People are disappointed. Even this vote , is actually a vote of dissatisfaction against the status quo. They just managed to direct enough of that anger against the EU.
I'd like to suggest the following three hypotheses and hear what you guys think :
1. As growth slows , liberal democracy ceases to be the status quo. It's much easier for a demagogue to whip up sentiments against the "other" when people feel that they have been left behind.
2. The media has always been a gatekeeper and helped keep the more extreme voices out of mainstream discourse. The internet breaks this dynamic and now disaffected majorities can coalesce across regional boundaries within a country.
3. The Western working class has realised that globalisation doesn't seem to be raising everyone's living standards. It's more of an equalisation where large numbers of people in Asia are lifted into the middle class while the western working class stagnates.
This diagram shows a clear class divide in the voting: http://i.imgur.com/SneDXWa.png
I don't have much more data to back these up so I'd be interested hearing any thoughts / anecdotes about such things around where you live.
Why should the citizens of a country be in favor of an economic policy that screws them in return for making the richest .001% of the population richer, and raising the standard of living for foreigners living in a mud huts to being slaves in a factory? This was apparent all along, but the people voicing these concerns were ignored or marginalized by the one sided economic voices in the media...
So to part 2:
The problem is that the economists you hear on the news telling you what needs to be done are wrong worse than 50% of the time (austerity, free trade with countries that don't have equivalent economies, you name it). In the US after Trump (who I mostly disagree with) started calling out Carrier for closing a US factory to offshore the production, I heard a couple economists taking about how if carrier didn't move all their production offshore no one would be able to afford an AC unit.
To which, I was frankly shocked. central AC units, which are mostly assembled from 3rd party components, many of which are already made in china/etc (unless you get lucky with a us built emerson/copeland compressor) are extremely high margin businesses. The assembly costs in the US are a tiny fraction of the installed price of a AC unit (which are dominated by your local AC installer). Worse, prices rarely decline when production is off-shored, rather the savings tend to go back to the execs and majority share holders. Or worse, are used to buy or block smaller more efficient competitors.
So, for a news organization to not vet this before allowing some doomsday economist to come on and talk about how the price of AC units are going to spike if carrier isn't allowed to fire a bunch of $20/hour employees in favor of a bunch of $5/hour ones, while playing tax games with the profits (aka book the majority of the profits outside of the US to avoid taxes) is just insane. Heck carrier has a gross profit margin of > 50% (its higher than Apple!).
Bottom line, I think pretty much everyone I know is now trained to disbelieve anything heard on the news from a self proclaimed economist.
And yes , the citizens of a country should not be in favour of a policy that transfers the lions share of the gains to the 0.01 %.
But overall , a liberal global order has been a good thing.
I blame the greed of the elites for (potentially) killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Greed is a powerful addiction. The elites won't stop trying to concentrate more and more wealth at the top, even when they know it will increase the chance of something like Brexit actually happening (which cut their wealth, at least temporarily, considerably).
Addition is powerful because it's addictive.
So next time you negotiate your salary, or try to make more bonus at the end of the year, I want you to think about your addiction to greed. You just want to concentrate more and more wealth at the top, even when you know it will increase the chance of something like Brexit. Clearly that's your motivator.
If that doesn't work for you, try coming up with a more realistic model or how wealth actually moves, and what motivates people. Parables about the seven deadly sins make for entertaining and convincing story telling, but are not good models for reality.
Even in the US, 34K a year is a living wage in some parts of the country while in others its extremely hard to survive. Beside the obvious cost of living expenses for house, transportation, food, there is also the question of, how your making the 34k a year. If you can earn it in less than 40 hours a week you have time to supplement your income growing a garden, fixing your own car, or spending time tutoring your children. OTOH, if it takes 80 hours a week to earn that then you pretty much have to pay people to take care of all the little things you could be doing yourself.
And yes let's say I make $100,000/year. Would I or most others be happy with it? Surprisingly, no. They probably want to make a little more to get a boat, or even a bigger saving for their children.
> rather the savings tend to go back to the execs and majority share holders.
If so, start your own AC company and undercut them since there's so much margin. As for me, I don't believe it for a second.
The Internet didn't break this dynamic, it's just another media in the end (regarding the press) with a louder audience for the same ideas. Moreover the fragmentation of countries into regions doesn't follow from that. It comes from national politics. National politics that just get votes and support from following point #1. And inevitably leads to a blaming game (they are a lot of Nigel across Europe).
I might be wrong and I don't have time to word my opinions like I would, sorry. Just my 2ç in the wee hour of morning.
Ah. Strikes everywhere in Belgium today.
You can say anything online and that widens the scope of what is considered acceptable discourse.
Notice how the media tries to black out Trump's insanity but it gets so much attention on social media that they're forced to cover his tweets.
Completely not true. They air hours upon hours of uncut press conferences. They could easily summarize the press conference in a 90 second piece ("Chris Christie endorsed Donald Trump today..."), but they don't.
I think you'll find this book interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jan/09/net-delusion-m... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/06/books/review/Siegel-t.html...
https://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp...
> But the internet allows people on the so called fringe to see that they may not be the fringe after all.
Not really, the internet also has that loudest voice syndrom.
> You can say anything online and that widens the scope of what is considered acceptable discourse.
Or you get drowned in an endless sea of information, a dot in the noisegraph.
> Notice how the media tries to black out Trump's insanity but it gets so much attention on social media that they're forced to cover his tweets.
Can't comment on that as I don't live in the US :/ but it's an interesting point. How effecient can they really be at hiding something vs ignoring it.
What? They love covering him because they get so many viewers. Hell, they're partially the reason he catapulted into the limelight--had they treated his antics the same as the other politicians' he'd have received far less air time than he has so far.
As someone who grew up in the Rust Belt, I think #3 hits the nail on the head. For as long as I can remember, the area where I grew up has been struggling economically (it was hit hard by waves of factory closings starting in the 1980's). None of the politicians from either party seemed to care.
Now suddenly there's a politician who seems to care about this issue, has a real shot at being President, and is different enough from the usual run of politicians that he may be paying the issue more than lip service and may actually be able to effect change.
For a lot of people, this is a powerful motivation to get out and vote for him despite his obvious flaws, especially when his opponent is not only as "establishment" as they come, but her husband literally brought us NAFTA.
To (3) I would add a "prisoner's dilemma" dynamic -- theoretically it's better if every country "cooperates" and gives all their effort to putting the benefit of the world as a whole above the benefit of their country (that's the vision of globalization). But if some countries "defect" and focus on themselves first, then whoever "cooperates" feels exploited (and not wrongly so). A lot of people I know feel like some countries (especially China) are defectors in this game and we shouldn't be suckers, so despite the theory, the practical thing to do is look out for ourselves first.
Farage is clearly fascist, and has been for many years. His fascism was identified while he was at school and it hasn't decreased since then. (Albeit it he no longer marches through villages singing Hitler Youth songs.)
http://www.channel4.com/news/nigel-farage-ukip-letter-school...
About as relevant as Cameron's pig fucking...
I post a link to his past because his present - leading a fascist party using fascist tactics - is so obvious it doesn't need linking.
Where is your evidence that he "really did" this?
Before you say "Did you read the article I linked to!" - yes, I did.
1) What's the significance of circles? Do they represent voting districts or something like that?
2) What does the size of a circle represent? Is it the population of a district, perhaps on logarithmic scale?
3) Does the position on the x-axis represent how strongly that district was for remain or leave?
Of course, you could give the link to the original source too, Google Image Search shows nothing yet.
Also , acting on emotion rather than reason and whipping up extreme sentiments against outsiders are the harbingers of fascism.
Can you even give a definition without looking it up?
* He wants small gov't * He believes in democracy * He does not support ccontinuing costly wars and meddling in other countries affairs * I'm not sure he's suppressed any political groups
Both sides are acting on extreme emotions these days, and on the other side of the coin, the outsiders are people who disagree with liberal policies.
5) this is a correction.
Is the UK unique in having pro-immigration, anti-immigration parties? It boggles my mind, and doesn't get discussed much even in the UK. (I suppose Trumps incoherence, and lack of walking the talk, is actually very similar, now I think about it).
I especially agree with your #2, but I warn most people will disagree. It's so foolish to think the Internet does not mean anything. I'm so disappointed when I travel somewhere and people mock my desire to secure a SIM card as quickly as possible. Why is it so frowned upon to connect to the Internet?
As long as your life is visibly improving , you don't mind that some people are doing insanely well. But it's much harder to stomach when you're struggling to get by.
Northern Ireland will unify with the Republic.
FTSE 100 will open down 12-19%, which probably wipes out ISAs all over the place.
This is history in the making. Decided by something like 1 million people as of right now.
Just an absolute disaster.
I'm not sure I get this part. Are you just counting the difference in votes? How about the millions that voted for Brexit?
This was decided by %50+ of the populace. If you didn't agree to the terms, why did you come to the voting?
Not true. The electorate was 46,501,241 and the leave vote was 17,410,742, so about 37%. You're forgetting to take into account those who didn't vote.
I didn't agree to the terms, I didn't vote for Cameron and I still voted (remain). Why wouldn't I?
Those who didn't vote but could of effectively decided "I don't care enough to participate. You decide for me".
If they were too lazy go out in the rain, mark a piece of paper with a pencil or use a postal vote then they can't really complain after the fact.
I'm sorry if I sound a bit annoyed, this is not directed specifically at you, I just don't like the result.
The issue was important and the voting procedure for those eligible to vote was not onerous.
If the UK had voted to leave, with only a 2% margin, would you have complained that it was to little to determine something of this magnitude and called it ridiculous?
Regardless of the outcome, the EU needs to re-evaluate how it operates and if it needs to change drastically. I'm a fan of the idea of an EU, but in it's current form it's an almost unmitigated disaster and a role model for people wanting to circumvent democracy.
Scottish independence is likely - the question is just how firm the polls need to be before the SNP go there again.
Yes there are, it's Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. Scotland, Gibraltar, or whatever other country/region, will be considered as new applications for EU membership as the previous application was by a "different" country. This was reiterated by the EU during the Scottish referendum, this is no different.
[1] I am no lawyer nor politician, I have no idea how easy this would be from any practical point of view
Italy is also having problems with separatists.
Venice want to become a city-state republic again, and the Italian islands also made moves about wanting independence.
Italy is very aware of this, and in the past last time someone tried a independence stunt (some guy built a artificial island and declared independence) Italy bombed the shit out it.
Italian and Spanish "estabilishment" politicians are probably panicking now, since independence movements might consider UK leaving the EU, and the potential for Scotland to leave UK, "inspiration" to make their own moves.
† This is not meant as a nationalist slur, or a conflation of identities - it is meant in terms of political sentiments and voting patterns. Scotland and Northern Ireland are far more devolved.
http://www.ondacero.es/programas/mas-de-uno/audios-podcast/e...
That's a tough one. No idea how that will turn out. In my mind, I now see lots of bits and pieces of the UK becoming parts of Scotland.
Though one could of course, consider this part of the ongoing aftershocks from WW2 which Britain never fully recovered from (i.e. final nail in the coffin of the Empire, its virtual indebtedness to the US), which led to what are probably the most US-like, capitalist-minded policies of the entire EU. Policies which, although making London the financial powerhouse it is, have undoubtedly alienated its rural areas, and have led to the referendum result we are seeing now.
It wasn't just virtual.
"The Anglo-American Loan Agreement was a post World War II loan made to the United Kingdom by the United States on 15 July 1946, and paid off in 2006. The loan was negotiated by John Maynard Keynes. The loan was for $3.75 billion (US$57 billion in 2015) at a low 2% interest rate; Canada loaned an additional US$1.19 billion"
The interesting thing to consider is that although the repayment terms were generous given the general context of the Marshall Plan, the US should probably have had to go an extra mile given the UK's contribution of its Tube Alloys program [0]. This nascent R&D project was moved over to the US, expanded and upgraded - and nowadays we call it the Manhattan Project.
Churchill argued for a European super-state. He was the architect of several of the early steps towards European integration, such as the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights, and he wanted a European army.
He's pretty much one of the fathers of the EU.
He also at one point proposed outright union between the UK and France.
The important thing to consider, with respect to his United States of Europe speech though, is that when Churchill spoke of this, the UK still had an empire - it was a super-state, though one in decline, and the Commonwealth still meant something more than a loose association. He was speaking from a position where the UK was already "spoken for" so to speak.
Yet over the years afterwards he was one of the driving forces of European integration, including for the UK, but of course he did not see how far it was going.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_...
Yes, there was a democratic deficit in the original EU structure. It was addressed in the 2009 treaty, and it keeps getting addressed with more and more decision-making powers slowly moving from Commission to Parliament. But it's too late, people think Bruxelles decides banana sizes and we can't have that.
Unsurprisingly, who was among the first journalists starting the whole "crazy bruxelles" meme? One Boris Johnson.
so the statement is accurate
It's a logical fallacy to say that "the country's laws were decided by politicians the people did not elect.", when indeed they are elected by the people.
The UK has zero members in the EPP because the conservatives decided to go it alone; they still have votes, they've just decided to form their own parliamentary bloc, the AECR.
It's like Northen Irish people voting Sinn Fein were complaining that they don't actually sit in Westminster.
the situation is identical
Congratulations, you will see the United Kingdom disappear in your lifetime.
Please don't post flamewar-style comments here, especially in divisive threads.
I don't think the UK is going to get the same deal as Norway or Switzerland especially since the UK doesn't want to get involved in the free movement.
This is the dilemma, I don't think the EU does want the UK to suffer just out of spite, but they can't give them a generous deal considering EU stability.
By the way: Berlin and London Stock Exchange markets want to merge, the UK leaving the EU is more of a problem in that regard http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-16/lse-agrees... (though they said they want the deal to go along no matter the vote)
[1] Front national (FN) in France, Alternative für Deutschland (AFD) in Germany, Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV) (Party for Freedom) in Netherlands, nationalist movements in Poland, Hungary, ... Election in Spain might also not turn out to result in a EU-friendly government... (seriously could go on...)
If two parties agree on any contract or trade agreement, the parties are not always of equal weight and do have their own interests at heart. The UK needs the EU more than the other way around, so the EU has more pull and will make use of it. So "bully your client states into submission" is not a fair description to use, to put it politely. You could say that about any deal where one party has an advantage.
By the logic of your parent posters the UK wouldn't have left because of Greece, which has been used to set an example last year.
even the remain arguments seem to be, yeah sure it's not great but it's still better than nothing.
what a ringing endorsement.
The EU works pretty well. Just last week one of my Romanian work colleagues paid an Irish company (Ryanair) only $80 euros for a 2-person airplane trip to another European capital (Rome). All that would not have been possible without all of us being in the EU. For comparison, just look at how crazy expensive airfares are in the States for similar flights. And I could find other, numberless examples from the day to day life with which people have accustomed themselves, they have started to see them as granted, but which would have not been possible without the EU. UK's decision is sheer idiocy.
I assume you're referring to the cost of a comparable domestic flight within the US.
How can you credit the success of the EU for your $80 flight ticket and then compare this to the US? It obviously goes without saying that the US is a far more effective and integrated union than the EU (the EU is not even a fiscal union). I suspect the difference in flight costs has more to do with population sizes than "political unions".
Interesting price difference. It seems after a little bit of research this has to do with reduced demand for air travel in the us. But if it were to be something the eu has done, which largely generally surrounds higher regulation and the suppression of competition. How has it done so?
No wonder everybody hates it.
That being said it's not so much about "unfair consequences" or "punishment" directly, it's more about "not giving special treatment", ... "out means out", interesting times ahead.
They don't have one, and they assumed they would get one. Why? Obama just clarified: you do not have it, and will not get it. Why does the UK think they deserve a trade deal? Just because?
> Germany threatened of no trade agreement.
Same here
> France threatened to flood eurotunnel with migrants
France has a huge refugee camp in the border with the UK, which France is keeping out of the UK just because of the agreements that the UK has with the EU. Why should now France carry the cost of keeping those immigrants out of the UK? They obviously want to go to the UK, so let them.
Do you really think that the leaving the EU has no consequence? It is not punishment, it is just voluntarily deciding to renounce the benefits of a club.
When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
> “We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if Britain is no longer in the European Union.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/03/calais-borde...
We are simply not in the same camp anymore.
The EU was more than a market for the UK. You'll eventually see that.
Well, there's a four-hundred-year-old "special relationship" between the two that Obama unilaterally has decided doesn't mean anything.
> When you resign your Tennis Club membership, do you complain that you are not allowed to use the showers, and to play in the courts? Those are automatic things, which come by leaving the club. You also spare the monthly rate!
Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
You'll keep your special relationship. You'll simply not get a new trade agreement. There is already one with the EU, which you are leaving. You are also getting out of all the rest of the EU agreements.
But don't worry: maybe you get a trade agreement with the US after all: you are more than welcome to start negotiating dupes (or improved versions) for the agreements than you consider interesting, but it does not follow that your potential partners must agree, not even that they have any interest whatsoever in negotiating with you, which is what you are implying. Maybe they have, maybe not. For starters, a new agreement is definitely extra work, which some may just not want, or maybe even not be in a position to dedicate resources to.
You are now free to fight for your interests. The rest too.
> Um, the EU is hardly a tennis club.
The analogy applies at the tennis club level or the galactic empire level: out of a club is out of a club. It is not "out of the bad things but keeping the good things". The club got you those good things. Now go fight for them on your own. Hey, maybe you get an even better deal!
The British people didn't say "fuck you", they said "we don't really know what we want". I mean, 52-48 is not insignificant, but it's also not a "clear, strong message" for leaving - it's a message from a divided nation who is quite literally not sure what it wants. Just sit in a restaurant tonight and look around - whatever your opinion, half of the customers agree with you.
The issues at hand are very complex and quite simply too much so for most voters to even get an idea of what's at stake. As with any such referendum, the overwhelming majority of the votes are cast emotionally. You cannot get such a massive amount of people to think through the implications rationally - they go with their gut.
So again, the message here is "we have no idea what we really want", not "fuck you".
And are you actually saying that such important decisions shouldn't be left up to voters? If so, then should choosing leaders be left up to voters?
It seems pretty clear that many (not all) of those who voted Leave were in fact telling the EU and the scaremongering demagogues for Remain, "Fuck you." And some other portion (the sets probably overlap) were saying something like, "This EU thing isn't working out like you said it would, so we want out." Not, "I don't know what I want."
I think the population has a right to vote. I just don't think most people are fit to vote on every particular issue. It's en emotional vote and it could have swung one way or the other. Interesting times!
Not entirely sure of your general opinions on voting, but for the most part, majority is majority when it comes to democracy. You can't now claim "oh but it isn't victory by a significant margin, therefore people didn't really know what they wanted to vote for." The message is: "52% of the voters at the time wanted X, therefore democracy-dictates we do X". If it's good-enough for electing our leaders, it's good enough for a referendum.
Because he's gone in five months. Assuming the UK doesn't leave Europe till the negotiations have been sorted out (so maybe a few months from now) then it's unlikely he'll be doing much negotiating in regards to a possible UK/US trade deal. Matters much more what Clinton or Trump thinks of the whole idea...
Calmly, but clearly.
This will be good for everybody: UK will be happy being free (a feeling which will trump any disadvantage they may be getting by leaving the EU), and the EU can proceed with greater political integration.
As a Brit I am in despair this morning.
I'm assuming you are in US. Imagine the feeling you will have the morning Trump wins the presidency. This is the same feeling. A gut punch. My Facebook feed is full of very upset friends. It's really depressing.
Fear, hate and ignorance won.
I do wish people in the Remain camp would stop with this. Just because people voted to Leave, doesn't mean they were uneducated. I was on the fence about whether to stay or go for a long time, it was only after I put in research that I decided to vote to Leave. Despite what you see in the mainstream media, it's not just a bunch of racists voting to Leave. In fact, I really wish I could've voted to stay, but I didn't want to compromise my principals to do so.
If you want an educated voice that was in favour of leaving, watch this clip of Tony Benn...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0wFii8klNg
Jeremy Corbyn also had serious misgivings about the EU too...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXTvsqUphMc
From what I've seen, neither of them were/are susceptible to jingoism. Do you see why they wanted to leave?
Sorry, but sour-grape bullshit.
There was pro-leave bullshit, but there was also pro-remain bullshit. Characterising anyone who disagrees with your position as ignorant, or less educated is the height of arrogance.
If you have so many pro-EU friends, it sounds as if you live in a bubble. You need to get out more. It is very depressing.
Sorry, but the figures show that those who voted remain were not only older, but also less educated.
(https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/21/yougov-referendum-model...)
And most of the evidence for the 'right choice' is clearly in the remain camp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAgKHSNqxa8 (A bit uncouth, but the evidence he presents is pretty clear)
I was rather undecided, leaning towards remain, until I started examining the posts by my friends. I examined most of the quotes and figures they mentioned in each article. As a result, I think my 'leave' friends are insane, because I found all of the 'leave' articles were utterly disingenuous about their quotes. They repeatedly misquoted newspapers known for extremely poor (third rate) coverage, and some of the information was downright fabrication. On the other hand, the articles posted by my friends who supported the 'remain' camp frequently listed what I consider to be 'first rate' sources (The Office of National Statistics, etc.), and the quality of the information was much higher and truthful. I found only one or two misquotes, and no fabrications.
Obviously, that's purely anecdotal, but it seems to mirror the experiences that a lot of 'remain' voters have had.
But aren't those also the ones who have been hit hardest by Globalization? Isn't that the big divide we're seeing here: the fact that high skilled and well educated have greatly benefited from the EU. Meanwhile the working class have faced stagnation.
Leaving the EU gives up power, economic might, and so on, but I don't find it so surprising that so many would risk such a decision in hopes of breaking away from the status quo.
You have decided to leave beleaving that being independent will improve your chances of facing global problems: globalization, immigratiin, inequality, tidal movements in the labor market due to technology disruption ... It is not a given that global problems can be better confronted by withdrawing from international organizations. Time will tell.
But even if you happen to ne succesful in that front, the political damage, for the UK and the EU is huge. The EU is much more than a market, and the UK is about to realize about it.
Or are you mostly just lamenting your contrymen's xenophobic and isolationist attitudes, without necessarily foreseeing a particular measurable change in your life?
It has had an immediate effect on me and my co-workers (been working since 4am). It is entirely possibel my job will move to continental Europe some time over the next few years (I may or may not go with it).
It is also entirely possible that it will cause a second Scottish referendum and possibly a Northern Irish one too. My current plan is to agitate for London to secede from the UK. Not sure that'll work though.
Pretty sad and angry today, but you turned out indeed to be quitters.
People like you will be the ones suffering the consequences the most, so I wish you all the best!
My guess is that they are hoping that the economic loss will be short lived and people will want to continue to trade with the 5th largest economy.
My objection isn't that somehow we'll turn into a banana republic. My guess is we'll drop 3-5% GDP. It's that building growth in a slow global economy is painful. We've spent the last 8 years going through that pain and we'll just have to do it again. It's like shooting yourself in the foot but without actually being on the front line.
Where I have a feeling my view diverge from yours is that the only good reason I see to be in the EU is economic. The single market has been a success and good for the UK. The rest, not so much. I think it's a mistake to leave the EU but not an unqualified one.
This vote tore all that up.
I am very interested in hearing about the concrete manifestations of policy changes on economic activity, public health, national security, the environment, etc. I honestly have no idea what the implications of a Brexit will be with regard to these things.
In politics, though, such discussion is often drowned out by people's quests to self-identify as whatever kind of person (eg. liberal) and make note of cultural differences between themselves and the opposition (how they're uneducated or xenophobic or not globally-minded, in this case).
The GP seems confident that a Brexit is an extremely bad thing. I have no a priori reason to suppose otherwise, but it would be a lot more useful if they would explain what negative consequences they foresee.
For one, and by definition, broken agreements and extra burden to paimfully craft new ones. Work duplication. Petty fighting for minute details with each potential partner.
Next, broken trust. We have spent years negotiating with the UK, accedimg to ever increasing demands, accepting expansion of the EU to the east at your behest (and then complaining about too many poles), etc. Luckily we did mot accept Turkey (which I actually supported, but in the current situation would have been a further destabilizing factor) at your (and USA's) behest.
And now you quit. You shatter all we have built together. Not nice. Resentiment is bound to take hold of lots of europeans against britons. I for one do not welcome you anymore. I hope all agreements with the UK are declared void, students are not accepted in university exchange programs, that you have to pass screening processes (like all mon-EU people have) to enter and set shop in any EU country, that you have to prove cultural and language integration whenever you decide to permanently move to another EU country, that you are only allowed to move if you have a work permit and a work offer, etc.
In short, the EU should put back all red tape that belongs to any non-EU member. And each piece of red tape will be romeved, or not, after long negotiations, which the EU will agressively stear to defend our interests.
Is this retaliation? At all! YOU have decided this. The club you are leaving is all that, and much more. You are leaving ALL that behind.
Will this happen? Is this in the EU's interest? You bet. Maybe not strictly in our economic interest, but defenitely in a political sense.
We have been dealt an existential threat, and we need to show the remaining 27 members how cold it is outside.
The reactions of EU polititians have been cristal clear: we are cutting ties with the UK, fast and furious.
Boris can pretend to continue to be european, but we will not necessarily welcome it.
Plus, you know, either way roughly 50% of the population is going to be unhappy by the outcome of this referendum.
But my other point stands: I think this will definitely be good for the EU, if contagion can be avoided.
I heard there are a lot of tech companies that already bought land in Ireland as a hedge against the Brexit, and that's where a lot of the tech jobs are going to be going. (Albeit that's only one industry, and I doubt that the financial industry would go in the same direction.)
Let's not forget that there are many engineers who don't live in the Bay Area, NYC or London, for whom Dublin may be quite attractive. And while it may not be on the level of those three regions, it has a lot going for it in its' own right.
Now Ireland has both: human capital and tax reasons.
Not saying there aren't plenty IT jobs, but you can't look at size/investment alone without looking at what kind of roles are actually there.
I'd also note that while companies get plenty tax breaks, actual income-tax is pretty high. Accommodation is pretty pricey near the centre too, though not as bad as London.
Dublin in particular is incredibly dynamic right now. And it's a lot better than where most London tech companies are e.g. Canary Wharf, Stockley Park etc.
If the EU really wants to go that way, it will only make more people wonder whether they want to be part of a transnational bully.
If you refuse, are you the bully?
But whatever the response of the EU, it will decided by power politics that appear very distant from the control of the voter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...
Greenland and Algeria left the EEC (EU precursor)
It's not about the technology, it's about the people and the money, which is all in London.
In any case, expect a lot of the money to pile into other currencies and not get spent as people try to ride this out.
Because the anti-immigrant nature of the Leave campaign e.g. from UKIP suddenly makes the UK look a lot less inviting. If the Visa situation doesn't get a whole lot worse.
I think a more interesting metric will be the price of land in London and the change in the rate of flows in/out of the property market in the coming weeks. Less liquid, less prone to volatility, more indicative of long-term economic trends for the city.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/f00c4a58-384a-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8e...
The FT is reckoning on a split across the Eurozone:
"But, as a small city with a population of less than 700,000 people, Frankfurt is seen as provincial and unpopular with staff. Dublin is English-speaking and attractive on tax grounds, but it is a relative backwater. The most likely outcome is that foreign banks with large operations in London will shift staff to a spread of eurozone locations where they already have operations — including Frankfurt, Dublin, Paris, Warsaw and Lisbon. That would fragment the financial services industry in Europe, potentially weakening the continent’s ability to compete internationally."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23d576b0-386a-11e6-a780-b48ed7b612...
Long term the EU is going nowhere, it is dominated by socialist countries that will go the way of Argentina, a slow but steady decline (well under way). And the migrant crisis, which is likely only at its beginning (look at african demographic projections), combined with Brexit and the rise of populism all over Europe, will likely put such a strain on the EU that I think its days are numbered.
So on the long run, I think the UK has probably made a wise choice.
Without young immigrants and their higher birth rates there simply won't be enough tax revenue to cover future social obligations. We know what this game looks like: Japan. A country looking at a steady and certain decline in quality of life. This is what the UK is going to be like.
The EU is absolutely going to be dominant in the future. Collectively it has an economy that is more varied and flexible and the single market is invaluable. As a startup or prospective exporter being able to try things out in your local market (of 500 million people no less) is the reason the US is so successful.
African demographic projections which shows Africa's population growth slowly dropping? Coupled with economic projections which shows most African economies growing at far faster rates than Europe? With some African countries, like Nigeria, likely to overtake the UK in total GDP (not per capita) over the next 20-30 years? Largely as a result of massively improved stability and fewer wars over the last decade.
Africa has plenty of challenges, but they're mostly headed the right way. And they're also slowly but steadily moving towards a far more ambitious union project than the EU, with several of the African Union pillars (regional closer unions like ECOWAS serves as "first stage" integration) hard at work at monetary unions and extensive integration.
Of course things can change - nobody expected Syria to blow up the way it did and more than we expected Yugoslavia to collapse as violently as it did.
But at the moment, countries like Nigeria are seeing graduates etc. returning in droves from the UK because the opportunities there are immense, cost of living low (though housing prices in parts of places like Lagos can rival London) and growth at levels you can't hope for in the UK.
http://www.geohive.com/earth/his_proj_continent.aspx
Now if it is matched by an unprecedented growth, it may turn out OK. But if I was a young african male, I would try my luck in Europe.
> But if I was a young african male, I would try my luck in Europe.
If you were a young African male with the means of getting to Europe, there's at least half a dozen African countries where your economic prospects over the next 20-30 years would likely outstrip going to Europe unless you are in a tiny minority with skills that are in very high demand in Europe.
As it stands, they'd need to see a total catastrophic collapse of the economy of most of the African continent, with no subsequent recovery, for economic growth to not outpace population growth over the next few decades.
I'm sure you can't extrapolate it and assume it will stay the same for the next 30 years. But you can make reasonably educated estimates assuming that the average change in velocity will be all that extreme, given that large part of these amounts are based on income from relatively stable industries with well understood risk profiles.
Largely the development of Africa at present boils down to whether or not we see further major wars disrupt the progress. If we do, then, yes, things may go the wrong way. If not, it will take unprecedented crises to prevent Africa from continuing to see massive growth.
I'd wager that the OP hit the nail on the head here. There are many large Pakistani communities in England in areas such as the Midlands, East London and Bradford that do not inter-marry, socialise or integrate outside their own culture, and when after two or three generations this remains unchanged the perception to the locals is that the cohesion of their communities have taken a real turn for the worse.
The EU's inability to manage middle eastern migrants in a controlled way, along with the belief that most will eventually hold EU passports and speak rudimentary English I think were major deciding factors in those communities, communities that have had demographic shifts not seen in Scotland and Northern Ireland & whose concerns are shut out and branded racist and xenophobic by both the media and the left.
Socialism in Europe died in the '90s. What we have now are right-wing neoliberal elites trashing the place that social-democrats built in the '70s and '80s.
Les députés européens socialistes français estiment que la victoire annoncée du Brexit est "l'échec d'une Europe exclusivement dédiée au marché intérieur"
Translation: the French socialist members of European parliament think that the victory of Brexit is the "failure of a Europe solely dedicated to free trade".
Free trade is the only thing UKIP or the euro-sceptic tories want to keep from the EU. There is a fundamental cultural gap between the UK and Continental Europe countries.
The SNP's absolute dominance slipped a little in the last Scottish election, making a quick followup referendum less likely. But this new result will put it right back on the agenda.
If there is a second vote I imagine the tone will be a lot less positive. Last time it was all about being a small, wealthy nation with the desire to stand up and make its own name in the world. This time, the previously small but poisonous anti-English voices in the campaign will be emboldened. It will be a vote to leave in panic rather than in confidence.
Overall as a staunch supporter of Scottish independence this is nowhere close to what I want to see.
It's possible. The same with northern ireland. But more interesting question is which european country will leave the EU next. Hungary? Greece? Finland?
The UK is a pillar of the EU ( 2nd largest economy and the 3rd most populous country ). Don't see the EU surviving without the UK.
As long a Germany and France are on board, the EU will survive in some form. The UK has always been an obstacle to tighter integration, and that obstacle will likely be gone soon.
They won't be on board much longer. The EU is nonsense at its very core. It is a corrupt cesspool where a select group of unelected masters rule over the unwashed masses.
It is a farcical idealized fantasy. It doesn't exist the way the people idealized it to exist.
> The UK has always been an obstacle to tighter integration, and that obstacle will likely be gone soon.
Actually, the UK was a force for tighter integration. After all english and modern anglo culture is the dominant culture of the EU.
It is just shocking how naive people are. The problem with the EU is precisely france and germany. To have "integration", you have to have a common language, culture, history, etc. So will french or german be the language of the EU? That's just the basic first level aspect of a "union".
The only way the EU will ever work is if one dominant nation/ethnic group/etc conquers the whole thing and forcibly integrates the region. And that won't happen anytime soon.
Greece and Hungary are probably next to leave soon to be followed by everyone else.
England has canada, australia, new zealand and of course the US. England is part of the anglosphere. England will be fine.
Also, the "mines", "oil" and "fish" make up a tiny portion of england's economy. England is mostly a financial center, not a oil or a mining center.
Including immigration? That seemed to be a big factor in the Leave vote.
Including Poles, Romanians, all those people the far right despises.
They wouldn't have to let war refugees and asylum seekers in, though.
The great majority of foreigners in the UK are coming from non-EU countries, and they are not refugees. Leaving the EU will not change that.
Hard to know what will happen here, but I suspect once the UK (or what's left of it) signs a trade deal with the EU, they'll get the same deal as Norway - all the compliance with EU regulations, with none of the say. I suppose people may be happy with that deal, as long as they can get to say they're "free".
I'm hoping this somehow leave the EU in better shape, perhaps more cohesive, perhaps reforming in ways to minimize chances of anyone else leaving. As a Bulgarian (not living in Europe) this makes me somewhat bitter - seems Englishmen can't accept belonging to a club we also belong to.