5 ms·

I must admit I had skimmed the article a bit, and on second reading it seems to talk more about some vague kind of information flow. I think that is just - vag

I must admit I had skimmed the article a bit, and on second reading it seems to talk more about some vague kind of information flow. I think that is just - vague. It's not even a concrete threat that can be discussed. What exactly is the point? There will be no information flow after the EU? Same argument as before applies: countries have exchanged information for Millenia before the EU. And if they mean "knowledge workers" - highly skilled workers are usually welcome as migrants, aren't they? As for building "moats" and "walls", I think that is very propagandistic language. Just because you have a moat, doesn't mean people can't come to you. It just means you can decide who is allowed to come and go. These walls and moats have doors and bridges. Just like everybody's home. As a European, I don't feel particularly connected to other EU countries, by the way. I have no regular exchange with Greek or Italian people. The EU has made some web sites inaccessible to me, so at the moment it is rather the opposite of "connected". Usually, people communicate freely on the internet, independent of trade agreements. Unless they are stuck in socialist countries like China - and where would I go if Europe would turn into one? I prefer having some smaller countries to fall back on in case of emergency.

georgespencer 7y ago
> What exactly is the point? Something like: "We are better with closer ties and connections to the European Union. Brexit furthers us from them." > countries have exchanged information [...] before the EU This is true but quite a simplification. I don't mean to be rude, but for the sake of a simple analogy, think of Donald Trump when he was questioned about the need for cyber security: he began talking about how good his ten year old son is with computers. For a slightly more nuanced perspective: only EU Member states can be members of Europol and benefit from full access to SIENA, which is one of the most sophisticated and well-developed cross-border intelligence networks in the world. When the UK leaves the European Union, our ability for full membership ceases and we must enter into a separate form of agreement for limited participation in information sharing and forgo any kind of strategic or governance over the initiative. So, yes, we can continue to exchange information. But the ways in which we do that change meaningfully, and to the extent that people I know who work in the security services are dismayed by the thoughtlessness of the discourse. > highly skilled workers are usually welcome as migrants, aren't they? Again, this strikes me as simplistic. There seems to be a belief amongst some (not necessarily you) that it's simply one type of form for an EU state importing to the UK, and a different type for a non-EU member. What we are seeing is the erosion of one of, if not the most open, comprehensive trading blocs ever devised. It is not being replaced by like-for-like systems and benefits for trade and immigration precisely because there is already a system for that: it's called membership of the EU. So take it as read that on a structural level trade and immigration cannot be as simple as they were on reciprocal EU terms. The EU will not allow it. So it's getting harder to trade with the UK or migrate here. The UK will likely see some short term wins -- small UK offices for organisations, commensurate with our market size -- but our strong position for the establishment of European HQs is significantly damaged. In a world where skilled migrants can work anywhere, why would they be going to the country which just opted to make it harder to do business? Which has seen its currency collapse since the minutes after the vote in 2016? There are no firm answers in either direction, but you have to do quite a lot of gymnastics to explain why making it harder to trade with us is better in any way. > As for building "moats" and "walls", I think that is very propagandistic language. It's very simple. We are making it harder to trade with the European Union. We are making it harder to migrate to and from the European Union. These are not qualitative statements. It's up to you whether you see this as a necessary moat, or a wall of requirement; or a pointless wall. Same as with Trump and his southern border wall. Some people in the US feel it's urgently needed. Others think those who believe it will have benefits are fantasists. But either way the wall is real. > Just because you have a moat, doesn't mean people can't come to you. It just means you can decide who is allowed to come and go. Again, very simplistic. I'll refer you back to the Europol explanation to illustrate how just because something is technically possible, does not mean it is still as likely once it is made artificially difficult. The United Kingdom, many would argue, is not going to be in position to dictate who is allowed to come and go, in a business sense. We will lose the fight for major investment outside of the financial services sector to European nation states.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  "Europol" - sure, OK. But international police does still cooperate, don't they? Why is Europol so important, if you are not in Europe? Presumably it is about catching EU criminals? Also I don't claim EU only has negative aspects. But it also doesn't just have positive aspects. "What we are seeing is the erosion of one of, if not the most open, comprehensive trading blocs ever devised." Is it, though? After all, there seem to be an awful lot of regulations on what you are allowed to trade and on what terms. It is not simple a free market once you join the EU. Otherwise, why would the contracts be so complicated? "So take it as read that on a structural level trade and immigration cannot be as simple as they were on reciprocal EU terms. The EU will not allow it." Again, I don't find that to be a good argument for the EU. They want to be the paragons of freedom in the Western world. If they then treat other countries like you suggest they will, it doesn't look very credible. And maybe there IS something to be said for pride. Maybe you don't have to take every too good to be true trade offer, if in exchange you are being humiliated. "So it's getting harder to trade with the UK or migrate here" With respect to migration, that seems to be the point of Brexit :-) Still, again, those things happened before the EU. The UK is also still in Europe. Personally, as a German, I don't feel British people are any less European, EU or not. "In a world where skilled migrants can work anywhere, why would they be going to the country which just opted to make it harder to do business?" Some things may be harder, some things easier, though. Again, the regulations - just think of Upload Filters and GDPR, for example. What's wrong with choice? EU will end up being a mono-culture, take it or leave it. I find it a rather creepy outlook, especially with Socialism gaining popularity again. I think many people will come to the UK for the same reasons they always did. They already know the language or want to learn it, and they like the culture. "Which has seen its currency collapse since the minutes after the vote in 2016?" I don't know - if currency is high, economic comment will be "it is bad for our export business", if currency is low they will cry "we are losing our buying power". It's hard to tell what is true. I also remember when the Euro was introduced in Germany - felt like buying power was halved over night. Many price tags remained the same, but one Euro cost 2 DM... "We will lose the fight for major investment outside of the financial services sector to European nation states. " It doesn't seem inevitable to me. In fact many small countries seem to make a living from offering favorable deals to finance businesses, that the big behemoths somehow can't offer. So it seems possible that the UK could maintain an edge over EU finance businesses. And finance - aren't people trading all over the world? Again, why would the UK be barred from doing financial business with the EU? "We are making it harder to migrate to and from the European Union." Might have upsides and downsides. I can not simply migrate to the US even though I am an European citizen. Nevertheless the US economy seems to be going strong.

georgespencer 7y ago

> What exactly is the point? Something like: "We are better with closer ties and connections to the European Union. Brexit furthers us from them." > countries have exchanged information [...] before the EU This is true but quite a simplification. I don't mean to be rude, but for the sake of a simple analogy, think of Donald Trump when he was questioned about the need for cyber security: he began talking about how good his ten year old son is with computers. For a slightly more nuanced perspective: only EU Member states can be members of Europol and benefit from full access to SIENA, which is one of the most sophisticated and well-developed cross-border intelligence networks in the world. When the UK leaves the European Union, our ability for full membership ceases and we must enter into a separate form of agreement for limited participation in information sharing and forgo any kind of strategic or governance over the initiative. So, yes, we can continue to exchange information. But the ways in which we do that change meaningfully, and to the extent that people I know who work in the security services are dismayed by the thoughtlessness of the discourse. > highly skilled workers are usually welcome as migrants, aren't they? Again, this strikes me as simplistic. There seems to be a belief amongst some (not necessarily you) that it's simply one type of form for an EU state importing to the UK, and a different type for a non-EU member. What we are seeing is the erosion of one of, if not the most open, comprehensive trading blocs ever devised. It is not being replaced by like-for-like systems and benefits for trade and immigration precisely because there is already a system for that: it's called membership of the EU. So take it as read that on a structural level trade and immigration cannot be as simple as they were on reciprocal EU terms. The EU will not allow it. So it's getting harder to trade with the UK or migrate here. The UK will likely see some short term wins -- small UK offices for organisations, commensurate with our market size -- but our strong position for the establishment of European HQs is significantly damaged. In a world where skilled migrants can work anywhere, why would they be going to the country which just opted to make it harder to do business? Which has seen its currency collapse since the minutes after the vote in 2016? There are no firm answers in either direction, but you have to do quite a lot of gymnastics to explain why making it harder to trade with us is better in any way. > As for building "moats" and "walls", I think that is very propagandistic language. It's very simple. We are making it harder to trade with the European Union. We are making it harder to migrate to and from the European Union. These are not qualitative statements. It's up to you whether you see this as a necessary moat, or a wall of requirement; or a pointless wall. Same as with Trump and his southern border wall. Some people in the US feel it's urgently needed. Others think those who believe it will have benefits are fantasists. But either way the wall is real. > Just because you have a moat, doesn't mean people can't come to you. It just means you can decide who is allowed to come and go. Again, very simplistic. I'll refer you back to the Europol explanation to illustrate how just because something is technically possible, does not mean it is still as likely once it is made artificially difficult. The United Kingdom, many would argue, is not going to be in position to dictate who is allowed to come and go, in a business sense. We will lose the fight for major investment outside of the financial services sector to European nation states.

bubblewrap 7y ago
"Europol" - sure, OK. But international police does still cooperate, don't they? Why is Europol so important, if you are not in Europe? Presumably it is about catching EU criminals? Also I don't claim EU only has negative aspects. But it also doesn't just have positive aspects. "What we are seeing is the erosion of one of, if not the most open, comprehensive trading blocs ever devised." Is it, though? After all, there seem to be an awful lot of regulations on what you are allowed to trade and on what terms. It is not simple a free market once you join the EU. Otherwise, why would the contracts be so complicated? "So take it as read that on a structural level trade and immigration cannot be as simple as they were on reciprocal EU terms. The EU will not allow it." Again, I don't find that to be a good argument for the EU. They want to be the paragons of freedom in the Western world. If they then treat other countries like you suggest they will, it doesn't look very credible. And maybe there IS something to be said for pride. Maybe you don't have to take every too good to be true trade offer, if in exchange you are being humiliated. "So it's getting harder to trade with the UK or migrate here" With respect to migration, that seems to be the point of Brexit :-) Still, again, those things happened before the EU. The UK is also still in Europe. Personally, as a German, I don't feel British people are any less European, EU or not. "In a world where skilled migrants can work anywhere, why would they be going to the country which just opted to make it harder to do business?" Some things may be harder, some things easier, though. Again, the regulations - just think of Upload Filters and GDPR, for example. What's wrong with choice? EU will end up being a mono-culture, take it or leave it. I find it a rather creepy outlook, especially with Socialism gaining popularity again. I think many people will come to the UK for the same reasons they always did. They already know the language or want to learn it, and they like the culture. "Which has seen its currency collapse since the minutes after the vote in 2016?" I don't know - if currency is high, economic comment will be "it is bad for our export business", if currency is low they will cry "we are losing our buying power". It's hard to tell what is true. I also remember when the Euro was introduced in Germany - felt like buying power was halved over night. Many price tags remained the same, but one Euro cost 2 DM... "We will lose the fight for major investment outside of the financial services sector to European nation states. " It doesn't seem inevitable to me. In fact many small countries seem to make a living from offering favorable deals to finance businesses, that the big behemoths somehow can't offer. So it seems possible that the UK could maintain an edge over EU finance businesses. And finance - aren't people trading all over the world? Again, why would the UK be barred from doing financial business with the EU? "We are making it harder to migrate to and from the European Union." Might have upsides and downsides. I can not simply migrate to the US even though I am an European citizen. Nevertheless the US economy seems to be going strong.