
U.K. to Trigger Brexit March 29, Starting Two Years of Talks - antr
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-20/u-k-to-submit-formal-brexit-notice-to-eu-on-march-29-pm-s-spokesman
======
cstross
I would just like to note that March 25th (Saturday) is the 60th anniversary
of the Treaty of Rome, which created the European Economic Community (from
which the EU evolved):

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

Imagine serving divorce papers on your spouse on a significant wedding
anniversary, and now consider the message it sends.

It's like Theresa May has carefully picked the time to trigger Article 50 of
the Lisbon Treaty that will cause maximum offense to the people she's about to
negotiate a critically important trade deal with (from a position of inferior
leverage).

~~~
corford
In her defence (not that she really deserves it), Theresa May was fucked
either way by setting March as the deadline. The sad part is I'm sure it was
incompetence rather than a calculated slight.

~~~
moomin
Grey's law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from
malice.

------
agd
The filter bubble/group think is incredible in this thread! You'd think people
are fleeing the UK in droves and driven to despair all round based on some of
the comments here.

In reality, none of the dire predictions for the economy have come to pass and
people are getting on with their lives. None of my friends (all educated,
well-off remain voters) are talking about leaving.

Some people in this thread still seem to be in denial about the situation and
completely ignore the flaws of the EU. Yes there are costs of leaving, but
there are also potential upsides. e.g. having a more interventionist national
economic strategy while pursuing more international trade deals. And it's
likely that any trade tariffs imposed by the EU will be more than offset by
the currency depreciation we've seen since the referendum.

There are risks for the UK going forward but I'm more worried about the EU at
the moment. If it doesn't reform, we'll continue to see rising extremism on
the continent - look at Holland, Italy, France, Austria where extreme (and
anti EU) parties all receive more votes than UKIP does in the UK.

~~~
MagnumOpus
The most immediate prediction of a big FX sell-off has come to pass - and it
has already lowered living standards and will continue to do so for the next
few years. (Those few hundred quid that I have left over at the end of the
month suddenly aren't enough for a holiday in Lanzarote or a new Macbook
anymore. Gotta learn to love holidays in Blackpool or Brighton...)

As to living in a filter bubble and "none of my friends are talking about
leaving"... It doesn't even take our EU friends leaving to get a shortage of
talent. Shortages will occur even if new EU talent stops coming - as is
evident in areas like nursing where that sort of thing is tracked [1]. The NHS
nurse/doctor shortage is bad and it will get worse and worse year by year due
to Brexit.

[1] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/25/number-eu-
nurs...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/01/25/number-eu-nurses-
coming-uk-falls-90-per-cent-since-brexit-vote/)

~~~
gambiting
I'm friends with a couple CS professors at a Russel Group university, and they
said that since last year the number of EU students applying for funded PhD
positions went from hundreds to nearly zero this year - and several students
who were going to start studying this year have pulled their applications,
quoting brexit concerns. At our company we are trying to recruit for about
10-12 programming positions, and we had two programmers from EU who were deep
into the recruitment process and they both resigned citing that they don't
want to commit to living in the UK because of brexit.

The process is not even fully defined yet, and it's already scaring people
away - but things like less PhD students won't be damaging until 3-4 years
from now, and then everyone will blame whatever else but brexit. Things might
not be going down the drain right now, but there's no way it will turn into
anything positive for years.

------
merraksh
I'm moving from Birmingham UK to northern Italy at the end of the year. I will
work remotely for the same employer, life is cheaper down there, and actually
quality of life is higher in terms of healthcare, transportation, and
services.

I didn't imagine the last part before I moved here, but a few years dealing
with both the NHS and private health providers, plus poor bus transportation
and street safety in Birmingham, changed my mind.

I have a similar opinion of the healthcare in the US, where I also lived for
some time. Central Europe provides surprisingly good healthcare and even the
private option is far cheaper.

I actually was looking for a house outside of Birmingham, but I decided to
wait until after the referendum. After that I had little doubt I'd leave. The
net effect for the UK will be that I'll pay taxes to another country. I'm not
even complaining about paying more taxes.

~~~
vr46
I hear you. People are harping on about potentially positive outcomes, but
right now, things are quite rubbish, and it's the present that I'm finding the
problem, not a theoretical outcome. I lived through a previous round of all
this in the 1970s and 80s, and I really don't think I should do it again when
I have a choice.

------
orph4nus
I don't understand how they can still go through with this. As far as I've
been following the analytics, news and coverage on this, the outcomes for UK
are only negative. Can please someone enlighten me the good outcomes that will
come out of this? Or is this really just about pride and stupidity?

~~~
Brendinooo
Which outcomes - economic?

I'm not from the UK, but my impression was that for many it wasn't about
economic optimization, it was also about the notion of freedom - being less
intertwined with the EU (and thus its regulations, economics, security
concerns, etc.). Immigration was probably an issue as well.

If freedom was the issue, you get the freedom and work out the consequences
later. Some people would rather feel like their nation has more control over
their destiny, even if that destiny isn't as comfortable as it could have been
under someone else's control.

I would also contend that as long as Brexit hasn't happened, there are plenty
of forces that would want to keep the status quo and would therefore try to
project as much negativity as possible.

Also, I'm not an economist, futurist, or a stockbroker (so one can correct me
if I'm wrong), but humans aren't always great at predicting things in these
areas. So it's not fair to assume that there is no positive outcome.

~~~
moomin
This is a funny one. The economic argument was principally a Remain argument,
and was for the most part ignored. I think this was for two reasons 1) there's
plenty of people who just didn't buy it, there was enough smoke thrown for
many believe it wasn't settled, but I think more powerfully 2) a lot of people
don't really think their economic well-being is linked to the country's
economic well-being. In particular, there's a belief that a worse economy will
principally affect London. (Sadly, it appears the opposite is the case.)

Anecdotally, I've spoken to a number of Leavers who talk about taking back
control (most of them also believe immigration is a problem). They tend to be
working class and feel that the government doesn't listen to them. I really
seriously doubt this vote will make a blind bit of difference on that front.

~~~
icc97
It's still my feeling the underlying powerful reason for people voting for
Brexit was immigration.

The rest was just a smokescreen to pretend like that wasn't their only reason.

~~~
pja
According to Dominic Cummings (who ran Vote Leave) it was absolutely the case
that immigration was the No 1 driver for the vote to leave the EU. So much so
that they had to explicitly set aside 15 minutes at the beginning of every
focus group to let people rant about immigration before they could get them to
move on to anything else at all.

Anecdotally, this is also what my parents found on the doorstep.

------
tehabe
I wonder when the actual talks are starting, in April France elects a new
president. In September Germany elects a new parliament. Who knows how the
situation is in October and who May has to talk to.

------
splitrocket
Politics assumes a zero sum game.

Experts create non-zero sum outcomes.

Humans, due to their loss aversion bias, prefer politics to expertise.

Thus brexit.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
I don't think your logic works. Wouldn't loss aversion lead you to prefer the
non-zero-sum game? After all, in a zero-sum game, you might lose, and if you
do, you are guaranteed to be worse off. In a non-zero-sum game, you are not
guaranteed to be worse off, even if you "lose" (win less than someone else).

------
danmaz74
The referendum results really saddened me, but at this point the sooner this
is over, the better.

~~~
TillE
There were any number of ways that they could have backed out of this disaster
in a politically acceptable way. A second referendum on a specific plan for
what "leaving the EU" actually means, for example.

It would be an uncomfortable situation, but it's vastly preferable to a decade
or more of economic turmoil. Not to mention the probable loss of Scotland,
huge questions about the Irish border, etc etc.

~~~
alva
> could have backed out of this disaster in a politically acceptable way

I don't think any retreat would have ever been politically acceptable. The
general public saw through the "hard/soft" Brexit angle, it was clear that
remaining in the single market would not have delivered the majority of
leavers wishes.

Worse still, this heavy push on "soft Brexit" made the perception that certain
sections of the establishment was trying to deceive their way out of the vote
stronger. This sort of feeling, that outside powers are pursuing objectives
against our wishes, was a strong driver in the ref vote.

~~~
coroxout
"it was clear that remaining in the single market would not have delivered the
majority of leavers wishes"

Well, with a 52:48 majority for leave and with almost all Remain voters
probably preferring "soft" to "hard" Brexit, it would only need to satisfy a
tiny % of leavers for it to have more a mandate than the "hard", no-deal
Brexit cliff edge the government seem determined to steer us all over without
any debate.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Only took them 9⅕ months! (With nought achieved in the meantime, too.)

~~~
cjrp
I wouldn't say _nothing_ was achieved
[http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1Y](http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=USD&view=1Y)

:(

~~~
arekkas
Devaluation of currency is what every central bank is after for the last 10
years. Apart from you having less money when buying foreign things or
traveling abroad, this is actually a good thing for the British export economy
as it is now more competitive than before, simply because things are cheaper
now.

It's basically why Germany sees this enormous trade surplus - the bad economic
shape of southern states such as Greece, Italy, Spain "artificially" keeps the
euro low, and Germany profits from that in a major way.

Of course, this isn't 1:1 because the devaluation of the GBP also means that
trust was lost in the GB economy, which might hurt British companies in the
long run.

Anyways, charts that show upwards/downards trends are not always bad/good and
should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially if used by either party for
making the other look dumb. This is true for the US stock market right now as
it is for the GBP.

ps: I'm German and I do not support Brexit, but the world is not black and
white.

~~~
cjrp
> Apart from you having less money when buying foreign things

Isn't this bad given that the UK currently operates with a trade deficit?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
No, because peoples' behavior changes. They buy fewer imports (because more
expensive) and sell more exports (because less expensive to foreign buyers),
so the balance of trade improves.

~~~
cjrp
That assumes everything can be made in the UK without any dependence on
foreign countries anywhere in the supply chain.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
No, it assumes that _more_ can be made in the UK with _less_ dependence on
foreign countries in the supply chain.

------
baq
i wonder what the results of a referendum about joining the EU would look like
if it was done today.

------
46Bit
Any sense of how this will affect London tech?

~~~
zelos
Google[1], Apple[2] and Dyson[3] (ok, not quite London) are making quite big
noises about big new offices, so I guess things can't be that bad? Possibly
they're betting on picking up lots of tech staff cheap if the banks start
leaving London?

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/15/google-
co...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/15/google-commits-to-
massive-new-london-hq) [2] [http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-
apple-to-crea...](http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-apple-to-
create-stunning-new-hq-at-battersea-power-station-a3356201.html) [3]
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-
wiltshire-39117982](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-39117982)

~~~
hueving
The big companies that already have a presence in multiple European cities
won't have a big impact on staff. Take Google for example, people staying in
London can keep working at that office, people that want to leave (or are
forced to leave) can work in many of the other European locations (e.g.
Berlin, Paris, Zurich, Vienna).

Smaller tech companies will probably be hit the hardest if they only have a
London presence and they lose half of their employees. Depending on the
employee composition, it may even make sense to move the company entirely to
another country in Europe.

~~~
zigzigzag
Why would they lose half their employees?

The only way Brexit involves people being forced to leave where they live is
if the EU forces it to happen. The UK has already said many times it wants to
take that possibility off the table as soon as possible.

~~~
cmdkeen
There are also all sorts of legal barriers to kicking out people who have been
in the UK for any length of time. It simply isn't the case that there are
going to be millions of people forced to leave. Future immigration policy will
need to be decided - I can't see a scenario in which talented Europeans who
want to work in the UK are going to be turned away.

More interesting will be what happens to tech immigration from the rest of
world. It is entirely possible that we end up with easier immigration to/from
North America as a result.

~~~
Angostura
> There are also all sorts of legal barriers to kicking out people who have
> been in the UK for any length of time.

Such as? I don't believe that there are.

~~~
cmdkeen
There are arguments the Vienna Convention has created acquired rights, and the
ECHR's right to a private and family life. There's also the ability to apply
for permanent residence if you've been in the UK for more than 5 years.

This is all being predicated on a more specific settlement not being reached
with the EU. Given the UK says it wants one that shouldn't be a problem and
may well turn into the UK making a unilateral grant of residence even if the
EU decides to play hardball.

------
zigzigzag
Hacker News is full of people who are anti-Brexit. I see little understanding
of the opposing point of view. I am quite happy to see Article 50 finally
happen and will sum up why here. Take it or leave it.

18 months ago I was pro EU. Not strongly so, just because it was the status
quo, in my mind was vaguely associated with co-operation and so I was for it
by default.

Today I am pretty strongly eurosceptic. I think it's important for the UK to
leave and if anything I'd like to see it collapse entirely. Europe would be
stronger, more prosperous, more cooperative and freer if the EU were to die.

My reasoning goes like this. The EU is not simply a kind of really big working
group for finding new ways to cooperate, as I had once tended to assume. It is
a quasi-religious ideology with disturbing similarities to a cult. The people
who control the EU and many European politicians don't simply see it as a way
to foster collaboration and trade but rather as a way to replace existing
European countries with a new country, one which would in my estimation be
significantly worse than the countries we have now.

Calling the EU a cult may seem extreme, but to me it's not:

The EU and its supporters are not interested in debate on the future of
Europe. The future is their intended future, and no other alternative futures
are legitimised through recognition.

The EU does not provide any channel for people to reject or modify their
plans. Its leaders consistently see referendums or politicians that are not
blindly pro-EU as dangerous and if they occur anyway, often due to
constitutional obligations, the results are simply ignored if they run counter
to what the EU's leadership wants. The so-called Parliament cannot actually
change anything about the EU itself (it is not a real Parliament) and is thus
stuffed with yes men whose only reason for being there is ideological
commitment to the vision itself (there are also a handful of no-men who got
themselves voted in purely to try and slow it down, but they can't do anything
and have no real power).

Indeed, we can safely assume that the new federal superstate the EU wants to
build would not be a democracy. Given the EU's consistent lack of interest in
actual, real democratic mechanisms, it is likely that if their plans succeed
Europe's future looks pretty grim: something like the USSR of the 1980s. It is
the avoidance of this fate that led me to vote out.

In common with many cults the EU deliberately tries to make leaving it as
difficult as possible, through a variety of techniques such as insisting that
the remaining cult members (who were of course previously supposedly loving
friends and allies) shun the traitor and have nothing to do with them. Any
sustained connection with members requires complete membership and suggesting
it doesn't is an evil attempt to undermine the unity of the group.

The EU routinely abuses language in manipulative ways, for instance using the
word "Europe" when they mean "the EU". They do this to plant the idea that any
rejection of their plans is actually a rejection of "Europe" and "Europeans",
although it isn't. They also like to suggest that any rejection of the EU is
dirty backwards looking "nationalism", although the EU has its own civil
service, its own "parliament", its own borders, its own currency, its own
courts, its own flag, its own national anthem and wants its own army. The
reality is that the EU is a country-under-construction and the EU is a
fundamentally nationalist project.

Finally, the most disturbing similarity of all is the fact that the modern EU
is a project held together by fear. Its leadership happily and openly says so:
President Hollande's memorable "there must be a threat, there must be a risk,
there must be a price" quote (on the topic of Brexit) being the most extreme
example, but even today I read that Juncker is saying that there's no risk to
the EU because the British "example" will show others what happens to
countries that leave. They frequently imply that the alternative to the EU is
World War 3. European leaders talk this way constantly, apparently either not
realising or not caring that it makes them sound like some sort of Mafia.

There is no reason European cooperation must take place through such an
organisation. Before the EU was formed in the early 1990s there were many
parallel integration projects that were improving cooperation independently.
The EU eventually absorbed them all, but if it were to collapse, the result
would not be World War 3 or a dark age of hatred. It'd be a return to the days
when deals and international bodies were set up independently and countries
could independently assess which were working well and which were not, instead
of an "all or nothing" arrangement that artificially ties trade and
cooperation to an irreversible loss of local control.

Edit: -1 within a few minutes. What a surprise. Don't downvote if you
disagree, you won't change anything that way. Reply and debate instead.

Second edit: Thanks for the replies. I would like to engage and continue the
debate with you guys but HN has throttled me so I can no longer reply. I'll
try following up tomorrow and see if the throttle has been lifted. (I'm
starting to conclude HN is not a particularly good place to debate political
issues for this sort of reason ...)

~~~
polmolea
I read your entire rant and it's based on the sole idea that the EU is a cult,
not a single quantifiable fact. This is the kind of judgement that leads to
bad decisions. I think it's best we make this kind of decisions based on
numbers rather than abstract thinking.

For the record, I want to understand why people voted "leave" but every time I
try I end up reading something like this which doesn't get me closer, it just
upsets me.

~~~
vixen99
Try this:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/23/leaving-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/03/23/leaving-
the-eu-could-cost-britains-economy-84-billion-a-year/#1e006fd32fbf)

'So, obviously, it's not in fact the leaving or not of the EU that causes the
changes in the economy. It's the policies of openness to trade that do.'

------
open-source-ux
This is very depressing news. For those not living in the UK, I cannot recall
a time in recent memory when UK politics has felt so dysfunctional, oppressive
or regressive than it currently is.

~~~
bnastic
We knew for quite a while that the trigger will happen end of March. If you're
depressed it's not because of the current news.

~~~
gsnedders
We previously knew for quite a while that the trigger will happen the day
after the referendum.

A further statement saying that it will be March 29th instead of "by the end
of March" makes it seem ever more likely to happen (compared with the seeming
uncertainty last summer).

------
baby
Any idea of how this will affect the currency?

~~~
chumali
Assuming export volumes fall - which is the likely scenario - then we should
see Sterling fall relative to the Dollar. This is not considering any external
pressures on Sterling however.

------
perseusprime11
Worth talking of the pros and cons of a Democracy vs. a Republic. Are we sure
listening to a lot of people makes long term sense?

~~~
twen_ty
Here's a little anecdote: [https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-
remain-voters-1...](https://www.indy100.com/article/brexit-leave-remain-
voters-120000-dead-result-7463341)

Problem is, a non-binding referendum with just a binary subject with virtually
zero clarity on how the process will be exercised was shoved down our throats.
It's easy to blame the masses but the real problem was created by the
politicians (e.g. David Cameron/the Tories) and their arrogance and short-
sightedness.

~~~
hunta2097
It was a war of the negatives.

Neither side chose to express the positives.

Brexiters were portrayed as small-minded xenophobes.

The EU took the "We won't throw you a bone, what are you going to do about
it?" approach.

If there was a middle-ground option it would have won by a landslide.

I don't see large enough majority worthy of this amount of change.

------
pavlov
So in April 2019, the NHS's budget will increase by £350 million / week.
Right?

~~~
chrisseaton
I think this was the proposal of a campaign group, not of the Givernment. The
campaign group aren't in power, even though the referendum went their way. So
it isn't reasonable to expect policies they proposed would be be enacted,
whether or not you support the policy or the policy made any sense.

~~~
k-mcgrady
There was an official leave and an official remain campaign (as well as some
unofficial ones). The £350m NHS promise was part of the official leave
campaign headed by Boris and Gove.

"The pledge was central to the official Vote Leave campaign and was
controversially emblazoned on the side of the bus which shuttled Boris Johnson
and Michael Gove around the country. "[0][1]

[0] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-
farage-350-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-
farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/)

[1] [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-
vote-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-vote-leave-
wipes-nhs-350m-claim-and-rest-of-its-website-after-eu-
referendum-a7105546.html)

~~~
chrisseaton
They weren't representing HM Government when they made those suggestions. I
think the claim didn't make sense either, but it wasn't proposed by any group
with the authority to enact it. It wasn't a general election and Vote Leave
haven't formed a government or written a Queen's Speech.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Boris Johnson is a senior member of the government and the reason the promise
isn't being fulfilled isn't because the government don't want to do it - it's
because it was utter nonsense and never possible as a result of the
referendum.

------
Von_Jones
1\. Cost of living soars in Britain. 2\. Britain's young people want to leave:
Europe offers a better deal. Cheaper property, better employment conditions,
better looking men and women, good food. 3\. Britain's codger population votes
to pull up the drawbridge - not to keep the foreigners out, but to keep its
youth enslaved.

You poor bastards, good luck to you.

~~~
hamstercat
I'd like to invite all the young poor bastards to have a look at Canada. We
have a great immigration policy for young people looking for a new home!

~~~
Svip
I couldn't get a job in Canada, because your immigration policy required a
bachelor's degree. That was even if I had a job offered to me before seeking a
visa.

I think Canadian immigration policy is a bit over hyped for being 'great'.
Trudeau took a lot of great PR with getting some Syrian refugees, but getting
into Canada is still hard. Just easier in comparison to your neighbour to the
south.

~~~
mstade
Really? A friend of mind lived a few years in Canada, and to my knowledge he
doesn't have a bachelor's degree. (In fact, we both dropped out at about the
same time.) He _did_ have a job before going there, which was apparently
helpful, but as far as I understand it the whole process was pretty smooth.

Nothing beats the EU though. Live in one country working a job on Friday, move
to another over the weekend and start a new job on Monday – I've done
literally this multiple times now. This alone is reason to stay in, as far as
I'm concerned. The UK leaving is incredibly sad. :o(

~~~
Svip
To be fair, the company said they've tried hiring people without bachelor's
degrees in the past, and it hadn't worked out. So I actually never got as far
as to apply for a visa.

But I check out the point systems the Canadian visa system has, and it turns
out that I could get without a bachelor's degree, but only if I aced the
language test. Apparently, without the degree, you have to get the highest
points available from the language test.

See this for more details: [http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-skilled-worker-
immigratio...](http://www.canadavisa.com/canadian-skilled-worker-
immigration.html)

(Also, I think they changed the immigration policy a few years ago, so your
friend may have been able to get in before they changed it.)

------
deepnet
Robert Mercer owns Cambridge Analytica[1], a Facebook analytics & targeted
advertising company.

Allegedly CA has close ties to Brexit and donated services to the Brexit
campaign, that went undeclared [2].

Cambridge Analytica data exists outside European Data protections.

Mercer also owns Breitbart .com [3]

[1] [https://cambridgeanalytica.org/](https://cambridgeanalytica.org/)

[2]
[https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb)
/26/us-billionaire-mercer-helped-back-brexit

[3] [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-
us-2016-38005983](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-38005983)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Even before either of the campaigns they were involved in succeeded, I've read
articles that seem to suggest they were better at marketing themselves and
selling than actually delivering what they claimed they could.

Maybe they got better at it, but personally I'd point the finger at decades of
Murdoch-led media brainwashing rather than anything new-fangled. It used to be
Boris Johnson's actual job as a journalist to make up lies about the EU to be
fed to nationalistic, right-wing old people. And that demographic did much
more for them than the (relative) youngsters on facebook.

~~~
deepnet
[edit] I am inclined to agree.

