The UK has tons of smart Indian and Chinese students coming here to study. It's one of the top 3 locations for wealthy Russians to emigrate to (along with Germany and the US). The Qataris built a half billion dollar glass pyramid in London. I hear London has no real contender for a European tech hub (Berlin has much less available talent from what I gather). If a pro-international Brexit happens, we're in OK shape (big if, granted). I was planning to leave before Brexit, but I'm now more confident about the UK's direction and I'm planning to stay (yes I know this is a rare position heh).
First, there is this uncertainty of what is going to happen in the next 2-5 years. I can't build a future for my small family based on what may or may not happen regarding VISA or Emmigration laws. Will I be able to change my job easily? will the new employee request "UK only passport holders"? will I have restriction on changing jobs? Will I have the same freedom I had before?. Will I be covered by NHS or do I have to pay?.
Secondly, people who are not already in the UK are getting a bad vibe from what is happening. A lot of people are considering to emigrate to Canada or the US, because the UK "doesn't want foreigners". Racist incidents are on the rise, against Muslims, east Europeans and foreigners in general. It might be similar to other countries in Europe, but its the perception that count in this case.
Lastly, the divide that this referendum did between "Remainers" and "Brexiter" will have a social and political impact. Tories and Labour is in a meltdown at the moment. The next 5 years will be hard for the UK, and I hope things will stabilize soon. But this is not a place it used to be before the referendum. I'm thinking of leaving, probably in a few years. Hell, I'm even considering Dubai, because I'm uncertain of what will happen here.
Sure, one data point, but you can't act as if nothing has changed. It has.
There are certainly currents of nationalism affecting Europe right now, and it's important that we don't bury our heads in the sand or run away from the problems affecting people. There has to be a way to deratchet politics without slamming the door angrily and fleeing the country.
The questions I think about are: Is it possible to create a better economic arrangement for our people? Can we create a safety net for working class people that stops the growth of nationalism?
Bootstrap a basic income.
We don't need to wait for the state or the multinationals to have mercy on us. I don't think they will. We should take matters into our own hands.
My idea is that people should create non-profit associations for the purpose of assuring their basic necessities. These associations should buy land to farm, own factories, organize their own education and health systems. Being owned by their founders, such organizations's sole purpose will be the well being of their creators.
In order to work out, these co-ops need to become independent of external conditions. They need to have a full stack of services, just like a country in miniature: they need to have farms, factories, hospitals, schools and domestic homes.
When the robot age will finally come, people will find it very hard to find a job. In the past, people could trade their skills and effort for money, but now, they have nothing to trade for. So the only solution is to rely on themselves, not on the new economy which doesn't need them except as consumers, or on the government which is too large and too corrupted to be trusted. We should boostrap our own basic income.
Sometimes successfully, sometimes less so, a successful example being the kibbutz movement and the most obvious failure being large-scale communism. Even feudalism can in some way be considered as a manner of providing basic income.
The problem is: How do you accommodate everyone's personal gifts, passions and proclivities?
Not everyone's a farmer or a physician, so not everyone's of practical use for your proposed commune. This is likely to create envy and resentment.
Just call me Cassandra.
In my mind, it was only a matter of when. If it wasn't the Conservative party that had called the referendum, eventually UKIP would either have ended up in a coalition or seizing a majority.
In fact, I think it's better that the establishment should try to grapple with these politics now instead of letting them fester too long. At least now certain things have been dispelled, and the machinery behinds the politics is beginning to be exposed. For example, the idea that we could get £350 million of free money for the NHS just by leaving the EU; or the idea that progressive politics are trickling down into poor communities and helping them to understand that they're rightfully poor because they're not competitive in global markets, and shouldn't blame immigrant workers working alongside them (or whatever it is they're meant to tell themselves late at night).
for a return to the glorious past
I'd even argue that this is misleading in the case of Nazi Germany, although less so as, the National Socialists often spoke of the alleged decadence of the presence which they contrasted unfavourably with a mythical past.
Both the Soviets and the National Socialists were extremely technophile.
Re Germany, Aryanism.
I honestly don't know if we're up to escaping it. We are beautifully fallible and flawed - without, we would not have art and love and all that is good, so we must take the bad with, lest we lose what it is to be human.
I doubt it. They completely lack the community support they had in the past for any sustained anti-government action. Sinn Féin are only posturing on the border poll idea and they know they would lose by a wide margin anyway.
I'm fairly certain the UK would be better off if most of the leave voters left the UK completely. The demographics seem to trend towards older pensioners and those on some type of government assistance.
They voted to join 67% to 33% in 1975. They are all 60+ years old now, and polls showed 60+ voters voting to leave by over 60%.
Why were they in favor of EU membership then but against it now? If they voted to leave because of stupidity and xenophobia, as I keep hearing here on HN and on Facebook, why did they ever vote to join in the first place?
It's interesting how the people with the most historical context, the most experience with the system, and indeed the people who brought it about are seen as somehow not worthy of having an opinion on it and that their vote should count less or not at all.
By his own admission, when he was a journalist in Brussels in the 90's, he fabricated stories from whole cloth - he compared it to chucking stones at the neighbour's greenhouse for fun. He was fired for this repeatedly, and therefore entered politics.
Additionally, even if they call the whole thing off, the already present uncertainty has dented the next decade or more for the UK economically, diminishing the prospects of the young and/or bright.
I feel for many of the leave voters, as they voted for an illusion they either lacked the faculties or tools to see past. Many are hateful, but many were duped - but nobody likes to admit that they were duped, so they'll either duck and hide, or become hateful in response to the unambiguous hate coming from the very betrayed feeling remainers.
It's an awful bind, and it's one that's played out before, very poorly.
It's a disservice to lump them all in the pitiful camp.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/06/bre...
What we do know is that the vote was pretty close either way and that most of the MPs don't want Brexit. Which means that there are strong incentives to delay as long as possible. Whether this means next year, or until there's an actual deal that can be voted on by Referendum or Parliament, or until the next election brings in a new set of politicians is an open question as well.
Because all I have found is inferences and supposition.
E.g. The New statesman meta analysis
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/how-di...
I see Brexit as EU being able to say "properly in, or out, but no more half measures".
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/uk-scientists-rely-on...
> RG: What do you think Brexit’s impact on research and science in the UK will be?
> Wilsdon: On top of six years of flat funding from our own government, we now have to contemplate a significant reduction in research funding from Europe. It’s important to remember that the UK is a net beneficiary in this area: between 2007 and 2013 the UK received an estimated €3.4 billion more than it paid into the EU in terms of funding for research and innovation. So losing those funds will further destabilize our research system, and for some subjects, particularly in the social sciences, the proportion of EU funding is 20, 30 or even 40% of the total.
There are quite a few ways in which that might be considered better, or at least a step in the right direction.
[0] http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56eddde762cd9413e151ac...
Look at Norway and Switzerland
Switzerland has some of the highest quality of life you can get.
They also have higher per capita gdp
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=per+capita+gdp+of+norwa...
Longer-term it might be better if the UK diversifies more, and begins to trade less with Europe, and more with booming Asian economies or countries which share its language.
Obviously in the short-term there will be a lot of noise: FUD and posturing.
[0] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmBqSu-WgAEFHSa.jpg:large
[1] http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/european-economic-area_switzerla...
Both of them are part of Shengen Area, UK no. And one important thing for the leave campaign
So while the Norwegian model is a valid option - it does not save the UK a single Euro.
I did also read the Telegraph's article about Michael Burrage's book on this [0] which said something similar, however I trust their ability to report less than the ASI:
> Our free access is not free access at all. Arguing for the single
> market on the grounds that you can avoid a 3 per cent tariff
> by actually paying 7 per cent fee is mis-selling on a scale
> that dwarfs the PPI scandal.
The outcome that I hope for is that Article 50 is not invoked, and that instead everyone in the UK Government is replaced in a general election of no-confidence.
What would be simply amazing is if some scheme for making multi-nationals pay taxes and environmental impacts properly was enforced in the first world markets.
She has cars to sell.
This is not basic utilitarianism, there is game theory involved. You have to be willing to take a loss on some deals to achieve the equilibrium you want.
It's just not politically allowable, not to.
The eutopia he describes is feasible, the arguments are rational, the historical understanding of what he covers is good.
What he misses, however, is social inertia and reactionary forces. The technocratic ideals he espouses have been espoused before, in similar periods, yet they have never flourished. The failing has not been technical - rather, human.
Before any of what he describes is installed, we will descend into chaos - and from chaos, conservatism and adherence to "old ways" grows, as certainty becomes the principle desire of an uncertain people. Conservatism, if strong enough, manifests into nationalism, the desire for strong leadership, for a return to the glorious past - and from this a whole host of totalitarian regimes have been born. The two best known examples are Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
Why chaos, you ask? Well, the vote has legitimised behaviour that last week was not legitimised, and the populace is becoming rapidly bitterly divided. This leaves the government in a quandary - if they continue with brexit, they face a brain drain and strong, possibly violent opposition from the remain camp. If they halt the exit, the same from the exit camp. If they stay still, the current situation will spill out of control.
We will see the IRA resurge and Scottish nationalism flourish, particularly given the opposition to them having referenda from Westminster, so the division becomes geographical as well as social.
I'm afraid to say there isn't a happy way forwards for the UK from here - every path leads to one form or another of damnation, further division, and potential descent into civil war.
I've already fled the country - I'm not sticking around for this one.