6 ms·

As a Brit this (Brexit) pisses me off to no end. The fact that my ability to trivially work and live in Europe is now robbed from me because of the Brexit refer

• nine_zeros 4y ago
  In today's world, it is clear that the old voters are robbing the young of a lifestyle that the young want. The old live with a mental model that is far removed from what the young want.
  • LatteLazy 4y ago
    Worse: they're far removed from responsibility. They vote to break things and are insulated from the results.
  • epistasis 4y ago
    Right now your post is heavily downvoted, but I see this trend in the US as well. A generation that benefited from good government generally decided "eh, things are going well, let's make everything harder for our children" and pulled up the ladder that they had just climbed.
  • DeusExMachina 4y ago
    If you want to make it an "old vs. young" argument, then the old have collectively contributed to their country far more than the young. So they definitely have a say in their country's policies. The young from the UK can still apply for a visa, like the young from many other countries not in the EU. They also have a higher chance of getting one, probably.
  • danjac 4y ago
    I think the division was between the educated and non-educated (i.e. early school leavers). As the school leaving age has risen over the past few decades, that happened to track with age. In other words, Brexit voters were what you could diplomatically call "low information voters" (I'd call them "thick racist dipshits" but that's probably why I'm not a politician). Another factor is that the core Brexit (and Conservative) voters are retired home-owners, who are less directly connected to the productive side of the economy. The media they consume keeps them in that fantasy bubble. Take the Daily Express for example, which has reality-defying headlines that would put the North Korean Ministry of Information to shame. So other than some clues (rising prices that can be blamed on global conditions, longer queues at airports that can be blamed on staff shortages and so on) they probably believe Brexit is going just fine.
• TimPC 4y ago
  It doesn’t help that one of the most popular search queries after Brexit was “What’s Brexit?” suggesting a lot of people didn’t even know what they were voting for.
  • fumblebee 4y ago
    Maybe, though impossible to know what proportion of folks who searched that actually voted.
  • macinjosh 4y ago
    Yet you have no evidence to show any significant overlap in the Venn diagram of actual voters and people who searched that term, much less the reason they searched that term.
    • TMWNN 4y ago
      >Yet you have no evidence to show any significant overlap in the Venn diagram of actual voters and people who searched that term, much less the reason they searched that term. The weeping and wailing began the night of the referendum. By the next morning we were confidently told by the press, Reddit, and Twitter that millions of Leave voters were already regretting their vote (and, as per TimPC's claim, were only now trying to find out what Brexit is), and that another referendum was thus the only fair/democratic/correct thing to do. (That even if such millions of Regretters actually existed that does not mean that a revote would occur is a minor technicality.) All part and parcel of the relentless effort since the referendum to invalidate its outcome by any means necessary.
      • Veen 4y ago
        Yes, the behaviour of the #FBPE types and of the EU after the referendum transformed me from a Remainer to a Brexit supporter. I voted to remain, but the contemptuous anti-democratic lunacy of my own side turned me against them.
        • TMWNN 4y ago
• sgt 4y ago
  I'm not sure if I can motivate you with this but - I know it comes with a lot of disadvantages, but the EU is becoming more toxic each year, and also grows in scope with seemingly no end in sight. Being a part of the EU was the wrong call for the UK, in my opinion. Brexit implementation was painful like a bandaid, but in the long term you will benefit from this. The price you'll need to pay is just worse economy for a decade or two, and more difficult travel/work etc, but you will have more freedom as an independent nation. That has real value.
  • javajosh 4y ago
    I haven't seen an HN post that content-free in a very long time. Congratulations?
    • sgt 4y ago
      I could easily be more specific but, why? It's done. Try to focus on the positive aspects of being outside the EU.
      • javajosh 4y ago
        >why? Because without content, a comment is useless, empty propaganda. If you have a position, feel free to argue it by stating your principles, the facts, and how applying the principles to those facts lead you to the position. Otherwise you're noise at best, and a bad-faith actor looking less to persuade others to your view and more to simply damage others by wasting their time, at worst. And frankly, certain positions, like yours, for example, are closely associated with bad faith actors, so you might have to work even harder to assure readers.
        • sgt 4y ago
          Okay, then how about this: By being part of the EU, a country will be spending part of a massive and bureaucratic organization that has failed financial audits for 2 decades (a measurable argument) and basically gives you less and less control over your own actions as a nation. If you happen to be less keen on immigration, then the EU is also a bad place as the enforcement is pretty weak. I think those are pretty reasonable arguments that come down to one thing: autonomy for nation states.
• rvnx 4y ago
  • PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    Do you think that (a majority of) citizens of Germany or France consider themselves to live in a non-sovereign country?
    • oblio 4y ago
      Yes, the famous French citizens under Schulz's boot. Or the famous German citizens under Macron's boot :-D I'm being ironic, I agree with your rhetorical question.
    • rvnx 4y ago
      Yes this is a major issue and topic in France. The second and third highest scoring political groups in France are pro-Russia and anti-Europe, so yes, they complain about that and want their Frexit. In Eastern Europe is very different, people are really united and supportive of Europe because Europe brings defense, values and protection.
      • PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        This is why I said "a majority".
    • TMWNN 4y ago
      Macron admitted in 2018 that the French would probably have voted to leave in a UK-style referendum (<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/21/emmanuel-macron-uk-yes-no-brexit-vote-mistake https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/21/emmanuel-macro...>).
  • oblio 4y ago
    >> You have some advantages, currency control, customs/tariffs controls own decisions for sanitary rules, immigration control, less commitment to war (EU has treaty asking countries to help each other), less spendings, etc... but you still have diplomatic relations which allows you to travel. >> Basically you became a sovereign country. Congratulations on being wrong on almost every point. I'm hoping you're not lying on purpose. >> currency control The UK has its on currency, the GBP. It had it even during EU times... >> customs/tariffs controls own decisions for sanitary rules, immigration control The UK was not a part of Schengen and had border controls while being a EU member. EU member citizens have freedom of movement to other countries, but there are limitations. For example someone committing a crime could be deported and banned... >> less commitment to war (EU has treaty asking countries to help each other) This is sort of valid but the UK is more of a warhawk than the EU so in practice this point is moot. >> less spendings The UK was a net contributor but due to various EU social policies, the money that was returned from the EU was high impact: education, investment in poor regions, etc. At the end of the day, the rich can fend for themselves, the poor and underprivileged can't, and ironically the EU was mostly helping with that. >> but you still have diplomatic relations which allows you to travel They had that before, just an extra seat at many tables as part of the EU.
• PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  What makes it even worse is that Cameron made a verbal committment to ensuring that ex-patriates gone for more than 15 years would be able to vote in the Brexit referendum, and did not make good on that promise. Look, I left the UK 33 years ago, and am a dual citizen of the UK & US. I would never think of voting or in any way participating in regular UK politics - I left, my choice, that's over with. But Brexit was different. It directly affected my rights as a citizen, to travel and work and live freely within the EU, and Cameron's fuck up and lies took that away from me (and my daughter) without my ability to vote on it. I can't say for sure, but there are supposedly about 5.5M expat Brits. How many of them are over the 15 year limit for voting I don't know but I would guess that there are enough that it could have made a difference to the vote. I would also guess that an overwhelming of those (excluding the idiots on the Costa del Sol) would have voted against Brexit.
  • patrec 4y ago
    Not that this excuses false promises, but: why should expatriates who left a country decades ago get any say in pivotal decisions on its future? That seems like a really dumb idea. > But Brexit was different. It directly affected my rights as a citizen You got some nice free perks at no cost to yourself and are now sore that the people who had had a less lopsided exposure (i.e. needed to shoulder costs for benefits you could enjoy without downside) decided, rightly or wrongly, the costs (non-existent to you) were not worth the benefits. I can see how that would be annoying to you personally, and I will not attempt to defend anything else about Brexit, but generally few decision making processes are improved by voluntarily involving more free-riders.
    • PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      > why should expatriates who left a country decades ago get any say in pivotal decisions on its future? That seems like a really dumb idea We don't. If you have not resided there for 15 years or longer, you have no vote. And I'm totally fine with that, it makes sense to me, for a variety of reasons, including that I pay no taxes in the UK, and that to a large degree nothing that happens in the UK affects me directly (it does affect my family, but they all get their own vote). However, most democracies have a general policy of not taking away the rights and priviledges of citizenship without giving those affected a vote to at least nominally affect the decision. I remain a UK citizen and could return there to reside at any time. It is precisely because (a) this is a pivotal decision about the future and (b) it was a decision that would change the status of anyone with UK citizenship, whether or not they resided there, that I felt that someone like myself should have been able to vote. So for example, had Brexit actually been a vote on some sort of reconfiguration of the relationship with the EU that ended up with UK citizens still having the same individual relationship with the EU (unlikely, but you can half imagine it, I think), again, I don't think that people like me should have been able to vote. But when you're going to strip millions of people with the right to permanently reside in the UK of their relationship with the EU, it seems democratic and fair to me that you give them some say. And Cameron apparently felt that way too, or at least voiced that opinion during his final election campaign, but then didn't follow through (not really a surprise).
• olalonde 4y ago
  I am not familiar with the politics of Brexit but surely no one voted because they wanted to lose their right to live and work in Europe? I suppose there was something else that was considered less appealing about being part of the EU?
  • tomstuart 4y ago
    Assuming good faith on the part of Leave voters, there was a sustained political and media campaign of straightforward lies (“the economy will improve”, “immigration will be reduced” etc) which convinced a lot of people.
    • dogma1138 4y ago
      The government campaigned for remain…
      • tomstuart 4y ago
        Yes, sorry, poor choice of words. Fixed.
  • pjc50 4y ago
    They wished to remove the right of Europeans to live and work in the UK. It was repeatedly explained that this was reciprocal.
    • PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      That wasn't the real wish at all. They wished to remove the right of certain kinds of Europeans to live and and work in the UK. That nice white very caucasian French well-educated doctor and their spouse? Not a problem.
      • pjc50 4y ago
        I'm not sure about that; the Poles and Romanians targeted would definitely classify as "white" and "caucasian". But there's no sense in xenophobia.
• javajosh 4y ago
  It sucks, I'm sorry. "Lying to the masses" is a terrifying problem, and one that deserves study. It's like school shootings in America - it horrific when it happens, and we know it's going to happen again. What can you do the next time the masses get lied to? It shames me to say I don't know, either, and I'm not even sure where to start.
  • Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  • native_samples 4y ago
    The masses were indeed lied to a lot during the referendum campaign, but it was primarily by the Remain side: - Osborne: We will impose massive emergency taxes if you are naughty enough to vote leave (a lie). - Cameron: I will definitely not resign as PM if I lose the vote (a lie which made the previous lie more believable, he resigned immediately) - Cameron: I will trigger Article 50 immediately (a lie). - HM Treasury: Voting leave will cause an immediate recession that will destroy 500,000-800,000 jobs according to expert modelling (wrong, baseless) - Clegg: the EU army Brexit supporters talk about is a fantasy (a lie, the first post-brexit EU meeting was dominated by the sudden urgency of setting up an EU army) - Obama in 2016: UK at the "back of the queue" for a US trade deal if voting for Brexit. A lie, turned out Cameron had asked him to say this, by 2018 US Treasury Secretary was saying "UK at front of the queue" for trade deal when ready. - A vote to leave would cause Scotland to leave the union (didn't happen). - John Major, Paddy Ashdown, Nick Clegg: The referendum vote is final and a once in a lifetime decision (a lie, all these politicians agitated for a second referendum) - Cameron: my negotiations secured a "special status" for the UK in EU (a lie sent to every household in the UK via mailshot: everything Cameron got agreement on was either not new or not legally binding). - Osborne: families will be exactly £4300 a week worse off if leaving the EU (an attempt to divide modelled reduction in GDP growth by population which is nonsensical, even the BBC rejected this one). HN is flooded with self proclaimed "EU citizen" types so this perspective is rarely presented here, but the reality is that especially once they realized they might lose, a staggering number of influential media and political elites started lying their pants off to try and ensure they'd win. This probably backfired in the end, as their lies were often quite transparent and led people to wonder what they were all so afraid of.
• nerdawson 4y ago
  I spent a couple of years in Spain more than a decade ago and recognise I was fortunate to do that at the time. Today, post-brexit, it would be significantly harder. The consequences of the vote were clear 6 years back. The problem is since then, there have been endless attempts to deliver a different outcome. To muddy the waters and suggest that actually what people really wanted was prize A, B, or C. We left the EU and articles like this shouldn’t surprise anyone.
• azalemeth 4y ago
  What annoys me even more is that it's just accepted by the mass media. Many of the current ills in the UK are directly or indirectly caused by Brexit, from labour shortages to increased haulage costs leading to a trade deficit and rising food prices. The whole thing has just been an obvious disaster. Specifically, the Office of Budget Responsibility [1] "estimates that our GDP will be 4 per cent lower than it otherwise would be because of Brexit (even without any further deterioration in the UK/EU relationship) and Brexit disruption to supply chains has already contributed to 6 per cent higher food prices". Using the most recent figure for national GDP from the Office for National Statistics [2] of £616.870 b, that's a cost of ~£2.5 bn. Nothing in comparison to the £4bn that the Tories have spent on broken PPE that they propose to burn to generate power [3] but still, a hell of a lot. I will probably vote labour at the next election. It angers me deeply that they aren't campaigning about rejoining the EU – but were I to vote for the lib dems, who are, I fear a Tory would get in. I feel deeply that now, EVERYTHING IS WORSE FOR NO PURPOSE. Why! It's an absolute head-meet-desk (or foot-meet-gun) moment and it just seems to have been...accepted. The Union is breaking apart, we are stuck with an incompetent government by even its own piss-poor standards, with no democratic recourse and no option for undoing the damage done. Urgh. No wonder I've essentially decided to emigrate (to Europe). [1] https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/05/the-economic-cost-of-brexit-is-only-getting-worse https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/05/the-economic-co... [2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp [3] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/10/4bn-of-nhs-covid-ppe-to-be-burned-as-it-is-unusable-says-committee-report https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jun/10/4bn-of-nhs-c...
  • pjc50 4y ago
    > accepted by the mass media. Encouraged by the mass media. Brexit is one of the biggest ever newspaper campaigning successes. They simply had to lie about everything. > EVERYTHING IS WORSE FOR NO PURPOSE. Yes, and it's enraging; we're dealing with a delusional political class who care about nothing but themselves, and the press support them because otherwise the oligarchs who own the papers might face more tax or scrutiny.