9 ms·

A few anecdotes doesn't count as evidence. I voted for Remain, and hope very much that the Brexit process collapses and we end up staying in the EU. But I also

by blowski 10y ago

A few anecdotes doesn't count as evidence. I voted for Remain, and hope very much that the Brexit process collapses and we end up staying in the EU. But I also don't want to spend the next 2 years being drip-fed poor quality articles about how we're going to hell in a handbasket.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 10y ago
I think that the chances of the Brexit process collapsing just collapsed themselves. The only way to do that was to not trigger Article 50.
- jamiethompson 10y ago
  Whilst you're perhaps correct, it's still not clear what triggering Article 50 actually means in practice. It's never been done and it's clear that the process was never really designed with a view to ever be invoked.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Well, once that's done as far as I understand it there is no way back, agreement or not, the clock ticks and after 2 years are up the separation is a fact. If people are hoping for a collapse of the Brexit after that point they are delusional, the only way this would reverse after that is by a new application, and I really don't see that ending up with the UK being in a better position after such a process than they have today. All kinds of exceptions were made to keep the UK in the EU, those are extremely unlikely to be granted a second time, especially not if the UK falls apart and Scotland ends up remaining. The British prime minister is now making a strong play to pull Scotland out of the EU against their wishes, we'll likely see a race between the 'brexit' negotiators on the UK side and the Scottish 'remain' camp who will try to stay in without first exiting. This is understandable from all points of view, the British government would rather like to negotiate from a slightly stronger position and the for the Scots because they were told they had to renegotiate their access to the single market if they seceded from the UK. Now that the British wish to exit that point has become moot which will most likely swing the referendum towards the Scots exiting the union. They probably feel quite cheated in Scotland.
    - pimmen 10y ago
      But what that means in practice is another thing entirely. For example, the DPRK and the ROK are still at war with each other, but that just means that they stare down each other at a border. The UK could be officially outside of the EU but to the banks, universities and import-export companies EU cooperation is as much of a reality as ever. Really powerful entities want to keep their shareholders happy by avoiding complicated regulations on international activities, and they have a lot of political influence. The people of London for example are mighty pissed.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        Unfortunately, that's not how it works. There is no such thing as 'out' but 'in', and no matter how pissed the people of London are their prime minister has just done something that is essentially irrevocable.
      - CaptainZapp 10y ago
        The UK could be officially outside of the EU but to the banks, universities and import-export companies EU cooperation is as much of a reality as ever. That's the wishful thinking so much projected by the brexiteers. And I believe they're very wrong. While London may remain a financial hub it will lose its importance. Multinational banks and insurances are alredy preparing to move entire departments to the continent. Especially France is extremely hard nosed in not providing the UK financial industry with passporting rights. Frankfurt and Luxembourg are also yapping happily about the prospects of new jobs and businesses. And London is about to lose the privilege to clear deals in Euros. Import / export has a lot to lose too. managing supply chains, without manufacturing just can't function in times of lean production and just-in-time manufacturing, gets incredibly harder and more expensive. Universities? If you believe that they will just shrug it off I'm afraid you're in for a huge surprise. English universities will lose EU research grants. But the worst is that they will lose on foreign talent. Real talented scientists will think hard if they want to move to England in the current xenophobic climate and seek out alternatives. The only bargaining chip that England really has is the defense industry and a pretty strong, experienced army, which helps provide security for Europe. Else then that? Not much. And BTW: Comparing the situation between the EU and England with that in Korea is, well, grasping for straws? in any case it's a really bad, if not ludicrous argument. Despite the defiance showed by some English politicians and the tabloid press I think that in reality England is in for a world of self-inflicted hurt. And mostly those people that enthusiastically voted to leave.
- gutnor 10y ago
  I also get the feeling that if the process fails during the negotiations, that's the absolute worst way. It will divide the population further and the EU will be the scapegoat again. The UK has had 9 months to mend its divided population. Get the facts back as first class citizen in debates, firmly drive out the hate-fueled arguments out and draw a picture of how they wanted the UK to be, realistic picture, not the Leave campaign fantasy. Finally with that done, let the houses discuss where the EU helped or hindered and then vote to proceed or not. That's not how it happens, dialog didn't happen, the UK is at the same stage of division today (or worse) as it was 9 months ago.
- atomwaffel 10y ago
  Not quite: > the UK will be able to revoke its notification of article 50 but this must be “subject to conditions set by all EU27 so they cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the United Kingdom’s membership”. [1] So in short, remaining is less likely than ever but still possible. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-response-to-article-50-takes-tough-line-on-transitional-deal https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-re...
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    True, but May has (repeatedly) threatened to go out 'without a deal' if she can't get terms she likes. The UK has to somehow bluff its way into a negotiation position and I fail to see how all these statements and laws are compatible with each other.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Oh nonsense. If enough people change their minds there will be another referendum or some crisis meetings. 'We can't stop it now,' is self-destructive rationalization.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    That's the UK politicians position, not mine. They could have easily stopped last week. "brexit means brexit" and "no deal we leave anyway". Blustering tough talk but who it is supposed to impress I'm not sure about. The self-destructive element is on the UK side and the sooner they realize it the better.
    - anigbrowl 10y ago
      Agreed. Sorry for being snarky, I'm just frustrated by the stupidity of the whole thing.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        > I'm just frustrated by the stupidity of the whole thing. Join the club. I did not believe that May would be silly enough to push this through as far as she has, it's like watching someone aim a gun at their feet and pulling the trigger in slow motion. She won't be remembered kindly. The UK spent decades pulling itself out of the slump it was in in the mid 80's of the last century, now it is rushing as fast as it can to repeat the experience. The only silver lining I can see here is that if once brexit is a fact the rejoining could happen rapidly after the Scots break away from the union and England and Wales (and possibly Northern Ireland) realize that it's not working out. But say goodbye to the pound and any exceptions the UK has right now in that case. It's an own goal if there ever was one. And no worries about being snarky, it's totally understandable, fortunately I'm on this side of the channel where the impact will be spread out. If I had my eggs in the UK basket I would be a lot less agreeable than merely snarky.
markatkinson 10y ago
The paragraph after the heading 'Why This Matters' sort of addresses the fact that it is anecdotal and how it might still have significance. Personally I find the article does read a bit like scaremongering propaganda.
SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
If you want data not anecdotes, then it's early days but here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/18/nhs-eu-nurses-quit-record-numbers https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/18/nhs-eu-nurse...
- davidf18 10y ago
  Don't you think that its strange that the UK can't train enough nurses (sisters) and has to import nurses from poorer countries? I guess the nationwide (near) monopoly on healthcare, the National Health Service (NHS) will have to start paying market prices for nurses as well as start more training programs instead of relying on importing cheaper labor. To say that there aren't enough Brits to do the nursing in a population of 60 million is ridiculous. The elites in Britain (and perhaps the entire wealthier countries of the EU) basically didn't seem to care (and perhaps encouraged) the importation of labor to drive down market prices of labor both for untrained as well as trained labor. In the case of healthcare, it is simply a means for the government to pay less for healthcare than they would if there were a competitive market instead of their monopoly. It wasn't absolutely necessary to have the free flow of labor as part of the EU trade agreement. For example, NAFTA between US, Canada, and Mexico does not allow for the free flow of labor, only the free flow of good. I can't think of any trade agreements that the US has with other countries that allows for the free flow of labor. The free flow of labor benefits elites (think professional hiring nannies, government running health services, companies running factories, firms running high tech needing software developers) to help depress wages. Now the elites of Britain will have to start paying market rates for their labor.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
    > The elites in Britain basically didn't seem to care (and perhaps encouraged) the importation of labor to drive down market prices of labor both for untrained as well as trained labor And you have hit on a basic truth there. A fair part of the vote to leave was because of economic hardship. A fair part of that is because of the perception of "people coming over here and working for less". But every employee has an employer. Government and business can do a lot to set industrial policy, starting with funding for education (for doctors, nurses etc), and minimum wage levels (for field & factory workers). Emphasis on "can". They didn't.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
ncr100 10y ago
What's the likelihood it will collapse? How could that happen?
woodandsteel 10y ago
Agreed, we need data, not just anecdotes. That said, I imagine a lot of skilled workers are going to reason differently than you and leave.

by blowski 10y ago

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 10y ago

I think that the chances of the Brexit process collapsing just collapsed themselves. The only way to do that was to not trigger Article 50.

jamiethompson 10y ago
Whilst you're perhaps correct, it's still not clear what triggering Article 50 actually means in practice. It's never been done and it's clear that the process was never really designed with a view to ever be invoked.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Well, once that's done as far as I understand it there is no way back, agreement or not, the clock ticks and after 2 years are up the separation is a fact. If people are hoping for a collapse of the Brexit after that point they are delusional, the only way this would reverse after that is by a new application, and I really don't see that ending up with the UK being in a better position after such a process than they have today. All kinds of exceptions were made to keep the UK in the EU, those are extremely unlikely to be granted a second time, especially not if the UK falls apart and Scotland ends up remaining. The British prime minister is now making a strong play to pull Scotland out of the EU against their wishes, we'll likely see a race between the 'brexit' negotiators on the UK side and the Scottish 'remain' camp who will try to stay in without first exiting. This is understandable from all points of view, the British government would rather like to negotiate from a slightly stronger position and the for the Scots because they were told they had to renegotiate their access to the single market if they seceded from the UK. Now that the British wish to exit that point has become moot which will most likely swing the referendum towards the Scots exiting the union. They probably feel quite cheated in Scotland.
  - pimmen 10y ago
    But what that means in practice is another thing entirely. For example, the DPRK and the ROK are still at war with each other, but that just means that they stare down each other at a border. The UK could be officially outside of the EU but to the banks, universities and import-export companies EU cooperation is as much of a reality as ever. Really powerful entities want to keep their shareholders happy by avoiding complicated regulations on international activities, and they have a lot of political influence. The people of London for example are mighty pissed.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Unfortunately, that's not how it works. There is no such thing as 'out' but 'in', and no matter how pissed the people of London are their prime minister has just done something that is essentially irrevocable.
    - CaptainZapp 10y ago
      The UK could be officially outside of the EU but to the banks, universities and import-export companies EU cooperation is as much of a reality as ever. That's the wishful thinking so much projected by the brexiteers. And I believe they're very wrong. While London may remain a financial hub it will lose its importance. Multinational banks and insurances are alredy preparing to move entire departments to the continent. Especially France is extremely hard nosed in not providing the UK financial industry with passporting rights. Frankfurt and Luxembourg are also yapping happily about the prospects of new jobs and businesses. And London is about to lose the privilege to clear deals in Euros. Import / export has a lot to lose too. managing supply chains, without manufacturing just can't function in times of lean production and just-in-time manufacturing, gets incredibly harder and more expensive. Universities? If you believe that they will just shrug it off I'm afraid you're in for a huge surprise. English universities will lose EU research grants. But the worst is that they will lose on foreign talent. Real talented scientists will think hard if they want to move to England in the current xenophobic climate and seek out alternatives. The only bargaining chip that England really has is the defense industry and a pretty strong, experienced army, which helps provide security for Europe. Else then that? Not much. And BTW: Comparing the situation between the EU and England with that in Korea is, well, grasping for straws? in any case it's a really bad, if not ludicrous argument. Despite the defiance showed by some English politicians and the tabloid press I think that in reality England is in for a world of self-inflicted hurt. And mostly those people that enthusiastically voted to leave.
gutnor 10y ago
I also get the feeling that if the process fails during the negotiations, that's the absolute worst way. It will divide the population further and the EU will be the scapegoat again. The UK has had 9 months to mend its divided population. Get the facts back as first class citizen in debates, firmly drive out the hate-fueled arguments out and draw a picture of how they wanted the UK to be, realistic picture, not the Leave campaign fantasy. Finally with that done, let the houses discuss where the EU helped or hindered and then vote to proceed or not. That's not how it happens, dialog didn't happen, the UK is at the same stage of division today (or worse) as it was 9 months ago.
atomwaffel 10y ago
Not quite: > the UK will be able to revoke its notification of article 50 but this must be “subject to conditions set by all EU27 so they cannot be used as a procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the United Kingdom’s membership”. [1] So in short, remaining is less likely than ever but still possible. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-response-to-article-50-takes-tough-line-on-transitional-deal https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/29/first-eu-re...
- jacquesm 10y ago
  True, but May has (repeatedly) threatened to go out 'without a deal' if she can't get terms she likes. The UK has to somehow bluff its way into a negotiation position and I fail to see how all these statements and laws are compatible with each other.
anigbrowl 10y ago
Oh nonsense. If enough people change their minds there will be another referendum or some crisis meetings. 'We can't stop it now,' is self-destructive rationalization.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  That's the UK politicians position, not mine. They could have easily stopped last week. "brexit means brexit" and "no deal we leave anyway". Blustering tough talk but who it is supposed to impress I'm not sure about. The self-destructive element is on the UK side and the sooner they realize it the better.
  - anigbrowl 10y ago
    Agreed. Sorry for being snarky, I'm just frustrated by the stupidity of the whole thing.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      > I'm just frustrated by the stupidity of the whole thing. Join the club. I did not believe that May would be silly enough to push this through as far as she has, it's like watching someone aim a gun at their feet and pulling the trigger in slow motion. She won't be remembered kindly. The UK spent decades pulling itself out of the slump it was in in the mid 80's of the last century, now it is rushing as fast as it can to repeat the experience. The only silver lining I can see here is that if once brexit is a fact the rejoining could happen rapidly after the Scots break away from the union and England and Wales (and possibly Northern Ireland) realize that it's not working out. But say goodbye to the pound and any exceptions the UK has right now in that case. It's an own goal if there ever was one. And no worries about being snarky, it's totally understandable, fortunately I'm on this side of the channel where the impact will be spread out. If I had my eggs in the UK basket I would be a lot less agreeable than merely snarky.

markatkinson 10y ago

The paragraph after the heading 'Why This Matters' sort of addresses the fact that it is anecdotal and how it might still have significance. Personally I find the article does read a bit like scaremongering propaganda.

SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago

If you want data not anecdotes, then it's early days but here you go: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/18/nhs-eu-nurses-quit-record-numbers https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/18/nhs-eu-nurse...

davidf18 10y ago
Don't you think that its strange that the UK can't train enough nurses (sisters) and has to import nurses from poorer countries? I guess the nationwide (near) monopoly on healthcare, the National Health Service (NHS) will have to start paying market prices for nurses as well as start more training programs instead of relying on importing cheaper labor. To say that there aren't enough Brits to do the nursing in a population of 60 million is ridiculous. The elites in Britain (and perhaps the entire wealthier countries of the EU) basically didn't seem to care (and perhaps encouraged) the importation of labor to drive down market prices of labor both for untrained as well as trained labor. In the case of healthcare, it is simply a means for the government to pay less for healthcare than they would if there were a competitive market instead of their monopoly. It wasn't absolutely necessary to have the free flow of labor as part of the EU trade agreement. For example, NAFTA between US, Canada, and Mexico does not allow for the free flow of labor, only the free flow of good. I can't think of any trade agreements that the US has with other countries that allows for the free flow of labor. The free flow of labor benefits elites (think professional hiring nannies, government running health services, companies running factories, firms running high tech needing software developers) to help depress wages. Now the elites of Britain will have to start paying market rates for their labor.
- SideburnsOfDoom 10y ago
  > The elites in Britain basically didn't seem to care (and perhaps encouraged) the importation of labor to drive down market prices of labor both for untrained as well as trained labor And you have hit on a basic truth there. A fair part of the vote to leave was because of economic hardship. A fair part of that is because of the perception of "people coming over here and working for less". But every employee has an employer. Government and business can do a lot to set industrial policy, starting with funding for education (for doctors, nurses etc), and minimum wage levels (for field & factory workers). Emphasis on "can". They didn't.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

ncr100 10y ago

What's the likelihood it will collapse? How could that happen?

woodandsteel 10y ago

Agreed, we need data, not just anecdotes. That said, I imagine a lot of skilled workers are going to reason differently than you and leave.