4 ms·

I still struggle to see the positives of Brexit, this seems like a major setback for Britain's economy, how could they have not seen this coming and still had t

by f430 6y ago

I still struggle to see the positives of Brexit, this seems like a major setback for Britain's economy, how could they have not seen this coming and still had the political determination to follow through with something against their economic interests?

Jtsummers 6y ago
It was put to a popular referendum. For better or worse, those don't always result in the best (for themselves) outcome as many people (maybe even most) vote more on emotion than reason. If it had been left to the government to establish this policy, they likely wouldn't have followed through or they would have had a further out deadline, to allow the transition to new treaties and agreements that would've helped preserve the positive aspects of their pre-Brexit relationship with the EU.
anigbrowl 6y ago
Some people would rather be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big one.
bsd44 6y ago
Are you really that naive to believe none of this had been calculated? The decision to leave didn't come on a whim, it's been in the works for a decade if not longer. The British are probably the most cunning of all nations and they know very well what they are doing. There will be setbacks in the short-term, but the UK as a whole will be much better off outside EU. I am European before people start accusing me of being a Brexiteer.
- hermitcrab 6y ago
  As a British person I think you are giving us far too much credit. The whole thing has been driven by an unpleasant cocktail of ignorance, xenophobia, nostalgia for a lost empire and a sprinkle of disaster capitalism. There is no cunning masterplan.
  - bsd44 6y ago
    There is a plan and you will see the results of it as soon as in the next 10-15 years. European Union is a failed experiment and the British have realised that. It acts as a union only on paper, in reality it's a complete disaster and sooner rather than later it will collapse like Yugoslavia. The British saw through that and decided to leave the sinking ship. Good for them, I wish my country never joined the EU in the first place.
    - hermitcrab 6y ago
      There hasn't been a war between Britain, France and Germany in 75 years. That is quite a success in my book.
      - mrlonglong 6y ago
        Churchill was in favour of the EEC (Forerunner to the EU) to prevent future wars. He got it right.
    - Rexxar 6y ago
      UK's economy was a disaster at the end of the seventies and beginning of eighties. They come in EU poor and leave rich, it's very strange to call this a failed experiment.
      - bsd44 6y ago
        Norway was also poor in the 70s and they're rich now. They refused to join the EU twice. The richest, most advanced union of countries in the entire world, consisting of 300-400mil people couldn't help Italy with an earthquake aftermath so it had to turn a blind eye when the Russians sent help. What a shambles. This very same union couldn't deal the migrant crisis and it can't deal with the corona virus now. What a complete disaster. This is where it shows that there's no union in European Union. It only exists on paper, it doesn't act like an union and never will. New members only serve as a free market of cheap labour and infrastructure and its eastern members have started making their own political decisions lately, some of them clashing with the EU directives. What union, you must be having a laugh!
Jefff8 6y ago
There are several prevailing schools of thought: - True hard-core Brexiteers really do care about sovereignty. They are nationalists.They want nobody but themselves to have any element of control. If that means the destruction of the economy, they are fine with that, like nationalists everywhere. - The Conservative party has been interested in the idea of the UK as Singapore-upon-Thames. Partly this is about reducing the role of the state (and thus taxes, one might think) and partly about re-introducing a vibrant manufacturing economy. Many of the people who punted this idea are also Brexiteers. Being a member of the EU was a barrier to establishing a low-wage economy that can compete with the East. They view the EU as outdated because it's a rule-based organisation. There are rules on social standards, product safety, animal health and a huge array of other matters. These people will tolerate temporary economic setbacks (ten years?) in the pursuit of jam in the future. - Opportunists. People who are motivated by power, and will be wherever there's the opportunity to be in control. They will sacrifice anybody else in its pursuit.
- dekervin 6y ago
  Thanks for putting those points in a very coherent framework. Looked at it this way, it's quite an asymmetric gamble.
- f430 6y ago
  > Singapore-upon-Thames what does this mean?
  - detaro 6y ago
    There is the idea of Singapore as a small plucky low-tax, small-government country that's extremely high growth and well-off by being at "the gates to Asia" as a trade and manufacturing hub. And the idea is that an independent UK could be the same for the (slow, inflexible) EU. Which ignores that Singapore actually has high government investments in industries and does the hub role so well because it has good trade integration with its neighbors. Which the UK had in the EU, but could only expect to keep in a Brexit that strongly aligns it with EU policy (which would stop it from giving too much preferential treatment to its own industries etc)
- 6y ago
float4 6y ago
For starters the British have a decent vaccination rate at the moment. Vaccination in the EU is quite abysmal so far.
mmmmmbop 6y ago
Let me preface this by saying that I'm European and that I'd like the EU to be successful (and consequently, for Brexit to have been a mistake). That said, a lot of the reporting on how Brexit is so obviously a bad economic decision reminds me of what was written in the aftermath of the Swiss referendum not to join the EEC in 1992 (see e.g. this New York Times article from the day after the vote [0]). Similarly to Brexit, voters decided very narrowly (50.3%) against close integration with the EU, seemingly renouncing economic opportunities because of immigration fears and a desire for sovereignty. Now, almost 30 years after that referendum, the data does not support the thesis that the Swiss choice harmed economic development -- quite the contrary. Switzerland has seen a higher absolute and relative GDP per capita growth than any of its neighboring (non-microstate) countries [1]. I do think that the Swiss government was more skillful in negotiating their future relationship with the EU than what we have seen from the British government so far. Still, my takeaway is not to blindly believe the economic "experts" who predict the long-term economic impact of such a decision. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/07/world/swiss-reject-tie-to-wider-europe.html https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/07/world/swiss-reject-tie-to... [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2019&locations=CH-DE-AT-FR-IT-EU-XC&start=1992 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2019...
- addicted 6y ago
  The first article you have quoted does not support your claim that the reporting was that it was an obviously bad decision to not join. In fact, here’s the first half of the first sentence from that article: > Choosing the security of their traditional isolation and neutrality over the risks and opportunities offered by Europe It mentions both risks and opportunities, which hardly sounds like a claim that there is an obvious economic cost. Most of the article was about how it reflects a growing divide between the industrial/business and rural sides of Switzerland. The closest statement claiming that there would be downsides refers not to joining the EEC specifically, but regional blocs in general. > The country's political and economic establishment argued that the country would lose its competitive edge if it resisted the movement toward regional economic blocs. Some leading business executives and bankers even warned that investment would drop and unemployment would grow. And while Switzerland has not joined the EU, it has definitely greatly integrated with the EU, even adopting EU laws in order to be access the single market.

by f430 6y ago

Jtsummers 6y ago

It was put to a popular referendum. For better or worse, those don't always result in the best (for themselves) outcome as many people (maybe even most) vote more on emotion than reason. If it had been left to the government to establish this policy, they likely wouldn't have followed through or they would have had a further out deadline, to allow the transition to new treaties and agreements that would've helped preserve the positive aspects of their pre-Brexit relationship with the EU.

anigbrowl 6y ago

Some people would rather be a big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big one.

bsd44 6y ago

Are you really that naive to believe none of this had been calculated? The decision to leave didn't come on a whim, it's been in the works for a decade if not longer. The British are probably the most cunning of all nations and they know very well what they are doing. There will be setbacks in the short-term, but the UK as a whole will be much better off outside EU. I am European before people start accusing me of being a Brexiteer.

hermitcrab 6y ago
As a British person I think you are giving us far too much credit. The whole thing has been driven by an unpleasant cocktail of ignorance, xenophobia, nostalgia for a lost empire and a sprinkle of disaster capitalism. There is no cunning masterplan.
- bsd44 6y ago
  There is a plan and you will see the results of it as soon as in the next 10-15 years. European Union is a failed experiment and the British have realised that. It acts as a union only on paper, in reality it's a complete disaster and sooner rather than later it will collapse like Yugoslavia. The British saw through that and decided to leave the sinking ship. Good for them, I wish my country never joined the EU in the first place.
  - hermitcrab 6y ago
    There hasn't been a war between Britain, France and Germany in 75 years. That is quite a success in my book.
    - mrlonglong 6y ago
      Churchill was in favour of the EEC (Forerunner to the EU) to prevent future wars. He got it right.
  - Rexxar 6y ago
    UK's economy was a disaster at the end of the seventies and beginning of eighties. They come in EU poor and leave rich, it's very strange to call this a failed experiment.
    - bsd44 6y ago
      Norway was also poor in the 70s and they're rich now. They refused to join the EU twice. The richest, most advanced union of countries in the entire world, consisting of 300-400mil people couldn't help Italy with an earthquake aftermath so it had to turn a blind eye when the Russians sent help. What a shambles. This very same union couldn't deal the migrant crisis and it can't deal with the corona virus now. What a complete disaster. This is where it shows that there's no union in European Union. It only exists on paper, it doesn't act like an union and never will. New members only serve as a free market of cheap labour and infrastructure and its eastern members have started making their own political decisions lately, some of them clashing with the EU directives. What union, you must be having a laugh!

Jefff8 6y ago

There are several prevailing schools of thought: - True hard-core Brexiteers really do care about sovereignty. They are nationalists.They want nobody but themselves to have any element of control. If that means the destruction of the economy, they are fine with that, like nationalists everywhere. - The Conservative party has been interested in the idea of the UK as Singapore-upon-Thames. Partly this is about reducing the role of the state (and thus taxes, one might think) and partly about re-introducing a vibrant manufacturing economy. Many of the people who punted this idea are also Brexiteers. Being a member of the EU was a barrier to establishing a low-wage economy that can compete with the East. They view the EU as outdated because it's a rule-based organisation. There are rules on social standards, product safety, animal health and a huge array of other matters. These people will tolerate temporary economic setbacks (ten years?) in the pursuit of jam in the future. - Opportunists. People who are motivated by power, and will be wherever there's the opportunity to be in control. They will sacrifice anybody else in its pursuit.

dekervin 6y ago
Thanks for putting those points in a very coherent framework. Looked at it this way, it's quite an asymmetric gamble.
f430 6y ago
> Singapore-upon-Thames what does this mean?
- detaro 6y ago
  There is the idea of Singapore as a small plucky low-tax, small-government country that's extremely high growth and well-off by being at "the gates to Asia" as a trade and manufacturing hub. And the idea is that an independent UK could be the same for the (slow, inflexible) EU. Which ignores that Singapore actually has high government investments in industries and does the hub role so well because it has good trade integration with its neighbors. Which the UK had in the EU, but could only expect to keep in a Brexit that strongly aligns it with EU policy (which would stop it from giving too much preferential treatment to its own industries etc)
6y ago

float4 6y ago

For starters the British have a decent vaccination rate at the moment. Vaccination in the EU is quite abysmal so far.

mmmmmbop 6y ago

Let me preface this by saying that I'm European and that I'd like the EU to be successful (and consequently, for Brexit to have been a mistake). That said, a lot of the reporting on how Brexit is so obviously a bad economic decision reminds me of what was written in the aftermath of the Swiss referendum not to join the EEC in 1992 (see e.g. this New York Times article from the day after the vote [0]). Similarly to Brexit, voters decided very narrowly (50.3%) against close integration with the EU, seemingly renouncing economic opportunities because of immigration fears and a desire for sovereignty. Now, almost 30 years after that referendum, the data does not support the thesis that the Swiss choice harmed economic development -- quite the contrary. Switzerland has seen a higher absolute and relative GDP per capita growth than any of its neighboring (non-microstate) countries [1]. I do think that the Swiss government was more skillful in negotiating their future relationship with the EU than what we have seen from the British government so far. Still, my takeaway is not to blindly believe the economic "experts" who predict the long-term economic impact of such a decision. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/07/world/swiss-reject-tie-to-wider-europe.html https://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/07/world/swiss-reject-tie-to... [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2019&locations=CH-DE-AT-FR-IT-EU-XC&start=1992 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2019...

addicted 6y ago
The first article you have quoted does not support your claim that the reporting was that it was an obviously bad decision to not join. In fact, here’s the first half of the first sentence from that article: > Choosing the security of their traditional isolation and neutrality over the risks and opportunities offered by Europe It mentions both risks and opportunities, which hardly sounds like a claim that there is an obvious economic cost. Most of the article was about how it reflects a growing divide between the industrial/business and rural sides of Switzerland. The closest statement claiming that there would be downsides refers not to joining the EEC specifically, but regional blocs in general. > The country's political and economic establishment argued that the country would lose its competitive edge if it resisted the movement toward regional economic blocs. Some leading business executives and bankers even warned that investment would drop and unemployment would grow. And while Switzerland has not joined the EU, it has definitely greatly integrated with the EU, even adopting EU laws in order to be access the single market.