
Theresa May: UK must leave European single market - jaimebuelta
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38641208
======
emptyfile
"It's your job, the job of business, to gear yourselves up to take the
opportunities which a single market of nearly 320 million people will offer.

Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without
barriers—visible or invisible—giving you direct and unhindered access to the
purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most
prosperous people.

Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with
the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it.

It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for
real."

Margaret Thatcher 1988

~~~
coldtea
> _It 's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real._

Actually it was a bureaucratic plan all along, and badly managed.

And you still can have great access to the same 320 million market even
outside of it (like e.g. China or Japan have) -- with the extra benefit that
you don't have a German-controlled ECB to impose you rules and monetary
policy.

~~~
gotchange
> you don't have a German-controlled ECB to impose you rules and monetary
> policy.

The UK had its own currency and central bank from the get go. What are you're
referring to exactly here?

~~~
raverbashing
It's funny how Brexiter arguments usually come from the same collection of
"misunderstandings" and lies

------
lwhi
I find her language very problematic. I didn't vote to leave—so when she
claims to be speaking for the British people, I'm left wondering how my voice
can count. I'm part of 48% of 72.2%; a lot of people are likely to share my
concern.

We need a general election. She speaks of what 'she wants'—the most
problematic part of this surreal theatrical horror story is fact we the
country didn't vote for her.

I don't want this government to make such fundamental changes without the
mandate of the people.

~~~
raesene6
To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election (especially
using a First Past the Post system) as it's more focused on a single topic and
is (partially) free of the baggage of party alliegance.

Given the percentage of the electorate who supported the current government at
the last general election, it doesn't seem likely that you'd get a clearer
mandate from a new one.

It seems to me that Mrs May didn't have a lot of choice here, a large portion
of the exit vote (which won) was predicated on "control the borders" and the
only way that can be delivered is by leaving the single market, anything else
is evidently not delivering the will of the majority.

(before you assuming I'm a brexiter, I'm not, personally I think it's a
terrible idea, however we live in a democracy and the exit vote won, simple as
that)

~~~
rusk
I have voted in a great many referendums here in Ireland. They typically arise
when a constitutional amendment is required, and the language in them is
pretty clear and unequivocal.

You are presented with the actual literal constitutional changes and whether
they are acceptable or not. Usually (but far less so than I would like) there
is a public debate about the pros and cons of the proposed changes. The
discussion isn't merely polarised, sometimes you will have people who agree
with the general principle of the change, but object in terms of the actual
proposed amendment. Perhaps on the grounds that it doesn't go far enough.
Perhaps on the grounds that the specific wording leaves open other dangerous
consequences.

As far as I understand it, the Brexit poll presented voters with the options
"Remain" and "Leave". There wasn't any definitive statement on what "Leave"
means. Of course it literally means "Hard Brexit" but I don't believe this is
what most people had in mind, nor were they adequately briefed on the
consequences.

The connection to Article 50 of the EU constitution as a means to "Leave"
seems to have been made post hoc.

If you dispute that most British people made this decision knowingly I urge
you to read Dominic Cummings' gleeful account of how he believes he captured
and manipulated the Brexit vote [0] (it's a fascinating read by the way, and I
do have a huge amount of respect for the guy, though his underlying motives
seem somewhat veiled).

I agree it seems unlikely at this stage a second referendum would yield a
different result. We are definitely in one of these "it's going to get worse
before it gets better" situations.

However, you do have an unelected government interpreting the meaning of _"
Leave"_ and presenting a vision of what post-Brexit Britain should look like,
and that in particular is what's worrying.

[0] [https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-
refe...](https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2016/10/29/on-the-
referendum-20-the-campaign-physics-and-data-science-vote-leaves-voter-
intention-collection-system-vics-now-available-for-all/)

~~~
raesene6
oh no I'm not suggesting that people knew what they were getting into in full,
but then given that this is entirely unchartered territory I don't see how
that could have worked really. This has never been done before and therefore
no-one knows what it means.

Both sides of the campaign, in my view, heavily had the Fear Uncertainty and
Doubt angles playing, but then that's no different to most/all UK elections
(just look at the scottish referendum for another example)

However what I do think is that the leave campaign rhetoric (which won)
largely revolved around border control and immigration, and any outcome that
didn't involve a change here wouldn't be respecting the "will of the people".
It's been clear since the vote that the EU (rightly in my opinion) won't budge
on this point so the PM had to either do what she's done or basically
disregard the result of the referendum.

I will disagree with one point you've made. The current government isn't
unelected. In the UK we vote for a party not a person, and reshuffles and
changes of PM without a general election have been a factor of UK political
life for a very long time.

I'd love to see that change, but it's the system we currently have, and under
that system this government is as elected as any other.

~~~
rusk
It's completely my fault, using the terms incorrectly, but you've
misunderstood my point. Thus neatly illustrating how slippery language can be.

From a legal and constitutional standpoint your current government is indeed
"elected" (as is the present "minority government" here in Ireland). However I
would posit that from a moral standpoint there _should_ be another election.

The public mandate imparted by Brexit is murky at best and necessitates a
return to the polls. The most obvious means to that is a general election.

I think taking the campaign rhetoric as some kind of instruction is
undemocratic in the extreme. Also taking opinion polls is obviously flawed.
They are instructive but if you're taking them into account, how can you
ignore more recent polls that show a gradual drift towards "Remain"?

I suppose you _" could"_ have a second referendum where the specific terms of
"Leave" were specified ... but I can't see that going down too well as a
suggestion.

~~~
raesene6
Ah well any discussion of morals and politics (as practiced in most countries)
is unlikely to go well ;o)

The problem I see with reverting to a general election is that unless all
parties campaign purely on an exact list of what they will and won't do with
regards to the EU, the mandate provided would be no clearer than the one
derived from the referendum.

A general election would mess the EU issue in with things like labour's
infighting and legacy issues with the lib dems (a lot of their traditional
vote don't seem to trust them after their deal with the previous tory
government)

The reality is that a general election campaign would involve more campaign
rhetoric and politicians would be just as tied as they usually are to keeping
promises after the fact (i.e. not at all)

For me, whilst the precision of what was being voted for is unclear, the idea
that a result after a win for the leave campaign wouldn't involve some kind of
change to immigration policy is just unbelievable and because of the binary
nature of the decision, todays outcome was inevitable.

~~~
rusk
Indeed, such an election could not be seen as an interpretation of the will of
the people purely on Brexit. But Brexit does represent such a seismic event in
recent British history that the British people do deserve a say in the
government that leads them on from it.

You could for instance see a party campaigning on a platform of making
government more democratic for instance, which wouldn't have anything directly
to do with Brexit but might give piece of mind as you move onward into the
abyss.

Of course with the actual state of all the other parties at the moment (SNP
excluded) it's hard to imagine a wildly different result to what you have
right now, but I guess in a way it's _" the principle of the thing"_.

~~~
raesene6
I guess it's the problem of unprecedented events, that there are no systems in
place to deal with them, which leads to a bad fit as people try to make the
event fit existing options.

At the moment, I just can't get past the fact that without leaving the single
market, they can't address the core concerns of the winning side (at least as
I see those core conerns, and here we're back to the problem that these were
never really accurately articulated past political rhetoric), so this path
seems inevitable.

I'd love to see political reform in the UK to get a more representative form
of government, but I fear absent a major resurgance in the fortunes of the Lib
Dems, that doesn't seem like a likely prospect...

------
paskster
Europe is not a single market at all. Simple thinks like making sure your
invoice is paid from a customer who is based in another european country is
practically impossible.

I know because I am the CEO of a staffing company in Germany: national as well
as international businesses book exhibition staff and other temporary
employees for events in Germany and Austria through our platform.

If one of our german customers does not pay, we can easily use the german
legal system to ensure that we get our money. If we have to sue, our legal
system makes sure that we are reimbursed if we win in court. But if for
example an Italian business is using our service and they don't pay our
invoice, we have no way to get our money. We technically could appeal to a
court in Italy, get a lawyer in Italy, translate all documents to Italian and
sue in Italy. But this would cost at least 20.000 EUR in total which are not
reimbursed even if we win in court.

That is why businesses who are not based in Germany have to pay upfront. I
cannot call the EU a single market, if my business has to treat a customer
from EU the same like any other customer around the world.

So, maybe the UK will have some disadvantages if they are not part of the EU
anymore. But they are not leaving a "single market" because the EU never was a
single market. I guess they will be just fine without the EU.

~~~
kuschku
> Europe is not a single market at all.

Oh, it’s already a lot better than it was before. But you are right, a fuckton
of work is required to make it even slightly competitive with the US, China,
or India.

But we should work towards that – and not split it up even further.

~~~
virmundi
Isn't one of the issues with the EU government that it's recalcitrant to
reform? Brussels feels like they have a cozy little cocoon. Any attempts to
make them work for the people in a meaningful way get rebuffed.

~~~
dx034
They actually work a lot for the people. The reason the EU is often unpopular
with businesses is due to laws protecting people (labor laws, customer
protection, minimum standards, ...). I'd argue that is politic for the people,
just not for businesses.

------
headmelted
For anyone not familiar with British political etiquette, the phrase:

"the UK cannot remain within the European single market, as staying in it
would mean not leaving the EU at all"

can be interpreted as:

"I told them they better give us a special exception for single market access
and no immigration and they laughed at me".

~~~
akjainaj
Which is funny because if the EU is to survive, immigration controls will have
to be put in place. Many countries are already demanding to control their
borders. So when that happens, the UK will feel stupid for leaving, I suppose.
They could've just waited.

~~~
bru
There are currently such controls for the EU, actually, and done on the French
side of the channel. Those may go as well.

~~~
cs02rm0
Only at Calais are they on the French side. They're on the UK side elsewhere.

~~~
cs02rm0
Why the downvote?

 _With the exception of the Eurotunnel route, customs checks remain unaffected
by juxtaposed immigration controls and continue to take place upon arrival
after disembarkation._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls)

------
donmatito
This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I
don't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a common
destiny and a shared set of values is.

I hope the best for Europe and UK on their separate path. Given the mess, a
clean cut is probably in the best interest of both sides

~~~
coldtea
> _This is such a pity. European Union is (was ?) an incredible achievement. I
> don 't think we realize exactly how improbable uniting Europe around a
> common destiny and a shared set of values is._

Only we never done that. We just allowed for easy border access, united a few
laws, and had central bureaucrats and heavier countries step on the throats of
lesser ones.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
I'm from one of those "lesser" countries - Greece. I can assure you that
nobody "stepped on our throat". For years we thrived as part of the EU, until
the economic crisis hit and messed it all up. The Germans actually tried to
help, in the way they thought was best, and despite appearances of heavy-
handedness, nobody tried to force us to leave, which would have been the end
of us.

If you remember what happened a couple of years ago, when Syriza came to
power, and Yiannis Varoufakis became finance minister, we threatened to leave
the EU if our (vague and silly) terms were not accepted. The rest of the EU
refused steadfastly, but nobody ever voiced any desire to make us leave the
union.

You can contrast this with what is happening right now. When the UK voted for
Brexit, the rest of the EU breathed a collective sigh of relief and wished
them good riddance. In Brussels they could hardly keep themselves from
laughing and dancing a jig, that the great European troublemaker had finally
decided to jump over a cliff, feet-first, entirely of its own volition.

Nothing like that happened when Grexit was afoot. Nobody was laughing,
everyone was waiting patiently for our national tantrum to abate. Angela
Merkel, that evil ogre of a woman who wanted to roast our babies over an open
fire [1], waited patiently for our juvenile prime minister to get his shit
together and learn how to rule a country.

Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks- all harm
that came to us we did to ourselves, or it was a result of the economic
crisis. Your comment is blaming the wrong people for our woes.

___________

[1] cf. all of the Greek press at the time.

~~~
coldtea
> _I 'm from one of those "lesser" countries - Greece. I can assure you that
> nobody "stepped on our throat". For years we thrived as part of the EU,
> until the economic crisis hit and messed it all up._

"Thrived" just meant the Greek state could for a few years borrow money more
easily because of the Euro, nothing substantial that one could actually call
"thriving". The actual health of the economy (inflated numbers from borrowing
aside) was in its worst condition ever.

For the Greek economy it was the beginning of the end, as at the same time,
The euro, and the lack of control of its own monetary policy, sealed the
inability of Greece to ever repay its debt. And of course made its exports,
lackluster even before, collapse completely.

> _The Germans actually tried to help, in the way they thought was best_

Actually they merely tried to enforce their economic ideology of austerity
upon further austerity, totally in spite of dire results and being totally not
workable, all the while making billions in the process for the German economy,
plus insuring its banks against the crisis with EU money (transferring money
from the European public to the financiers).

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/11/despite-l...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/08/11/despite-
losing-tens-of-billions-of-e-germany-is-making-a-profit-out-of-the-greek-
crisis/#6275d9452b4a)

Greece is now an ex-country on life support giving the semblance of a European
country.

> _Nobody wanted to harm the Geeks and nobody tried to harm the Greeks_

The world is not some hugging and loving place, international politics and
finances even more so. Those doing the harm could not care less if they were
harming Greeks, Irish, Italians, etc. specifically, so that much is true: they
didn't actively try to "harm the Greeks".

It was a matter of pursuing their own financial interests, as always is. The
Greek public were just imbeciles in recognizing that, and the Greek
politicians where profiting just the same.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
>> Greece is now an ex-country on life support giving the semblance of a
European country.

Aw, thank you. That's the most offensive thing I've read all month on the
internet.

As to the rest of your erudite analysis, no, it was not just the Greek state
that prospered and thrived in the time before the crisis. The Greek people
also did. Our living standards rose with alacrity, so much so that a British
family friend who had been visiting the country for a long time once remarked
that the cats get fatter every time she sees them (though, to be fair, they
have nothing on the British ones, I should say).

Also, no, people are not automata, and they do make imperfectly rational
decisions- as evidenced by the Brexit vote, for instance. Indeed, in politics
sentiment rules, otherwise countries would (almost) never go to war, or make
catastrophic economic and political decisions, such as adopting communism and
so on.

The easiest thing for the EU would have been to kick us out and towards the
end of the peak of the Grexit crisis there were indeed voices that suggested
the time might have come for the EU or at least the Eurozone, to go on without
us. It didn't happen. Why not? Everyone's rational self-interest was to kick
us out. Oh, but- I forget. The whole of the Eurozone economy was _so_ hung up
on the few millions they got out of the bailout, that they thought they
couldn't _live_ without us. Gods! We dodged a bullet, innit!

Of course you might disagree with me. As a Greek I'm used to everyone knowing
what went down with the crisis, and Grexit, except me and other Greeks.

~~~
coldtea
> _Aw, thank you. That 's the most offensive thing I've read all month on the
> internet._

I doubt that. Besides, it's still true. Countries prosper or decline all the
time. Losing 5% of your young educated population to brain drain, a huge hit
on your economy, a continued debt burden, and a supervision program struggling
development for the long term future, and a 30% or more income loss over the
last decade, are all signs of a country in free fall. Heck, the unemployment
alone is close to Weimar republic levels... And let's not go to the health of
the banking system, or the welfare system (pension funds, etc).

It's like those persons walking off of cliffs in cartoons, until they realize
they are on air, and suddenly fall. Some people just haven't realized it yet.

>As to the rest of your erudite analysis, no, it was not just the Greek state
that prospered and thrived in the time before the crisis. The Greek people
also did. *

It's easy to "prosper" on borrowed money (that the state distributes) or easy
access to finance (that banks lend as if there's no tomorrow). Even so, the
Greek people show a steep decline in job prospects post 2004 or so, and their
"prosperity" was not based on anything remotely looking like a viable economic
progress. There was an actual rise on living standards in Greece since the 70s
or so, and the euro era is the period when that rise was put to a hold, and
private loaning and credit card debt went on the rise.

> _Indeed, in politics sentiment rules, otherwise countries would (almost)
> never go to war, or make catastrophic economic and political decisions, such
> as adopting communism and so on._

Going to war can have several important benefits for a country. That's how
most countries made their colonies, controlled trade routes, built empires,
secured cheap resources, or expanded on the expense of nearby countries. Going
to war is abhorrent and murderous, yes, but not really irrational, that's how
much of the western progress was funded.

As for "adopting communism", you're thinking with hindsight. At the moment
there was not much for countries to not adopt communism, and for some it was
even seen as an improvement on the previous situation (being colonial slaves
and protectorates mostly). For some countries, communism was the engine that
managed to bring them to the 20th century pronto, including Russia/USSR (they
would be cannon fodder for Nazi Germany without the forced industrialization
done by the communists) and China (which the new regime organized, united, and
brought to the 21st century quite the winning power -- besides, after Mao they
use their own version capitalism that has little to do with any historical
form or dogma of communism apart from the party rule).

> _The easiest thing for the EU would have been to kick us out and towards the
> end of the peak of the Grexit crisis there were indeed voices that suggested
> the time might have come for the EU or at least the Eurozone, to go on
> without us. It didn 't happen. Why not?_

Because they could still pretend-give money to Greece that's siphoned from the
European people to the German and other banks.

This way, Greece nominally pays their debt, the fat cats at the European banks
are getting money, German banks are secured from their frivolous lending, the
Greek state assets (e.g. profitable airports) can be sold for a penny and
Greek economy controlled in order to continue the "bailout". Furthermore, they
can all pretend that there's an EU and that the euro experiment has not failed
(well, if it wasn't for a similar crisis lurking in most other EU countries,
the Brexit, Italy and so on).

------
matthewmacleod
This is almost certainly a collosal act of self-harm, and deeply short-
sighted.

I was desperately hopeful that the whole Brexit situation could be salvaged in
some way, and that some way forward for liberalism might be figured out such
that the rising tide of populism could be countered. I'm less and less
confident about that.

~~~
sjg007
Parliament has to vote on it... might be hope

~~~
ar0
But isn't this in many ways actually even more risky?

When Parliament gets its vote, the two year exit period will almost certainly
be almost over and a vote of Parliament will not be able to stop the exit.
Instead it will be a vote on the new arrangements with the EU. So either they
just have to rubberstamp whatever gets put to them or - if they vote down
these new arrangements - Britain will be left outside of the EU without any
new deal in place.

~~~
peteretep
The two year exit period can't start until parliament votes, because May
doesn't have the authority to trigger Article 51 without parliament

~~~
matthewmacleod
My understanding is that there are two distinct parliamentary votes – one on
the triggering of Article 50, and one on the final settlement with the EU. The
former starts the mandatory two-year withdrawal process.

------
cs02rm0
I think, regardless of where she intends to end up, she always had to start
from the perspective of the UK being completely out of the EU. Showing that
the UK is prepared to stand on its own two feet. If not prepared to do so,
negotiations would be very one sided.

It'll certainly be interesting to see how the negotiations play out.

~~~
osullivj
Agreed. Look at what happened with the recent Canadian EU deal, which was
nearly derailed by Wallonia, the French speaking half of Belgium [1]. A UK EU
trade deal will require unanimity from the EU 27. Given the current political
climate, that just won't happen. So "hard Brexit" is inevitable. Theresa May
is just making a virtue of a necessity. She does have one very powerful
negotiating lever: London is Europe's financial capital. When the debt
management office of any Eurozone state issues new govt bonds to the primary
market the bidders are primary dealer trading desks in London. The ultimate
measure of Eurozone govt financial stability is whether an individual govt can
attract bids for 100% of a new issue, and at what price. Since 2010 there have
been occasions Italy and Greece have failed to get bids for new debt. When
that happens Germany and the ECB have to step in.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/belgium-
reache...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/27/belgium-reaches-deal-
with-wallonia-over-eu-canada-trade-agreement)

~~~
ar0
This might be a negotiating lever with the actual trade negotiators, who care
about these things and know about such intricacies. But note that every deal
with the UK will also have to pass through all the national parliaments in the
EU. And there (as in the general public) you won't find much love for banks in
general and British investment banks in particular. When Philip Hammond talks
about retaining access to "hedging" and "derivatives", to most people those
are not things to safeguard but evil market speculation that should be
eliminated.

I have the feeling that (from the EU perspective) the opportunity to punish
banks with a difficult Brexit will actually make negotiations for the UK
harder, not easier.

------
planetjones
I think Britain will eventually come out of this stronger. However, it's clear
in the interim period (which could be 5-10 years I think) there could be huge
transitional issues. Whether that pain is worth suffering, only time will
tell.

Personally, I am not a huge fan of these currency, trading or political blocs.
The WTO exists for trade and I would much prefer it to be the vehicle for
trade, rather than groups of geographically close-knit countries.

~~~
sangnoir
> Personally, I am not a huge fan of these currency, trading or political
> blocs.

The EU seems to be pretty effective at preventing wars within Europe. That's a
good enough pro to cancel out all the other cons on my list. But hey, it's
been three generations since our last big war, we are probably overdue on a
reminder of why fully-industrialized total war is not such a great idea.

~~~
youngtaff
Are you sure about that?

Have we had no wars in Europe since WW2 because of the EU, or because the
generations before us were sick of war?

Also the EU didn't stop a war in the Balkans…

~~~
gonvaled
The Balkans were not in the EU. The EU gives economic incentives to its
members not to go to war. It does not magically prevent wars all around the
world.

~~~
youngtaff
The original quote was "The EU seems to be pretty effective at preventing wars
within Europe."

Last time I checked the Balkans were within Europe!

Look I voted to remain and I'm probably going to leave the UK as I don't want
to live in the UK post Brexit.

That said there's as many crazy claims for the success of the EU as there were
for the UK leaving.

As an institution the EU is very much out of touch with the needs of the
common people, and you've only got to look at how they treated Greece as an
example (and the whole stupid thing of moving MPs to Strasbourg once a month)

~~~
sangnoir
When someone says "Europe" in the context of the EU, I thought it would be
obvious that they are referring to the member states. How would the EU prevent
non-members from wars? That does not make sense.

The UK was never really committed to the EU and yet it got special treatment
time and time again. I say this as an EU outsider.

The "common people" usually want all upsides with no downsides. No one can
deliver that, buy the populist politicians depend on it and promise people the
moon (see "closed borders _and_ common market"). Good luck with the Tories and
IndyRef 2.

------
blowski
I began 2016 knowing (and hoping) Remain would win the referendum, and Clinton
would win the presidency. So I'm not going to make any predictions at all.

Despite this speech, we still have absolutely no idea what conversations are
being had in private, or how anything is going to work out.

~~~
TillE
The EU is going to slaughter the UK. That's basically their public position,
and there's little reason to suspect they hold different private positions.
It's the only thing that makes political sense.

An agreement needs to be reached about EU citizens already living in the UK,
and UK citizens in the EU. That's maybe the only critical issue where they
have common ground. In every other respect, the UK is going to take decades to
recover from radical economic upheaval. It's a ludicrous self-imposed crisis.

~~~
gonvaled
Please stop the victim playing. The EU is not going to "slaughter the UK". The
EU is simply going to uphold the value of EU membership.

EU membership is something different that non EU membership. UK is opting for
non EU membership, and even for a deal completely different than any other
country has. We will reach that kind of deal.

But please do not pretend that the expected agreement is "the UK gets
unfettered access to the EU market without having to compromise in other areas
like all EU members do", and that any other agreement is unfair.

I am perfectly fine with the UK's starting position to be that one. The EU's
starting position is "We want access to the city, free access to the UK
market, payment for 40 years of deal making and market uniformization (which
is going to be adopted on day one as British law), infrastructures, research,
patents owned by British companies paid with EU funds, investments in UK
culture and economy, unfettered access to UK's market". Anything less than
that would be totally unfair to the EU, right?

Now let's compromise.

------
tomelders
All because people think 3.5% of the population (immigrants) is 20% of the
population. No one - no matter what they may claim today - voted for this. At
the time they were saying "we'll get access to the single market because we're
special".

I'm completely lost and hopeless. We've torn up everything that's good because
it's difficult, and we're exchanging it for everything that's bad, and will be
a thousand times more difficult.

~~~
mathw
I don't understand how we got here. I understand that the media picked up a
massive campaign to leave, because the various super-rich owners of the
popular press decided Brexit was the thing to support. I understand that there
were a lot of lies told and that people believed enough of those told by the
Leave side that they decided to vote that way.

I don't understand how a slender majority in favour of leaving ended up with a
government of people who are supposed to look out for our best interests going
full-on for just about the worst possible outcome.

~~~
derrickdirge
The same way a slender minority forced just about the worst possible President
on the American people.

~~~
tomp
As with Brexit so with Trump, the one side only won because the alternative
was only barely, if at all, better.

------
donmatito
Unrelated to the topic, I like how BBC splits clearly reporting of facts and
analysis/opinion section.

~~~
Graham24
I like how it's so much clearer and easier to read than, say, the NYT's
website with its horrible plain black and white tiny font. Is there a reason
why it looks (IMO) so bad?

------
rayiner
It'll be interesting to see how the UK handles this. I suspect they will fail,
but they should be applauded for trying. A single market is not an unmitigated
good. The single market that exists within the U.S. is the major reason why
federalism has failed. When governments can't exercise control over commerce
with external entities, it becomes impossible to really chart a destiny
distinct from the larger union. Massachusetts can't just decide to become a
Scandanavian-style welfare state if it can't control the flow of people and
commerce across its borders. Companies could relocate over the border and
still access the rich Massachusetts market; people can move to Massachusetts
only when they get sick; etc.

The American single market is why state socreignty is such a farce, and the
U.K. has wiser up to that reality.

~~~
gonvaled
In the EU we have extremely different countries. What is exactly your point?

~~~
rayiner
And the EU will either end up with a bunch of very different people unhappy
about being forced into the same polity, or it will end. America proves you
cannot have Democratic sovereign states tied together by an overarching union.

America is a lot more homogenous than Europe and even then it's intensely
straining here. Neither Alabama nor Massachusetts are happy being forced into
the same polity with each other--voting in the same elections and being
governed by the same laws.

~~~
gonvaled
> Massachusetts can't just decide to become a Scandanavian-style welfare state
> if it can't control the flow of people and commerce across its borders

In the EU we have some countries with Scandinavian-style welfare states, and
some without it. And still the EU exists, which seems impossible according to
your comment.

~~~
rayiner
All of the pre-2000s EU members have robust welfare states. It's an open
question whether the EU will continue to exist with all the new members (or
whether it would have continued to exist taking on countries like Turkey like
it was originally on course to do).

~~~
gonvaled
> taking on countries like Turkey like it was originally on course to do

Pushed by the UK and the US

------
cJ0th
The UK (and soon the US) are shaking the world up. The winners of this shake
up will be those who are, both, able to drop old assumptions quickly and
enjoying a good deal of luck. It's a bit like organizing the world by chance
while hoping for the best.

~~~
gonvaled
Agree. We have entered the "Era of the Bully": don't ask permission, not even
forgiveness. Whatever you can do, just do it. Don't care who you hurt. The
only principle guiding you should be "to maximize your own benefit", assuming
that the other players are doing the same. In the EU, we had left this behind
long ago, compromising between us in order to get some minimal standards for
granted.

This will work very well for those strong enough to fight the fight - and the
UK could very well be one of the winners of this new period. But this will be
at the expense of hurting the rest.

That's why the EU should be extremely careful about what role the UK is going
to play in the near future. We should recognize and punish any hostile act for
what it is, for example the already official threat of creating a tax heaven
in our backyard.

~~~
up_so_floating
Have we really ever left the "Era of the Bully"?

Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their
actions? You will be competing with them. Can you punish them as effectively
as you can "punish" Britain?

~~~
gonvaled
> Have we really ever left the "Era of the Bully"?

We had left it. In the EU.

> Do you think China or Russia care about "hurting" others through their
> actions? You will be competing with them

We are competing with China and Russia. To do that we need to be strong.
That's one of the reasons why EU membership is important. Thanks for pointing
that out.

> Can you punish them as effectively as you can "punish" Britain?

We are not punishing Britain. Britain is leaving the EU. Any deal we get is a
new deal. Nothing can be taken for granted, by the EU or by the UK. If the UK
does not get access to the EU market, it is because it is

a) either not in the interest of the UK to accept compromises offered by the
EU

b) or not in the interest of the EU to accept what the UK is proposing

------
pvdebbe
Shame if this happens (Amazon.co.uk has been good; Amazon.de doesn't speak
English), but UK must do what they think what's good for them. Doing customs
declarations in Finland has turned into a hassle since the convenience of EU
trade.

~~~
germanier
Just FYI, Amazon.de introduced English interface and customer support some
while back (most product listings are still only German of course).

~~~
xiaq
If you enter an English query, it will translate to German, though

~~~
germanier
Does it? I just tried switching the interface to English (there is a dropdown
in the menu) and it worked exactly like the UK or US version of Amazon, just
with the German product catalogue.

------
mikaelj
...and now off to re-build the British Empire...?

~~~
johndunne
Many here in the UK might actually be hoping for just that!! Fingers crossed
it doesn't turn into a mess!

~~~
senorjazz
I think you are onto something personally. Many in the UK had an inflated view
of the importance / strength of the country harking back to the empire
(admittedly final days pre WWII). Which was in fact more todo with to being
close to the US who propped the country up and kept it at the top table,
because we would always agree as opposed to the actual merit of the country.

That combined with an island mentality and a fear mongering, sensationalist
press.

Case in point, my mother complaining of immigration, although she lives in an
out of the way town where they had never seen a brown person (apart from at
the hospital in the next town) until probably the late 90s.

Now she insists there are too many eastern Europeans, however she swears blind
she would never get an Englishman builder / plumber because the Polish ones
(catchall, means any Eastern euro) are cheaper, more reliable and just better.

But she wants to make Britain "great" again, "like it used to be". Pressing
her when, she cannot answer. Asked if we should invade a "brown" country and
get rich of plundering their resources and ruling via the military like we
used to do, "no no no we shouldn't do that". "err mother you do realise why we
used to be great and rich don't you"

and she voted remain!

~~~
petecox
An Anglo free-migratory superstate combining Canada, NZ and AUS has been
proposed to fill the shortage of labour once your continental plumbers leave.

As an Aussie, I have no desire to return to the island my ancestors fled 160
years ago but if it enables me to retire to a piece of land in Quebec or the
Maritimes, I'm all for it!

------
unfortunateface
I think we should replace politicians and obviously flawed democratic process
with a top down style economy run by Economists.

Obviously we will have to have some kind of mechanism for choosing between
these Economists, as some have shown to be pretty far off in their
predictions.

Some sort of system based on the casting and counting of votes perhaps.

~~~
aleksei
A world run by economists sounds even harsher than the one we have now.

------
gotchange
There's the court ruling and now Parliament too would have a say in the matter
and could probably derail the decision and put an end to the mess that the
Leavers made and that's why FX markets are reacting possibly to this news.

------
grzm
Current title is slightly different: "Brexit: UK to leave single market, says
Theresa May"

Don't know if the article title has changed or submission title was slightly
edited.

------
sparshgupta
> Maintaining the common travel area between the UK and Irish Republic Tariff-
> free trade with the EU A customs agreement with the EU Continued "practical"
> sharing of intelligence and policing information "Control" of immigration
> rights for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't these the things they get by being members
of the EU? That is why they paid fees to have all this stuff that benefits
them, right?

Honestly, when did the world start getting run by petulant children in the
form of old white people? Over here we have The Golden Tariff that is
destroying stocks because they pissed him off.

~~~
gonvaled
The UK is simply trying to divide the EU, by cosying up to some members.

Of course the UK has control of borders: they are not even in Shengen!
Besides, only EU citizens are allowed to move around the EU.

It is unfortunate that the EU has allowed the UK to amass that much financial
and intelligence clout, and something that I hope will be corrected in the
near future, by distributing the financial center around the EU member states,
and by building up a world class intelligence service.

------
kalekold
Britain is ok, everything is fine!

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWkTQvlnDTI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWkTQvlnDTI)

------
gonvaled
It is unfortunate that the spotlight is in the UK, and that the EU is not able
to bring across the benefits and compromises that membership has and implies.

I fear that this failure of communicating clearly to EU citizens (and the
rest) what the EU project is, what benefits it has, why we need to compromise
in certain areas, is having a strong negative impact in how it is perceived,
and can bring about its own demise.

For decades the EU bashers have been attributing all kinds of problems to the
EU, while very seldom anybody, not even the member states which benefit from
membership, have ever taken the chance to praise the role that EU is playing
in lots of different areas.

May has made her case quite eloquently, offering the UK's view of the
negotiations, but of course without recognizing something extremely obvious:
whenever May talks about a UK strength, which can and will be used in
negotiation, she omits mentioning that the other side, the EU, has a similar
strength, often much bigger.

And she keeps on pretending that the EU is trying to punish the UK for leaving
the block, when nothing is further from the truth. The EU is simply not
willing to _dilute_ the value of EU membership by allowing the UK to have "its
cake and eat it". May repeats and repeats that there is nothing bad in
allowing the UK a very favorable access to the EU common market, but I guess
that she does not allow her neighbors to enter at their will into her house:
being member of a Club has some benefits, but implies following some rules.
Put bluntly: giving access to the common market means the end of the EU. As
long as that is not the goal of the EU26, we can not accept that.

Finally, the UK has proven to be an extremely unreliable partner, and a very
selfish one. After decades of special treatment, the UK is prepared (quite
literally, as we see with the threats of becoming a tax heaven) to stab the EU
in the back. This, from my point of view, has three consequences:

\- the UK can not be trusted again to work together with the EU. Any deal we
make with the UK must be done taking into account that the UK can and will
break it whenever it wishes

\- there is no rolling back: sorry for the remain voters, but it is
unthinkable for us EU citizens to get you back on board. Even in case that
your leaders rethink their position, I would say that option is not anymore on
the table. Brexit it is.

\- any other country or economic block making trade agreements with the UK are
by now aware of how selfish and unreliable the UK has become. I would say this
will have consequences in the kind of deals that the UK will able to secure.

May and the brexiteers have been talking for months about trade deals as if
those would never carry any kind of compromises attached. Any deal means a
compromise, securing something in exchange of something else. You had an
agreement with the EU (as EU member) which is being terminated because you did
not like the strings attached. You will now get zick new agreements with other
areas, all of them with strings attached. Will you blame those agreements for
your future failures?

~~~
youngtaff
The UK is so selfish that it's the second largest net contributor to the EU
budget!

~~~
mtarnovan
Really?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate)

~~~
youngtaff
Really…
[http://english.eu.dk/en/faq/faq/net_contribution](http://english.eu.dk/en/faq/faq/net_contribution)

~~~
mtarnovan
Really not sure how you read that as "UK is the second largest net contributor
to the EU budget!"...

------
johndunne
I wouldn't dare pretend to know what'll be the result once it's all said and
done.

------
Ensorceled
I'm not sure why everybody is hammering jamesdempsy with down votes, I
disagree with them as well but they are making rational, and disputable,
arguments.

Debate, don't censor.

------
billpg
Doomed...

~~~
coldtea
Check back in 10 years.

