKKBN0E30GE201... [5] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-perfume-idUSBRE8BF02D20121216 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-perfume-idUSBRE8BF0... [6] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-08-184_en.htm?locale=en http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-08-184_en.htm?locale...
  - k-mcgrady 10y ago
    >> "It wasn't nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe, it was a lack of democracy." The Yugoslav wars were centred around nationalism. The Irish conflict, again was centred around nationalism and civil rights (you can't seriously think there wasn't democracy in Ireland?).
- cmdkeen 10y ago
  Nationalism may have a voice but it hasn't been defeated on the continent at all. Golden Dawn, 5 Star Movement, Front Nationale, AfD. UKIP are currently polling 10% in the UK and have just lost their only MP (who it turns out only joined them to marginalise Farage in any EU referendum). There's a case to be made that the increasing centralisation of Europe is provoking a national reaction in members states. You don't have to be Greek or Italian to empathise with why people might not be happy with their situation or the "German" approach to solving it. I'm hoping that with the return of a lot of powers to Parliaments (be they Westminster or devolved) that there will be more of a distinction between parties and more debate around policies. The public will have to own far more than we currently do - the most high profile recent example is the "Tampon Tax", everyone seems to acknowledge it shouldn't exist but politicians currently shrug and say "Europe". That excuse is going away.
- estel 10y ago
  Obviously words are a lot cheaper than action, but it's at least a small consolation that the current Government, for all its varied faults, remains a pretty globalist and free-trade one (despite being responsible for one of the most protectionist and nationalist actions in the last century). Which is to say that I don't think the nationalist right-wing will be mollified entirely by the exit negotiations. If the UK had the equivalent of a Front Nationale government leading Brexit right now I'd find that much more worrisome.
ealexhudson 10y ago
I'm a big believer in not having assumptions and testing things with actual experiments. This is one experiment I'd rather not be participating in, though. It's difficult to see very much positive about this move; certainly there will be some benefits, but I expect greatly outweighed by the negatives (which will include higher prices, lower employment and probably lower standards for UK workers - the EU has consistently been the only organisation willing to drag us out of the dark ages).
- ForRealsies 10y ago
  The EU is a novelty in human history. The desire for independence, for better or worse, is human nature.
  - fao_ 10y ago
    I guess only old Welsh people have "human nature" then...
  - bryanrasmussen 10y ago
    Right, this is why there have never been empires, kings, large nations or organized groups that have subsumed smaller groups around them, the United States, Great Britain itself, or any organization of peoples greater than just one lone man standing in a field bellowing 'ME!' at the emptiness.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      "Independence" it's not about some lone man bellowing "ME". It's about like-minded people sharing a common culture (as developed historically up to some point), over a hodge podge of states being united by sheer power or top-down dictum. Empires and kings ruled thanks to tons of bloodshed and continued vigilance and stomping of revolts. The "Great Britain" itself is a bad example -- it lost colony after colony due to wars for independence, and even sibling states like England, Ireland and Scotland have either split, or want to split. And of course it took some wars (and a lot of resentment) to bring down the Scottish into the UK's stable for example.
dijit 10y ago
I'm British but live in the EU. I've been watching this from the outside and it makes me so very sad and despondent. Forgetting any inconvenience on my part (of which there are very few -I likely have access to an EU passport.). It's fucking stupid. No ifs, no buts, no apologies and respecting of alternate opinions. Just fucking stupid. Every single reason for leaving (other than "leave so the EU can get on without UK obstructions) has been debunked. Poeple protest voted, they voted with feelings instead of sense. They ignored people who knew what they were talking about and went with idiotic soundbites. I don't know what the actual fuck is going through the minds of our government, but it's not sense. Hell, it's going ahead. We don't have the manpower, experience or knowledge to replace things that have been done with the EU. The boring administration. Standards, procedures... All the little details that mean the difference between something that works and something that doesn't. I trust the EU oversight much further than the bunch of fools in the UK. Too entwined with their own interests. Who has bought them, why are they so scared of newspapers, why they seem utter cowards... We have some wonderful examples of how education and arrogance can seem like intelligence. Aaaand yup, this is a rant now. I shall carry on, because now I'm finding it a little cathartic. I'm not left wing, not right. I earn well above the average. I'm a pragmatist and I firmly believe that having strong and successful neighbours is good. I do not want a neighbour that throws the metaphorical shite over the fence. There are poorer countries in the EU. Movement is good between countries and those that people complain about will not bother taking the leap when their home country is made attractive enough not to. Nothing is perfect. The EU is far from it, because it involves people... But they move slowly in a direction of interest to its citizens. Not just in the interest of the people of those governments. It's been pissed away by liars and imbeciles now. I cannot unite behind it in the same way I would try to stop idiots from walking off a cliff, rather than joining them. Possibly a little harsh. Probably not though.
- dijit 10y ago
  It's rather notable that the UK has the option of aborting this process during the 2 years. (According to an EU official who's name I forget), it's incredibly unlikely that anyone will go back on this though. The uncertainty of having this option available is bad for the UK though. Markets hate uncertainty.
Two9A 10y ago
Are British HN'ers taking any mitigating steps due to this whole situation? I'm currently in the process of incorporating in the Netherlands, and it turns out setting up a Ltd is a lot more expensive over there than in the UK. I just don't feel that the UK will make good use of my tax receipts any more, so I'm almost obligated to take my work elsewhere.
- ealexhudson 10y ago
  I'm formally getting EU citizenship (which I'm lucky enough to be entitled to as a citizen of Ireland). There is going to be increased demand for this, particularly as people realise that there is going to be a hard border (which seems inevitable, given the statements on freedom of movement). I won't actually move, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of personal and small businesses move in exactly the way you're suggesting.
  - PaulRobinson 10y ago
    The letter specifically calls for ensuring there is no hard border.
    - creshal 10y ago
      Which is just wishful thinking brought onto paper. That part isn't going to be legally binding in any way.
    - sammorrowdrums 10y ago
      It's virtually impossible to have tight and effective immigration controls, and open EU border. Also if UK ever passes laws that allow produce with EU import restrictions to be available it will mean hard customs border too... NI is at a genuine risk of crisis, or soft Brexit.
      - k-mcgrady 10y ago
        >> NI is at a genuine risk of crisis, or soft Brexit. To be fair, we are in crisis 90% of the time. This just adds fuel to the fire.
te_chris 10y ago
Today is the day that David Cameron's legacy is solidified: The hubristic toff who saw his nation as a play thing.
- csmattryder 10y ago
  He gambled 64 million people's livelihoods to defend his party against another, that right now, doesn't even have a sitting MP (for those outside the UK, that's the UK Independence Party). There's tables at Vegas that haven't seen that level of loss.
  - djmobley 10y ago
    You seem to be forgetting the part where the British people voted to leave the EU.
    - poooogles 10y ago
      > You seem to be forgetting the part where the British people voted to leave the EU. A minority voted to leave the EU.
      - adnam 10y ago
        Errr, no there was a clear majority vote for leaving the EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_...
        poooogles 10y ago
        With 72% turnout. I'm highlighting how stupid the idea that this is the will of the people is in reality.
        adnam 10y ago
        Of course it was the will of the people. Those who didn't bother to cast their vote didn't get a say.
redsummer 10y ago
Great news. Of the four happiest countries in the world, three are European countries outside the EU. Autonomy is crucial to happiness.
- aembleton 10y ago
  Most of the world is outside of the EU. I don't think this correlation can stand.
  - OJFord 10y ago
    GP referred to European countries outside the EU though; not 'the world ... outside of the EU'. The EU forms 510/743 millions of people in Europe, so GP's point is more valid than you claim.
    - corford 10y ago
      GP's muddled claim was "Autonomy is crucial to happiness". Given Denmark (an EU country) is number two (and has been number one three times in the past), his claim is wrong on it's face. Edit: and that's without even addressing the ridiculous straw man of "autonomy" (all sovereign countries are autonomous - no country is forced to be or remain an EU member against their will)
    - lhopki01 10y ago
      He also selectively quoted facts. 4/10 in the top 10 are EU countries. Though if you want to actually look at the information all the nordics are in there of which 3 are in the EU and 2 are in the EEA.
- orf 10y ago
  That's a pretty confused statement with not much relevance to this article or indeed brexit.
- Sharlin 10y ago
  A wonderful example of an argument that isn't even wrong. For reference, see cherry-picking, confirmation bias, cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
DrNuke 10y ago
Corbyn for Labour Party: "There are Conservatives who want to use Brexit to turn this country into a low-wage tax haven." Well, full automation = no wages at all, ehehe. I am not sure how it is going to end and it is not my strict business anyway but there is a chance, not a slim chance imho, we may well see some sort of sci-fi dystopian UK emerging from this process. Interesting times ahead. Disclaimer: spent five years in the UK on the cusp of the 2007-8 financial crash and could see this was going to happen somehow someday, all starting from there and from perverse globalisation enhancing inequalities imho.
k__ 10y ago
Hopefully, like Trump in the US, this will wake them up.
- 72deluxe 10y ago
  Who? And wake up to what? To do what?
  - k__ 10y ago
    The people of the UK. I had the feeling they were resting on the inherited wealth of their empire for rather long now. They always wanted special treatments in the EU. They even pay mad bucks on their royals for basically nothing. Maybe this Brexit will go down bad and they will change their ways and join the EU in 10-20 years as 'real' members. But I don't have many hopes in that. Probably they will end up like Switzerland or something :/
    - poooogles 10y ago
      >They even pay mad bucks on their royals for basically nothing. Royal family costs the UK £307m (highest number) with a revenue from them of £500m [1]. Seems like good business to keep paying for them. 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is...
      - k__ 10y ago
        Interesting, didn't know that :)
        poooogles 10y ago
        Look into the Crown estate if you're interested, that's how they make a lot of their money, with any profits going back to the treasury AFAIK.
        10y ago
empressplay 10y ago
Democracy is a double-edged sword. I may not like the way it cuts sometimes, but no way in hell I'll ever put it down.
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> I may not like the way it cuts sometimes, but no way in hell I'll ever put it down. Why not? It's not a perfect process and blindly accepting it because 'democracy is good' is dangerous. Personally I'm against Brexit and don't think we should go through with it. BUT the reason I don't think we should go through with it is that most voters were woefully uninformed or completely misinformed. Both sides were lied to and manipulated. Having a referendum on an issue that experts fail to understand is just plain idiotic. If there was a way to have a well informed vote and it didn't go my way I would accept it without complaint.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  I think democracy should be reserved for when people are given the true outcome on the ballot. Here the secret was that the kingdom will dissolve in case of leave. Had people known that the outcome would have been different. I think the will to keep the UK is stronger than the will to leave the EU. That, and the fake news storm about NHS money and whatnot led to this. It's a stolen referendum by the forces that wanted to leave.
dustinmoris 10y ago
I'm a bit tired of reading doomsday messages by now. I am an European living and working in the UK and even though this affects me I have no reason to believe that things will go downwards now. If there's anything I've learned so far then that every analysis I've read couldn't have been more wrong. It almost seems like the more the UK economy doesn't collapse the more people shout even louder how bad the Brexit is. Maybe I am just too indifferent or chilled, but I think the best is to just sit back and watch what will happen. Also I seriously don't think of the Brexit that the UK leaves Europe. I think the UK and the EU will strive for the closest relationship possible. The only thing that I see changing is that the UK withdraws from a formal contract with the EU with the hope to negotiate a better deal. I don't think this is racist. Not every contract makes the same sense for every country in the world. --- EDIT: Wow lots of responses to this comment. Thank you all. There's a lot of good discussion and some suggest that I am more relaxed perhaps because I am maybe financially secure, but that is not true. When I was a child I watched on television the Fukushima disaster in Japan and I was totally freaked out. I was afraid for many reasons and then as I watched longer I was totally amazed how relaxed the people in Japan dealt with the situation. There was a crisis, but nowhere near what I thought would have happened in the western world. Nobody was running or fleeing the country, nobody stopped going to work, etc. People worked together to fix the problem as good as they could and everyone lifted their weight. All news in Europe were talking about how cool-headed the Japanese dealt with this situation and it was something which I never forgot in my life. I then realised that only because everyone stayed calm and cool headed they were able to deal with this problem the way they did. It was not perfect, but boy it was much better than what I thought would happen. So this is my childhood experience which has marked me for life and made me realise that mass hysteria is never good. No matter what the situation is.
- skylan_q 10y ago
  every analysis I've read couldn't have been more wrong Even though this is true, it goes over the "expert's" heads why there is a crisis of confidence in experts. http://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-says-we-re-in-the-middle-of-a-global-revolt-against-experts http://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-says-we-re-in-th...
- JamesMcMinn 10y ago
maaaats 10y ago
Whatever one may think of the politics or if one's country should join/leave, it's absolutely true that EU has been a big factor in keeping the peace between European nations for decades. The Nobel Peace Prize to EU got a lot of criticism because of politics, but I think it was important to show that EU has helped keep the peace.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Can we really say that it's the EU though? Europe has many international organizations that include member nations. Is the EU responsible or NATO or the UN or a simple exhaustion of war and extreme nationalism? The EU as it exists today has been alive fewer than 30 years! That's a blip in time. Europe will remain strong, regardless of this, won't it?
  - Xylakant 10y ago
    > Can we really say that it's the EU though? For some conflicts, yes. The Good Friday agreement in Ireland is a legal fiction, only possible because of the EU. Basically, the border vanishes because both sides are members of the EU and thus, via the EU have the right to move across that border at any time for any purpose.
- danielvf 10y ago
  I know there has been intra-nation peace in western Europe since the end of WWII, but how do we know it was due to the EU? Both the peace and the EU would seem to as easily explained by the post war situation where European nations were now second tier economicly, and threatened by a big external nation. The reward for war was no longer there, and the need for cooperation was high.
  - andreasklinger 10y ago
    > European nations were now second tier economicly, and threatened by a big external nation. Wasn't this also true for eg WW1? Even with the same actors
barking 10y ago
This story is going to get very boring very quickly. Little will be decided until close to the deadline in two years. In the meantime life will go on as normal as it has for the last year. What is much more interesting is what will happen shortly in France and whether the phenomena that led to Trump and Brexit are repeated elsewhere in Europe.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  So far it's looking good. Wilders did not make significant headway in NL, AfD is down significantly in the polls in Germany and the EU politician who returned to head the SPD in Germany has dramatically reversed that party's flagging poll numbers. Opinion polling for the expected 2nd round of polling in the French presidential elections put Macron at almost 2/3rd majority vs. Le Pen. Overall, pro-EU sentiment in EU member nations is rising.
  - barking 10y ago
    Maybe, but opinion polls got it wrong in the cases of Trump and Brexit. It seems a lot of people who intend vote on the right (for the want of a better term) are coy about it when asked.
    - mpweiher 10y ago
      I knew someone was going to mention that. Yes. However, I mostly talked about relative movement of polls. While not entirely impossible, it seems implausible that people should suddenly all get more coy. Especially after "their side" just had huge victories. If anything, I'd expect them to be less coy than before, because they just got validated. And the one absolute I mentioned about the French runoff is 2/3rd vs. 1/3rd. Trump and Brexit polls were never that far apart.
      - barking 10y ago
        Le Pen is steady at about 1/3 Macron is at about the same with everyone expecting the final 1/3 to support him in a run-off. Seems pretty safe for Macron. I don't know much about France, is there ever much of a shift before the second vote historically?
robin_reala 10y ago
The Guardian have published the letter on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/343396953/PM-Letter-to-EU-Council-President https://www.scribd.com/document/343396953/PM-Letter-to-EU-Co...
coldtea 10y ago
>As Article 50 is triggered today, many European expats in Britain, as well as European-minded locals, are packing up, moving on or eyeing up their options. Brexit brain drain could spell disaster for industries like technology already facing shortages of skilled talent. Sorry, what about the brain drain when those "European expats" came from their countries into the UK? Or that doesn't matter because it was all "within EU" anyway? Still, UK hadn't paid for their education and other benefits while they were growing up in their native countries, and their native countries didn't get taxes from those people while they were living in the UK. And those countries would also like to have their scientists etc stay and work there to improve the country's industry and economy. Brain drain works both ways. You can't lament brain drain from an economy that actually caused brain drain, and now those brains leave it.
- omurphyevans 10y ago
  What about the brains who never moved now moving away? I am British and have lived here for nearly 40 years. I'm currently looking at an Irish passport (Irish wife) or maybe France. My taxes and know how will be better put to use somewhere our values (openness, tolerance, mutual respect) agree.
  - JamesMcMinn 10y ago
    With a bit of luck, Scotland might offer you someone to escape to, although the weather wont be as nice as France.
  - handelaar 10y ago
    If having an irish spouse and not living in Ireland is all you've got, then you're not getting an Irish passport. On the other hand, you definitely can have one 3 years after you've moved here.
soroso 10y ago
#PunishUK
arca_vorago 10y ago
My theory on brexit has been for a long time now that, after entangling the EU with the Euro, and globalization actually hurting the first-world EU, the UK is simply attempting to isolate it's vulnerabilities to the coming impacts of globalization. If my theory is true, it means essentially that brexit is designed not to create wealth in the UK, but to make the losses less than the rest of the world by comparison. With such a large surveillance state though, and a massive propaganda operation wing, the UK has done a good job confusing it's people into the core reasons because to admit them would be to admit the weaknesses of the global monetary system it has had a large part in fostering on the world through the IMF, the World Bank, and fiat, fractional reserve central banking systems not tied to gold or oil (bretton woods without the key things that made bretton woods good).
- sangnoir 10y ago
  Your theory assumes a lot of forward-thinking, competence, benevolence and cooperation between subsequent prime ministers. The simpler explanation is that David Cameron's gamble to silence the more extreme side of his party (and UKIP) failed. His (or his pollsters) incompetence led to this, helped along by protest votes and online Russian campaigns. A less charitable explanation is that certain Tory elites took advantage of the narrow majority to preserve power in their hands - there are a number of disagreements with the ECHR.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  I saw it the opposite way - the UK elite sees the EU as being too slow at negotiating free trade treaties (too many other EU countries are protectionist) and think they can do better.
gonvaled 10y ago
Theresa May wants deep and special partnership with the EU, without contributing at all to its existence. If every country in the EU does the same, guess what, there is no EU. And without EU, without compromises, without rules, without standards, without common legislation, nothing of value rests. Just a bunch of countries, a bunch of private enterprises, trying to cherry pick in each an every transaction, looking for the shortest of short term profits, continuously changing course, now associating with this country, now with this other. Now selling round bananas, tomorrow selling bananas polluted with lead. Today not allowing imports of bananas from Romania because they are not straight enough, and tomorrow not accepting them from Italy because they are too straight. Foreign citizens get expelled with made up reasons, according to what the popular opinion of the moment is. Trucks get delayed or not in a complete obscure manner. Products get made and exported without any respect for work or environmental regulations. Quality does not satisfy any kind of standards. Nobody can trust any foreign business because there is no institution to complain to in case consumer rights are not respected. Financial products are sold to steal savings from foreign investors - until this is recognized and foreign investors stop using those investment vehicles, completely destroying the market.
bambax 10y ago
From the letter[1] of PM May to Pres. Tusk: > At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many part of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens This is pretty rich. Protectionist "instincts" are on the rise in the UK and the US first and foremost today, so maybe those countries are not in the best position to lecture the rest of the world against them? The crux of the matter is, countries have no friends and no moral imperatives, they only have interests; May's letter is very short on what the interests of the EU are, to try to give the UK a "nice" deal. How would the EU benefit from a deal -- any deal at all -- vs no deal? (Also, this is a small detail but maybe not an insignificant one, negotiations cost money; if there is no hope of gaining anything, why should EU negotiators even show up? It would save money to simply not talk at all). [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article50.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article5...
alkonaut 10y ago
Since the actual outcome now seems to be that it'sore England leaving the UK, than the UK leaving the EU - doesn't that constitute a huge change in circumstances, enough to warrant at least a parliamentary election before the exit is triggered? I mean, imagine if the Brexit ballot had said "Do you want for the UK to remain intact in the EU, or be broken apart with England and Wales leaving the EU?" Or if it had 3 options - remain - leave - leave, if the UK stays intact. Leave would never had won. Which makes this whole charade completely insane.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  >Leave would never had won. // Depends, I still haven't worked out who ultimately is driving this shi(p|t) but it would have been relatively easy to get a lot of Scottish and Welsh people to vote to leave England based on a millennium of ill-sentiment that "we're being governed by them without a proper say" and to get the English to ditch the rest based on "they get more spent on them per capita" and writing a big number on a bus.
- coroxout 10y ago
  Leave would probably never have won if the ballot paper specified leaving the single market, either. It might also not have won if the ballot paper had said "leaving will provide no extra money for the NHS, actually probably less money because the pound will be devalued and much of the NHS workforce comes from Europe, and also various prominent Leave campaigners are actually eager to dismantle the NHS and privatise healthcare bit by bit". But, oh well, we are where we are, I suppose.
dep_b 10y ago
Sure enough Henry VIII leaving the Holy Church of Rome will lead to all kinds of disaster for the kingdom. Oh wait no, they actually went on to rule about half of the world afterwards.
- genma_it 10y ago
  Sure, and they ruled so well that today that half of the world lives in peace and it is proud to have been a British colony.
  - dep_b 10y ago
    Which was a problem for the British back then in what sense? Looking back at it now with our current look on things, for the other countries involved, sure.
Someone 10y ago
I know it is nerdy, but what a weird PDF (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article50.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article5...) Pages 1 and 4 are text (allow text selection), the other ones are images (on iPad) I wonder what process could have led to that; it is not simply a matter of having one section produced in a different way from the other, as, for example, page 5 continues an enumeration started on page 4.
leovonl 10y ago
It's amusing to read all these calls for a more democratic EU, specially when comparisons with the USA are made. EU membership is voluntary, you can leave if you want. What would happen if an USA state decided to leave? Check the history books. Truly democratic nations respect self-determination principles. In this sense, USA is closer to the authoritarianism of Spain than to democracies like Canada or the UK itself.
- Joeri 10y ago
  To be fair, some of the EU leaders have made it clear that they intend to make the brexit so costly on britain that no one else dare leave. So, it remains to be seen how voluntary EU membership is.
  - UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
    But nobody will die. You're contrasting bad trade terms with literal wars, really apples and oranges comparison.
logicallee 10y ago
The EU should treat this like America treated secessionist states - the UK should be compelled to stay by force. Obviously there should not be any actual war, since the Brtis should just say, "well, all right." Afterward they should be full, normal participants, just as every state is a normal participant in the United States and has equal and fair votes in the Senate and House of Representatives. Why should this be done: 1 - America shows that it is great that there is a unified country, which benefits from huge economies of scale. 2 - Can you imagine how much money is saved by not having to have border control, separate visas and citizenships in the United States? The same applies to the EU. 3 - The EU should directly compete with the United States as the second of three world poles (Asia being the third). 4 - The good of the Union outweighs the UK's selfish and shortsighted act. Why shouldn't history repeat? Would America be better-off if it were split into two countries? Would America be the world's leading economy (by far)? Citing the close historical precedent I have mentioned, I do not think that the UK should be allowed to leave the EU. Its request should be denied.
- prodmerc 10y ago
  A United States of Europe would be great, but what you're proposing is insane. First of all, it won't work at all without military conflict, and from there it's World War 3. Based on language alone, the EU would self-destruct so quickly you won't believe it if one EU country went to war against another, especially for the purpose of maintaining the "union".
- mattmanser 10y ago
  Putting aside the lack of knowledge of the situation or what the EU actually is, the UK has nuclear weapons, the highest EU defence spending and a permanent UN security council seat. The EU has no army. What you propose would mean the end of the UN, the end of NATO, the end of the EU and a possible WW3. And Russia would probably 'liberate' a few border countries from the 'imperialistic EU' while that's all happening.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    Its request should still be denied. I notice you have not in any way attacked my historical foundation, secessionist states. The implication that the UK would detonate a nuclear bomb over this is laughable on its face. Its request should be denied.
Animats 10y ago
Scotland now wants to get out of the United Kingdom and stay in the EU. When this thing settles down, the EU will probably be OK, but England will stand alone.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
Hopefully, UK will now get rid of onerous, business-strangling regulations of the EU. That's at least one good aspect of Brexit.

315 points by nedsma 10y ago

I sincerely hope that today (and obviously the day it actually happens) isn't something that I look back on with sadness in the future. I live in the UK, and am really saddened by the way that politics is 'progressing' - in fact, regressing to a time where nationalism seems to be the voice, and one which I think will inevitably lead to conflict. Combined with the Trump situation in the USA, I am extremely pessimistic about the future - more so of my four step children, who are all going to reap the adult world that people such as Johnson, Gove and Farage have sewn.

adnam 10y ago
We had plenty of conflict while part of the EU: the Falklands, Iraq, the IRA, Bosnia for example. It wasn't nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe, it was a lack of democracy.
- Svip 10y ago
  But that suggests that the UK itself lacks democracy. If the UK doesn't change because of this, how will staying in or leaving the EU change that?
  - lhopki01 10y ago
    The UK does lack democracy. It has an unelected upper house and elections for the lower house are profoundly undemocratic. I have never lived anywhere in the UK where my vote counted for General Elections.
- mmjaa 10y ago
  Falklands happened "because of the EU"? Thats news to me. I thought it happened because the UK needs the oil reserves to prop up its broken economy.
  - adnam 10y ago
    Except I didn't say that the Falklands happened because of the EU, did I? It happened because Argentina invaded British sovereign territory, and the British defended it. Interestingly, not a single other EU country aided the UK.
    - lhopki01 10y ago
      Would this be the same EU that wasn't founded for another 13 years? While we're putting forward spurious facts not a single non-EU country aided the UK.
      - OJFord 10y ago
        > Would this be the same EU that wasn't founded for another 13 years? Yes; the same one, too, that grew out of the EEC founded 35 years prior.
        lhopki01 10y ago
        So your argument is that the Economic body that was the EEC was supposed to help the UK fight a war half a world away because.....reasons?
        OJFord 10y ago
        I haven't said anything of the sort; I don't have enough knowledge of the period to comfortably comment on it. I only commented above to explain why, it seemed, you were disagreeing on whether the multi-European-country group existed before the Falklands conflict. Highlighting the Economic in EEC hardly seems relevant either, seeing as the EU is basically just MaastrichtTreaty(EEC) - a treaty which insofar I'm aware makes no mention of supporting member states' wars, "because.....reasons" or otherwise.
        lhopki01 10y ago
        Since the founding of the EU there have been several steps towards common military work. In the mid 2000s EU battlegroups were created. In 2009 SAFE laid the foundations for a EU military. Since then EU forces have been involved in peacekeeping missions. The EEC was very much just an economic body. Since then the EU has been taking steps in multiple areas beyond just it's initial economic competencies.
- themihai 10y ago
  Well, you didn't see a war between Germany and England though... Bosnia, Iraq etc were not part of the EU. The point was to create a closely integrated Europe so that war would become unthinkable just like a war between England and Scotland is unthinkable now. Of course it was nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe. Did democracy prevent Russia to invade Ukraine? UK simply decided the European project is not worth it and they are better off trading as an independent country than part of a european family. This may prove true but we will have to see and for how long. If the EU reforms and sticks together I fail to see how leaving it is a good choice. I hope this will make EU stronger and more competitive as UK will force their hand to do more.
  - dustinmoris 10y ago
    Based on statistics I would say that any war between the UK and Germany is more likely to be inflicted by Germany... just saying...
    - themihai 10y ago
      Does it matter who started? I don't think blaming one state or another helps much once the nukes take off.
  - nkrisc 10y ago
    Russia isn't exactly democratic.
  - macintux 10y ago
    > Did democracy prevent Russia to invade Ukraine? Russian democracy is a charade at this point.
  - cmdkeen 10y ago
    I'd argue we didn't see a war between Germany and England, or Britain as we are these days, as we were occupying them in the aftermath until 1949 and maintained a British Army of the Rhine there until 1994. The Allies also established a new Constitution and political consensus that is vehemently anti-war - witness German reluctance to be involved in fighting in recent NATO and other coalition conflicts. There's also the small matter that the Russians were effectively still occupying half of Germany until the late 1980s. The origins of the EU came that trade prevents wars. The Democratic Peace Thesis likes to discount all sorts of countries as "not a democracy", a good example of No True Scotsman. Given we're seeing Turkey rapidly heading towards dictatorship, Hungary's far right leadership despite being an EU member, and all the problems the US is going through it is a salient reminder that just because you are a democracy doesn't mean you stay one. One of the pretty unique things about the UK in the EU is its political history - France is on its 5th Republic, Germany has only been reunified within living memory, Italy's system is from 1946 etc. You can see how relatively new, potentially fragile systems of Government might want to prevent resurgences of problems, especially under the shadow of the Cold War. Edit to add: Oh - there's also this thing called NATO as well. When two countries are in a military alliance they also tend to avoid going to war with each other. NATO is of course also the body that intervened far more decisively than the EU in the Bosnian and Kosovan Wars - those pesky examples of genocide in Europe that people overlook about how fantastic and peaceful we are as a continent.
- vanderZwan 10y ago
  > It wasn't nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe, it was a lack of democracy. This is infuriatingly vague. What are you complaining about? That the various EU councils aren't directly elected? Well, they are all delegates of politicians who have been elected in their home country. And to have a direct election makes no sense, because it's not like a Swede will vote for an Italian politician. For that to happen the EU would have to turn into some kind of United States of Europe, but "surprisingly" people who complain about a lack of democracy also always want their own home country to remain autonomy. Which is a driving force in the exact opposite direction: less direct democracy, let the elected politicians duke things out while trying to work towards the best interest of their people. I mean this is international legislation we are talking about, trying to navigate the different laws and customs of each individual EU member. It's inherently goddamn complicated and it's probably for the best that we let the delegated politicians deal with it for the most part. Or is it about the supposed "unelected bureaucrats in Europe telling us what to do!" Because that's another part that I find really fucking annoying about Eurosceptics who talk out of their ass: the complaint that EU makes things more complicated and creates more red tape, when there hasn't been any other project remotely as effective at reducing as much bureaucracy from the European continent as the European Union. You hear these complaints of "They're wasting time on creating more red tape and banning curved bananas!"? Because that too is nonsense, to the point that there is an entire blog dedicated to debunking such Euromyths[0]. Here, I'll give you an explicit example of one that I investigated myself: On the 29th of May 2014 the Telegraph[1], the Daily Mail[2], the Independent[3] all published virtually identical articles accusing the EU of being out to ban classic perfumes. The next day the Times (sorry, no link) did the same. None of the articles mentioned a source (of course), but they turned out to be rewritten versions of a Reuters article from a day earlier[4], pulling paragraphs out of context and omitting key information. The actual proposal consisted of a ban on three ingredients, and an increase of the number of ingredients that have to be clearly labelled, because they have been shown to be significantly allergenic. A special report by Reuters from 2012[5] actually discussed much stronger restrictions that the perfume industry feared for, in anticipation of a report on allergenic ingredients by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety. Moreover, that 2012 article discussed how the perfume industry has already been changing many of its formulas for decades, and went on to explain how a new labelling regulation – enforced by the same proposed legislation – would force them to disclose many (allergenic) ingredients of their secret formulas. Among other things, this would make it harder for brands to get away with changing their formulas unnoticed. By contrast, the 2014 Reuters article indicates that the final changes were fairly non-controversial, likely because the EU held a number of public consultations with the perfume industry between 2012 and 2014. In other words: the European Union had been transparent to and cooperative with the cosmetics industry in implementing changes to its perfume regulation. Now here's the real kicker: when researching this, we discovered that the main legislation surrounding cosmetic products – Regulation 1223/2009 – replaced the old directive of over 3500 pages, which was patched with 55 amendments and full of incoherent terminology, with a single coherent regulation of about 200 pages, greatly reducing costs for the cosmetic industry. Not that anyone took notice of that. And before you blame that old 3500 page document on the EU, realise that that was basically all the separate national laws thrown together onto one heap of amendments - hardly the EU's fault. Read the press release here[6]. A 3500 page document! Mind you, that wasn't the fault of of the EU, that represented the underlying, incompatible laws of the various member countries. And the EU fixed that and simplified it to a universal 200 pages, applicable everywhere. Do you have any idea how much administration costs that saves across the continent? And this happens again and again, and you never hear anyone talk of this. [0] http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index/ [1] http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/newsfeatures/TMG10862035/Chanel-and-Dior-fall-prey-to-EU-ingredient-regulation.html http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/beauty/newsfeatures/TMG108620... [2] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2642389/Now-EU-rules-threaten-future-Chanel-No-5-Popular-perfumes-threat-ingredient-bans-labelling-regulations-branded-absurd-manufacturers.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2642389/Now-EU-rules... [3] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/iconic-chanel-no-5-perfume-to-reformulate-under-new-eu-regulations-9451331.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/iconic-chane... [4] http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-perfume-idUKKBN0E30GE20140523 http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-eu-perfume-idUKKBN0E30GE201... [5] http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-perfume-idUSBRE8BF02D20121216 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-perfume-idUSBRE8BF0... [6] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-08-184_en.htm?locale=en http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-08-184_en.htm?locale...
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> "It wasn't nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe, it was a lack of democracy." The Yugoslav wars were centred around nationalism. The Irish conflict, again was centred around nationalism and civil rights (you can't seriously think there wasn't democracy in Ireland?).
cmdkeen 10y ago
Nationalism may have a voice but it hasn't been defeated on the continent at all. Golden Dawn, 5 Star Movement, Front Nationale, AfD. UKIP are currently polling 10% in the UK and have just lost their only MP (who it turns out only joined them to marginalise Farage in any EU referendum). There's a case to be made that the increasing centralisation of Europe is provoking a national reaction in members states. You don't have to be Greek or Italian to empathise with why people might not be happy with their situation or the "German" approach to solving it. I'm hoping that with the return of a lot of powers to Parliaments (be they Westminster or devolved) that there will be more of a distinction between parties and more debate around policies. The public will have to own far more than we currently do - the most high profile recent example is the "Tampon Tax", everyone seems to acknowledge it shouldn't exist but politicians currently shrug and say "Europe". That excuse is going away.
estel 10y ago
Obviously words are a lot cheaper than action, but it's at least a small consolation that the current Government, for all its varied faults, remains a pretty globalist and free-trade one (despite being responsible for one of the most protectionist and nationalist actions in the last century). Which is to say that I don't think the nationalist right-wing will be mollified entirely by the exit negotiations. If the UK had the equivalent of a Front Nationale government leading Brexit right now I'd find that much more worrisome.

ealexhudson 10y ago

I'm a big believer in not having assumptions and testing things with actual experiments. This is one experiment I'd rather not be participating in, though. It's difficult to see very much positive about this move; certainly there will be some benefits, but I expect greatly outweighed by the negatives (which will include higher prices, lower employment and probably lower standards for UK workers - the EU has consistently been the only organisation willing to drag us out of the dark ages).

ForRealsies 10y ago
The EU is a novelty in human history. The desire for independence, for better or worse, is human nature.
- fao_ 10y ago
  I guess only old Welsh people have "human nature" then...
- bryanrasmussen 10y ago
  Right, this is why there have never been empires, kings, large nations or organized groups that have subsumed smaller groups around them, the United States, Great Britain itself, or any organization of peoples greater than just one lone man standing in a field bellowing 'ME!' at the emptiness.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    "Independence" it's not about some lone man bellowing "ME". It's about like-minded people sharing a common culture (as developed historically up to some point), over a hodge podge of states being united by sheer power or top-down dictum. Empires and kings ruled thanks to tons of bloodshed and continued vigilance and stomping of revolts. The "Great Britain" itself is a bad example -- it lost colony after colony due to wars for independence, and even sibling states like England, Ireland and Scotland have either split, or want to split. And of course it took some wars (and a lot of resentment) to bring down the Scottish into the UK's stable for example.

dijit 10y ago

I'm British but live in the EU. I've been watching this from the outside and it makes me so very sad and despondent. Forgetting any inconvenience on my part (of which there are very few -I likely have access to an EU passport.). It's fucking stupid. No ifs, no buts, no apologies and respecting of alternate opinions. Just fucking stupid. Every single reason for leaving (other than "leave so the EU can get on without UK obstructions) has been debunked. Poeple protest voted, they voted with feelings instead of sense. They ignored people who knew what they were talking about and went with idiotic soundbites. I don't know what the actual fuck is going through the minds of our government, but it's not sense. Hell, it's going ahead. We don't have the manpower, experience or knowledge to replace things that have been done with the EU. The boring administration. Standards, procedures... All the little details that mean the difference between something that works and something that doesn't. I trust the EU oversight much further than the bunch of fools in the UK. Too entwined with their own interests. Who has bought them, why are they so scared of newspapers, why they seem utter cowards... We have some wonderful examples of how education and arrogance can seem like intelligence. Aaaand yup, this is a rant now. I shall carry on, because now I'm finding it a little cathartic. I'm not left wing, not right. I earn well above the average. I'm a pragmatist and I firmly believe that having strong and successful neighbours is good. I do not want a neighbour that throws the metaphorical shite over the fence. There are poorer countries in the EU. Movement is good between countries and those that people complain about will not bother taking the leap when their home country is made attractive enough not to. Nothing is perfect. The EU is far from it, because it involves people... But they move slowly in a direction of interest to its citizens. Not just in the interest of the people of those governments. It's been pissed away by liars and imbeciles now. I cannot unite behind it in the same way I would try to stop idiots from walking off a cliff, rather than joining them. Possibly a little harsh. Probably not though.

dijit 10y ago
It's rather notable that the UK has the option of aborting this process during the 2 years. (According to an EU official who's name I forget), it's incredibly unlikely that anyone will go back on this though. The uncertainty of having this option available is bad for the UK though. Markets hate uncertainty.

Two9A 10y ago

Are British HN'ers taking any mitigating steps due to this whole situation? I'm currently in the process of incorporating in the Netherlands, and it turns out setting up a Ltd is a lot more expensive over there than in the UK. I just don't feel that the UK will make good use of my tax receipts any more, so I'm almost obligated to take my work elsewhere.

ealexhudson 10y ago
I'm formally getting EU citizenship (which I'm lucky enough to be entitled to as a citizen of Ireland). There is going to be increased demand for this, particularly as people realise that there is going to be a hard border (which seems inevitable, given the statements on freedom of movement). I won't actually move, but I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of personal and small businesses move in exactly the way you're suggesting.
- PaulRobinson 10y ago
  The letter specifically calls for ensuring there is no hard border.
  - creshal 10y ago
    Which is just wishful thinking brought onto paper. That part isn't going to be legally binding in any way.
  - sammorrowdrums 10y ago
    It's virtually impossible to have tight and effective immigration controls, and open EU border. Also if UK ever passes laws that allow produce with EU import restrictions to be available it will mean hard customs border too... NI is at a genuine risk of crisis, or soft Brexit.
    - k-mcgrady 10y ago
      >> NI is at a genuine risk of crisis, or soft Brexit. To be fair, we are in crisis 90% of the time. This just adds fuel to the fire.

te_chris 10y ago

Today is the day that David Cameron's legacy is solidified: The hubristic toff who saw his nation as a play thing.

csmattryder 10y ago
He gambled 64 million people's livelihoods to defend his party against another, that right now, doesn't even have a sitting MP (for those outside the UK, that's the UK Independence Party). There's tables at Vegas that haven't seen that level of loss.
- djmobley 10y ago
  You seem to be forgetting the part where the British people voted to leave the EU.
  - poooogles 10y ago
    > You seem to be forgetting the part where the British people voted to leave the EU. A minority voted to leave the EU.
    - adnam 10y ago
      Errr, no there was a clear majority vote for leaving the EU. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_...
      - poooogles 10y ago
        With 72% turnout. I'm highlighting how stupid the idea that this is the will of the people is in reality.
        adnam 10y ago
        Of course it was the will of the people. Those who didn't bother to cast their vote didn't get a say.

redsummer 10y ago

Great news. Of the four happiest countries in the world, three are European countries outside the EU. Autonomy is crucial to happiness.

aembleton 10y ago
Most of the world is outside of the EU. I don't think this correlation can stand.
- OJFord 10y ago
  GP referred to European countries outside the EU though; not 'the world ... outside of the EU'. The EU forms 510/743 millions of people in Europe, so GP's point is more valid than you claim.
  - corford 10y ago
    GP's muddled claim was "Autonomy is crucial to happiness". Given Denmark (an EU country) is number two (and has been number one three times in the past), his claim is wrong on it's face. Edit: and that's without even addressing the ridiculous straw man of "autonomy" (all sovereign countries are autonomous - no country is forced to be or remain an EU member against their will)
  - lhopki01 10y ago
    He also selectively quoted facts. 4/10 in the top 10 are EU countries. Though if you want to actually look at the information all the nordics are in there of which 3 are in the EU and 2 are in the EEA.
orf 10y ago
That's a pretty confused statement with not much relevance to this article or indeed brexit.
Sharlin 10y ago
A wonderful example of an argument that isn't even wrong. For reference, see cherry-picking, confirmation bias, cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

DrNuke 10y ago

Corbyn for Labour Party: "There are Conservatives who want to use Brexit to turn this country into a low-wage tax haven." Well, full automation = no wages at all, ehehe. I am not sure how it is going to end and it is not my strict business anyway but there is a chance, not a slim chance imho, we may well see some sort of sci-fi dystopian UK emerging from this process. Interesting times ahead. Disclaimer: spent five years in the UK on the cusp of the 2007-8 financial crash and could see this was going to happen somehow someday, all starting from there and from perverse globalisation enhancing inequalities imho.

k__ 10y ago

Hopefully, like Trump in the US, this will wake them up.

72deluxe 10y ago
Who? And wake up to what? To do what?
- k__ 10y ago
  The people of the UK. I had the feeling they were resting on the inherited wealth of their empire for rather long now. They always wanted special treatments in the EU. They even pay mad bucks on their royals for basically nothing. Maybe this Brexit will go down bad and they will change their ways and join the EU in 10-20 years as 'real' members. But I don't have many hopes in that. Probably they will end up like Switzerland or something :/
  - poooogles 10y ago
    >They even pay mad bucks on their royals for basically nothing. Royal family costs the UK £307m (highest number) with a revenue from them of £500m [1]. Seems like good business to keep paying for them. 1. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is...
    - k__ 10y ago
      Interesting, didn't know that :)
      - poooogles 10y ago
        Look into the Crown estate if you're interested, that's how they make a lot of their money, with any profits going back to the treasury AFAIK.
        10y ago

empressplay 10y ago

Democracy is a double-edged sword. I may not like the way it cuts sometimes, but no way in hell I'll ever put it down.

k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> I may not like the way it cuts sometimes, but no way in hell I'll ever put it down. Why not? It's not a perfect process and blindly accepting it because 'democracy is good' is dangerous. Personally I'm against Brexit and don't think we should go through with it. BUT the reason I don't think we should go through with it is that most voters were woefully uninformed or completely misinformed. Both sides were lied to and manipulated. Having a referendum on an issue that experts fail to understand is just plain idiotic. If there was a way to have a well informed vote and it didn't go my way I would accept it without complaint.
alkonaut 10y ago
I think democracy should be reserved for when people are given the true outcome on the ballot. Here the secret was that the kingdom will dissolve in case of leave. Had people known that the outcome would have been different. I think the will to keep the UK is stronger than the will to leave the EU. That, and the fake news storm about NHS money and whatnot led to this. It's a stolen referendum by the forces that wanted to leave.

dustinmoris 10y ago

I'm a bit tired of reading doomsday messages by now. I am an European living and working in the UK and even though this affects me I have no reason to believe that things will go downwards now. If there's anything I've learned so far then that every analysis I've read couldn't have been more wrong. It almost seems like the more the UK economy doesn't collapse the more people shout even louder how bad the Brexit is. Maybe I am just too indifferent or chilled, but I think the best is to just sit back and watch what will happen. Also I seriously don't think of the Brexit that the UK leaves Europe. I think the UK and the EU will strive for the closest relationship possible. The only thing that I see changing is that the UK withdraws from a formal contract with the EU with the hope to negotiate a better deal. I don't think this is racist. Not every contract makes the same sense for every country in the world. --- EDIT: Wow lots of responses to this comment. Thank you all. There's a lot of good discussion and some suggest that I am more relaxed perhaps because I am maybe financially secure, but that is not true. When I was a child I watched on television the Fukushima disaster in Japan and I was totally freaked out. I was afraid for many reasons and then as I watched longer I was totally amazed how relaxed the people in Japan dealt with the situation. There was a crisis, but nowhere near what I thought would have happened in the western world. Nobody was running or fleeing the country, nobody stopped going to work, etc. People worked together to fix the problem as good as they could and everyone lifted their weight. All news in Europe were talking about how cool-headed the Japanese dealt with this situation and it was something which I never forgot in my life. I then realised that only because everyone stayed calm and cool headed they were able to deal with this problem the way they did. It was not perfect, but boy it was much better than what I thought would happen. So this is my childhood experience which has marked me for life and made me realise that mass hysteria is never good. No matter what the situation is.

skylan_q 10y ago
every analysis I've read couldn't have been more wrong Even though this is true, it goes over the "expert's" heads why there is a crisis of confidence in experts. http://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-says-we-re-in-the-middle-of-a-global-revolt-against-experts http://www.sciencealert.com/stephen-hawking-says-we-re-in-th...
JamesMcMinn 10y ago

maaaats 10y ago

Whatever one may think of the politics or if one's country should join/leave, it's absolutely true that EU has been a big factor in keeping the peace between European nations for decades. The Nobel Peace Prize to EU got a lot of criticism because of politics, but I think it was important to show that EU has helped keep the peace.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Can we really say that it's the EU though? Europe has many international organizations that include member nations. Is the EU responsible or NATO or the UN or a simple exhaustion of war and extreme nationalism? The EU as it exists today has been alive fewer than 30 years! That's a blip in time. Europe will remain strong, regardless of this, won't it?
- Xylakant 10y ago
  > Can we really say that it's the EU though? For some conflicts, yes. The Good Friday agreement in Ireland is a legal fiction, only possible because of the EU. Basically, the border vanishes because both sides are members of the EU and thus, via the EU have the right to move across that border at any time for any purpose.
danielvf 10y ago
I know there has been intra-nation peace in western Europe since the end of WWII, but how do we know it was due to the EU? Both the peace and the EU would seem to as easily explained by the post war situation where European nations were now second tier economicly, and threatened by a big external nation. The reward for war was no longer there, and the need for cooperation was high.
- andreasklinger 10y ago
  > European nations were now second tier economicly, and threatened by a big external nation. Wasn't this also true for eg WW1? Even with the same actors

barking 10y ago

This story is going to get very boring very quickly. Little will be decided until close to the deadline in two years. In the meantime life will go on as normal as it has for the last year. What is much more interesting is what will happen shortly in France and whether the phenomena that led to Trump and Brexit are repeated elsewhere in Europe.

mpweiher 10y ago
So far it's looking good. Wilders did not make significant headway in NL, AfD is down significantly in the polls in Germany and the EU politician who returned to head the SPD in Germany has dramatically reversed that party's flagging poll numbers. Opinion polling for the expected 2nd round of polling in the French presidential elections put Macron at almost 2/3rd majority vs. Le Pen. Overall, pro-EU sentiment in EU member nations is rising.
- barking 10y ago
  Maybe, but opinion polls got it wrong in the cases of Trump and Brexit. It seems a lot of people who intend vote on the right (for the want of a better term) are coy about it when asked.
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    I knew someone was going to mention that. Yes. However, I mostly talked about relative movement of polls. While not entirely impossible, it seems implausible that people should suddenly all get more coy. Especially after "their side" just had huge victories. If anything, I'd expect them to be less coy than before, because they just got validated. And the one absolute I mentioned about the French runoff is 2/3rd vs. 1/3rd. Trump and Brexit polls were never that far apart.
    - barking 10y ago
      Le Pen is steady at about 1/3 Macron is at about the same with everyone expecting the final 1/3 to support him in a run-off. Seems pretty safe for Macron. I don't know much about France, is there ever much of a shift before the second vote historically?

robin_reala 10y ago

The Guardian have published the letter on Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/343396953/PM-Letter-to-EU-Council-President https://www.scribd.com/document/343396953/PM-Letter-to-EU-Co...

coldtea 10y ago

>As Article 50 is triggered today, many European expats in Britain, as well as European-minded locals, are packing up, moving on or eyeing up their options. Brexit brain drain could spell disaster for industries like technology already facing shortages of skilled talent. Sorry, what about the brain drain when those "European expats" came from their countries into the UK? Or that doesn't matter because it was all "within EU" anyway? Still, UK hadn't paid for their education and other benefits while they were growing up in their native countries, and their native countries didn't get taxes from those people while they were living in the UK. And those countries would also like to have their scientists etc stay and work there to improve the country's industry and economy. Brain drain works both ways. You can't lament brain drain from an economy that actually caused brain drain, and now those brains leave it.

omurphyevans 10y ago
What about the brains who never moved now moving away? I am British and have lived here for nearly 40 years. I'm currently looking at an Irish passport (Irish wife) or maybe France. My taxes and know how will be better put to use somewhere our values (openness, tolerance, mutual respect) agree.
- JamesMcMinn 10y ago
  With a bit of luck, Scotland might offer you someone to escape to, although the weather wont be as nice as France.
- handelaar 10y ago
  If having an irish spouse and not living in Ireland is all you've got, then you're not getting an Irish passport. On the other hand, you definitely can have one 3 years after you've moved here.

soroso 10y ago

#PunishUK

arca_vorago 10y ago

My theory on brexit has been for a long time now that, after entangling the EU with the Euro, and globalization actually hurting the first-world EU, the UK is simply attempting to isolate it's vulnerabilities to the coming impacts of globalization. If my theory is true, it means essentially that brexit is designed not to create wealth in the UK, but to make the losses less than the rest of the world by comparison. With such a large surveillance state though, and a massive propaganda operation wing, the UK has done a good job confusing it's people into the core reasons because to admit them would be to admit the weaknesses of the global monetary system it has had a large part in fostering on the world through the IMF, the World Bank, and fiat, fractional reserve central banking systems not tied to gold or oil (bretton woods without the key things that made bretton woods good).

sangnoir 10y ago
Your theory assumes a lot of forward-thinking, competence, benevolence and cooperation between subsequent prime ministers. The simpler explanation is that David Cameron's gamble to silence the more extreme side of his party (and UKIP) failed. His (or his pollsters) incompetence led to this, helped along by protest votes and online Russian campaigns. A less charitable explanation is that certain Tory elites took advantage of the narrow majority to preserve power in their hands - there are a number of disagreements with the ECHR.
kalleboo 10y ago
I saw it the opposite way - the UK elite sees the EU as being too slow at negotiating free trade treaties (too many other EU countries are protectionist) and think they can do better.

gonvaled 10y ago

Theresa May wants deep and special partnership with the EU, without contributing at all to its existence. If every country in the EU does the same, guess what, there is no EU. And without EU, without compromises, without rules, without standards, without common legislation, nothing of value rests. Just a bunch of countries, a bunch of private enterprises, trying to cherry pick in each an every transaction, looking for the shortest of short term profits, continuously changing course, now associating with this country, now with this other. Now selling round bananas, tomorrow selling bananas polluted with lead. Today not allowing imports of bananas from Romania because they are not straight enough, and tomorrow not accepting them from Italy because they are too straight. Foreign citizens get expelled with made up reasons, according to what the popular opinion of the moment is. Trucks get delayed or not in a complete obscure manner. Products get made and exported without any respect for work or environmental regulations. Quality does not satisfy any kind of standards. Nobody can trust any foreign business because there is no institution to complain to in case consumer rights are not respected. Financial products are sold to steal savings from foreign investors - until this is recognized and foreign investors stop using those investment vehicles, completely destroying the market.

bambax 10y ago

From the letter[1] of PM May to Pres. Tusk: > At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many part of the world, Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of all our citizens This is pretty rich. Protectionist "instincts" are on the rise in the UK and the US first and foremost today, so maybe those countries are not in the best position to lecture the rest of the world against them? The crux of the matter is, countries have no friends and no moral imperatives, they only have interests; May's letter is very short on what the interests of the EU are, to try to give the UK a "nice" deal. How would the EU benefit from a deal -- any deal at all -- vs no deal? (Also, this is a small detail but maybe not an insignificant one, negotiations cost money; if there is no hope of gaining anything, why should EU negotiators even show up? It would save money to simply not talk at all). [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article50.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article5...

alkonaut 10y ago

Since the actual outcome now seems to be that it'sore England leaving the UK, than the UK leaving the EU - doesn't that constitute a huge change in circumstances, enough to warrant at least a parliamentary election before the exit is triggered? I mean, imagine if the Brexit ballot had said "Do you want for the UK to remain intact in the EU, or be broken apart with England and Wales leaving the EU?" Or if it had 3 options - remain - leave - leave, if the UK stays intact. Leave would never had won. Which makes this whole charade completely insane.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>Leave would never had won. // Depends, I still haven't worked out who ultimately is driving this shi(p|t) but it would have been relatively easy to get a lot of Scottish and Welsh people to vote to leave England based on a millennium of ill-sentiment that "we're being governed by them without a proper say" and to get the English to ditch the rest based on "they get more spent on them per capita" and writing a big number on a bus.
coroxout 10y ago
Leave would probably never have won if the ballot paper specified leaving the single market, either. It might also not have won if the ballot paper had said "leaving will provide no extra money for the NHS, actually probably less money because the pound will be devalued and much of the NHS workforce comes from Europe, and also various prominent Leave campaigners are actually eager to dismantle the NHS and privatise healthcare bit by bit". But, oh well, we are where we are, I suppose.

dep_b 10y ago

Sure enough Henry VIII leaving the Holy Church of Rome will lead to all kinds of disaster for the kingdom. Oh wait no, they actually went on to rule about half of the world afterwards.

genma_it 10y ago
Sure, and they ruled so well that today that half of the world lives in peace and it is proud to have been a British colony.
- dep_b 10y ago
  Which was a problem for the British back then in what sense? Looking back at it now with our current look on things, for the other countries involved, sure.

Someone 10y ago

I know it is nerdy, but what a weird PDF (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article50.pdf http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article5...) Pages 1 and 4 are text (allow text selection), the other ones are images (on iPad) I wonder what process could have led to that; it is not simply a matter of having one section produced in a different way from the other, as, for example, page 5 continues an enumeration started on page 4.

leovonl 10y ago

It's amusing to read all these calls for a more democratic EU, specially when comparisons with the USA are made. EU membership is voluntary, you can leave if you want. What would happen if an USA state decided to leave? Check the history books. Truly democratic nations respect self-determination principles. In this sense, USA is closer to the authoritarianism of Spain than to democracies like Canada or the UK itself.

Joeri 10y ago
To be fair, some of the EU leaders have made it clear that they intend to make the brexit so costly on britain that no one else dare leave. So, it remains to be seen how voluntary EU membership is.
- UnoriginalGuy 10y ago
  But nobody will die. You're contrasting bad trade terms with literal wars, really apples and oranges comparison.

logicallee 10y ago

The EU should treat this like America treated secessionist states - the UK should be compelled to stay by force. Obviously there should not be any actual war, since the Brtis should just say, "well, all right." Afterward they should be full, normal participants, just as every state is a normal participant in the United States and has equal and fair votes in the Senate and House of Representatives. Why should this be done: 1 - America shows that it is great that there is a unified country, which benefits from huge economies of scale. 2 - Can you imagine how much money is saved by not having to have border control, separate visas and citizenships in the United States? The same applies to the EU. 3 - The EU should directly compete with the United States as the second of three world poles (Asia being the third). 4 - The good of the Union outweighs the UK's selfish and shortsighted act. Why shouldn't history repeat? Would America be better-off if it were split into two countries? Would America be the world's leading economy (by far)? Citing the close historical precedent I have mentioned, I do not think that the UK should be allowed to leave the EU. Its request should be denied.

prodmerc 10y ago
A United States of Europe would be great, but what you're proposing is insane. First of all, it won't work at all without military conflict, and from there it's World War 3. Based on language alone, the EU would self-destruct so quickly you won't believe it if one EU country went to war against another, especially for the purpose of maintaining the "union".
mattmanser 10y ago
Putting aside the lack of knowledge of the situation or what the EU actually is, the UK has nuclear weapons, the highest EU defence spending and a permanent UN security council seat. The EU has no army. What you propose would mean the end of the UN, the end of NATO, the end of the EU and a possible WW3. And Russia would probably 'liberate' a few border countries from the 'imperialistic EU' while that's all happening.
- logicallee 10y ago
  Its request should still be denied. I notice you have not in any way attacked my historical foundation, secessionist states. The implication that the UK would detonate a nuclear bomb over this is laughable on its face. Its request should be denied.

Animats 10y ago

Scotland now wants to get out of the United Kingdom and stay in the EU. When this thing settles down, the EU will probably be OK, but England will stand alone.

maverick_iceman 10y ago

Hopefully, UK will now get rid of onerous, business-strangling regulations of the EU. That's at least one good aspect of Brexit.