
Does Brexit end not with a bang but a whimper? - deafcalculus
https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/01/does-brexit-end-not-with-bang-but.html
======
StanAngeloff
As a EU resident who is a partner in several UK based businesses, the
uncertainty over what's coming next is frightening. When I approached
different colleagues, friends & family in the UK, they all had different views
on what should happen. To an outsider, it looks like opinions have been
polarised.

If you are managing a business that has ties to the UK there are very many
unknowns right now. It's a lot easier to plan for the worst than it is to take
risks IMHO. Brexit must ultimately hurt the UK economy in some way – jobs
lost, money flowing out of the country, talented people leaving?

~~~
moomin
You're right about the polarisation. The same forces in play in America are in
play in Britain right now. It's no accident that Trump described himself as
"Mr Brexit". Authoritarian voters support Brexit, liberal ones don't. The
major parties split right/left not authoritarian/liberal and are terrified of
losing their voting base. I know a die hard leaver, she's one of the few
people I'd trust my children with. She's also an authoritarian leftist who
can't understand why we're not out already and wants to get rid of immigrants.

The London Tech scene (which skews left/liberal) seems to be hemorrhaging
talented people to Berlin and other places. All of these people are what I
think of as natural Londoners, but they're deciding for their own reasons that
Britain isn't the place they thought it was. (Me, I've got a wife and kids,
it's harder to up sticks. That and I love this country.)

Meanwhile, inflation is so bad the supermarkets are quietly reducing the
quantity in boxes to avoid giving shoppers a heart attack at the prices, and
Brexit _hasn't even happened yet_.

~~~
adventured
In your opinion, what do you think the consequences with regards to Scotland
will be given some time? Might they seek another independence vote to then
rejoin the EU?

~~~
pjc50
Yes, but everyone is aware that we would normally get one vote no more
frequently than every 20-30 years on the subject. It has to be _after_ the
outcome of Brexit is clear. Which may mean short-term disastrous exit from the
EU.

(e.g. while Scottish fishermen have a noisy anti-EU contingent, the fish
processing industry relies on EU workers and also mostly exports to the EU due
to differences in UK and Continental preferences in seafood. People will need
to see the actual consequences resolve before they will change their view.)

------
te_chris
Now Nigel (fucking) Farage is calling for a 2nd referendum. You can't make
this shit up.

[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/11/nigel-
farag...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/11/nigel-farage-backs-
fresh-brexit-referendum-to-kill-off-issue)

~~~
kypro
What's your point? Or are you just reading the headline?

He is saying a second referendum could show the politicians who have been
pushing for a soft brexit recently that this is really what the British public
want.

What point are you trying to make?

~~~
raverbashing
Then have a vote with multiple alternatives

Also I would favour a disclaimer on the bottom

Tick here if you're aware that X% of doctors and nurses on the NHS are from
the EU and reducing their number will result in more delays and/or need to
have more doctors/nurses from non-EU countries

Tick here if you're aware leaving the EU (hard Brexit) will result in longer
times and possible caveats when entering other countries in the Schengen area

Tick here if you're aware leaving the EU single market will increase prices of
several goods, both by the reduced value of the Pound and higher import fees.

(oh and my favourite) Tick here if you're aware leaving the EU will make it
harder to move between countries, including southern European countries (like
Spain) and that retirees might need a visa to move or remain there

~~~
kypro
The problem is you can't have a multiple choice referendum because it would
split the leave vote. For example: A. "Hard" Brexit

B. "Soft" Brexit

C. No Brexit

Brexitors would be somewhat split between A and B, and all remainers would
pick C.

Can I add some disclaimers to?

* Tick here if you are aware there are shortages of doctors and nurses (and other skilled professions) in eastern European countries like Romania because trained professionals tend to come to western Europe to work. This is also true for developing countries.

* Tick here if you understand while in the EU the UK has effectively zero control over it's immigration and trade.

~~~
raverbashing
> Tick here if you understand while in the EU the UK has effectively zero
> control over it's immigration and trade.

\- "its" not "it's"

\- the UK retains some control of immigration w.r.t EU citizens (some of which
they chose not to enforce and it also allows UK citizens to avail of freedom
of movement as well) and full control of the immigration of non-EU citizens,
so your assertion is false

\- Brain drain is debatable, there was never a position for a lot of them in
the 1st place (and they might just go somewhere else)

~~~
kypro
> the UK retains some control of immigration w.r.t EU citizens (some of which
> they chose not to enforce and it also allows UK citizens to avail of freedom
> of movement as well) and full control of the immigration of non-EU citizens,
> so your assertion is false

As you probably know the control the UK does have over EU citizens is
extremely extremely limit. They don't call it "open borders" for no reason
believe it or not.

> Brain drain is debatable, there was never a position for a lot of them in
> the 1st place (and they might just go somewhere else)

Yeah, well who cares about developing countries as long as the west benefits
right? Perhaps we should be focusing on giving them positions in their own
countries rather than requiring them to move from their families, friends and
culture just for a better life?

But morals never play a role in this. It's all about the nations gross-GDP
isn't it?

~~~
ben_w
Schengen area is an open border (+), UK-France is not. UK has the right to
eject EU citizens who can’t support themselves, but lacks the beurocracy to
identify such people.

\+ and even that has exceptions, I was passport-checked going from Italy into
France but not France to Italy, I assume because of the state of emergency
from the attack a few years ago.

~~~
kypro
> Schengen area is an open border (+), UK-France is not. UK has the right to
> eject EU citizens who can’t support themselves, but lacks the beurocracy to
> identify such people.

I understand this, but then the assumption is that this is a good immigration
system. A nation shouldn't let anyone in who can get a job and support
themselves. It's an awful immigration system which we have no control over and
the majority of the public disagree with. I simply can't understand why some
people fail to understand what a disgrace that is.

I'll also add that it undermines the UK democracy entirely. People who
immigrate to the UK from the EU, or have family who did, vote very differently
from native Brits. What's happening is people are coming into the UK, against
the the public's wishes (and also without them having any political capacity
to stop it) then voting against the UK public's wishes in their elections.

> \+ and even that has exceptions, I was passport-checked going from Italy
> into France but not France to Italy, I assume because of the state of
> emergency from the attack a few years ago.

It's almost like open borders isn't good for national security. Who'd of
thought.

~~~
ben_w
> which we have no control over

The UK has the authority, just not the competence to use that authority. This
is Westminster’s fault, not the EU’s.

> People who immigrate to the UK from the EU, or have family who did, vote
> very differently from native Brits

They’re not allowed to vote in general elections (or the Referendum) unless
they’re Irish (or have multiple nationalities and the other is British, Irish,
or Commonwealth): [http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-
registr...](http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-
registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election)

> It's almost like open borders isn't good for national security. Who'd of
> thought.

Poor argument. In feudal times, you needed your Lord’s permission to leave
your village — if that was still true, virtually every terrorist attack from
the time of the IRA (the original) onwards would have been impossible.

------
forinti
I can't decide if Brexit is good or bad for the UK. On the one hand, there's
the common market and freedom of movement. On the other there's Germany's
dominance and lots of fragile banks.

What would be worse, losing access to the free market or being around if the
banks fail? Or would being outside the market make a difference if Deutsche
Bank failed?

~~~
nkkollaw
Bad.

If anything because they'll have to rewrite thousands of laws and procedures
that came from the EU times, and deal with the caos that that will cause. That
only will cost so much money (and pain) that it would justify staying in the
EU.

Then, of course there are companies that have left and that will leave,
highly-skilled workflow for London that will be harder to get, etc.

They have to negotiate with the EU so that they're not completely cut out of
commerce, with nothing to offer in exchange and therefore no negotiating
power.

It's old people in the country that have decided this, based on their
ignorance on the matter and lies spread before the vote. Funny enough, it's
them who mainly benefit from European aid.

Pretty sad, really (I'm Italian, just talking based on what I've read and a
handful of friends who live in London).

~~~
mkohlmyr
Your first argument boils down to "it's difficult to leave so why bother".
That's an objectively terrible reason to stay, no matter your political
affiliation or feelings about the EU.

As far as the "old people did this to us" meme. The 75% of young people who
purportedly are so strongly against brexit probably should have bothered to
vote if they wanted that outcome.

Additionally, there are other factors than just age that correspond to voting
outcome. E.g. degree education, having a passport, income level.

And if we afford those people a bit of empathy rather than casting them all as
gullible fools or bad people, we might consider that they actually stand to
benefit far less (or have plausible reasons to feel this way) from the EU than
someone (such as the average HN reader) who has the privilege to e.g. be
choosy about employment opportunities, be able to afford educating themselves,
be able to afford to travel at will.

In any case there are many reasons to feel ambivalent about the EU. I do, and
I've taken every opportunity that membership has afforded me. I still don't
like how (or by whom) it is run or how expansive its powers have become over
time.

~~~
b5
_And if we afford those people a bit of empathy rather than casting them all
as gullible fools or bad people, we might consider that they actually stand to
benefit far less (or have plausible reasons to feel this way) from the EU than
someone (such as the average HN reader) who has the privilege to e.g. be
choosy about employment opportunities, be able to afford educating themselves,
be able to afford to travel at will._

Thank you for writing your comment, and for this part in general. I voted
'Remain' but I couldn't agree more with what you wrote -- the backlash against
those who voted 'Leave' has been appalling. With just a little bit more
compassion, willingness to listen, and understanding, the division between
both sides could possibly be healed. We seem further than ever from that, and
the likelihood diminishes every day.

~~~
nkkollaw
Rationally, I agree with you. But if I went with my guts, from the little I
know it was old people selling/ruining young people's life.

I'd be pretty pissed off, too.

------
scandox
Amazing how small errors in a text start to degrade your confidence in the
content. At the outset the sentences are clear and mostly correct. As it goes
on small errors start to appear and occasionally the entire meaning of a
sentence becomes unclear. By the end, reading his slightly dramatic flourish,
you get the feeling that he wrote with some emotion and wasn't tending to the
language very carefully.

On the one hand you can say these are merely typos. On the other you could say
they reflect a lack of clarity, a lack of care. I know I find it hard to
ignore.

~~~
nkkollaw
Meh.

It's full of articles with "it's" instead of "its". It's the internet.

You're (oh, yes--and "your" instead of "you're") not going to have a good time
if you stop at typos or grammatical errors instead of just trying to see if
what you read is interesting or not.

------
rusk
I kind of feel the whimper came before Christmas, in the talks discussing
Northern Ireland and the status of the border there between the UK and Europe.
I can't remember the details exactly but the Good Friday Agreement [0]
provided a constitutional footing whereby the UK effectively gave an
undertaking _to abide by the rules of the EU trade area, while not being a
member of the EU trade area_.

This to prevent the erection of a "hard border" (i.e. one you couldn't freely
traverse without a Visa) which would be required as a customs barrier, rather
than for security.

This agreement completely undermines a lot of the wackier ideas around free
trade that have been floating around and defangs some of the nastier aspects
of brexit.

The UK is still free to set her own internal monetary and social policy but
she's effectively bound to EU trade rules, and the EU of course must consult
her in setting these.

It's an epic compromise on both sides that basically allows for a continuation
of business as usual without undermining the "brexit means brexit" doctrine.

A lovely example of how peace once established can be the gift that keeps
giving.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement)

~~~
toyg
_> and the EU of course must consult her in setting these._

What? No. The Eu didn't commit to a single thing in that agreement, beyond
graciously accepting for the UK to pay its bills and letting it trade as long
as they follow EU rules.

The UK will end up like Norway: paying the price for selling into the EU,
without any say in EU rules. Which is exactly what was predicted at the start,
and makes the Uk a de-facto vassal state.

Brexit is so great.

~~~
rusk
_The Eu didn 't commit to a single thing_

The EU agreed that given this agreement there would be no requirement for a
customs border.

The term "Vassal state" is incorrect as it describes a nation that has been
subjugated to the will of another nation e.g. Ireland's relationship with the
UK before the 20th century.

The EU is not a state, it is a "collection of states" and is the realisation
of the need for greater alignment of policy between neighbouring countries.

The portrayal of the EU as some kind of evil controlling super-state is a lie,
plain and simple.

That's not to say there isn't plenty of things wrong with the EU but the
correct response is, as one of the major nations of Europe for the UK to get
in there and make it work.

Instead the UK has repeatedly sent Farage.

~~~
toyg
Oh I do agree that the UK position has consistently been silly, all the way
back from the very day they joined with their ad-hoc "rebate". I am not trying
to portrait anything in an evil light, it's just as it is: UK voters, by their
own free will, materially reduced their sovereignty in commercial matters.
They put themselves (and us EU citizens in UK) into this situation, although
it's not too late to forget the whole thing and go back being a peer.

------
maxehmookau
He's got a point. It's surprised me how many small day-to-day decisions made
by management are because of Brexit.

------
0942v8653
Will the UK still participate in the GDPR after Brexit? Are there plans to
write up something similar?

~~~
Angostura
The simple answer is 'yes' \- the government and opposition parties are
committed to implementing GDPR in full.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Until the second we leave, and then you can _guarantee_ it will be watered
down.

------
Nursie
This seems speculative and it effectively posits a worst-of-all-worlds
situation resulting - one if which the UK is half inside the single market.

Half inside such that it allows the flow of goods (the UK is a net importer)
but not services (which we net export). This would be untenable, worse than a
no-deal situation. And the basis of this speculation is that the EU is holding
all the cards. I'm really not convinced this is true.

The article reads a little bit like a remain fantasy - Brexit will be a
disaster and then people must come around to my way of thinking! The problem
with that analysis is that in your way of thinking it was likely unimaginable
that the Brexit vote would go through in the first place. And then we heard
that no PM would ever actually action it, and then that no Parliament would
allow it. None of which has really panned out.

\--edit-- I'd love to reply to more of the comments below, but I appear to be
rate-limited. Never mind then...

~~~
dx034
Isn't a Canada-like solution exactly what current negotiations appear to work
towards? Barnier presented a slide with options for the UK and a free trade
agreement like with Canada was the only one that doesn't violate red lines set
by the UK government.

Such a free-trade agreement would allow most goods to flow relatively freely
but doesn't have any provisions for services.

~~~
dhoulb
Yeah this seems like the most reasonable option.

Even not having service trade isn’t a great disaster. Companies with sizeable
EU revenue can just set up a European subsidiary (in Ireland, etc) to conduct
business in Europe from the UK (or anywhere).

(Though I accept it’ll be a pain for e.g. finance companies which the EU
requires to be based within the EU,)

Startups eespecially aren’t held back by these rules right now, they just sell
everywhere in USD (and at some point when they’re big enough create an EU
subsidiary).

The goods thing would be a real issue, if everything on supermarket shelves
became 1.5x as expensive. So as long as that’s solved it’ll be fine.

~~~
tobltobs
> Though I accept it’ll be a pain for e.g. finance companies which the EU
> requires to be based within the EU

What kind of services does the UK export which do not fall into the finance
category?

~~~
ben_w
Software contractors?

~~~
tobltobs
Isn't the UK a net importer of software contractors?

~~~
ben_w
I don’t know, but if it’s exportable, it’s exportable.

------
tom_mellior
> the EU is calling the shots in these negotiations

Yes.

> a deal that kept the UK in the Customs Union and Single Market for goods,
> but not for services.

The EU (which is calling the shots) has repeatedly said that the Four Freedoms
are inseparable. So such a deal seems unlikely.

------
matthewmacleod
Yes, that's a fair assessment.

It's hard to imagine how this whole situation could have been fucked-up to a
greater extent. I'm a solid supporter of remaining in the EU, but I'm open-
minded to the idea that an orderly Brexit could have been planned and
executed, with the public being aware of the various trade-offs. A single
market on one hand, balanced against free movement and regulatory
harmonisation on the other.

But that discussion didn't happen. There was _literally no coherent concept_
in the public sphere about what the goals of Brexit where, or what the desired
end state was – and there still isn't. Obviously to some extent because the
outcome was unexpected, but that doesn't excuse the ongoing incompetence and
failure to be realistic on the behalf of the UK government. Various government
ministers continue to be _frankly fucking deluded_ about what they are trying
to achieve – in a way that I have to assume that they are deliberately lying.
There is still no coherent government policy on what Brexit actually is, and
no corresponding public idea of that either.

This is in stark contrast to the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 –
though I was on the 'yes' side then. I have a book published by the Scottish
government sitting on my bookshelf, which outlines in decent detail the plans
and desired outcomes if independence was chosen. Not that all of that would
come to pass, or would even be possible, but _even to have a stated government
plan_ is light-years ahead of what is happening at the UK level. It's almost
criminally irresponsible.

Worse, there is no obvious out – either a reversal of this policy, or any sign
of a government that can realistically set out what it wants to achieve. The
main opposition party is weak and equally committed to Brexit, and with the
leader of the opposition being the only realistic figure around which support
could coalesce, there is limited room for manoeuvre.

Now we see the fallout – not in the short term, but taking a longer view. I've
had people explicitly tell my startup that they are no longer funding in the
UK because they "have no idea what's going to happen". It's become much harder
to hire EU-based workers, because of course they have no idea what their
position will be in a couple of years. I have watched a number of talented
friends and contacts move away from the UK, because they can't really be
bothered with this nonsense. In the long-term, this cack-handed mismanagement
is going to be another bullet point in the long and slow decline of the UK.
It's not like the world is going to end – it's just that everything is going
to be a bit shittier.

I know that's a bit of a rant, but it's utterly frustrating to deal with from
inside the UK when so many are currently banging on about how good it's great
to be to have a different fucking colour of passport.

------
hammon
this euro currency is set to die. The only question is WHEN. Unfortunately,
economists are not the ones to decide, but the only politicians are. And
people vote ignorant politicians and talk about macro-economy like they do on
football matches. In the long run, Brexit will be a GOOD thing for the British
but for the wrong reason (xenophobia).

~~~
switch007
This is an article about Brexit. What's your point about the Euro?

(For those who don't know, the UK has never adopted the Euro)

------
adwhit
A real shame that Oxford decided to name their department after an oligarch
who expropriated huge wealth out of Russia [1]. Sad to admit I consider any
position associated with the Blavatnik name tainted.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/03/oxford-
uni...](https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/03/oxford-university-
accused-over-oligarch-len-blavatnik-75m-donation)

~~~
djsumdog
Could you please explain how this relates to Brexit? (genuinely curious).

~~~
thedaniel
The author of the article is a professor in said department.

