
Doom, Gloom and Unease: London's Tech Scene Reacts to Brexit - mjohn
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-24/doom-gloom-and-unease-london-s-tech-scene-reacts-to-brexit
======
volatilitish
As a brit, it's strange to see how it's being spun here.

The majority of people voted to leave the EU and to regain independence. There
will be a little volatility until some facts about how that divorce happens,
emerge.

Long term, we now have control of our future.

In terms of startups though, the EU is there to serve big businesses and
powerful establishment. It's there to hinder startups and small businesses. If
you're pro-small business, then you should be excited about the opportunities
we have now.

And can anyone on here really stand up for the idiotic cookie law? Can you
stand up for the "html link tax"? That's just the tip of the iceberg with the
meddling from the EU.

~~~
vonnik
Independence is a mirage, as is control. No individual nor country in the
world is independent. We are all interdependent on one another, and ever more
so as the movement of data, goods and people accelerates.

The EU is a framework is facilitate that interdependence, and while it has
many faults, it was created to prevent another world war and in that it has
succeeded.

Great Britain's future is very dependent on the decisions of its neighbors and
trade partners, and it has just told those neighbors and trade partners to go
to hell. The EU will make the UK pay a price for Brexit, and rightly so,
otherwise all member states would leave and still enjoy the free movement of
goods and people.

Every power structure is co-optable by large corporations and special
interests. The Leave leaders are no different. You have swapped out one
regrettable elite for another, much as the former British colonies nations did
mid-century. There are many problems "independence" doesn't solve, and dealing
with special interests is one of them.

Best of luck.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_The EU will make the UK pay a price for Brexit, and rightly so, otherwise all
member states would leave and still enjoy the free movement of goods and
people._

You make the EU sound like an abusive spouse. "Don't leave me or I'll hurt
you!"

Do you believe that if the UK leaves the EU, France and Germany will go to
war? If not, I don't see how "created to prevent another world war" is
relevant.

~~~
masklinn
> You make the EU sound like an abusive spouse. "Don't leave me or I'll hurt
> you!"

The UK decided that it could tell the EU to get fucked and get all the
benefits of the relationship without any of the drawbacks, it is not in the
EU's interest to confirm that and it has very little reason to bend over for
the UK. To reuse your ménage analogy, it's more like one spouse deciding to up
and go and asking for the house, car, accounts and still being invited to
christmas and family dinners.

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's more like one spouse saying "I'm leaving you, please don't hurt the
children".

(By analogy, the citizens of Britain/France/etc are the children, who'd like
to continue to play with one another, but perhaps one of their abusive parents
will use violence to prevent this.)

~~~
tomp
I agree with yummyfajitas here. A rational person would say "OK, we're not
compatible, let's split up, but no point destroying the house, spending all
our money on lawyers and kill each other". An irrational, emotional, greedy or
terribly insecure person would say "You? Leaving _me_? How could you?! You
FUCKER! I'LL RUIN YOU!!! AAAARGGGGGHHHH!!!!!"

~~~
masklinn
You've got your roles exactly inverted here. The UK left screaming, huffing
and smashing the door but apparently expecting the same benefits they enjoyed
beforehand, as a rational person the EU would have no reason whatsoever to
entertain that behaviour let alone reward it.

The EU has no rational reason to be especially sweet on the UK, and looking
internally and at the future it can't even be seen as that as it would bolster
eurosceptic movements inside the Union.

There's no point of view under which being soft on the UK is rational.

~~~
tomp
Well, yes, I guess being mean is rational, and being nice irrational.

~~~
masklinn
> Well, yes, I guess being mean is rational, and being nice irrational.

You're the one who brought on the rationality argument, and while things
differ across conflicts, in this specific instance yes being "mean"[0] is
rational.

[0] if "not bending over to the whims of an asshole" is considered mean these
days

------
cromwellian
Right now, among all industrialized economies, there is a crisis happening as
deindustrialization is taking place. This has fundamentally altered the
assumptions of steady and stable middle class economic growth that was an
anomaly mostly between the 1940s-1970s.

As a result, people are mad "at the system", what what we're seeing is
political movements redirecting public anger at whatever target they wish. In
the US, anger is being redirected at Mexicans, in the UK, apparently, it's
Immigrants and Brussels.

But realistically, how is tinkering with trade or immigration policy going to
fix the underlying issues that say, a retired Mill worker cares about? He's
being told that regaining sovereignty, or stemming the immigrant flow will
"make Britain great again", but there's no logical connection between A and B.

What's happening is, we seem to be coming apart at the seams. We are facing an
economic transition period perhaps more important than the transition from
agriculture to industrial economics, and it may leave vast numbers of people
with no recourse, especially as more and more automation happens in the
future.

There are policy changes we could make, like figuring out ways to tax
automation productivity and supply a basic income for those displaced. We can
argue over specific remedies.

But building a "wall", either a real one (Trump), or a virtual one (an
isolationist Island), is not going to restore the former economic compact that
the 65-and-over crowd grew up with.

I really see whats happening as quite exploitative of people's anger and
fears. Our politicians are preying on our worst tribalist instincts peddling
non-solutions in order to punish people and institutions who are not at fault.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Why can't a person be opposed to mass immigration even if it won't bring
economic benefits?

I'm not in UK frankly, but I'm definitely ready to sacrifice part of my income
if that would curb mass immigration.

Unfortunately, nobody ever proposed so.

~~~
thebokehwokeh2
Ok. I'll bite on this one. Why are you opposed to mass immigration?

~~~
lkrubner
I admire your willingness to be open minded and ask the question, but I've
asked the question in the past, and I've never gotten a straight answer.
Instead I get some pat pre-package talking points, and if I dig deeper I get a
confusion of ideas. And that's because the people opposed to immigration tend
to be motivated by racism, but they don't want to say that, so they every
other imaginable thing. It's simply impossible to have an honest conversation
with someone, if they aren't willing to be honest about why they favor a
particular policy.

~~~
moultano
Isn't self-interest enough of an explanation? Mass-immigration is unlikely to
be a short term benefit to the host country, particularly to low skill workers
in that country. Why should they oppose their own self interest?

(I'm personally a very pro-immigration American, so I'm talking about this to
understand the debate not to advance any particular objective.)

~~~
thebokehwokeh2
Self-interest is a valid explanation. And the question you pose is a very
valid statement. I am sure that immigration poses problems when it is at the
scale of modern society. Not everyone shares the same values and beliefs but
the optimist in me is the of the thinking that humanity is no longer the
tribal, "us vs them", neanderthal who only sticks to persons who visually look
like them. The United States of America was built on this idea and it thrives
today.

What I've noticed is that this issue of different-ness, seems only to surface
when money or resources are scarce. The global rich are getting richer and
richer, but counter-intuitively, this resource hoarding is not visible to the
masses, who see a huge influx of new "different" people. These people will
"potentially" take their jobs and their benefits, and then they "potentially"
will bomb their buildings and rape their daughters and wives, because they are
the boogeyman.

What they don't see is that they are competing with those people not because
those people are different, but because the people on top have figured out how
to take everything and not share.

~~~
rdtsc
> What they don't see is that they are competing with those people not because
> those people are different, but because the people on top have figured out
> how to take everything and not share.

It is not either or. Why are there all of the sudden a lot of "different"
people around, hmm strange? Is that correlated with wealth redistribution? Is
there a causal relationship, or are they completely orthogonal phenomena that
those who are wealthy just use to distract the masses?

I agree with wealth disparity, but I am hesitant to buy the "racism" slant
here (which I think I detect. i.e. people who don't want immigrant just hate
people with a different skin).

Countries and cultures still exist. Scots are different than Englishmen. They
almost voted to leave as well. We don't and probably will never live as a one
universal, global, happy country, all citizens of the earth, singing peace
songs together, dreaming of exploring space and so on. Now, I wish it was
that. Sort of a world wide cataclim or aliens invading, I don't see that
happening. People have been and will be tribal. It is a pretty well ingrained
instict. And people will want to preserve their tribe's identity, culture,
language and so on. Perhaps many see immigrants eroding that. That doesn't
have to be tied to skin color. Painting it as racism discredits and that make
your argument a bit too superficial.

~~~
guard-of-terra
Even if we are to fix ethnic crime, which I doubt we would:

Why should I like the large influx of people of different culture into my
country? After all, they take my voting power in the country.

Maybe I would be content with 0,1% per year influx, but 1% per year is far
into the pain zone. That's the amount of people who will try to influence
culture, influence decisions and policies. And I was content with whatever we
already have, thank you. I would much prefer to live in Russia than in
Uzbekistan. Why let people in who would reproduce culture and politics and
policy of Uzbekistan here? It's less viable, otherwise they won't desire to
leave their homes for better life abroad.

When you let significant minorities in the country, of course they would want
to have their say. Who won't? But this means that my voting power dwindles.

------
Animats
This may mean the breakup of the United Kingdom, too. Scotland and Northern
Ireland mostly want to stay in Europe, and may choose to leave the UK, leaving
Britain and Wales as the UK.[1]

As a practical matter, it will become harder to do business into the EU from
Britain. Visiting the EU from Britain may require a visa, and visiting Britain
from the EU almost certainly will.

This is really about Keeping Britain White.[2] "White Pride World Wide" used
to be a joke from Stormfront. Now it's becoming mainstream policy. (See Trump
campaign.)

[1] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-
remain-e...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/leave-or-remain-eu-
referendum-results-and-live-maps/)

[2]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/22/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/06/22/the-
brexit-debate-has-made-britain-more-racist/)

~~~
Lawtonfogle
This sounds very close to "Brexit supporters are racist." There seems to be a
growing trend of people labeling anything they don't like with some -ist to
shut down discussion.

~~~
jacalata
There is an even faster growing trend of people who campaign on really
explicit "stop immigration, prevent foreigners from ruining our culture"
platforms turning around and saying 'how dare you call me racist!'

~~~
mc32
Do people call Japan's immigration policy racist? Or do people not bemoan
China controlling Tibet because, among other things, Tibet'd lose their
cultural identity (this is separate from the valid argument about annexation
and human rights issues). What about Bhutan, should we propose they go full
globalization and either take on western culture, or Japanese or Korean
culture?

Fundamentally countries have a right to self determination and that includes
the future direction of the countries, culturally, economically, etc. So long
as it does not encroach on other countries' sovereignty.

~~~
yardie
_Do people call Japan 's immigration policy racist?_ No because it applies to
everyone equally. They call it xenophobic because that is exactly what it is.

In the US we actually had a racist immigration policy, the Chinese Exclusion
Act [0] because it was actually applied to a single race created by actual
racists. Do you see the difference?

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

~~~
mc32
Not sure why you're stating things about the US when we're talking about the
UK and their policies --which apply to Europeans as well as people from other
countries.

And yes, the Chinese exclusion act was by definition racist... But no one in
any major western country is talking about excluding one race or even
nationality of people outright (Trump talks about "pausing" immigration from
conflict zones).

People do speak about controlling their legal immigration and deterring
illegal/undocumented/etc. immigration (but pretty much all countries do have
visa requirements (or inter country-region agreements) --even those who mainly
export workers.

~~~
yardie
I was just pointing out a flaw in your argument.

I don't actually consider the UK's immigration policy as racist. Short-
sighted, definitely. but racist? Definitely not

------
raverbashing
There's some talk that immigration from the Commonwealth will be facilitated.
I don't buy it.

It's already difficult to find talent from the block, and several people come
to Europe with a visa

Yeah, I think the UK shot themselves in the foot with this

~~~
galfarragem
And they might loose Scotland also..

~~~
diakritikal
Judging by the mood of once upon a time British unionists here in Glasgow
there's a strong probability of that.

~~~
arethuza
One of my colleagues described the atmosphere in a bar in central Edinburgh
today as being like a wake.

------
rcarmo
I'm biased, but I'm going to say this anyway, since I've spent the morning
talking to former colleagues living as expats in the UK and to a couple of the
local nearshoring gigs, which are also in shock: if you're coming to Lisbon
for the Web Summit this year, take the time to investigate the Portuguese
startup ecosystem - a lot has changed recently, and if Brexit bottoms out the
tech industry in the UK the option of coming back home might be feasible.

Here's a quick primer:

[https://medium.com/@isss111/the-portuguese-startup-
scene-201...](https://medium.com/@isss111/the-portuguese-startup-
scene-2010-2016-9633b2849769#.a5367hlcf)

------
_audakel
"and a legacy of British exceptionalism that dates back to the British Empire
-- contributed to the vote's outcome. "The idea that they were just another
European country was a blow to their pride," he said. "They couldn't take
that.""

------
djschnei
A bureaucracy in Brussels is hardly necessary to enact simple pan-European
tariff reductions. It is necessary, however, to begin building what globalism
truly demands: a de facto European government, complete with dense regulatory
and tax rules, quasi-judicial bodies, a nascent military, and further
subordination of national, linguistic, and cultural identities.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Why should the people of England care what globalism "demands"?

~~~
unholythree
Hear, hear! Late last night I read a LA times Op-Ed
([http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-klaas-dirsus-
leav...](http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-klaas-dirsus-leave-
victory-in-britain-20160623-snap-story.html)) That presupposes globalization
is good. Lists problems they allege only it can fix, and ignores globalization
role in those very problems.

Additionally they never specify the recipient of globalization's
"unprecedented wealth". Why should it motivate the average UK voter if they
don't profit?

~~~
djschnei
I'm not a globalist! I promise! My comment was snarky haha.

------
diakritikal
And I might add... it's not just London.

We're dealing with the fallout already with some global retail brands based in
the EU asking us for exceptional changes.

------
hellothere789
An article regarding London sans an Oxford comma.

For shame.

------
yarper
tl;dr we're fucked, and everyone knows it

~~~
ommunist
not yet, but we'll be.

~~~
B1FF_PSUVM
"We're just discussing the price."

(as the punch line goes.)

------
stesch
UK's membership in the EU will get replaced by a number of new treaties.

The only ones suffering from the brexit are the ones who voted for it.

