2 ms·

Bluntly the issue with Brexit is that the UK had no plan and still has no plan. In any case, it will take a long time to adapt but at least the country should

Bluntly the issue with Brexit is that the UK had no plan and still has no plan. In any case, it will take a long time to adapt but at least the country should have a plan to make the most of it and invest over the long term in that plan. Instead they've just only tried to minimise change and to stay as aligned on the EU as possible. It's not a comment for or against Brexit, it's just an observation that it is really a "go for it or don't do it" situation. Note, too, that one of the key measure that people wanted out of Brexit was to end free movement. If you end free movement there is not many options because that means you are firmly outside of the common market. Norway has free movement, and even Switzerland has. Considering the absolute shamble that is immigration policy in Europe, and still is in the UK, I can't see things evolving towards "rejoining" any time soon.

rich_sasha 2y ago
That was always the argument for Brexit: removing constraints allows you to move to a better local optimum - and for the right price it is worth it. Mathematically, this is undeniably true. The counterargument was that the new optimum isn't much better, the price is too high, and arguably even the UK will not be able to manoeuvre itself to that new optimum (like, execute better trade deals, or replace wonky regulation with less wonky ones). So I guess you are saying (?) Brexit is still a net positive because the potential upside is still there. People like me say that upside is not actually realizable under real world conditions - and so far that seems to hold. You mention free movement, and if anything, UK immigration is more shambolic, not less, compared to pre-Brexit. I guess it is hard to know. Is colonising Mars merely an engineering problem or major challenge to science? I guess either, depending on how you look at it.

rich_sasha 2y ago

That was always the argument for Brexit: removing constraints allows you to move to a better local optimum - and for the right price it is worth it. Mathematically, this is undeniably true. The counterargument was that the new optimum isn't much better, the price is too high, and arguably even the UK will not be able to manoeuvre itself to that new optimum (like, execute better trade deals, or replace wonky regulation with less wonky ones). So I guess you are saying (?) Brexit is still a net positive because the potential upside is still there. People like me say that upside is not actually realizable under real world conditions - and so far that seems to hold. You mention free movement, and if anything, UK immigration is more shambolic, not less, compared to pre-Brexit. I guess it is hard to know. Is colonising Mars merely an engineering problem or major challenge to science? I guess either, depending on how you look at it.